> What argument would you propose for being upset about
> it?
I'm not saying the following is a necessarily a good argument, but it's what I'm grappling with:
I'd define "blasphemy" narrowly to be desecration of the sacred for desecration's sake -- this would exclude all forms of constructive artistic or political mockery, which I do myself and I think are to be encouraged.
First, I think this says something about the blasphemer himself: There seems to be something desperate and deeply insecure about the act of blasphemy as I have defined it. By going to such lengths to profane a faith at its most basic level, isn't this an implicit acknowledgment of the faith's power and importance? Doesn't this make the act of blasphemy somewhat superstitious in itself?
Second, consider, for example, the reports of U.S. interrogators flushing of the Koran down the toilet to extract information from Muslim prisoners. Is there anything wrong this this practice in and of itself? Or are we only to be offended at the nature of the detention and other forms of torture the prisoner is subject to? My sense is that there's something wrong with this (akin to the Nazi humiliations of religious Jews: making them shave their beards, etc.) although I can't exactly put my finger on it.
Okay, I've used up my posts for today, -WD