My problem is that I do not think that desecration just for desecration's sake happens in the real world. It can be posited in the world of theory, but when blasphemy/desecration takes place in real time, I think there are many reasons (sometimes in contradiction with each other) behind such acts.
> 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.
Again, I think in the real world, acts of blasphemy are inspired by power deployed/exercised on a material plane and not a supernatural one.
> 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."
I disagree. If I were to insult Islam to a Muslim believer, I might be blaspheming in her eyes, but not in mine since I do not believe in Islam.
> My rebuttal is that this phenomenon isn't broad enough
to make all forms of blasphemy against Christianity
acceptable.
Seems pretty broad in my experience.
> But when you desecrate something sacred simply for the
sake of desecration, I find that problematic.
Can you give me some real life examples of this occurring?
> When an interrogator flushes the Koran down the toilet,
this is also a gratuitous act.
It is not gratuitous at all. It is done to upset and disturb the person under interrogation.
> 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.
But you have no evidence for this claim. As you write: it is just your sense of why he is doing it. You are putting the desire in the person and then shouting "Eureka! Look what I found."
> 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.
Why? It was a youthful assault on something considered valuable by the community, an adolescent expression of defiance like staying out past curfew or sneaking cigarettes and liquor -- a rite of passage.
> My question is, how should the secular leftist think about
such acts?
They should think of them as expressions of dissatisfaction on the material plane.
> 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.
First you have to demonstrate that desecration for just desecration's sake happens in the world. If the blaspehmous act is done to provoke on any level, then it is not being done just for its own sake/pleasure. Maybe, if after reading this post, you go in your bathroom, close the door, and flush the Koran down the toilet for your own private amusement, that could be considered desecration for desecration's sake. But if you then tell us about what you did, it is logical to assume that you commited the act not just for its own sake, but also to prove your point (which, in actuality, would disprove it since what you did was for more than just its own sake).
The question you ask is unanswerable since leftists (or anyone for that matter) cannot take a position on an act that cannot occur.
Brian