Couverture de A Case Against Blasphemy (Essay)

A Case Against Blasphemy (Essay)

A Case Against Blasphemy (Essay)

Écouter gratuitement

Voir les détails

Offres de saison | 0,99 € par mois pendant les 3 premiers mois

5,99 €/mois par la suite. Des conditions s’appliquent. Annulation mensuelle possible.
À propos de ce contenu audio
 A Case Against Blasphemy Free speech cannot be absolute where it portends absolute destruction. Before formulating arguments about why blasphemy laws never work, before outlining the decisive points in favor of unfettered free speech, before launching into lectures about censorship and cancelations, separation of church and state, rights and freedoms and liberties, hypocrisy and hysteria, gather those excellent points, pack them tight, then set them aside. Before even reaching the decision of best, most practical enforceability, truth and necessity must first be asserted. A strong case has been made that the Founding Fathers of the United States never considered blasphemy laws in writing the First Amendment protections of free speech, because it wouldn’t have entered their minds to do so. No matter how religious someone was at home, religion held strong enough sway over the culture that the government needn’t interfere where society would regulate behavior on its own. The blatant disregard for the Divine rampant in society today was unimagine then, not least because reverent regard for the Divine is vital to upholding the world they made. So, while it may not have been constitutionally illegal to blaspheme, no one who wanted to remain in good standing and company would consider such a derisive act in public. And sometimes that’s all it takes to ensure the desired outcome, as historical precedent has reliably shown. Eventually, blasphemy laws were passed and enforced on a governmental level, and there’s plenty of places that may still officially have them on the books. We’ve moved so far as a society that we no longer pay attention to those that remain, so they linger unenforced. We’ve more pressing issues to deal with these days, or so we’re told. Yet, what if our more pressing issues can be traced in large part to our laxity in regard to blasphemy? And, if not the language itself, then to the same cause at the root of both acceptance of blasphemy and the rest of the societal ills at present. For one thing is certain, neither government nor standing nor company is enough anymore to entirely enforce word choice in most circles. The only circumstance where such efficiency is ever seen is in regard to social constructs around the imagined oppressed of the day. This perversion is an accurate reflection of what results when public displays of religious irreverence are no longer considered blasphemous, let alone tolerated, ignored, celebrated. The result of this is that unassailable protection of natural rights is intentionally subverted and directed toward malicious ends. Free speech absolutists are quick to counter with the case of satirist George Carlin, who was arrested in Wisconsin in the seventies for a routine that was ultimately deemed “indecent.” For many, his case is absolute proof against blasphemy laws, made all the easier if they actually agree with what he said, let alone laugh at it. The laughter part is important, for comedy and satire have proven time and again to be among the greatest weapons the populace can wield against the government. Only a free people can mock their ruling class without fear of repercussion, and the persecution of comedians, or any well-liked entertainer, isn’t usually well-accepted in a liberty-minded society. Except, blasphemy isn’t aimed at the current government, but at G-d, Who exists beyond any mortal systems. Moreover, blasphemy isn’t the same as comedy, as even the religious and the wider umbrella of believers have jokes that include G-d. The difference is the same as jokes from family members and from outsiders, namely the affection underlying the tone of the former. For non-believers or so-proclaimed atheists, jokes about G-d are usually a euphemism for mockery, belied by the sour notes of jadedness, bitterness, disdain, even anger they can’t entirely hide beneath the laughter. Such comedy does not stem from a desire to share amusement but an excuse to belittle what they don’t truly know or understand or simply find agreement in their contempt. Thus it falls under the blasphemous, not least because the result is not to free speech but to lessen the image of G-d in the eyes of the beholder. Blasphemous displays are not “fresh” or “edgy” or “freeing” or “empowering” or “complex” or any other manner of progressive mangled label breathlessly used to validate the degenerate. As the law against blasphemy has existed thousands of years, so has the cause for it. To say, the law wasn’t made as a preemptive forewarning of a possible future, rather, the law was established for past, present, and future, because some things about the human condition don’t change, but are merely repackaged over time. The law against blasphemy first appears in its most definitive form as the third of the Ten Commandments given by G-d to Moses on Mount Sinai. Anyone who believes in the advantages of displaying the Ten Commandments and ...
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
Aucun commentaire pour le moment