It's a hot topic online right now. But the funny thing is, Blasphemy Laws, Theocracies, and Extremism are always front and center these days, especially in the good old U.S. of A.
Right now it seems we have some groups who believe that the Establishment Clause does not actually exist, or that it's a bad thing, or perhaps some just don't know anything about our country at all in this capacity. It's very important to understand what the Establishment Clause is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
This is quite possibly, one of the most important aspects of our entire legal system. It places a wall, separating church [any religion] and state [the government]. Meaning the United States, while populated with many people of faith, is not in fact run by any particular faith.
You see, we have three branches of government, and the one branch mentioned here, known as the legislature, is the branch that writes our laws and/or changes existing laws.
The Separation clause clearly draws a baseline saying that the laws are not dependent upon, nor beholding to a religion or faith, but that doesn't and will not be used to prohibit a person of faith from the free exercise of their religion, within the confines of the laws of this land. Even if that means they have no faith at all. You don't have to belong to a church or a religion to be an American Citizen nor to serve in Public Office.
So basically, as long as you are not breaking our laws, you are good to go, you can be of any faith you want, or none at all. You can even belong to more than one faith or go church shopping. !gasp! And there is no official government test of faith or religion in order to hold public office. Though it should be clear right now, that religion is a factor for individual voters when selecting candidates. If it weren't then our campaigns wouldn't be constantly harping on faith, even when it's clear that some individual's adherence to a religion is superficial at best.
The whole quote of the First Amendment goes like this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This is in part why we have no Blasphemy Laws. The Law is supreme here, but it is secular law. With so many different religions coexisting together, the only way we can maintain anything that looks like equal opportunity and equal protection, is to make sure no one, singular religion can enforce it's rules or beliefs on our citizens or on other religious groups. Holding secular laws ensures this.
There are several definitions to this word, but the most appropriate context is the last interpretation: Belonging to the laity. Lay. Not Clerical. So secular law is "...of the people". This is an important phrase, when you see someone invoking "We the People" or "Of the People" then they are usually talking about are certain unalienable rights, which includes, but is not limited to, freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
There are entire religious groups that see the word, and the concept of the secular and secularism as bad, and they live here. They believe that secularism is a life without a moral compass. There are just as many of us, who know that to be an untrue. A person can have a strong, internal, sense of honor and ethics that are not dependent upon religious identity, nor beholding to a god. Some of these religious groups go further than just disapproving of secularism. Some groups espouse a notion of supremacism, and believe that they should rule this country with religious laws, and force people to convert or leave. I am not going to name names, because more than one group has expressed such sentiments over the years.
The issue here is that there are so many different faiths and philosophies that coexist within the borders of the United States, and many citizens have practices or religious- laws that are conflicting. With few exceptions, most of these religions seek to encourage their adherents to live a life of honor and faith. However these groups are not in agreement, as to how a person goes about satisfying either honor or faith. Some recognize no divine power but their own exclusively, and others have no god at all, and still other faiths acknowledge many gods without offering devotion outside their own theology.
Our country is complicated, fascinating and beautiful at the same time. It's not perfect, and it's never boring.
And somehow, most of the time, this spectrum of behavior is displayed by a multitude of people within this country, who mostly, peacefully coexist. And by peacefully, I mean we argue a lot and sometimes there is name calling, but usually no one is maimed or killed. When that happens though, it can considered a hate crime and sometimes an act of terrorism. When crimes, especially violent crimes, are committed in the name of religion, if you follow such cases here, you will note that there will be an investigation to see if the perpetrator[s] acted alone, or if their religion sanctions such acts.
We can tolerate people who sanction hate. We don't care for it, but we can. But this country draws the line between verbalizing hate, and acting on it in a way that deprives another of their life, limb, or liberty. Liberty is another word for Freedom, and is used interchangeably with the phrase "Civil Rights."
People who commit hate crimes, against other religions are not punished with religious law. They are given a fair trial in a secular court via due process, and if found guilty, such individuals are sentenced by that same court, based on punishments fitting the crime that could and would be applied to any such perpetrator regardless of faith or lack thereof.
Recent cases:
Abortion Doctor Shot To Death in Kansas Church.
Knoxville Shootings Rattle UU Faithful.
These are just two examples, and very extreme examples at that. Hate crimes do happen in the United States. They are all hurtful, however we do have laws to deal with them. It can be difficult keeping the peace between two or more conflicting religions, but we do our best.
It may be hard for some to reconcile with their experiences, but in this country, in addition to protecting religious identity, we also protect racial and secular, and political and ideological identities.
If you were to read job or lease applications, you will often see another clause that says it's illegal to hire or fire someone on the basis of their race, gender, creed, religion, or ideology, or sexual orientation.
This is an extension of that First Freedom. This gives us a detailed view of how some of that law is interpreted. Some religions have racial components, some don't like women or homosexuals. Some go through intense political phases. What this says is that religious people, especially those who are zealous cannot refuse to hire person, nor can they fire someone because their religion doesn't like women, gays, men, Democrats, Libertarians, Communists, Republicans, or because an applicant is part of a specific religious group, or an Atheist or Agnostic, an Arab, or Asian, or White, or Black, or Native American.
This is how equal opportunity works here. You can go home and kick the door all you want because you "hate" or "Dislike:" this or that group. You can shake your fist in the air, vote against their candidates, and even draw silly pictures of them, if it pleases you. But when you come to work, when you are dealing with the government, none of those characteristics are supposed to matter, and just to be sure they don't, we made laws to protect our citizens against other less tolerant citizens.
We have ways to deal with cultural and religious disagreement. We have laws, we have interfaith dialogue, and we have public discussions. These are not easy solutions, and sometimes they are not even permanent. People, being what they are, means that we reinvent the wheel many times over. But one thing we have gotten right: A Secular Legal System. Because of that, we can keep coming back to that table and keep hammering out details.
By keeping our laws and our government secular, we are able to sustain a greater, more diverse representation of our population, working within our government as employees and elected or appointed individuals. This is really important, because having diversity within our government imbues our system of governance and our society with nuance, and that diversity, demands a secular, middle, ground that can be satisfied by everyone, as well as satisfying to everyone, doing the least harm and placing the least burden on the people while encouraging them to be functioning members of a free and open society, and still maintain their unique identities--whatever that may be.
But there is more to the story than just the Establishment Clause. This deals mostly with religion. There are what are sometimes called First Freedoms, thinking back to that entire quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Any citizen of the United States has a right to speak, to express themselves without government interference. The press here is supposed to be the 4th Estate, meaning the unofficial branch attached to the first three branches of our government:
Executive Branch,
Legislative Branch and
Judicial Branch. But a lot of our mainstream press has been subsumed by corporations. And this has in turn warped it's function within the United States, making it more a mouthpiece of corporations rather than the voice of the people.
Our press isn't driven by news or information. It's driven by ratings and those ratings are propelled by angst, and controversy. That being said, the government does not control the press.
Similar rights are extended to the people as well, who can write their own newspapers, make their films or post their thoughts online. The government doesn't have any legal say in that either with few exceptions.
You can make fun of someone. You can mock a group. But if one were issuing threats of violence against others, that action will get the attention of law enforcement. That's why people like Pat Robertson can get away with saying bad things about so many groups in this country. He can complain and blame all he might want to, but he doesn't threaten. He doesn't incite riots, and he knows what will happen, legally speaking if he does. There is more to this discussion, but this will have to do for the moment, and now back to those First Freedoms:
Americans also have the right to peaceful assembly, meaning that we can join in organizations, churches, or even protests and the government has little to say about that, if anything at all. At least that is how it used to be before the Patriot Act. Those protections are still mostly there, but now we have to contend with new, highly invasive surveillance laws, what appears to be a dysfunctional emergency response, and even more corporate influence from profiteers within our National Security--which is another diary in and of itself.
So here's a recap:
1. The government does not control the press.
2. The government does not control the individual lives of people.
3. The government does not control religion.
4. Religion does not control the people.
5. Religion does not control the press.
6. Religion does not control the government.
7. Religions are allowed to coexist with each other, and the government as long as they do not advocate violence against other citizens, churches or the government.
We have a somewhat complicated system of checks and balances that seek to keep any one structure or institution within our country from becoming too strong, and therefore unable to do things like, tell you what church you must go to, or what you can say in the newspaper, or what you cannot talk about in the coffee shop.
But back to Blasphemy: The issue here, is that there is very little consensus on an ultimate definition of religious authenticity or divine authenticity in this country. Like politics, people generally tolerate others with different perspectives as an act of self preservation. There are so many of us, that are so different, that to attack one group is open one's self up for attack by someone else. So to keep the peace we usually leave each other alone.
A Blasphemy Law would be a law that defines offense, strictly upon the paradigm of challenging a religiously backed position regarding what is considered sacred or holy, which in turn is often defined by an adherent as infallible. Recently there have been many arguments about the undue influence that the Catholic Church has had, or attempted to grab, regarding our legislature and laws that govern women's right to reproductive self determination. That same church was indicted for what can only be described as global, multi-generational, institutionalized child, sexual abuse.
If we had Blasphemy Laws in this country, how hard would it be to challenge that church on either issue? How many years would be added to legitimate legal cases that could be hidden behind the facade of infallibility, while injustice festers like an open wound?
There have been acts of domestic terrorism committed by religious groups against doctors who perform abortions. Bombs, shootings, threats, stalkings: If we had blasphemy laws, how much more difficult would it be to ensure the victims of these crimes got their day in court? Even now, with certain forms of religious extremism flourishing within our borders, some of these criminals have proven to be slippery.
And considering how normally the Protestants and the Catholics sort of tolerate each other on the surface, whose definition of Blasphemy would be supreme? Would there be only one definition? And how could that be applied to protect every citizen's rights equally, including Agnostics and Atheists? or does that matter?
There are different, dominant cultural paradigms in various countries. In this country, it is Christianity, hovering at about 76 percent of the entire population. And right now it seems to be a very intolerant brand of it embedded in our contemporary politics. If there passed a Blasphemy Law in this country, who would benefit from that law specifically and who would loose out?
Should Freedom be constrained by Faith? And if so; whose faith?
How can you make a blasphemy law that doesn't place religion above the law--along with their adherents, at the expense of everyone else who is of no faith at all, or of a different belief entirely?
This is in part what President Obama recently responded to, when he said: "If you want to be President, you've got to work for everybody-- not just for some."
When Mitt Romney made the statement about the 47 percent, many people interpreted it to mean that it was mostly about economic issues. But the recent history of the Republican Party, make it very clear, that that his statement was a dog whistle to our own religious extremists here, in the U.S. The mentality promoted by these groups espouse the underlying concepts who who the "real Americans" are supposed to be, and that authenticity is usually premised on race and religion. We have been fighting extremists in the courts and in the public sphere a lot these past 30 years, and their tone has become more shrill with each passing election.
When people from other lands, new to this country demand anything that resembles a blasphemy law, they do so in ignorance. They think they are preserving their faith, and do not realize that their demand is a demand to attack the freedoms of every citizen, and as well as their own newly acquired freedoms while they stay here or immigrate here. And they also do not realize, that they are jumping into, an already heated area of disagreement that spills into every aspect of our laws, politics, and culture. They are unknowingly wading into the culture war, and inadvertently supporting domestic extremist groups who would not support other religions, who would not keep our freedoms for all. Groups that would turn on all immigrants and citizens who refused to convert or at least pay lip service to their faith.
This is where the anger and resentment comes to play. Foreign critics cannot comprehend that in order to maintain the right to be faithful, without fear of forced conversion by larger groups, without fear of harassment by hateful zealots, that Freedom must be maintained for all, even if it means tolerating occasional insults or ideological challenges.
Insults are not physical attacks. We do not riot over insults, because no matter what the words say, as long as our civil rights are intact, we have all we need to maintain our identities. The hateful words fall to the ground like dust. We let such people "Hang Themselves with their Own Rope." Meaning that as they spew hate, most people will move away from that person or group, and the hateful will find themselves marginalized in our society. While they stew in their own hatred, the rest of us live out mostly happy lives.
There is a saying, the best revenge is living well. It's a good saying. Life is too short to be consumed by hatred of another. You should be with your families, enjoying yourselves, walking in the park or the woods, listening to the birds, eating a crisp apple or a juicy orange.
Hate sours all things, even your relationship with a god. Hate like love, transforms all you see into extensions of itself, and the entire world feels poisonous because of it. Let go of the hate and keep your passion. Let go of your fear and keep your freedom.
Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:17 AM PT: Be sure and read: Blasphemy, Religious Hatred, and the United Nations by Austin Dacey. "Those who study the history of blasphemy laws are condemned to repeat themselves: These laws don't work. Unless what you are after is more blasphemy. Consider the case of India."
Pussy Riot was jailed with Blasphemy Laws, and interesting juxtaposition to the conversations now.
Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 8:13 AM PT: A UN organization.... calls for the ban of Insults on the Profit.
"Ihsanoglu wouldn't directly address ongoing high-profile controversies over the persecution of Christians and religious minorities in Pakistan or Iran, or the backlash to anti-Semitic remarks by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but he said he personally believes in religious freedom."
With respect sir, that also means freedom from religion in this country.
""Freedom of speech is one thing, but usage of your freedom should not be to offend others or advocate hate speech or provoke people to violence," Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, said an interview with The Huffington Post."
So basically any uprising at all, anywhere, against any regime that uses Religion as a shield would be illegal as well.
So much for the continuation of the Arab Spring. After all, those people are protesting theocratic ruling elites, and therefore commit acts of blasphemy daily just by breathing.
Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 5:32 AM PT: Blasphemy Laws: A History by Larry Wolf.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
"When Savonarola denounced blasphemers in Florence in the 1490s, it was certainly not intended as a sensitively inclusive gesture to urge people to show respect for one another's religious beliefs. He was thinking about the wrath of God. Blasphemy was supposed to be directly offensive to God, and one intemperate blasphemer might bring divine wrath upon the whole city-- even as Savonarola became increasingly politically influential in Florence. In Venice in the 1530s a special judicial tribunal was created for the sole and dedicated purpose of hearing cases of blasphemy, officialy for the purpose of warding off divine wrath, but also with the political intention of limiting the religious intervention of the Vatican. It was a unique venture, the creation of a secular court by the government of the Republic of San Marco in order to punish Venetians for insulting God, Jesus, Mary, and the saints. Such insults suddenly seemed to be epidemic."
How convenient.