Much of the current blasphemy law controversy centers around blasphemy against Islam, such as depicting Muhammad or burning a Koran. So when I came across this story about a Muslim Preacher charged with blasphemy in Egypt against Christianity I was intrigued.
Ahmed Abdallah, the accused, hits the nail on the head:
"That man who burned the Holy Koran, Terry Jones, is protected in the United States, yet I, an icon of this nation am accused of blasphemy against religion."
Yes, exactly. Terry Jones should be protected, and Ahmed Abdallah should be as well. It's not clear to me though whether that is what Abdallah meant. His tone seems to suggest that Terry Jones should be the one charged with blasphemy, not him. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt here, but the tone is unsettling.
Today Sept 30, 2012 is International Blasphemy Day. This is a day dedicated to raising awareness about the encroachment upon free speech rights by anti-blasphemy laws around the world. Generally there are two reactions that I hear against Blasphemy Day: "We don't want to be offensive. Free speech is about being respectful of diverse ideas and opinions." and "You are just using the banner of free speech to disguise your hatred and mockery of God."
As I've explained before, the second response is just nonsensical, since I can't hate something I don't believe in. However, the first response does give me pause and I'm very sympathetic to that attitude. I would consider myself to be a first amendment absolutist in the sense that I believe all people should have the right to have their voices heard, but that also means that all people must have a right to voice a contrary opinion. Free speech means nothing if people are not free to say things that may offend us. That is why I am diametrically opposed to any legislation that would seek to curtail our most important right, whether domestic or international.
I recognize though that not everyone shares my views on the centrality of the first amendment to our democracy. And while I think we should apply the principles behind this critical right around the world, it has no legal authority beyond our borders. As such, I would like to put forward a laundry list of reasons that I support Blasphemy Day (and why you should too).
1. There is no clear line between religious dissent and blasphemy.
A Christian who denies that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet blasphemes Islam by her very existence. A Jew denies the divinity of Jesus, and hence blasphemes against Christianity. Every single one of you reading this post is a blasphemer or a heretic to someone's religion. By following a different religion than your neighbor (or by following none) you are blaspheming against other religions. The right to blaspheme other religions underlies religious liberty, as we see in countless cases around the globe.
According to a 2009 report by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, "The government of Iran continues to engage in systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom, including prolonged detention, torture, and executions based primarily or entirely upon the religion of the accused."
In Ireland, the constitution requires a blasphemy law to be on the books and in 2009 such a law was passed stating that: "A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding 25,000 euro."
An 11 year old Christian girl in Pakistan was accused of burning pages from the Koran. A mob wanted to burn her alive, citing Pakistan's blasphemy laws as legal justification.
The freedom to disagree on which religion to practice or not to practice is in jeopardy around the world and blasphemy laws like these are appearing with increased frequency all over the globe. The freedom of religion depends on the freedom to disagree with other religions, and blasphemy laws disallow that freedom.
2. Opponents of free speech have learned to use the language of religious tolerance against us.
I have no desire to go out of the way to offend people and never do anything with offense being the central goal. But opponents of free speech have learned to speak the language of tolerance and mutual respect and turn it against that attitude.
"Also urges States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of any religion, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;"
Sounds reasonable right? I want to respect everyone and don't like hatred and intolerance and it makes sense to encourage their protection right? Well let's read a little further:
"Emphasizes that respect of religions and their protection from contempt is an essential element conducive for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;"
Note that they are again talking about the freedom of thought and conscience, but what does protection from contempt mean? Protection from people disagreeing? Let's read on:
"Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law, everyone has the right to freedom of expression, and that the exercise of this right carries with it special duties and responsibilities, and may therefore be subject to certain restrictions"
Subject to certain restrictions? What restrictions are those?
"...prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with the freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred...the use of printed, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and of any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam or any religion;"
So it starts by telling us that we have to be tolerant and respectful of all religions but ends with telling us what we can and cannot say about them and limiting our free expression.
If you still think that this resolution has good intentions behind it and is promoting an agenda of tolerance and free expression, take a look at who voted for the resolution, who thought this resolution aligned with their goals and ideals:
China, Cuba, Indonesia, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and others.
All countries with great records on freedom of expression
The United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Switzerland all voted againstthe resolution. 40 human rights groups petitioned against the motion because they saw through it.
They were trying to put a blasphemy law at the heart of the UN. If you're wondering why you've never heard about it on ABC, MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, or any other major news network it's because they didn't cover it. That's why blasphemy day is so important. It draws attention to and starts a conversation about the slow and steady erosion of free speech rights around the world.
We are in danger of conceding the step between the state respecting somebody’s right to believe what they want, and the state automatically respecting the content of the belief itself – and insisting by law that citizens do so also. - Link
3. Blasphemy laws are an appeal to force that limit our ability to question religious ideas
Blasphemy laws spread the idea that it is OK to allow ideas to be defended by laws prohibiting their critique than allowing them to stand or fall on arguments and evidence. The moment you make an idea illegal to criticize you remove all accountability from its adherents. Religion is already uniquely armored against criticism because it lacks a reality check. Adding legal protection from reproach only increases their resistance to new evidence and ideas. It sends the message that censorship and intimidation is a valid and effective way to win an argument.
And it is effective. Think back to the infamous danish cartoons of Muhammad. The fear of reprisal from the extremist Muslim community was so widespread that Yale University press censored the cartoons from the book The Cartoons that Shook the World. Why? "The decision rested solely on the experts’ assessments that there existed a substantial likelihood of violence that might take the lives of innocent victims." In a media that is dominated by images, we are not being allowed the freedom to view and judge the cartoons for ourselves.
When you are dealing with people who are using the Law to force you to respect your beliefs, history has taught us not to expect respect in return. Just as the wall of separation between church and state is not a one-way wall, tolerance is not a one-way street.
4. Not only should we be allowed to criticize religion, but religion needs to be criticized.
Not all religious people are opposed to contraception, LGBT equality, gender equality, stem cell research, assisted suicide, the teaching of science in schools, and more. But the driving force behind the opposition to each is overwhelmingly religious ideologies If we as secularists, and perhaps more importantly liberal believers, are not allowed to voice contrary opinions because of deference to religious beliefs, then we will never escape the gravity well of those ideas.
5. The response to hate speech is not suppression, it's more speech.
In recent weeks a horribly produced and horribly conceived video called The Innocence of Muslims has sparked worldwide controversy and has been used as an excuse to instigate violence. The appropriate response is not to ban the video and imprison the people who made it. The correct response is to speak out against the video and make it clear that we don't support its content or its quality. President Obama's address to the UN on the issue gave me hope that we can move in that direction.
"...the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech...in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how do we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn down a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.
In the modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world. We empower the worst of us, if that's how we respond." 12:50
But beyond our ideals, history should teach us that suppressing hateful ideas is a poor way of combating them. Holocaust denial is probably one of the most pernicious and widespread negative memes still present in Europe. Austria has actually banned the idea and recently arrested British historian David Irvine for the possibility that he would deny the holocaust. Yet holocaust denial is more prevalent in those countries that ban it than those who allow open discussion and critique of the position.
Sometimes you just have to appreciate something for itself and blasphemy can be very entertaining. To a non-believer, it's much like having a mirror-smashing party on Friday the 13th while walking under as many ladders as possible. Blasphemy is a victim-less crime, and even if by some off chance God is real I think he could take care of himself. Why should his followers need to step in to defend their all powerful deity?
Researchers at IDSC, ETH Zürich have developed an algorithm that allows three quadrotors to work together using a net to throw and catch balls. Using an optimal model of the system and motion tracking, they are able to throw and catch the balls to themselves either straight up or to the sides. In order to adjust for real world conditions and improve throw accuracy, a machine learning algorithm was implemented that within only 3 iterations had corrected the throw.
Ayann Hirsi Ali has been a vocal critic of Islam and more importantly its political spinoffs around the world. This is an excerpt from an article she wrote in response to the recent attacks in Libya.
"Utopian ideologies have a short lifespan. Some are bloodier than others. As long as Islamists were able to market their philosophy as the only alternative to dictatorship and foreign meddling, they were attractive to an oppressed polity. But with their election to office they will be subjected to the test of government. It is clear, as we saw in Iran in 2009 and elsewhere, that if the philosophy of the Islamists is fully and forcefully implemented, those who elected them will end up disillusioned. The governments will begin to fail as soon as they set about implementing their philosophy: strip women of their rights; murder homosexuals; constrain the freedoms of conscience and religion of non-Muslims; hunt down dissidents; persecute religious minorities; pick fights with foreign powers, even powers, such as the U.S., that offered them friendship. The Islamists will curtail the freedoms of those who elected them and fail to improve their economic conditions."-Ayaan Hirsi Ali http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/09/16/ayaan-hirsi-ali-on-the-islamists-final-stand.html
I just realized how often I use the pronoun "we" to refer to all of humanity. "We figured out that evolution happened." "Yes we were wrong about geocentrism but we moved past that." "We know that global warming is happening."
I'm beginning to think that language is too inclusive, considering how many people in America disagree with some of those statements.
