The Blasphemy We Need

[Deleted]

Despite the title this article is not about religion so I am requesting it remain here unless/until it takes a turn. tyia 

Thoughts anyone?

 douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/the-blasphemy-we-need/?smid=pl-share&_r=0

In the wake of the vicious murders at the offices of the satirical French newspaper Charlie Hebdo today, let me offer three tentative premises about blasphemy in a free society.

1) The right to blaspheme (and otherwise give offense) is essential to the liberal order.
2) There is no duty to blaspheme, a society’s liberty is not proportional to the quantity of blasphemy it produces, and under many circumstances the choice to give offense (religious and otherwise) can be reasonably criticized as pointlessly antagonizing, needlessly cruel, or simply stupid.
3) The legitimacy and wisdom of criticism directed at offensive speech is generally inversely proportional to the level of mortal danger that the blasphemer brings upon himself.

We are in a situation where my third point applies, because the kind of blasphemy that Charlie Hebdo engaged in had deadly consequences, as everyone knew it could … and that kind of blasphemy is precisely the kind that needs to be defended, because it’s the kind that clearly serves a free society’s greater good. If a large enough group of someones is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization, and when that scenario obtains it isn’t really a liberal civilization any more. Again, liberalism doesn’t depend on everyone offending everyone else all the time, and it’s okay to prefer a society where offense for its own sake is limited rather than pervasive. But when offenses are policed by murder, that’s when we need more of them, not less, because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed. . . .

[billisonboard]

When I was growing up, I got no reaction from my brother if I kept all my body parts on my side of the car. Some days all it took was to place a hand slightly across that center line to get him yelled at by Mom for hitting me. Some days I would have to push it a little more -some days a lot more. But if I wanted a reaction, I could get a reaction. 

[Deleted]

Not guite getting the analogy billisonboard  I will have to think about it. The cartoonist is you, the jihadist is your brother? Who's your mother? Does anyone have a gun to their head in your story?

 To me that is one the larger points of the article. Thanks for your thoughts btw .

[mroped]

Newton's second law aplies in this case: for each action there is a reaction!<br>In an ideal case, you push on a block hard enough, it will move=action and reaction.<br>In this particular case Charlie Hebdo aplied a lot of force on an object that sits precariously on a tiny bity corner. Push it too hard and it will come down on you before you have time to get out of the way.<br><br>As I said it on a different tread, insulting the prophet is not something taken lightly. According to the Quran it is punishable by death.<br><br>When they decided to run those cartoons they knew exactly what they are to expect. France has probably one of the highest percentage of Muslims amongst the " Christian" countries.<br>Not saying that what the shooters did is right but what the paper did is not right either.

[Shooby]

  People can say what they wanna say. 

[djAdvocate]

Jan 10, 2015 12:35:24 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

Despite the title this article is not about religion so I am requesting it remain here unless/until it takes a turn. tyia 

Thoughts anyone?

 douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/the-blasphemy-we-need/?smid=pl-share&_r=0

In the wake of the vicious murders at the offices of the satirical French newspaper Charlie Hebdo today, let me offer three tentative premises about blasphemy in a free society.

1) The right to blaspheme (and otherwise give offense) is essential to the liberal order.
2) There is no duty to blaspheme, a society’s liberty is not proportional to the quantity of blasphemy it produces, and under many circumstances the choice to give offense (religious and otherwise) can be reasonably criticized as pointlessly antagonizing, needlessly cruel, or simply stupid.
3) The legitimacy and wisdom of criticism directed at offensive speech is generally inversely proportional to the level of mortal danger that the blasphemer brings upon himself.

We are in a situation where my third point applies, because the kind of blasphemy that Charlie Hebdo engaged in had deadly consequences, as everyone knew it could … and that kind of blasphemy is precisely the kind that needs to be defended, because it’s the kind that clearly serves a free society’s greater good. If a large enough group of someones is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization, and when that scenario obtains it isn’t really a liberal civilization any more. Again, liberalism doesn’t depend on everyone offending everyone else all the time, and it’s okay to prefer a society where offense for its own sake is limited rather than pervasive. But when offenses are policed by murder, that’s when we need more of them, not less, because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed. . . .

if you substitute "free speech, including blasphemy" for "blasphemy" above, it is a near-perfect reflection of my view on free speech.

[Shooby]

I dont' really care what people say. Yak, yak, yak. Just words.

[Shooby]

  Remember, sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

[Opti]

I disagree with point #3. Just because it is offensive does not make saying it valuable.

I remember when there was art that was composed of the Virgin Mary and human feces.

There were quite a few people against that and that's about as close as I can think of

as an example to what Charles Hebdo did. I think many people seem pro-speech when it

is against something they dislike such as Islam but not so much when they see it as wrong.

[mroped]

Jan 10, 2015 14:30:12 GMT -5 Shooby said:

  People can say what they wanna say. 

Charlie Hebdo tought so too. The two shooters had a different opinion.

The world is more than the U.S. and the U.S. is not the World!
Nobody outside US cares about our Constitution just as much as we don't care about theirs.

[Deleted]

Jan 10, 2015 14:45:33 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 10, 2015 12:35:24 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

Despite the title this article is not about religion so I am requesting it remain here unless/until it takes a turn. tyia 

Thoughts anyone?

 douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/the-blasphemy-we-need/?smid=pl-share&_r=0

In the wake of the vicious murders at the offices of the satirical French newspaper Charlie Hebdo today, let me offer three tentative premises about blasphemy in a free society.

1) The right to blaspheme (and otherwise give offense) is essential to the liberal order.
2) There is no duty to blaspheme, a society’s liberty is not proportional to the quantity of blasphemy it produces, and under many circumstances the choice to give offense (religious and otherwise) can be reasonably criticized as pointlessly antagonizing, needlessly cruel, or simply stupid.
3) The legitimacy and wisdom of criticism directed at offensive speech is generally inversely proportional to the level of mortal danger that the blasphemer brings upon himself.

We are in a situation where my third point applies, because the kind of blasphemy that Charlie Hebdo engaged in had deadly consequences, as everyone knew it could … and that kind of blasphemy is precisely the kind that needs to be defended, because it’s the kind that clearly serves a free society’s greater good. If a large enough group of someones is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization, and when that scenario obtains it isn’t really a liberal civilization any more. Again, liberalism doesn’t depend on everyone offending everyone else all the time, and it’s okay to prefer a society where offense for its own sake is limited rather than pervasive. But when offenses are policed by murder, that’s when we need more of them, not less, because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed. . . .

if you substitute "free speech, including blasphemy" for "blasphemy" above, it is a near-perfect reflection of my view on free speech.

Mine also

[billisonboard]

When you push, 
And you push, 
And push, 
Then push some more, 
Keep pushing, 
Push harder,
And harder, 
And even harder,
Then get a violent reaction
-
I struggle sympathizing with,  "See, I told you they were violent".

[Deleted]

Jan 10, 2015 15:00:30 GMT -5 Opti said:

I disagree with point #3. Just because it is offensive does not make saying it valuable.

I remember when there was art that was composed of the Virgin Mary and human feces.

There were quite a few people against that and that's about as close as I can think of

as an example to what Charles Hebdo did. I think many people seem pro-speech when it

is against something they dislike such as Islam but not so much when they see it as wrong.

It is not saying it is valuable because it is offensive.

 It is saying if the offense is something that someone may kill you for it is valuable because if you shut up due to the threat of violence your free society is gone..

[Deleted]

Jan 10, 2015 15:00:32 GMT -5 mroped said:

Jan 10, 2015 14:30:12 GMT -5 Shooby said:

  People can say what they wanna say. 

Charlie Hebdo tought so too. The two shooters had a different opinion.

The world is more than the U.S. and the U.S. is not the World!
Nobody outside US cares about our Constitution just as much as we don't care about theirs.

 Hebdo wasn't in the US .

It is a larger issue than the US constitution.

[Deleted]

Jan 10, 2015 15:27:35 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

When you push, 
And you push, 
And push, 
Then push some more, 
Keep pushing, 
Push harder,
And harder, 
And even harder,
Then get a violent reaction
-
I struggle sympathizing with,  "See, I told you they were violent".

So Hebdo should have been prevented from pushing?

[mroped]

Jan 10, 2015 15:35:21 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

Jan 10, 2015 15:00:32 GMT -5 mroped said:

Charlie Hebdo tought so too. The two shooters had a different opinion.

The world is more than the U.S. and the U.S. is not the World!
Nobody outside US cares about our Constitution just as much as we don't care about theirs.

 Hebdo wasn't in the US .

It is a larger issue than the US constitution.

That was the point that I was making. France just like US has a Constitution that gives and guarantees the freedom of expression no mater of the nature of that. Not all countries have that and we should stop thinking that everybody HAS to do what we do and think like we do

[mroped]

Jan 10, 2015 15:40:01 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

Jan 10, 2015 15:27:35 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

When you push, 
And you push, 
And push, 
Then push some more, 
Keep pushing, 
Push harder,
And harder, 
And even harder,
Then get a violent reaction
-
I struggle sympathizing with,  "See, I told you they were violent".

So Hebdo should have been prevented from pushing?

No! Hebdo should've realized that there might be repercussions to his comments and either not make the comments or take the necessary precautions to protect himself from retaliation of any kind. 

When you insult a billion people's beliefs you should expect a billion people to respond. The response will definetly measure up with the insult.
Again for the ...teen time: insulting the prophet is punishable with death!

[Value Buy]

I am still in a quandary why this discussion is on the politics board.

When I discussed the problem of the murders I was told it was not appropriate for the politics board.

Actually, I wasn't told.

It was just moved.

[Deleted]

Jan 10, 2015 16:05:34 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

I am still in a quandary why this discussion is on the politics board.

When I discussed the problem of the murders I was told it was not appropriate for the politics board.

Actually, I wasn't told.

It was just moved.

 I don't know about your thread but this is a thread about free speech. How is that not political?

[Deleted]

Jan 10, 2015 15:53:03 GMT -5 mroped said:

Jan 10, 2015 15:35:21 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

 Hebdo wasn't in the US .

It is a larger issue than the US constitution.

That was the point that I was making. France just like US has a Constitution that gives and guarantees the freedom of expression no mater of the nature of that. Not all countries have that and we should stop thinking that everybody HAS to do what we do and think like we do

So we are shouldn't as countries ensure residents and visitors abide by the laws and rules of the country they are in?

They can "think " whatever they want to btw in this country.

[mmhmm]

It's really more applicable to Current Events, so I've moved it there. It's really not about politics, per se. Free speech isn't necessarily a political topic. The subject of this thread is really more a cultural issue than a political one. Cultures are clashing world-wide. They have been throughout history, regardless of politics.

mmhmm, Politics Moderator

[weltschmerz]

There was a Letter to the Editor in today's paper that summed it up best.

Letter-writer Bill Chisholm asks us to imagine the public outcry that would ensue if a graphically insulting cartoon of Jesus were published. Certainly there have been many unflattering depictions of Jesus put out by the media that have offended me, but that doesn’t mean that I would march into a publishing firm brandishing my assault rifles.

Who will define what is in “poor judgement and poor taste?” I have seen many examples of things which I believed to be tasteless and hurtful. Does this mean that we should allow certain ethnicities or religions to dictate that for us? This is the case in countries where personal freedoms are an unknown concept.

As a Christian, if I carry and esteem Jesus in my heart, of what concern is it to me how others may choose to view him or portray him? What matters is the respect I hold toward my own faith, and how I choose to live my life in harmony with man and nature. If I am sufficiently confident in my beliefs, I don’t need to impose them on others, nor am I compelled to seek approval from others. There is no “reward” for hatred and vengeance, and it is never a cause for celebration.

If we live in a democracy, then we need to uphold our freedoms. We may not agree with everything that goes on in our society, or with everything we see in print, but that is part of living in a free country.

Natalie Turko-Slack, Dollard-des-Ormeaux

[Deleted]

Jan 10, 2015 16:49:25 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

It's really more applicable to Current Events, so I've moved it there. It's really not about politics, per se. Free speech isn't necessarily a political topic. The subject of this thread is really more a cultural issue than a political one. Cultures are clashing world-wide. They have been throughout history, regardless of politics.

mmhmm, Politics Moderator

Free speech is about as political as it gets but do what you will with it.

[mmhmm]

From the French Constitution:

...The Press Law of 1881, as amended, guarantees freedom of the press, subject to several exceptions. The Pleven Act of 1972 (after Justice Minister René Pleven) prohibits incitement to hatred, discrimination, slander and racial insults....

link to source

[Deleted]

Jan 10, 2015 16:54:32 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

From the French Constitution:

...The Press Law of 1881, as amended, guarantees freedom of the press, subject to several exceptions. The Pleven Act of 1972 (after Justice Minister René Pleven) prohibits incitement to hatred, discrimination, slander and racial insults....

link to source

and? This cartoon was one of those exceptions?

[mmhmm]

Jan 10, 2015 17:13:15 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

Jan 10, 2015 16:54:32 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

From the French Constitution:

...The Press Law of 1881, as amended, guarantees freedom of the press, subject to several exceptions. The Pleven Act of 1972 (after Justice Minister René Pleven) prohibits incitement to hatred, discrimination, slander and racial insults....

link to source

and? This cartoon was one of those exceptions?

Not being French, and not being involved in making those decisions, I don't really know. I just brought it in for information.

[billisonboard]

Jan 10, 2015 15:40:01 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

Jan 10, 2015 15:27:35 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

When you push, 
And you push, 
And push, 
Then push some more, 
Keep pushing, 
Push harder,
And harder, 
And even harder,
Then get a violent reaction
-
I struggle sympathizing with,  "See, I told you they were violent".

So Hebdo should have been prevented from pushing?

By whom? I don't think anyone should have prevented them. I just don't have a lot of sympathy for anyone other than the police officers killed.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 10, 2015 17:41:06 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 10, 2015 15:40:01 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

So Hebdo should have been prevented from pushing?

By whom? I don't think anyone should have prevented them. I just don't have a lot of sympathy for anyone other than the police officers killed.

I imagine you have a bit of sympathy for the shoppers at the Kosher marker, no?

[billisonboard]

Jan 10, 2015 18:01:20 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 10, 2015 17:41:06 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

By whom? I don't think anyone should have prevented them. I just don't have a lot of sympathy for anyone other than the police officers killed.

I imagine you have a bit of sympathy for the shoppers at the Kosher marker, no?

I see that situation as not within the scope of this thread. But yes, even more than a bit.

[sesfw]

Cultures are clashing world-wide. They have been throughout history, regardless of politics.

When someone chooses to either visit or move to another culture common sense says to blend in, not try to change it.  If you don't like the culture you are visiting, go home.