In Praise (and Defence) of Blasphemy

Thank you Arjun_m for putting things so clearly in your posts.

No one says blasphemy has to be pleasant for a person of faith. But why is that person`s faith is so weak as to be shaken by the blasphmy? I may not like many things said and spoken by others. I may even speak out or write about it. What I cannot do is exhort violence against the person who *hurt* my sentiments or commit violence myself.


The reason I did not define blasphemy is that it`s one of those terms that mean different things to different people. For some questioning a prophet`s divinity is blasphemy, for others it means abusing that same prophet. In Saudi Arabia merely carrying a Bible is blasphemous. How do we narrow the meaning of this word down, that means so many different things to different people and cultures?

Just as the esteemed justice said of pornography, `I can`t define it but I know it when I see it,` so do I feel about blashphemy. Defining it narrows down something that by its essence is something very subjective. Besides most of know what we mean by blasphemy...even if our feeling about it is subjective. We can still discuss it.

As far as not believing in Darwinism (#11 ullu_ka-pathha)...that`s totally fine. I doubt you would find any scientist burning you at a stake, mailing you a bomb or threatening to kill you for that statement or crying about how his/her feelings were hurt. All of these (and more) have been punishments doled out to blasphemers, however. Apparently human suffering is less problematic than hurt sentiments.

Science depends on questioning (a blasphemous act or not)...when a better, more complete theory comes along scientists move to it. Simple as that. It`s not a static field where scientists`s *sentiments* get hurt because someone questions a theory or a study. Science is not sacrosanct but religion does claim that status...well, most of them do.

Also, # 11 ullu_ka-pathha, how do you know that those writers you speak were deliberately playing with sentiments for money or fame? And even if they were, why are people`s sentiments so readily hurt by mere words? Write another book debunking the other.


More later. Thanks for reading, all.

{Blasphemy is when you stand before a crowd in a temple and tell them ``hey you fools, what is the fun worshipping this piece of stone?``}

if you read bhakti poets, its chock-full of such blashphemy...very liberating.

Link to Jyllands Posten cartoon that has muslims all worked up...

#1 by bolta_aaina on December 21, 2005 0:58am PT


Blasphemy is when you stand before a crowd in a temple and tell them ``hey you fools, what is the fun worshipping this piece of stone?``


For some bushbots, protesting outside the WH is blasphemy...who decides who is protected?


Sorry to say that it is not your birth-right to question somebody`s faith in something in which you do not have any faith in it.


Some people believe strongly in communism...So, according to you, people have no right to question the commie theories?


you must also give the explanation for what you say.


Must? or what?

#10 by engr_malik on December 21, 2005 9:54am PT


Same way someone may be hurt if you speak some nonsense about a religious figure for whom he/she has alot of respect.


Some people have a lot of respect for Pres Bush. Should all criticism of Dubya be outlawed? Who decides which figure,religious or political, deserves extra protection...

Is the faith of religious people in their gods so fragile that putting them on a toilet seat or a newspaper cartoon threatens it..

#10 by engr_malik on December 21, 2005 9:54am PT


If I abuse your mother or father, would you feel nice.


If you called my mother a b@tch, I wouldn`t care...

There are 2 possibilities..

1. My mother really is a b@tch: In which case, what you`ve said is just the truth.
2. If she isn`t a b@tch, your saying so doesn`t make her one...

So You have the right to say what you want within certain societal norms...If the danish cartoonist wants to draw mohammed cartoons, he should have the right to do so...don`t buy the paper...If ganesha on toilet seats offend you, don`t buy them...

Jawahara: Easily the best article published by chowk in a long long time..

Great job.

Re: # 10 Engr Sahib

It is not an issue of sentiments but it is an issue of values at its core. The notions like mutual respect, human dignity, courtesy and self-respect are uniquily religious concepts around which a religion establishes the foundation of individual, family, society, and ultimately the civilization. The terminology that is used to describe the opposite of human dignity, mutual respect, courtesy and self-respect is with the words like blasphemy, insult, abuse, slander, slant and vexing. Logically, if the notions of mutual respect, human dignity and courtesy build the character of individual, sociaty and civilization, then the notions that are opposite to them (as listed above) must be the agents that destroy this very character. This is something that almost every religion in the world propagates.

But since it is an issue of values, if we examine the `value system` of atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, doubters, and all such sundry, we come to know that by dint of their very make up of their beliefs they cannot have values. Each individual belonging to these classes have a universe of his own that is exclusive. (Individualism is an extension of this idea). Let me elaborate this point with an example:

Lets take the statement ``Always tell the truth``.

If a religious person is asked to comment on this statement he would say that this is my value that my religion has taught me. I will uphold this value to the best of my human capabilities; and when I can`t I will still consider it bad, and try to rectify the harm it caused.

But when an atheist or freethinker is asked to comment on this statement, his response would be ``Says who? just because you are saying it does not make it incumbent upon me to tell the truth; I will tell the truth or lie as the circumstances and my logical reasoning will dictate me``. So in the atheist universe ``telling the truth`` is not a value, it is expediency.

Similarly, an argument can be made on this statement ``having sex with your five year old son is bad``.

A religious person, instead of evaluating the statement on the cost-benefit basis will try to filter it through his system of values and instead of evlauating it as good or bad he will evaluate it as forbidden or permitted.

On the other hand a typical response from an atheist or doubter would be ``hmmm...`having sex with your five year old son is bad`......just because you say it doesn`t make it so. I do not subscribe to your system of values. Lets see....first we have to see what do we mean by the word `son`. Technically, son is a biological entity that came into existence because I had sex with a woman. He is an entity that is identical to me and many others; so logically he must have same desires and pleasures that I have. So from the biological point of view there is no harm in physical relationship to either me or him. At another level the word ``son`` describe a social construct. The core of this social construct is the religion. I do not belive in any religion therefore the social value that it imposes on me is not binding. Hence I will have sex with my son whenever I will feel like it.`` Simply said, it is a cost benefit analysis, no more no less.

So, I do not think that citing an example of respect for parents will have any effect on those who think that insult and abuse is virtue of bravery. If we extrapolate the example cited above, for them there is no difference between the word ``father`` and ``m/f``, because technically they are both the same.

Islam is a religion of the nature of man (deen-e-fitrat). Perhaps that is the reason the punsihment that is perscribed for blasphemy in it is, death. If you analyse the logic presented above the only thing that can prevent someone, whose universe is based on the notion that he is merely a biological entity, no more no less, is physical harm.

What about those writers who deliberately play with the religious sentiments of the people for the sake of quick recognition and fame? How will you justify that?.
Make controversial religious statements and you have your quick shot to glory.
Scientific Blasphemy ``yeah!!!!``, Religious Blasphemy ``Nay!!!``.
I personally am against the Darwinian theory of evolution as i`m in no mood of relating my ancestory to the primates.Isn`t it blasphemic?
``Knowing thyself`` and avoiding false notions of ``greatness`` can save a person from many troubles, otherwise you`ll be making clarification statements of ``What i mean to say.......``, or ``i didn`t mean that.......``.
World is full of illiterates who simply can`t comprehend your refined and lofty thoughts so why take the risk and deliberately put your head before the axe.
Religious blasphemy only shows the norrow mind of the person and the inner conflicts of his personality over spiritual matters either due to wrong interpretations of the faith or religion or simple lack of religious knowledge.

For the author:

I think you have forgotten another old saying

`` The wound caused by sword can heal but not the one caused by words``

You wrote :

``I am tired of the “it hurts my religious sentiments” brigade. What the heck is a “religious sentiment?” If it is so fragile as to be hurt by someone saying or writing something, perhaps you should examine your religion and your sentiment. Perhaps indulge in some blasphemy yourself and feel the exhilaration of it. ``

If I abuse your mother or father, would you feel nice. I hope no becuase your parents are dear to you. Same way someone may be hurt if you speak some nonsense about a religious figure for whom he/she has alot of respect. We are not machines. Human being have sentiments for those whom they love and respect.


Blasphemy is the most easiest things to do in my opinion. It doesn`t need different mind. There is harldy any difference between blasphemy and abusing. So an abuser is a brave person and he makes the world to progress. Only 1,2 examples out of history are not enought to defend a case for all kind of blasphemy.

Some people like religious blasphemy because they hate religion for whatever reasons and any things spoken against it makes them happy. Others cosider themselves intellectule if they do blasphemy or listen to it.

thanks jawahara for this well-presented article.

religious sentiment has its use in india..the best example is garishly painted walls with images ot shankar, kaba, sai baba, nanak, and a crucifix with bold warnings of `` Yanhan Peshab Karna Mana Hain`` LOL.

Can you say what you hold dear, so we can indulge in some blashphemy?

As you pointed out, reactions to blashphemy look really ridiculous. Here is an example from Saima Shah board ....Heh Heh Heh.

563 by Mantolives on December 20, 2005 8:38pm PT
HP writes:

I hope some day issues on this forum (chowk) would be discussed as issues and not adversarial foreign relations.It seems to me that chowk is now taking that direction and the editors should continue to make this site unattractive for people who only promote confrontational and communal point of view.
Amen....


Chowk staff heard you... Sadna has been banned. It would be a step in the right direction if someone banned this rsridhar fellow as well.

Re: # 4
``Blasphemy is good.. Long live Blasphemy``

Imagine what could happen to you if you say that in Saudi Arabia or IRan!

#6
Bolta_aaina
“There isn`t any trace of Hinduism or even Indian sensibility in your thoughts and ideas.”

Kaal,
Why you wanna pigeonhole him? I like this guy at least he can think for himself. Why should his nationality be a matter of concern?
He is asking the right questions. One is blasphemous when he/she has the courage to speak his/her mind against the mob. I agree with him totally. I personally am agnostic to any religion or faith but I am not going to put down anyone’s faith just because I don’t share those feelings.

But if I have the courage and conviction, I should let people know in a live audience not by using a nic or hiding behind a firewall. Obviously, many people lack this courage and it is quiet apparent from Jawahara’s article that she lacks the courage too.

So she is not blasphemous she just does not believe in religious symbols and that is no blasphemy!

Bolta_aaina

There isn`t any trace of Hinduism or even Indian sensibility in your thoughts and ideas. Are you sure your profile is truthful?

FOR SOME BLASPHEMY IS A SERIOUS BUSINESS



A Pakistani protestor carries a wounded comrade during a violent demonstration against The Satanic Verses outside the U.S. Information Center on February 12, 1989. Somewhere between 30 to 100+ Muslims fell martyr on that day when government agents opened fire on the unarmed protestors who were protesting against the naked Western aggression on the ideals that they hold dear. May God rest these brave souls in peace.

Jawahara:

nice article..

``Blasphemy is good.. Long live Blasphemy``