[lbo-talk] Last Supper, in a leather harness

BklynMagus magcomm at ix.netcom.com
Fri Sep 28 10:05:12 PDT 2007



> 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.

For me, this is too narrow a definition. Also, can a non-believer blaspheme?

Thirdly, is an image of the Last Supper sacred? If yes, what makes it so?


> 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?

How about: the undeserved "power and importance" of the faith, in the sense that it has and exerts power outside the circle of its believers?


> Doesn't this make the act of blasphemy somewhat superstitious
in itself?

Not at all. It is an acknowledgement that some faiths have leveraged their power far beyond what is desireable in a pluralistic, secular society.


> Second, consider, for example, the reports of U.S.
interrogators flushing of the Koran down the toilet to extract information from Muslim prisoners.

First, I see no connection between the poster and interrogation techniques. You are making a leap of bionic woman proportions.

The question here is what are the permissible boundaries of interrogation. Is producing religious trauma in someone a bridge too far?


> Is there anything wrong this this practice in and of itself?

There is if you decide that inflicting emotional trauma is beyond the proper boundaries of interrogation.


> 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.

But you did put your finger on it: such actions are intensely humiliating. The question is whether or not it is acceptable to humiliate a person when interrogating her.

Brian



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list