By 
Robert Ingersoll is an infidel I admire who praised blasphemy and heresy. He once compared orthodoxy and heresy to a vine:
Imagine a vine that grows at one end and decays at the other. The end that grows is heresy, the end that rots is orthodox. The dead are orthodox, and your cemetery is the most perfect type of a well regulated church. No thought, no progress, no heresy there. Slowly and silently, side by side, the satisfied members peacefully decay. There is only this difference — the dead do not persecute.
Blasphemy and heresy are necessary for progress. Ideas must be challenged for us to know if they are true — and if we cannot challenge an idea, we cannot know if it is true. Truth can handle being questioned; falsehood cannot.
Orthodoxy does not protect truth — it protects lies, for only lies need protection. Truth can stand on its own.
GOD ALL DAY: God finds ways into peoples lives. Weather it through dreams or life experinces and your right everybodys... 
Entropist: These idiots are wrong on so many different levels, its hard to... 
Just a Guy: Me an my wife have negotiated infidelity. Meaning she can be with other guys as long as she doesn’t hide... 
Gwenny: Absolutely not! The world has plenty of people having kids. A child consumes HUGE amounts of resources, which from both a... 
Siberia: Or maybe they know they have neither patience nor inclination to deal with the fruit of their loins and thus, rather than be... 
DDM: Repubs and Dems. He’s saying they only take first impressions and... 
CM: Good point, most religions encourage having a lot of children. From an evolutionary standpoint you sort of owe it to your... 
28 Comments
Wow, that quote is a great find. Is the last sentence yours? It is right on. I actually think there are a lot of Christians who could agree with that (though not the fundamentalists). Too many Christians buy into being told that orthodoxy is there for their protection. I know I did.
Yes last sentence is me, not Ingersoll. Thanks!
Agree – great quote
I don’t know that I’d define “heresy” and “blasphemy” the same way. Ingersoll speaks of heresy, not blasphemy. One is a minority, and perhaps persecuted opinion. The other is meant to offend. Now, granted, the expression of a heretical opinion is likely going to offend somebody. That may be unavoidable. A case could be made that it’s not to be avoided. But there’s a difference between that and going out of one’s way to be offensive.
Blasphemy is only meant to offend if the truth is also meant to offend.
Uh…huh? Saying “God damn” is blasphemy. Where’s the truth in it? And I hope we’re not so artless that we spit out whatever happens to pop into our heads, however truthful. There’s something to be said for prudence and tact, too.
You can find the same amount of truth in the phrase, “God damn” as you can in the words, “Bugs Bunny damn”.
Yes indeed!
Don’t blaspheme the name of Bugs Bunny.
NToBB 1:1In the Beginning. The world was hole.
1:2 And Bugs arose and stretched and had a shower. 1:3 And Bugs looked into the light from out the hole and said:
1:4 “Eeeeh. What’s up, Doc?”
With his spear and magic helmet:
What’s Opera, Doc? (1957)
Are you saying that every time someone says ‘goddamn’ they are meaning to offend? That seems pretty far from realistic.
Jesus H Christ Aor, what is your god damn fecking problem. I mean bloody hell, for Christ’s sake, it’s not that bad is it?
Oh and that Allah guy is fecking out, I’m fecking in …
There’s no truth in “God damn,” is there? Blasphemy is not about truth. It may not be that “God damn” is meant as blasphemy and thus offense. But it does offend. Again, I’m not advocating we tiptoe carefully around anything that might offend. It’s the intent that’s critical here. When a cartoonist draws a derogatory picture of Mohammad is he trying to illustrate a problem in Islam or is he trying to slap Muslims for the fun of it? This Blasphemy Day seems to be all about deliberately offending.
What I’m getting at here is what I’m seeing all over the atheist sites today: “Do it because it’s fun.” Sometimes it’s said in so many words and sometimes it’s just a motivation made evident by what is said or displayed or how it’s said or displayed. There are those among us who slap people because they get a thrill from slapping people. Sure, they try to dress it up in the clothes of some noble cause, but at heart that’s it. They just enjoy offending. They get a kick out of seeing people wince. I suspect it makes them feel powerful that they can inflict themselves on others and get away with it. They think they’re proving to themselves that they’re more in control of their world and they feel a little less insecure. Ultimately, though, slapping somebody just makes them less secure because now they’ve acquired another enemy.
Now, I’m not saying this Blasphemy Day can’t evince good motives. I’ve seen that on some sites, too. If what we’re trying to say is, “I don’t cease having a right to say it just because you label it blasphemy,” I can’t see a thing wrong with that. It’s all in the motive.
BTW, if what we’re really trying to champion is freedom of speech, why don’t we call it Freedom of Speech Day?
Because “Blasphemy Day” is to promote a specific form of free speech. Its seeking freedom of speech from religious censorship. To call it “Freedom of Speech Day” would not only dilute the message, it would give those people we are trying to speak out against, what they want. It would be censoring ourselves to not offend those people.
Its called Blasphemy day because we are asserting a right to blaspheme. That we don’t have to respect there backwards world veiws above all others. Its meant to offend, thats kind of the whole point.
The problem from my end is that it does not, in fact, promote blasphemy as free speech. Quite the opposite, in fact; it reinforces the stereotypes that skeptics and unbelievers are crass and uncouth mockers, and that religious people are civilized in comparison. People who thought to identify with skepticism might hesitate for fear of being grouped with antagonists.
Also, relegating it to a day in order to go out of one’s way to blaspheme cheapens the act. If the point is transgression in order to increase the amount of freedom a person has in what they can express, using it *merely* to antagonize (which is what setting aside a day for it does) does not accomplish that goal, because the act itself is trivial.
I didn’t want to rain on anyone’s parade during Blasphemy Day (which is why I held off) , but that’s how I see it. :)
The point of Blasphemy day is to point that free speech does not end when it become blasphemy (and who define what is blasphemy, the pope, pat robertson, osame bin-laden, some rabbi or maybe tom cruise). Most of us don’t just want to offend religious people for the fun of it although some people just ask to be made fun of, but even if its bad taste is still a legitimate way of expression. What blasphemy day was aimed to point is that we are not willing to limit our freedom to critisize religious beliefs and practises we dislike and that violent riots like the ones that followed the mohammed cartoons or anti blasphemy laws like the one in the muslim world and the new one in ireland or the proposed anti blasphemy UN resolution are unacceptable.
In places where blasphemy carries legal or political penalties, a “Blasphemy Day” would make sense as a form of civil disobedience. My point is that in places (like the US, for example) where there are no official penalties for blasphemy, the playing field is entirely a cultural one, and the goal is loosening the stigma of blasphemy, to the end of reducing the cultural influence of those who trade in moral and religious panic.
In that arena, such tactics are counterproductive.
I didn’t know about this before a couple days ago, but as this discussion goes on, I see two things.
One, like any holiday, say, Halloween or Independence Day, people take this as a social cue to do extra-fun things – like dress up or shoot fireworks. Nobody says you can’t dress up like a weirdo every day, and some people kinda do, and even at Halloween, people are going to parties on the weekend before, can be seen on the streets, taking public transportation, dressed like a kitty cat and a vampire when it’s not technically Halloween that they wouldn’t do a month earlier. Also, are we not independent every day? Only on a special day, there’s a picnic atmosphere and fireworks down on the Esplanade (or large public park where you live). Is Thanksgiving the only day you can be thankful? Is Memorial Day the only day you can set aside in your schedule to remember fallen soldiers in all wars? Is February the only time you can study black history?
This brings the 2nd point. Sure, it’s fun to let go and just be blasphemous because it’s on the calendar. However, this, like many recently created days/weeks/months of observation and awareness, I think serves the higher goal. We’re here. We don’t believe in your silly god. Get used to it. We don’t have to be quiet and tip-toe around your religion. We’re not saying things to be offensive to you, and we don’t believe in the god you perceive us to be insulting. It really is a freedom of speech issue, and I don’t think it’s supposed to be harmful or paint atheists as the jackasses most people seem to think we are already.
Religious people seem to take for granted they can come right out and say disgusting things. Heinous things about gay people, for example, as well as merely thinking aloud such things as “god’s will” and “I’ll pray for you.” That is blasphemy of a sort, and they don’t get called on it that often. Even though it’s lawful to be blasphemous in the US, many are socially uncomfortable with the consequences in a way unlike most religious people aren’t. We’re supposed to be tolerant of religions and this has manifested in such a way that religious people can be out there, saying stuff all the time to whomever they want, offend whomever they think needs god in their life – some in aggressive ways and some just thoughtless. Very few people get into it with them and clue them in and make them aware, and examine the things they say and the effect they have on others. It’s about time.
Truth does not stand well on its own.
I thinking the same thing when I read the last sentence of the post. It’s true in some regards, but the truth can be twisted or ignored entirely by those who don’t want to face it.
My meaning is that truth can stand up to scrutiny, and can defend itself to an honest seeker/doubter.
It’s awfully helpful for truth to have champions, though.
Wonderful quote from both!
Cor blimey! Aka god blind me!
Darkness is merely the absence of Light. When blasphemy is deemed to be a “necessity” one is surely abiding in a severe, pervasive darkness. Accomodating such a darkness portends to ever increasing degrees of the same.
There is a Remedy, there is Light which would vanquish this (inner) darkness, and cast its warming rays of Love’s radiant beams on the unlit and Son-thirsty soul.
That doesn’t sound true. It sounds like spin.
Yeeeeeah, John. I’ve been waiting for that “light” a while now. Maybe I need to go on a starvation diet or somethin’ … Or eat some unusual mushrooms.
Great quote!!! More vines need to grow to spread the heresy!!!
Fantastic discussion. My first instinct re: this concept was immense relief, having been an “oppressed atheist” with a fundamentalist family. Finally, freedom to speak without the constant fear of hurting those you care about (you’re going to burn in hell, stepping up efforts to convert, parents being depressed because they are old and think they will not see you in the afterlife so you are ruining their golden years, feeling violated every time a christian tries to preach at me…you get the picture). I champion the RIGHT to offend the religious, because this is quite new. May be a bit how women and African-Americans felt the first time they went to the voting booth. Until now, religion was the sacred cow (pun intended) and the one thing you could not challenge. Every time I hear someone do it, a little part of me comes more to life. However, I also see the other point made on this thread – that the word “blaspheme” has negative baggage and may make us look even more uncouth to christians (when, in fact, we atheists simply ooz class!!!), And I don’t want to turn any doubting christian away from the wonderful life of skepticism; but for me, it’s a matter of emotional survival – to be able to say whatever I want, at least in some venues. You know, sans worry.