Posted on 01/13/2015 11:12:01 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Not even Bill Donohue goes this far. You do have the right, he concedes. You should simply decline to exercise that right in the interests of social harmony.
Do Americans agree?
Fusion surveyed 1,502 Americans and asked a single question: Do Americans have the right to blaspheme religion? We got 1,105 responses, and the results were not very impressive: only 37% said yes, while 32% said no, and 31% said “I don’t know.”
Among women, the results were even worse: just 26.5% said yes, while 36% said no, and 38% said “I don’t know.”
The problem with a question like that is that it’s not clear to what extent it reflects people’s views of whether you should have the right. Taken literally, “Do Americans have the right to blaspheme?” is merely a probe of people’s civic knowledge. It could be that little more than a third understand that they do, in fact, have that right — which is embarrassing but not surprising given the state of civic education in America more broadly. The fact that nearly a third answered by saying “I don’t know” suggests that a lot of people saw this as a quiz on the state of the law, not what they think the law should be.
On the other hand, it could be that some people took it as more of a moral question than a legal one. Do you have the right, morally, to insult a fellow citizen by denigrating his God? It could also be that some understood it as asking a legal question but, not knowing the answer, substituted what they thought the law logically should be, which would give the poll more normative significance than a basic test of civics would have. I’m thinking there has to be an element of that given the size of the gender gap. Here’s the male/female split on whether Americans have the right to blaspheme:
“Yes” is easily the least popular answer among women but the most popular answer among men, with a spread of more than 20 points. There’s no reason I can think of why we’d see a split that huge if this was a straightforward test of civic knowledge. On the contrary, there are more women in school nowadays than there are men; if this was a simple matter of education, women would probably come out ahead. What’s really happening here, I think, is that women, for whatever reason, are less comfortable with blasphemy and offending religious sensitivities than men are. Look no further than yesterday’s YouGov poll on the Charlie Hebdo cartoons for evidence. I’d guess that roughly two-thirds of men and women honestly didn’t know the answer to whether blasphemy is a right and so they fell back on their own moral inclinations to take a guess. For men, that inclination is towards blasphemy. For women, it’s away.
The age split is interesting too. The group most likely to say that Americans have a right to blaspheme is young adults:
The group least likely to say so? Seniors:
If this was a basic test of civics, I would have guessed just the opposite. Seniors, who’ve had a lifetime to learn and who famously take their civic duty to vote very seriously, would know the nuts and bolts of blasphemy law whereas young adults, less educated and more apathetic (or so the stereotype goes), might not. Instead, this. That makes me wonder, again, whether normative views on blasphemy are creeping into people’s responses. Seniors, who lean conservative, might look askance at mocking religion while young adults, who lean liberal, would not.
Exit question one: How come so many Americans are unsure of their right to blaspheme? Is it basic ignorance at work, or are they taking a cue from our lousy media that some topics must be verboten lest more “excitable” religions get a little too excited? Exit question two: What explains the gender gap on blasphemy? I’m tempted to revert to stereotype here too and assume that women are simply less comfortable being “insensitive” to others, but that seems lame. It probably has more to do with the fact that women are more religious than men. Logically, if you’re a believer yourself, you’re more likely to see the virtue in discouraging blasphemy than if you aren’t.
The question is, How far do people want the government to go to enforce laws prohibiting blasphemy?
Yes, as I said say anything you want but be responsible or accountable for it. But to show a picture of a pediphile like the so-called Prophet Mohammed, is that ‘fighting words’? And if so, is a legit response murder?
Is it blaspheme to say Islam is not a religion, that Muslims are more like Nazis, who should renounce their evil beliefs, should realize that the anger, hate, and abuse promoted and defended by Islam is wrong, evil, and not compatible with civilized societies? Islam, like Nazi beliefs, must be rooted out from everywhere and from whatever street corner they are at or rock they are hidden under. No quarter should be given to Islam.
The average American of today doesn’t even know what “To Blaspheme” really means, mainly because they have grown up unchurched, unexposed to that formal vocabulary of spiritual matters. Then the second third will quickly brand any expressed disagreement with THAT religion as “Blasphemous”, in a small brained, No Tolerance way; one besmirchment fits all occasions. The last third of people thinks the public expression of any religious matter
to be ‘Blasphemous”.
1. Americans are morons. They don’t know what “blaspheme” even means.
2. They could have meant you don’t have the moral, ethical, or right before God to blaspheme Him.
Complete liberal spin that you’d NEVER see if the issue were Last Temptation of Christ, Da Vinci Code, Book of Mormon, Family Guy saying Christ died from anal sex, or whatever.
But now they want to show Muslims are right?? Insanity.
mohammed was a child rapist.
I’ll retain my First Amendment Rights in the face of a hail of bullets if necessary.
But first, I’d prefer to take out a whole bunch of jihadis....
Ask Publius.
RE: mohammed was a child rapist.
Well, his defenders would say Aisha consented so it wasn’t rape-rape ( even though she was only 9 ).
The question is do you have the power to blapheme? In a free society we do. Do you have the right is up for grabs and dependent on circumstances. If a religion is really a religion respect for it would proably be in order. If a religion is a cover for immoral and violent behaviors it should be condemned even if its adherants cry blasphemy. Perhaps there is even a duty to do so.
We need to start making fine distinctions and act prudently and courageously. Right power duty prudence courage respect.
Now here's a thought for you all. The moose limbs are bowing down to other gods... and that is a sin. There is only one true God. However, that being the case, why shouldn't Christians be publicly be calling moose limbs out on their sin? 1 Timothy 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
Al I said to my wife was, “Even Jehovah would say that was a lovely piece of halibut.”
I think by Islamic doctrine to say “Jesus Christ is the son of God and only trust in Him results in heaven”, is blasphemy of the highest order. Thus any true Christian would always be insulting Mohammad by being in disagreement with him. One could not say that Allah is not God, nor that Mohammad was not a prophet without being blasphemous. Thus if blasphemy against any religion is illegal, All Christianity, even within the walls of a church, would be illegal. Since each religion in some way contradicts other religions, all religions would be found blasphemous and illegal other than the one followed by those in power.
The result would be similar. A generation of kids under 30 has been raised and steeped in their prime directive. Hurt feelings are the trump over every other value for them.
It is hard to believe but they truly believe that if you are hurting someones feelings, you need to be stopped by nearly any means.
One can only blaspheme God. Not religion or false gods.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.