Some religious believers think that they can use accusations of "blasphemy" to silence critics of their religion. One essential problem with making a legal case out of that, though, is the fact that if anyone is "harmed" by blasphemy, it's not the believers -- they are at best bystanders who are offended and merely being offended is no basis for any sort of legal complaint.
You only have a legal case if you can demonstrate real harm which the courts can remedy. And if anyone is "harmed," it's whatever god is being blasphemed against. So until the god or religious figure at issue comes along to testify in court about the harm they have experienced, no blasphemy case can go anywhere, can it?
P. Smith writes:
Ex-football player and overly protective father Craig James is running for office in the US senate. There is an urban legend that Craig James murdered five prostitutes while he was a student at SMU, one that is utterly false but continues to be told. If James sued those who spread the false story, claiming slander, would he have a case? Of course he would, it's as disgusting an accusation...
Now imagine that Craig James isn't the one suing to silence the rumours, one of his fans is (and really it's only win money). Does that case have merit? No. The only person who needs to file such a case is the falsely accused party. James is the only one who can claim slander and libel, not those who support him.
Now apply that to religion. Those who claim "blasphemy" are not the ones actually being insulted by the so-called "offensive words". Lawsuits should only be filed by the fictional beings like "god", not its fanbois. They should get their "god" to show up and speak for itself instead of claiming to speak for it. If "god" doesn't show up as a witness, all cases of "blasphemy" should be thrown out.
[original post]
I wonder how many religious believers will accept the analogy between blasphemy and libel or slander? Perhaps not many, but the principle of "harm" is still key. The only way they can justify using the power of government to suppress blasphemy is if they can argue that being offended is sufficient "harm" to warrant government intervention.
But in that case, they can't prevent others from making the same claim against them. If the government can step in to prevent them from being offended, then the government can step in to prevent me from being offended. And let me tell you, I may find myself offended several times a day, every day. Do religious believers really want to open that can of worms?
No comments:
Post a Comment