Uncomfortable expressions still our right

You may have any opinions you like, but (unless you’re Louis Farrakhan or Jeremiah Wright) keep them to yourself or risk reprisal.

Ahmadiyya Times | News Watch |
Source/Credit: Edmond Sun
By Mike Hinkle | April 27, 2012

EDMOND — Let’s talk about blasphemy for a minute. It’s a spongy topic that doesn’t come up often in our day-to-day American conversation. According to the dictionary, expressions may be blasphemous if they offend someone’s concept of “the sacred.” What’s sacred? Things are sacred if you get upset when they’re blasphemed. Like I said, it’s spongy.

Historically, blasphemy has proved very useful as a device to control possibly dangerous discourse. Blasphemy laws allowed religious or political leaders to threaten persecution and/or prosecution against anyone who didn’t confine their expressions of opinion to the officially approved.

Here’s a curious artifact of America’s past. In the 1648 edition of The Laws and Liberties of Massachusetts (corrected with modern spelling) the following appears under Capital Laws: “If any person within this jurisdiction whether Christian or pagan shall wittingly and willingly presume to blaspheme the holy name of God, Father, Son or Holy Ghost with direct express presumptuous or high-handed blasphemy, either by willful or obstinate denying the true God or his Creation or Government of the world, or shall curse God in like manner or reproach the holy Religion of God as it were but a politic device to keep ignorant men in awe; or shall utter any other kind of blasphemy of the like nature and degree they shall be put to death.” This is followed by citation to Bible verses pertaining to the stoning of blasphemers.

In America today, the idea of putting someone to death for blasphemous expression is ridiculous. We speak derisively of countries like Egypt where one of the best-loved comedians was convicted, fined and sentenced to three months in jail on Tuesday for offending Islam by appearing in comic films.

Though Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, a prominent Pakistani religious scholar points out that neither the Quran nor the hadith mentions blasphemy and nothing in Islam suggests blasphemy law, conviction on the charge of blasphemy can still draw a death penalty in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Yemen. In the following nations, among others, conviction for blasphemy still can land you in jail: Brazil, Finland, Greece, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sudan — and the United Kingdom.

Curiously, the United Nations, in a document titled “Combating defamation of religions” urges the international community (including the United States) to enact laws to restrict expression of opinion that might be offensive to any religious group. This document places “defamation of religion” on par with racist violence and “xenophobic ideas.”

So far, the genius of our Constitution prohibits government interference with expressions of ideas and opinions no matter how hateful, ridiculous or unpopular. For example, I am free to call attention to the practices of the religious group called Santa Muerta (meaning Saint Death), which, according to an April 1 story in the Associated Press, is enjoying increasing popularity across Mexico and among some Hispanics in the United States. This sect is believed responsible for the cult sacrifice of two 10-year-old boys and a 55-year-old woman in a small town near the U.S. border. I also can point to the atrocious practices of some religious groups that require the genital mutilation of young girls. I can point to atrocities committed by The Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda, which purports to be justified by citation to Scripture. In each of these cases, I am free to state that practices like this are barbaric and intolerable. I won’t be officially punished no matter who is offended.

But, in discussing blasphemy, we must also take into account the “vigilante factor.” Even in the United States, there are unofficial pressures prohibiting citizens from expressing their opinions on taboo subjects. For example, there are some opinions concerning racial differences that simply cannot be part of our public discourse. Certain opinions about gender differences may be articulated at your peril. You may have any opinions you like, but (unless you’re Louis Farrakhan or Jeremiah Wright) keep them to yourself or risk reprisal.

It is, of course, open season on practically everything else. The sacred teachings, practices and symbols of certain religions may be mocked, ridiculed and insulted. Certain races may be referred to by discriminatory epithets without repercussion. Certain deeply held sources of national pride may be disrespected and demeaned with no adverse consequences.

The point here is that we may be seeing the birth of a new variety of blasphemy prohibitions. We may be inhibited from expressing our opinions, no matter how logically well-founded simply because we might suffer the wrath of those offended by those views. There are always some who simply can’t tolerate uncomfortable expressions. Thank God for the Constitution. I’m Hink and I’ll see ya.


MIKE HINKLE is an Edmond resident and retired attorney.


Read original post here: Uncomfortable expressions still our right


This content-post is archived for backup and to keep archived records of any news Islam Ahmadiyya. The views expressed by the author and source of this news archive do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of Ahmadiyya Times.