Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Blasphemy is good for religion
Q: Atheists are others are protesting a new law in Ireland, under which a person can be found guilty of blasphemy if "he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion." The penalty is a fine of up to about $35,000. Should Ireland or any nation have a law against blasphemy?
It is not only atheists who object to the new Irish blasphemy law. As a religious person, I find this law deeply offensive from a faith perspective. Here's what the Irish who support such a fatally flawed law fail to recognize: one person's blasphemy is another person's religious liberation.
Blasphemy laws are irreverent (that is, offensive to religion) because making criticism of religion a crime can choke off one of the most vital element of living religions, the drive to reform religion again and again and again throughout the ages.
The true spirit of religion chafes at the idea of legally established blasphemy, because the true spirit of religion is to always be reforming itself. Most religious reform starts out being condemned as blasphemy, that is, as irreverence toward established religious authorities.
The atheists who are protesting this new Irish blasphemy law were right to put up on their Web site quotations from religious reformers such as Jesus Christ or the Prophet Mohammed. They could have added statements from the early Christian martyrs, who were killed in the Roman arenas for "blasphemy" against the divinity of the Roman Emperor. They could add Martin Luther and the other leading figures of the Reformation--blasphemers all.
Women's ordination? Blasphemy to some. Slaves created equal with the free? To 19th century pro-slavery preachers, such abolitionist views were blasphemy.
Today we would add to that list those Muslims who would seek to reform Islam--and free it from the clutches of those who promote terrorism in the name of that religion. Ask the brave young Iranians who are struggling for the true spirit of their religion and their democracy if they deserve the title of "blasphemers."
Many reforms that some people of faith cherish today came about through irreverence toward established religious authority. Others may continue to believe that such reforms were, in fact, blasphemy. They are entitled to their views in societies where religious freedom includes religious protest.
Choke off religious protest through blasphemy laws and you will strangle the very spirit of religion itself. You'll also find you have driven a stake into the heart of democracy.
By
Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite
|
January 4, 2010; 6:34 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Another attempt to appease radical Islam |
Next: Blasphemy laws: A dangerous anachronism
Posted by: ThishowIseeit | January 9, 2010 9:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Khote14 wrote: "Religion tends to reform itself at the point of a sword."
That generalization seems dubious. At least in the West, that is not true of many of the most important religious reform movements and the great reformers of history.
Posted by: Climacus | January 7, 2010 6:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Shukris
What are you, some kind of kook?
Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen | January 5, 2010 8:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Susan, the law is aimed at upholding public order. It's not a free speech issue in the same way that slander and libel are not free speech issues. Rather it's concern is to prevent strife between individuals or groups present in a society.
Posted by: shukris | January 5, 2010 2:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The tricky (and most dangerous) part of this law is that it appears to avoid the "establishment of religion" trap by extending the prohibition to "insulting" ANY AND ALL religions.
While this inclusivity seems even-handed and hence equitable at first glance, it's really quite the opposite.
It puts the tenets of ALL religions on an equal footing with secular law, thus de-facto "establishing" ALL religions when it comes to defining and prohibiting "blasphemy". This is quite insidious, particularly for those who espouse NO religion and sometimes express this with equal disdain for all.
We should all treat one another's religious preferences with respect -- both in word and deed -- but it emphatically isn't the job of a secular state to enforce this. Insulting another's religion may be morally wrong, but should not be legally actionable in an enlightened, free society.
Posted by: laboo | January 5, 2010 1:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Blasphemy laws are irreverent (that is, offensive to religion) .."
Blasphemy laws are ALWAYS enacted and enforced BY religion. The very word "blasphemy" has no meaning outside the context of religion.
"The true spirit of religion chafes at the idea of legally established blasphemy, because the true spirit of religion is to always be reforming itself."
Which world do you live in? Religion tends to reform itself at the point of a sword. All these claims to absolute truth inherent in any religious doctrine completely remove any opportunity to reform.
Generally the only reform you get is when the fundamentalists declare those not so fanatic to be apostates, and cut off their heads.
Really, what world do you live in?
Posted by: khote14 | January 5, 2010 2:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
The law should be more specific. You are allowed to doubt a religious belief if using subtle civilized speach; but you should not be allowed to use "dirty" words or funny cartoons.