CHRISTIAN BLASPHEMY


October15th 1997


The next issue, Number 18, will appear on November15th 1997.





It is perfectly coherent for believers to recognise the possibility of blasphemy and to raise objections when they think it has been uttered; there is no point in believing in a god whom you do not revere; blasphemy is the sin of thinking or saying things that effectively negate such reverence - attributing evil, ignorance, perversity or stupidity to the god in question.

Sincere believers will feel hurt if their god is thus blasphemed against - it is surely not asking too much of the tolerance, claimed explicitly by sceptics who see themselves as being above bigotry, that they should try to avoid giving such hurt.

But three things must be said:

1) that there is no good ground for making an act of blasphemy the basis for persecution of, or legal action against, the alleged blasphemer - we have to wonder whether any even remotely credible god actually wills that we presume to act against our fellows on his supposed behalf merely because of what is said or written.

2) that it is not blasphemous to criticise, even quite harshly or satirically, a particular view of god that someone professes to hold - such criticism is not of any god per se but criticism of perceived human error about god - we have to wonder whether any god would object to our thinking that some human person has false ideas about 'Him'.

3) many of the principal religions are, essentially, mutually blasphemous and so it has to be the case that an over-zealous over-reaction to blasphemy, real or imaginary, can only make divided humanity even more dangerously divided - we have to wonder whether any credible god would will that.

These first and third of these three things need further consideration.



To persecute or penalise alleged blasphemers rests upon two assumptions which mature believers do not now normally make: one is that their god is vindictive and will punish all of us for the sins of some of us and the other is that we are entitled to 'play god' in total disregard of the obvious thought that if their god wishes to punish me (for example) then there is no divine reason why I should not be singled out. The notion of a vindictive god is itself blasphemous - a vindictive god is not a just and forgiving god. As to 'playing god' - that seems to come close to committing the sin of presumption; perhaps God actually approves of The Satanic Verses. God is famously mysterious in His ways is He not?

The mutually blasphemous content of the three main theistic religions is apparent in their differing assessments of Jesus.

The essential tenet of Christianity is that Jesus is God Incarnate - that He is uniquely both divine and human and that His saving role depends upon this double nature.

The Jews believe that, one day, the Messiah will come but that this has not yet happened. Jesus, according to the Jews, is a false messiah - better no doubt than the ones that pop up every second week in California - a false messiah who was either deluded or fraudulent or both.

Islam is different again. The followers of The Prophet hold him to be the finally and fully authentic messenger bringing God's Will to our notice and that Jesus is simply one of a series of Old Testament prophets to be revered but not in any way deified.

Logically, Christians have to claim that the other two parties are blasphemous - because they belittle, to the point of rejecting, the divine nature of Jesus.

Logically, the Jews have to claim that both Jesus and The Prophet are far far less than what is, respectively, claimed to be the truth about them. The Jews, by implication, claim that Jesus was simply human and that The Prophet was just another famous teacher - at best, one among many - at worst simply bogus.

Logically, Muslims have to believe that the Jews and the Christians are both mistaken to the extent of denying the truth of the central idea of God's Messenger being none other than The Prophet.

It is absolutely no cause for surprise that adherents to these several faiths have been at each other's throats for almost the whole of their shared histories. If, in some countries, things are more peaceful .... then that is largely because of liberalism and secularisation. It would be a pity if that very liberal secularist tolerance were to lead to the attempted protection of all religions by Blasphemy Laws. That would simply mean Holy Litigation perhaps leading to Holy War if the litigants think, as they likely would come to think, that the courts have done them wrong.

An open secular society is the only environment in which it safe to be religious - but only if religious people can temper their perceived certainties in the interest of social peace.





HOME PAGE