Skip to main content

The Criticism of Religion


Image result for censorship

A well written editorial in the Vancouver Sun explains that there is and should not be any prohibition or sanction on the criticism of religions in Canada.

It makes the basic old John Stuart Mill points. Tolerance doesn't just mean tolerance of a belief, religion, or way of life, etc. It means tolerance of its critics. It means nobody gets to be a 'snowflake,' even in Canada, where non-metaphorical snowflakes are so common.

Why do these old and familiar points have to be made? Because as the op-ed says, some definitions of "Islamophobia" would include and stigmatize as potential targets of government disfavor "any criticism of Muslim people or Islamic practices -- be it political, cultural, or religious." 

The sort of government disfavor involved is generally left unspecified in this context and, since this is Canada, would probably be 'nice.' Soft power and all that. Still: the Sun is right and the idea is repugnant. Let the sky ring with the (private sector!) criticisms and the harsh (private sector!) replies, and criticisms of THEM, and so forth. Let it all melt the snow, flake by flake.

The op-ed's final line: "censorship is an acid, not a glue, when it comes to progress and social cohesion."

Labels:

Comments

  1. HenryFebruary 25, 2018 at 6:56 AM

    Christopher, I hadn't known the metaphorical use of "snowflake" in your statement "nobody gets to be a 'snowflake,'" so I googled and learned that it means someone easily offended. But I don't understand your apparently different metaphorical use of "snow" and "flake" in "Let it all [all the criticism] melt the snow, flake by flake." What do you see criticism as doing away with? Enmity? It wouldn't necessarily reduce enmity, but I would oppose censorship of criticism even if the criticism exacerbated tensions rather than doing away with whatever you mean by "snow, flake by flake."

    ReplyDelete
  2. ChristopherFebruary 25, 2018 at 8:15 AM

    To mix metaphors, one might reasonably hope that free and vigorous criticism with "thicken skin" among those too easily offended. The idea that giving offense is itself a wrong is self-reinforcing, as a society discourages this wrong skins become thinner, offense more easily taken, the taboos have to become more restrictive, etc. I was only expressing a desire for the contrary feedback loop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HenryFebruary 25, 2018 at 8:36 AM

      That's a good point. Let's hope it works that way. But censorship is wrong even if it doesn't (which I do not claim that you would deny).

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
17 comments
Read more

Recent Controversies Involving Nassim Taleb, Part I

I've written about Nassim Taleb on earlier occasions in this blog. I'll let you do the search yourself, dear reader, for the full background. The short answer to the question "who is Taleb?" is this: he is a 57 year old man born in Lebanon, educated in France, who has been both a hedge fund manager and a derivatives trader. He retired from active participation from the financial world sometime between 2004 and 2006, and has been a full-time writer and provocateur ever since. Taleb's writings for the general public began where one might expect -- in the field where he had made his money -- and he explained certain financial issues to a broad audiences in a very dramatic non-technical way. Since then, he has widened has fields of study, writing about just about everything, applying the intellectual tools he honed in that earlier work. As you might have gather from the above, I respect Taleb, though I have sometimes been critical of him when my own writing ab...
4 comments
Read more