Religious groups are particularly intolerant of free speech when it comes to insulting their gods or prophets. Recently some Hindu groups were pissed off about Kali being depicted in a video game in an obscene manner. Some time ago, they raised a hue and cry when a play made fun of Ganeshin Melbourne.
Before I continue, let me address the most common point raised by certain religious groups – that no one complains when Muslims object to depictions and insults to their prophet Mohammed. This is false. I openly supported the “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” in 2010 which encouraged people to draw funny or offensive pictures of Mohammed. I also spoke in favor of Terry Jone’s freedom of expression when he was lambasted for burning the Koran. Everyone should have the freedom to insult any kind of god they want regardless of religion.
That includes Hindu gods like Kali, Ganesh and Vishnu or any other god and goddess.
Perhaps the worst example of all is how the Catholic church is hounding the atheist Sanal Edamaruku for debunking the fake “miracle” of water dripping from a Jesus statue. So we have examples of Islam, Hinduism, and Christianity – all three religions getting outraged by some insult to their “gods”.
As an atheist, of course I find this ridiculous because gods don’t exist. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that they do. Let’s say gods are real. Now what?
Well, if people have respect for their gods (and I assume that they do), then they should know that gods should be able to protect themselves. How do you know they don’t like to be insulted? If someone insulted me, I and only I should have the right to take the person to court for defamation. I would be very offended if someone did it without consulting me and without taking my permission.
Ergo, if Jesus, Ram or Mohammed have a problem with others making fun of them, let them come to the courts and fight! Other people have no business getting in the way. Unless of course they admit that these gods don’t exist, in which case there’s no insult. You can’t insult imaginary people.
But apart from the finer points of law, does anyone really think that all powerful beings responsible for the creation of the universe need their help? That they are going to be so damn offended by what anyone chooses to say?
And last I saw, all of these gods had punishment mechanisms during the afterlife. They can easily send the “blasphemers” to hell if they want after they die. So they’ll get their punishment already no? By taking them to court while they still live, religious people display their own disbelief in scriptures. They should quietly sit back and say “Don’t worry – you’re going to hell when you die”!
Everyone has the right to offend gods. To make a mockery of them, and to insult them if they want. Not everyone will choose to use that right of course, because most people are not jerks who want to hurt other people’s feelings. Those who’re offended are more than welcome to socially boycott them. And that’s how it should work. Nothing is sacred and protected by the law. No one is above criticism and mockery.
I dunno, gotta be honest but Kali looks pretty badass. :P
In reply to RenKiss
I know right? They’ve done her damn well.
In reply to bhagwad
I understand that people’s personal religions are very personal to them, heck even I get little miffed when people make insulting statements secular humanism, but I usually don’t let it get to me because I know what my beliefs are. But at the same time, some of these religious people are going to have to learn someone is always going to insult your beliefs. There’s no they can do about it. Besides, I don’t understand why they get angry when many of them feel if someone doesn’t follow their beliefs they’re going to die and go to hell or suffer some other form eternal torment.
Latest on Sanal case
http://www.rationalistinternational.net/article/2012/20120704/en_1.html
but…why the need to insult religion? Its one thing to expose people who exploit religion to their advantage, but insulting religion?
If one doesn’t want to follow, its all good. But I didn’t why do those people have desires to insult people’s beliefs. Its not as if they are forcing religion and honestly, if a group does that- doesn’t mean everyone following that religion is the same. In a world different sorts of people, would you be surprised if there was a significant amount of practicing Christians who agree that what these people have done with the statue was wrong?
In reply to The Sorcerer
Very often, having an honest discussion about beliefs, the state of the world, reality etc can lead to what many call “insulting religion”. An intellectual debate for example can easily question god’s existence leading to what many religious people call insulting remarks.
Would you say that Sanal Eradamurku “insulted” christianity and “offended” people by debunking the fake miracle with the jesus statue dripping water?
Or an honest debate about whether a particular religions policies make sense could be construed as insulting.
But even without all that, I’m not saying that anyone should insult a religious. I’m not even saying it’s desirable. I’m saying that there should be the right to do so if we want.
In reply to bhagwad
Okay.. in that case, if you think about it, people would eventually ask the right to insult people based on petty differences- like colour of the skin, which country you’re from and all that jazz.
So, do you think that 1 should also have the right where people come together and form a group and have gatherings to hate someone who is an Indian or european or african or south american or mexican in public?
I am not its a saying its the same thing. I am just wondering since you said “there should be the right to do so if we want”, should that group have the right to do that if they want?
I am trying to understand and appreciate your apply- but how is that different from bullying?
In reply to The Sorcerer
Yes, I believe that people should have the right to do that if they want. In the US at least, that kind of thing is perfectly legal. As long as there’s no physical violence. Bullying is only illegal if there’s physical violence. The assumption is that adults can take care of their emotional state of mind and don’t need protection. But physical violence cannot be so easily defended against.
It’s interesting because despite having all that legal freedom, the US is still a very polite country. Much more polite than India. The moral of the story is that just because it’s legal doesn’t mean that people will do it.
In reply to bhagwad
okay- in that case. let me present an another scenario.
Lets say a group insults this person based on some difference. There’s no physical violence, but that person is trolled so much that one decides to take his life and he/she mentions that even though the group didn’t hurt him/her physically, they did insult her mentally and therefore in that weakness decides to commit suicide.
Should the group be guilty or let free because they didn’t commit any physical violence.
Don’t get me wrong, I just want to know if we’re in the same page.
In reply to The Sorcerer
Yes, I believe the group should not even be arrested.
Sometimes for example, a guy or a girl will commit suicide because their boyfriend/girlfriend publicly humiliated them and dumped them on Facebook. It’s tragic of course. But they were responsible for their own lives. You can’t point to someone else and say “They made me do it”.
Again, assuming we’re all above 18 with no certified mental illnesses.
In reply to The Sorcerer
@The Sorceress,
When religions hurt people, for example, forcing women into a burqa, forcing people into arranged marriages or forbidding abortion, then there will always be rational people coming to the rescue of those who have been targetted or victimised by religion. Why should religions be given a holy cow status to abuse people and others cannot abuse the religious policies that are sometimes, frankly regressive and disgusting?
And I am sorry, but religion is often forced. Show me a really religious person who does not try to indoctrinate their kids and other members of their family. By its very nature (God is good), religion advocates force. “I am only telling you to pray because I love you and want you to benefit from God’s bounty.” Rings a bell?
Of course, there are plenty of sensible religious people, but most of them don’t comprise the bulk of people screaming and rioting on the streets at a supposed insult to their gods. Everyone has the right to search for the truth, and that includes saying that no, this is not right even if it is your religion. Religion is not just about god; it is about a whole set of rituals, customs, books, traditions and history, much of it bringing more harm than good. WHY should we not speak against the bad parts?
..and your comment system really needs an edit button :(
In reply to The Sorcerer
Ouch – let me know what you want to edit, I’ll make the change…
Hello, Often than not…I see you taking the easy way out and raise a controversy. Don’t philosophise and never forget that every Right has a wrong to it and every Right enjoins Responsibility. Amen.
In reply to K R Vaishampayan
I’d welcome some more detail as to where you actually disagree with what I’ve said…?
In reply to bhagwad
Honestly…I do not agree with the entire article. KRV
Your post brought a smile to my face :)
Never thought of it that way. If they don’t exist, then how can you insult them? So people get offended when someone takes a potshot at their…well…belief or faith??
The term “freedom of expression” is such a farce, isn’t it? :roll:
In reply to Ashwathy
We win both ways. If they don’t exist, they can’t be insulted. If they do exist, then they have to fight their own battles.
In reply to bhagwad
” Nonbelievers Can Be Bigoted Like Believers. The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer” – Albert Einstein
wow.. a different take.. i like ur point, u can make mokery of imaginary characters, if they exist, let them take charge and why bother.. if everyone can accept this, may be 10% of problems in the country will be solved.. trying to offer prasad across religions is yet another topic..
In reply to ashreya
Prasad?
I believe in the freedom of speech and that religion or religious icons cannot be excluded from criticism. I totally believe that whoever created the entire freaking universe should pretty much be capable of handling a few cartoons.
But I also believe that some words used in a certain context are for harmful intent and should be punished. Like, if you are in a movie theatre and someone shouted “fire” falsely, causing stampede and death , that person should be held accountable even if it was only “words” and no physical activity was carried out by him/her.
People may claim similar provocation for religious insults, but there is difference in acting to sheild oneself from harm (running from a burning theatre) vs acting to cause harm (attacking someone who insults your god even though you are in no physical danger at that point)
In reply to Meghana
I feel that shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater is wrong because it’s in a public place, people have no choice but to hear you – you are in effect forcing your voice onto them. And of course because it’s understood that people will stampede.
I feel no such restrictions should apply to the written word or paintings where everyone who reads it has a choice not to do so.
Your main point is a good one – acting to shield yourself from physical harm is the only defense that is valid. No other amount of “provocation” is a good excuse.
I agree with your larger point but I think there’s no point trying to make a logical argument on a religious issue because religion by its nature is illogical (which is not necessarily a bad thing; illogic has its place). Moreover, religion offers immense scope for invention, but it mostly insists on debate within its own frame of reference. So to your points:
“Well, if people have respect for their gods (and I assume that they do), then they should know that gods should be able to protect themselves.” Yes, but people who are religious would see it as their duty, and also a service to their God, to stand up for him. Like you would for your best friend, even if he was stronger than you and capable of defending himself.
“How do you know they don’t like to be insulted?” They might quote scripture at you on this.
I thought the discussion above on racial insults etc. was interesting. Some thoughts:
1. Why draw the circle only around physical harm? At some level, I get that it is – to put it simply – worse (maybe because physical torture always involves also a ‘mental’ and ’emotional’ element) and also it is hard to define. But I think torture at the mental and emotional level can be sufficiently severe to be warrant criminalisation.
2. And I think it has been. That is, I think the US does criminalise “mental torture” (see here: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1619&context=facpub) and more recently states have passed laws against cyberbullying.
3. To share a couple of personal experiences where I felt harassed and threatened despite not being physically touched… Once on a journey from Hyderabad to Mumbai by train and guy sat opposite me in the compartement (there for noone else) and stared at me for at hour. He also made attempts to come close to me, without actually touching me. I ended up asking to change my seat and then he kept coming to that part of the compartment and staring. How close does a person have to get for it to be defined harassment and action taken by the law? As a kid in the playground, my friends and I did a similar thing to another kid – we kept following her muttering her name while she kept trying to flee us. We never caught up with her; not sure what we would have done if we had. My point is, I’m sure it was extremely disturbing to her and basically, wrong.
4. I think the defining factor here could be personal harm. Does the act, whether physical or not, create sufficient harm to an individual who is alive and able to indicate that he is being severely upset? Then maybe it needs to be addressed…
5. The courts exist to rule on the grey areas. What constitutes mental torture will probably always be one of them. But to write it off simply because it is a problematic category might not be wise. “The assumption is that adults can take care of there state of mind and don’t need protection.” I don’t think this is the case really. I think on the contrary it is being recognised that adults can actually not do so. On the contrary, societies with no gun control could argue that adults are perfectly capable of defending themselves physically. How to protect people and not trample on individual freedoms is always going to be tricky but well, that’s the challenge of every society… where you draw that line.
In reply to The Bride
You bring up several interesting points. Specially those with regard to pure “mental torture”. The examples you’ve given though are not “pure” mental pain in the sense that they’re linked to physical threats. Take the person in the train who creeped you out. If you were 100% sure that he wouldn’t be able to touch you or hurt you (imagine he would have died had he done so!) , would you have still felt afraid? If you were huge hulking bodybuilder, would you still have felt afraid? No. It’s because the situation was ultimately linked to physical harm that you were justifiably afraid.
Threats to physical safety are included in “physical harm”. This is why stalking is a crime – because the danger of physical violence exists. You cannot be stalked by a toddler or someone who has no capability of harming you whatsoever. The danger is rooted in physical harm. It’s not purely mental.
Another example is the link you gave – related to treatment of prisoners in time of war. The mental torture meted out to prisoners was possible in the first place because they were physically captive. Again, the “mental torture” is inextricably linked to the confinement of physical body. If they were not prisoners, they could have just walked away, checked into a hotel and not be forced to be subjected to anything.
I still believe that when people are 100% physically safe and secure, mental torture is unimportant – unless of course the person is mentally unstable. For example, I challenge anyone to mentally torture me against my will. What I will do is I will simply walk away, go home, or indulge in a bit of “mental torturing” of my own!
In marriage for example in the US, there’s no such thing as “emotional torture” like there is in India. The assumption is that the woman or man can just walk away and go live their own life. If they’re confined against their will, then it become a real physical crime…you see?
If we just have sufficient deterrent against physical violence, we can do away with “emotional harm”.
In reply to bhagwad
Hmm, I’m not sure if the “linked to physical threat” argument works entirely. That goes into the area of perception which is essentially mental…I perceive a physical threat, but whether it actually exists is a moot point. Like if someone stood extremely close to me – but not touching me – I would find it uncomfortable even in a very safe place like Hong Kong. So then does one need to define the physical space around us that if encroached upon would be considered a physical violation, kind of like we owned the air 1 ft radius around ourselves. What of crowded trains then? The mind boggles. Even with stalking, I’m not sure the discomfort only comes from perception of physical harm, though that is a big element. Yes, if someone made purely verbal threats or kept following me around, I could barricade myself in my house to avoid them but then I land up a prisoner. Similarly with cyberbullying…since our lives are so linked to the Internet nowadays, can it be considered a physical space?
With regards to mental cruelty and divorce in the US, I found this (http://family-law.lawyers.com/divorce/Grounds-for-Divorce-Cruelty.html), so it seems like it does exist though to different degrees in different states.
In reply to The Bride
Lots of states in the US don’t allow “fault divorces” – meaning that courts don’t care why a couple is separating. I write about divorce law in Colorado for example and things like “mental cruelty” etc are irrelevant. The court asks just one question – do you want a divorce or not? If so, don’t bother about giving reasons. It’s a personal matter and irrelevant to the state.
I agree that the question of perception of physical harm is subjective. No doubt. But it does exist. Because physical harm is the only thing that citizens can’t defend themselves against. You gave the example of cyber bullying. Ample defenses are available to everyone. Just “defriend” them on social networks, block their email ids and poof! No more cyber bullying.
You’re right again when you say that following someone closely is disturbing even when there’s no danger of a physical threat. But I find such a situation difficult to envisage where a person would not feel threatened and in physical danger. If someone was following me around closely, I could make a pretty good case in court that my safety is threatened especially since such behavior is not normal and indicates either mental illness or bad intentions – both of which can lead to physical harm.
Imagine this – suppose you were immune to all physical harm. Say you were supergirl or wonder woman and everyone knew it by your costume. Would you call the cops if someone were to follow you, or shout at you, or insult you? I very much doubt it.
With absolute physical security, comes peace of mind. Because we have the tools and abilities to shut out everything else without hampering ourselves – like the cyber bullying example.
You would barricade yourself only if you feared physical harm no? There are procedures in courts to get a restraining order etc for those situations. But absolutely no physical danger => no mental harm.
I agree! Religious people are way too sensitive about these issues. What on earth did that guy do wrong in debunking the “miraculous” Jesus that has water coming out of his feet? If you want believers to believe in your god you shouldn’t have to resort to such trickery, no? Simple.
I don’t think the religious will see your logic in Gods being able to defend themselves though as some see it as their religious duty to defend their God(s). I think everyone definitely has a right to be questioning religious beliefs, their own and others. But like anything else, these need to be handled as sensitively as possible without being insulting. The problem is even harmless things like the Kali depiction are seen as insulting!
Religious people need to realize that not everyone shares their beliefs, or holds sacred what their religion says is sacred. They also need to look at intent – did whoever I think is insulting my religion intend to be insulting? And if it IS meant to be insulting, just ignore it. Be the bigger person.Turn the other cheek.
In response to the racism mentioned above (as in forming a group to insult Africans), this is definitely wrong in my opinion. If a group of people got together to hate Islam or any other religion, this is inciting hate against a certain community so I think it is a crime. And often it doesn’t stop right there, it leads to actual violence against certain communities, or approval of violence/segregation/discrimination.
In reply to BBD-Lite
I often feel that being sensitive towards religious people is only one way. As an atheist, I have ample opportunity to be “offended” by religious people denouncing atheists like Christians and Muslims with their “unbelievers will go to hell” crap. Still, I don’t go around burning buses and looting and rioting! Trust me – no matter how offended I am, I will never do that. Nor will I take anyone to jail for “hurting my feelings”.
You have a good point about people being touchy even when no offense was meant. Like when Jay Leno showed a picture of the Golden temple and Sikhs got all hot and puffy.
It’s immaterial in any case. Even if it was intend to be insulting, they must just close their ears and walk away!