The standard source: Levy's Blasphemy
--- "Mr. WD" <mister.wd at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/28/07, BklynMagus <magcomm at ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > 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
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433