> > 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?
For the purposes of this debate, my definition (or a very similar one) it will have to do. I see no reason whatsoever for a secular leftist to be bothered by religion-mocking that falls outside my definition.
As for whether a non-believer can blaspheme -- this question relates to my first objection to blasphemy as I have defined it: that it is actually a superstitious act that acknowledges, on some level, the supernatural power of religion. I think this was Carrol's point when he wrote earlier that "Almost by definition, blasphemy is an expression of deep religious belief. It is a null in secular terms."
> Thirdly, is an image of the Last Supper sacred? If yes, what makes it so?
Well, it is an image of Christ -- God in the form of a man. John made a good point when he pointed out that many Christians have forfeited their right to complain about mocking their icons when they regularly do this themselves (e.g. the "Air Jesus" t-shirt). My rebuttal is that this phenomenon isn't broad enough to make all forms of blasphemy against Christianity acceptable.
> > 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?
Sure, but there are plenty of ways to express this. My point is that if you mock religion for some artistic or political reason, then great! You have done a service to humanity as far as I am concerned. But when you desecrate something sacred simply for the sake of desecration, I find that problematic.
> > 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.
See above.
> > 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.
First of all, in light of your earlier comments, I have already acknowledged that the Folsom ad falls outside of my definition of blasphemy. For the sake of argument, though, let's assume the Folsom ad is what I originally said it is: The gratuitous mocking of a sacred image intended solely to shock people (not an artistic expression on the relationship between BDSM and Catholicism).
If the ad was what I originally said it was, then I would say it's qualitatively similar to flushing the Koran down the toilet, although obviously the context of the latter is far far far more disturbing. When an interrogator flushes the Koran down the toilet, this is also a gratuitous act. The interrogator might say he's doing it instrumentally (to extract information from the prisoner) but my sense is that he's really just doing it because he can -- just for the hell of it. When a Nazi made an religious Jew, e.g., shave his beard or spit on the Torah, he likewise wasn't doing it for a reason -- he was doing it for the hell of it.
To give a less loaded example: When I was growing up, there was a very old cometary down the street from me. One night, some high school kids went in there with sledge hammers and knocked a bunch of the tombstones down. Everyone was outraged.
Well what's wrong with this? This wasn't a cometary belonging to a specific religion or sect, so no one could say it was an attempt to intimidate or humiliate a population. Many of the graves were so old, it's unlikely many of the dead's descendants were offended. And it would be rather superstitious to say that the dead themselves were somehow offended.
And yes, it was an act of vandalism, but to me it seems that this belongs in an altogether different category from, say, tagging a building. My question is, how should the secular leftist think about such acts?
> The question here is what are the permissible boundaries of
> interrogation. Is producing religious trauma in someone a
> bridge too far?
No, this is not about interrogation. Interrogation is only an example (although perhaps not the clearest one). The mere act of producing religious trauma in someone is not problematic in the least: There is nothing wrong with traumatizing a believer if, e.g., you win an argument with him about evolution or the existence of God, or the rights of homosexuals, etc. I don't see how the feelings of believers are necessarily relevant to the question of whether secular leftists should oppose desecration of the sacred for the sake of desecration.
-WD