Goose/Gander

[Annie]

http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=388

Now that we have the Muhammad precedent...

posted 05/07/06 (edited Sunday, May 07, 2006 15:03)


...it's time for Christians to get into the act. So say leading Catholic cardinals, who are now calling for boycotts and legal action (i.e., government-imposed coercion) against author Dan Brown and his DaVinci Code for dissing Jesus. Says Cardinal Francis Arinze, who last year was a leading candidate for Pope:

Those who blaspheme Christ and get away with it are exploiting the Christian readiness to forgive and to love even those who insult us. There are some other religions which if you insult their founder they will not be just talking. They will make it painfully clear to you...Christians must not just sit back and say it is enough for us to forgive and to forget...Sometimes it is our duty to do something practical. So it is not I who will tell all Christians what to do, but some know legal means which can be taken in order to get the other person to respect the rights of others...This is one of the fundamental human rights: that we should be respected, our religious beliefs respected, and our founder Jesus Christ respected.


In other words, the government should bring in its armed officers to FORCE people to "respect" other people's religious beliefs -- specifically, belief in Christianity and Jesus Christ. Leaving aside the practical problems of compelling an emotion like respect -- and also leaving aside the ominous question of exactly what might be viewed as signs of "respect" or "disrespect" -- consider the other Orwellian implication: that government should take sides in matters of religion, and throw its coercive weight behind politically-favored belief systems.

But what else should we have expected? Given the virtually unanimous capitulation of Western media, politicians, publishers, and other "cultural leaders" to militant Islamists who demanded "respect" for Muhammad and Islam, on what grounds can these same "cultural leaders" now resist demands that Christianity be afforded the same "respect"?

More to the ugly point: What will happen to anyone who dares to criticize any of these religions, or their iconic leaders and symbols?

During the Muhammad cartoon controversy I warned -- repeatedly -- that surrendering to the demands of religious fanatics would set dangerous precedents that would lead inexorably to further demands, and to even more capitulating. As I wrote in my published editorial "Cartoon Journalists": "This is a pivotal moment in the West. When reporters, editors, and media owners 'voluntarily' give up their First Amendment rights, they make it far more difficult for any of us to exercise our own."

Now, as predicted, we aren't just hearing demands to censor Danish cartoons mocking Muhammad; we are hearing demands to stop bestselling books and movies that are even fictionally critical of Christianity.

Once the premise of censorship is established, where does it stop, who will stop it -- and in the name of what? Does anyone really believe that either liberal relativists or conservative religionists are prepared to stand against those spreading these seeds of theocracy and censorship?

 

[Diuretic]

In other words, the government should bring in its armed officers to FORCE people to "respect" other people's religious beliefs -- specifically, belief in Christianity and Jesus Christ. Leaving aside the practical problems of compelling an emotion like respect -- and also leaving aside the ominous question of exactly what might be viewed as signs of "respect" or "disrespect" -- consider the other Orwellian implication: that government should take sides in matters of religion, and throw its coercive weight behind politically-favored belief systems.

Rubbish. Cardinal Arinze said nothing of the sort. This is not just drawing a long bow, this is setting up a bloody archery tournament.

 

[Bullypulpit]

One person's blasphemy is another's belly-laugh. But more to the point, who determines if one's actions constitute "blasphemy" and by what criteria is such a determination reached? Who decides just what God's wishes are? Who wields this power of interpretation of divine will on earth?

Those who wield this power are operating from an absolutist premise, which permits no room for opposinfg viewpoints. Any who merely deviate from the approved dogma, or worse, have the actual temerity to question it, can be branded as heretical or blasphemous. Once deemed heretical or blasphemous, and thus a sin in God's eyes, no further justification is needed to suppress these deviants or blasphemers. But how, one might ask, is it determined exactly what pleases and displeases this supernatural entity known as God?

This question has never been fully answered to my satisfaction. One might rely upon scriptural authortity, but despite claims of divine inspiration, these scriptures are entirely the product of human perception and conception and are thus subject to their limitations. One could also claim "divine revelation", but this is a wholly subjective phenomenon and is not objectively verifiable.

Stripped of absolutist metaphysics, most of the world's religions embrace similar ideals and standards of behavior. There is no need to attribute this to divine guidance as, over the centuries, observations of the human condition has allowed for general priciples of acceptable human behavior to be derived from specific events. However, when absolutist metaphysics is added to the mix, these similarites and common beliefs become irrelevant..."Mine is the one and only true path to salvation, enlightenment, liberation, etc..." Hogwash.

 

[dilloduck]

One person's blaspemy is another's belly-laugh. But more to the point, who determines if one's actions constitute "blasphemy" and by what criteria is such a determination reached? Who decides just what God's wishes are? Who wields this power of interpretation of divine will on earth?

Those who wield this power are operating from an absolutist premise, which permits no room for opposinfg viewpoints. Any who merely deviate from the approved dogma, or worse, have the actual temerity to question it, can be branded as heretical or blasphemous. Once deemed heretical or blasphemous, and thus a sin in God's eyes, no further justification is needed to suppress these deviants or blasphemers. But how, one might ask, is it determined exactly what pleases and displeases this supernatural entity known as God?

This question has never been fully answered to my satisfaction. One might rely upon scriptural authortity, but despite claims of divine inspiration, these scriptures are entirely the product of human perception and conception and are thus subject to their limitations. One could also claim "divine revelation", but this is a wholly subjective phenomenon and is not objectively verifiable.

Stripped of absolutist metaphysics, most of the world's religions embrace similar ideals and standards of behavior. There is no need to attribute this to divine guidance as, over the centuries, observations of the human condition has allowed for general priciples of acceptable human behavior to be derived from specific events. However, when absolutist metaphysics is added to the mix, these similarites and common beliefs become irrelevant..."Mine is the one and only true path to salvation, enlightenment, liberation, etc..." Hogwash.

Is this the only right interpretation of this issue?

 

[Phaedrus]

After "In other words" everything in that post was a non sequitur. But on a more pertinant note, nobody can ever exploit my ability to forgive, as it's my choice. I don't believe an organized boycott is necessary, if you don't want the book, don't buy it.

Boycotts it seems to me are inherently negative events, sometimes necessary, but in this case not justifiably so. I have nothing against the man who wrote that book, and he has in no way offended my beliefs as only I can give him that ability.

IMHO people choose to be offended, and can only blame themselves for the results. There are certain things, however, that are near universally offensive, and I have no problem taking the blame for being offended if that is the case.

There is also the simple fact I don't believe the author intended his work to be offensive. It's an admitted work of fiction, and frankly I haven't read it because I already knew of the Knights Templar and that whole mythology a long time ago.

I've also heard it isn't that well written, and I'm genuinley dissinterested. Best of luck to him at the box-office.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Is this the only right interpretation of this issue?

No, just the general interpretation of blasphemy and how readily it is used. It's one thing to use the power of the state to protect adherents of one religion from violence by the adherents another religion. It's another thing entirely to use the power of the state to enforce "respect" for one religion by adherents of another. That's political correctness run amok.

 

[Diuretic]

The only person talking about the power of the state and blasphemy was the over-excited blogger who - as has been pointed out - went right off the point.

Historically blasphemy could land you in strife, real strife, like torture strife. That was when the state and religion went hand in hand. There's the real reason for separation of church and state. No-one chucks you in the slammer and tortures you for blasphemy nowadays (please, let's leave Saudi Arabia and other despotic theocracies out of this). No-one seizes your estate and chucks your wife and kids out on the street when you commit suicide. Religion is a private matter, not a state matter and not an issue for the criminal justice system nowadays. There's a reason English judges wear the robes they do. The reason is that the judges used to be clerics. You could be tried and imprisoned for committing offences against religion. But then came the Enlightenment and the split between state and church began.

I think we can all settle down. The blogger verballed the Cardinal, it's just hype from him.

 

[Bullypulpit]

The only person talking about the power of the state and blasphemy was the over-excited blogger who - as has been pointed out - went right off the point.

Historically blasphemy could land you in strife, real strife, like torture strife. That was when the state and religion went hand in hand. There's the real reason for separation of church and state. No-one chucks you in the slammer and tortures you for blasphemy nowadays (please, let's leave Saudi Arabia and other despotic theocracies out of this). No-one seizes your estate and chucks your wife and kids out on the street when you commit suicide. Religion is a private matter, not a state matter and not an issue for the criminal justice system nowadays. There's a reason English judges wear the robes they do. The reason is that the judges used to be clerics. You could be tried and imprisoned for committing offences against religion. But then came the Enlightenment and the split between state and church began.

I think we can all settle down. The blogger verballed the Cardinal, it's just hype from him.

Unfortunately, there are those on the lunatic fringe of the Republican party, the Dominionists, who would like to change that. And that lunatic fringe is quietly merging into the mainstream via the snake-oil salesmen we know as televangelists.

 

[Diuretic]

Point taken. But - here I go speaking from ignorance and making assumptions - I would think the GOP, the party of Lincoln, is tougher than that, that is has at its core some pretty solid values that won't be driven over by opportunistic radicals. I am not a conservative in political terms, but neither am I a leftist radical and I appreciate the true conservative, even if I don't agree with their position. The true conservative is a much more reasonable political person than the radical reactionary.

America's founding fathers had no time (crossing my fingers and hoping here) for esoteric argument about the separation of church and state. They knew what it meant in practice. I've read the reports of the trial of William Penn and the corrupt antics of the judge. That is the sort of separation of church and state that caused your founders to reject the notion of the intertwining of church and state. Sometimes it pays to go back to first principles to work out why things are as they are today. In the US the state will not lock someone up to protect any religion. That is enlightened in this day and age. In the 18th Century it was positively radical.