NYT blog on blasphemy

A blog at the NY Times by Ross Douthat:

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 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.

He goes through each point:

The first point means that laws against blasphemy (usually described these days as “restrictions on hate speech”) are inherently illiberal.

We actually have such laws in NZ. They have not been used since 1922, but we should still scrap them.

The second point means that a certain cultural restraint about trafficking in blasphemy is perfectly compatible with liberal norms, and that there's nothing illiberal about questioning the wisdom or propriety or decency of cartoons or articles or anything else that takes a crude or bigoted swing at something that a portion of the population holds sacred. …

But our basic liberties are not necessarily endangered when, say, the Anti-Defamation League criticizes Mel Gibson's portrayal of the Sanhedrin in “The Passion of the Christ” or the Catholic League denounces art exhibits in the style of “Piss Christ,” any more than they're endangered by the absence of grotesque caricatures of Moses or the Virgin Mary from the pages of the and . Liberty requires accepting the freedom to offend, yes, but it also allows people, institutions and communities to both call for and exercise restraint.

And most people have no desire to say things which will cause offence to believers of a religion, except …

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.

The more a group of people want to kill you for a particular form of speech, is the more reason why one should say it.

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.

Well stated.

Comments (68)

Login to comment or vote

Add a Comment