Sunday, February 05, 2006

You Mock Me

A lot of people are saying, even as they deplore the violence Muslims are committing in response to drawings of Mohammed (throat-clearing over), that religious sensitivities should not be offended or mocked. (For one of many examples, check out the Vatican's statement.) This is just wrong.

If you are to have any reasonable system of freedom of speech (we're not talking about the First Amendment here, but first principles) people must be allowed to speak freely and openly, and debate will and should be robust at times. Sometimes it will even be excessive--though people will disagree on the standard. Furthermore, people don't just discuss things in a logical manner--that's the exception--nor do we want them to. There is irony, overstatement, satire, parody, burlesque, etc. These can be effective means of communicating, of getting to people in ways other methods don't. (Even in everyday argument there's sarcasm. Can you imagine banning sarcasm?)

In other word, freedom to speak must include freedom to mock.

Religious beliefs, as dear as they may be to those who hold them, are entitled to no more protection than any other human beliefs. Religious beliefs are human activity, just as open to disagreement, even hatred, as any others. To place them above other beliefs is to successfully destroy a wide swath of freedom. It also 1) sets a precedent to separate other sensitivities outside the rough and tumble of public debate, 2) allows people to hide weak or ugly beliefs behind a protective wall and 3) puts non-religious people at a disadvantage (or is it advantage?).

(If anything, since religious beliefs tend to be unproved and often mutually exclusive, it's actually easier to imagine reasons to not criticize someone for believing a well-proved scientific or historical proposition, or to not make fun of someone for her sex, race or ethnicity.)

I'm not saying it's good to be offensive. I'm not saying one shouldn't take into account others' sensitivities. I'm just saying religion should be no more protected, legally, in public debate than anything else.

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The real issue here is people will differently to you if you signal you will go crazy if you insult them. The expected response controls the actual speech.

1:58 PM, February 05, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would take the Vatican's statement as representative of their politics rather than their theology.

The Vatican didn't make any statements against Robert Mapplethorpe or against "The Book of Daniel", and even The Da Vinci Code itself got no official response (though one Italian Cardinal did badmouth the book).

So why would the Vatican bother to condemn anti-Muslim cartoons?

I'll answer the question with another question. When "Piss Christ" was shown (with government funding) in New York City, how many buildings were set ablaze in New York and Uganda and Poland and the Philippines as a result?

Or, to quote someone who made his last good film in 1980:

"But sir, no one worries about offending a Droid."

"That's because Droid's don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Wookies have been known to do that...."

10:16 PM, February 06, 2006  
Blogger LAGuy said...

I'm tempted to defend Lucas, but I'll let it go.

12:58 PM, February 07, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

* grin *

10:05 PM, February 07, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Larry- how come you never talk about this stuff on your show?

8:56 AM, February 16, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home

web page hit counter