0 responses so far ↓

• 1 Matt Thurston // Oct 7, 2007 at 11:05 am

  You’ve been using the word “blasphemy” to encompass a lot of different things in these past two blasphemy-themed posts. Yes, blasphemy (like belief, faith, and even so-called truth) is highly subjective, but the examples of blasphemy that have been bandied about here at MOF can be loosely grouped into two categories…

  1.) Blasphemy that challenges, questions, and criticizes; and
  2.) Blasphemy that mocks, denigrates, and defiles.

  I’d call the first category “healthy,” even if it often offends, hurts, causes anger, and leads to dissension and even war. Your examples of Jesus and Joseph Smith above fit comfortably into this category. I don’t think you need to defend this form of blasphemy to the readers of MOF, though there are legions of fundamentalists throughout the world who would certainly take exception. I think your Sam Harris quote speaks directly to this form of blasphemy. Overcoming the obstacles that protect this form of blasphemy is difficult enough.

  Your shit-stick example looks like an example of the second kind of blasphemy, but it is actually just another example of the first kind of blasphemy. Its tone and content is instructive; it is a Buddhist monk offering a lesson or parable about his own religion of Buddhism. Christ made similar statements to the Pharisees/Saducees that appeared to denigrate such sacred/holy institutions as the Sabbath, etc. but were meant to school them of the “blasphemy [of] holding fast to [their] own ideas of the absolute.”

  But you cannot conflate the above two forms of blasphemy and call it the same thing.

  This second form of blasphemy serves no purpose — it doesn’t challenge or criticize, it merely incites. I can wipe my ass with Mormonism’s sacred garments and wave them around on a stick in front of the LDS Conference center. I can take a piss on the Koran in front of a Muslim mosque. I can hold up a “Fuck the Pope!” sign in front of the Vatican. But to what end? What have I proven, except that I am uncouth and lack imagination? If your purpose is to instruct the believers, you’ve done the opposite and reinforced their beliefs. If your purpose is to high-five the like-minded, you’re just preaching to the choir. All that results is a widened divide that is filled with hate, rage, and intollerance.

  I have to say that I’m with BiV on this one… I still don’t think you’ve adequately defended this second form of blasphemy (”Spit of Jesus” or “Fuck Yahweh”) except to provide further examples of the more-defensible first form of blasphemy. About the only defense you’ve made is that it bothers you that you can’t say things like “Fuck Yahweh” because of the constraints of society and common decency. But this sounds like a little kid who complains that he can’t just take his neighbor Billy’s bicycle. To that kid I would respond: Well, I guess nothing can stop you from taking that bicycle, but don’t be surprised if Billy later punches you in the face.

• 2 Matt Thurston // Oct 7, 2007 at 12:03 pm

  The following caveat is probably unnecessary, but reading over my previous comment I notice that it ends rather abruptly…

  My “punch in the face” comment was not meant directly or indirectly to apply to my good friend John Remy (!!!!) but to illustrate the kind of reaction that can only result from this second form of blasphemy. That, or silence and futher retrenchment into already held (and possibly ignorant) beliefs.

• 3 JohnR // Oct 7, 2007 at 12:06 pm

  Matt, your breakdown of blasphemy into these two categories makes sense to me, though I still think that the perception of where they should be placed is subjective. It’s interesting to me that you, me, BiV and other commenters are capable of being much more objective when discussing blasphemy in traditions (Buddhism, Islam) external to our own shared Judeo-Christian culture and experience. You had no problem relegating the “shit-stick” example to the first category, but there are millions of non-Zen, Mahayana Buddhists (and I dare say, a quite a few Zen Buddhists) who would not hesitate to put it in category two.

  You said: This second form of blasphemy serves no purpose — it doesn’t challenge or criticize, it merely incites.

  From my perspective, my blaspheming had a didactic purpose–I deliberately chose to be offensive for the purpose of waking my readers up to their own sensibilities and attachments. In this sense, my motive was the same as Unmon’s (and inspired by a similar story). Though I’d like Jana to speak for herself, she seems to see my post fitting in category one. You and BiV, obviously, see it fitting in

  You also have to consider my context: I’m an atheist, ex-Mormon who repeatedly portrays institutional religion as source of social control and censorship. I assume that most of my readers are comfortable with this, and that those who are believers do not fall within the mainstream. I would never have written this on Sunstone or fMh. I doubt I would do this in a group of liberal/intellectual LDS friends. It may be a long time (or even never) before I do something like this on MoF again (a self-censorship of sorts).

  If nothing else, it’s generated some healthy discussion about a subject I feel needs to be questioned and closely examined, and I don’t think we would’ve taken it as seriously had I not opened it the way that I did.

  Well, I guess nothing can stop you from taking that bicycle, but don’t be surprised if Billy later punches you in the face.

  If I post a cartoon that radical Muslims find offensive, I shouldn’t be surprised if some choose to threaten my life or burn down my home. And although you are justifying the violent response to blasphemy as understandable, such an action would be morally much more reprehensible than the verbal denigration of a person’s beliefs. But it would prove my point, that blasphemy is a social ill and a powerful form of censorship. As long as such taboos exist, there is some social purpose served in deliberately creating offense.

• 4 geneticblend // Oct 7, 2007 at 12:15 pm

  Heh, I commented on the “punch” comment before I saw your second comment. We may have to take this outside.

  One more thought, and I’m going to expose myself to some harsh self-scrutiny here:

  I suspect that there is a part of me that really wants to push away from my connections to Mormonism, and I’m frustrated with how its cognitive and social hooks are embedded within me. I suspect that blaspheming in this way is another way for me to push against the institution and the community, and also to mark this as “not a Mormon” blog. If this is a motivation, it’s not an entirely conscious one, and I’m not sure exactly how I feel about it.

• 5 Matt Thurston // Oct 7, 2007 at 12:33 pm

  Actually, I make no distinction between Eastern and Western religions. I guess I cannot answer for how Buddhists would react to the shit-stick example. Maybe they wouldn’t so easily relegate it to Group I Blasphemy. But knowing something of the Zen Buddhisms philosophy of non-attachment (which extends even to attachment to Buddha himself), I assumed a Buddhist would not be so offended by this example. So it seemed like a perfectly normal, albeit direct/harsh, example of Buddhist philosophy/teaching. (But I’m not Buddhist and obviously cannot make this claim with any real authority.)

  As for the possible violent reaction of Believers to Group II Blasphemy… I’d agree that such a reaction is not justifiable, but reprehensible. But… (Ah!!!! Will finish my thought later… gotta go to a family dinner…)

• 6 Matt Thurston // Oct 7, 2007 at 5:53 pm

  Like I said, violence in the face of verbal denigration is inexcusable. But is the point to deliberately create offence until the offendees learn to pull their punches and walk away unperturbed? There are also social taboos surrounding the words “nigger” or “faggot”… should we use these words in the presence of blacks and homosexuals until the words lose their sting? I’m still struggling to see what is gained by deliberate offense. I’d like to hear other opinions on this…

  I’m more sympathetic to your blasphemy-as-therapy suggestion in your second comment. This form of F the Church blasphemy seems to be fairly common on many of the so-called Outer Blogness or anti-Mormon blogs I’ve read. I’ve certainly engaged in my own Curse God or Curse Mormonism rants over the past couple of years (as my wife will attest), as my belief in Mormonism’s truth claims has all but vanished. But even this form of blasphemy would seem to have a time and place, as you suggest in your reticence to discuss the subject around Sunstone, FMH, and liberal LDS circles, to say nothing of conservative circles. I’d also think it has a limited shelf life of x number of months/years — attachment to one’s sense of betrayal, even when justified, being just as toxic as attachment to one’s beliefs.

  But I agree that you’ve generated some healthy discussion on a subject that need not be relegated to the outer darkness of “never again.”

• 7 xJane // Oct 12, 2007 at 8:44 am

  I’d like to modify our two categories of blasphemy: there is inner blasphemy & there is outer blasphemy. Inner blasphemy serves a purpose; outer blasphemy incites. I think this ties into BR IV: people within a group can often use terms that, if outsiders used them, would incite violence. Hence people of African descent calling each other “nigger” and homosexuals “fags”. But if I (a white het) attempted such a thing, I would rightly be castigated by both my groups and those groups.

  Inner blasphemy can take the form of the vastly offensive. A Christian artist places a crucifix in a vat of urine. A Buddhist teacher wiping his ass with sacred texts. But since the blasphemers come from within the traditions of the offended, the offense is changed from acts of war to, one hopes, a chance to look at one’s own taboos. If Matt decides to ” take a piss on the Koran” I think the Muslims and his own friends alike can assume it to be an act of cultural violence. But the offensive, broken taboos, and bodily functions on holy items have their places in the lives of the “faithful”.

Leave a Comment