or,
In Defense of Blasphemy, or
Blasphemy is a Humanism.
Via USA Today:
While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” The exception was made as part of a resolution supporting free speech that passed this month, but it is the exception, not the rule that worries civil libertarians. Though the resolution was passed unanimously, European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criticism. It is viewed as a transparent bid to appeal to the “Muslim street” and our Arab allies, with the administration seeking greater coexistence through the curtailment of objectionable speech. Though it has no direct enforcement (and is weaker than earlier versions), it is still viewed as a victory for those who sought to juxtapose and balance the rights of speech and religion.
This is disgusting. The measure, like apparently everything that comes across the UN desk, has no real legislative weight, but it’s the symbolism of the thing. No gesture is truly “empty.” This one signifies, ”We do not promise you freedom of speech as a right. Instead, it is a privilege, afforded to those who toe the lines of the state, party, the prejudices of politeness.”
In the resolution, the administration aligned itself with Egypt, which has long been criticized for prosecuting artists, activists and journalists for insulting Islam. For example, Egypt recently banned a journal that published respected poet Helmi Salem merely because one of his poems compared God to a villager who feeds ducks and milks cows. The Egyptian ambassador to the U.N., Hisham Badr, wasted no time in heralding the new consensus with the U.S. that “freedom of expression has been sometimes misused” and showing that the “true nature of this right” must yield government limitations.
His U.S. counterpart, Douglas Griffiths, heralded “this joint project with Egypt” and supported the resolution to achieve “tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” While not expressly endorsing blasphemy prosecutions, the administration departed from other Western allies in supporting efforts to balance free speech against the protecting of religious groups.
This will protect no religious groups. It will only infantilize them. Thin skin can never be outgrown if swaddled forever in censorship.
One who does not learn to tolerate criticism, mockery, blaspheming of their own creed has no tolerance. We cannot keep the Establishment Clause and throw out Voltaire.
Rabelais, Swift, Twain, Bierce, Parker and Stone; their jests have done more to make the world a safer place than two thousand years of philosophizing and encyclicals. Even if this is not strictly true, one must admit those societies which tolerate The Satanic Verses or South Park have been more peacable and healthy than those which have not.
By bringing religion down to a worldly level, the great satirists have revealed it to be a human institution, no more and no less, and at least slightly ridiculous in the way all anthropic endeavors are–some more so than others. This measure is more so than others. The most, maybe. This measure disowns a thousand steps towards wisdom of the last two centuries. In that time, it has been increasingly understood the imperative to empower speakers to express, not shield would-be listeners.
The UN has taken a great leap forward into the 18th century.
