And when the topic turns to religion, political correctness goes rampant. Is the topic of religion repulsive? Perhaps it is to you, but so what? Just because you\u2019re uncomfortable saying what you truly believe, the rest of humanity must shut the hell up? Get over yourself. I don\u2019t care if talking about something that affects substantially more than half of humanity makes you nervous \u2013 this is something humanity needs to talk about.<\/p>\n
In ages past I think political correctness had other names. One of those names is censorship, which is something every thinking person abhors. Censorship is never good. Why? Because it actively prevents the dissemination of information. Censorship does nothing to protect people, and it is never enacted with that goal in mind. Censorship is enacted and enforced to protect special interests. Censorship is sold to an unthinking populace through the use of emotive, distracting words like \u201csafety<\/em>\u201d, \u201cnational security<\/em>\u201d, \u201cpornography<\/em>\u201d, and \u201cdecency<\/em>\u201d. When censorship began failing, political correctness made an appearance.<\/p>\n We\u2019re now subtly encouraged to censor ourselves, with all the same lies as the motivators to our silence. That is precisely what political correctness is, our silence on troubling topics.\u00a0 No thanks.<\/p>\n Another past name for political correctness may well have been blasphemy. And thus begins the real topic of this post.<\/p>\n Throughout the ages the word blasphemy has been one of the most effective tools of censorship in existence. Sadly, this remains true today. The word blasphemy holds enormous power over people. Virtually nobody is willing to be labeled a blasphemer. It doesn\u2019t matter who you are, it doesn\u2019t matter whether you\u2019re devoutly religious or virulently atheist \u2013 you don\u2019t even want to think of yourself of as a blasphemer.<\/p>\n You\u2019re scared.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Scared people are easy to control. How does it feel to realize you\u2019re being controlled through your fears? For me, it doesn\u2019t feel good at all. Indeed, it feels so badly wrong that I\u2019m spending my very precious personal time writing about it.<\/p>\n Dictionary.com<\/a> defines blasphemy<\/em><\/strong> thus:-<\/p>\n noun, plural blasphemies.<\/p>\n The definition could stop there. This clause is such an effective, catch-all, gag order<\/a> that there is pretty much nothing more that needs saying. Except, of course, that there is a lot more that requires addressing.<\/p>\n For example, the implicit monotheistic assumption that God is singular. How offensive is that assumption to those who choose to believe in multiple deities? It is so offensive it should be labeled blasphemous. It just isn\u2019t politically correct at all! Strike it from record!<\/p>\n The first clause\u2019s definition then moves on from the sublime to the ridiculous by mentioning, \u201cor sacred things.\u201d Seriously? Is the Sun not sacred? How about the wind, the rain, the sky, the earth upon which we tread, or the heavens overhead? I\u2019m not allowed to make impious utterances about anything<\/em><\/strong>? Give me a break already. Actually don\u2019t bother, since you hold no authority over me I don\u2019t need your permission and I\u2019ll just take one. {But hold that thought\u2026 you know, the thought about who holds authority over you.}<\/p>\n First, I must say I find it extremely offensive that one of the most numerically insignificant religions in the world gets such prominent placement in a dictionary.\u00a0 Such prominent placement that far more popular religions are not even mentioned. Look up the numbers<\/a>, Judaism accounts for less than a quarter of a single percentage point<\/strong> of the entire world\u2019s population.<\/p>\n Oh, I\u2019m sorry, is my mentioning a statistical fact that reveals how something insignificant is given completely disproportionate weight blasphemous? Too bad. It is a fact. Which makes it the truth, and how could the truth possibly be blasphemous? {Actually, I don\u2019t believe in the concept of truth, I believe in the concept of perceptive truth. More about that elsewhere on my blog.}<\/p>\n The sub-text of clause b further highlights just how ridiculous the concept of blasphemy is. If dictionary.com<\/a> is to be believed, and I don\u2019t see any reason to doubt it, then it is actually blasphemous to pronounce the Tetragrammaton<\/a>, which is the Hebrew word for God, the way it was originally written in the Hebrew holy texts. I\u2019m trying hard to wrap my mind around this, but it is so transparently stupid I\u2019m actually having difficulty comprehending it. \u00a0What this apparently means is that somewhere, sometime in the very distant past, somebody decided that something someone else had written was so holy it could no longer be said. So this person, whoever they were, apparently has greater authority over a religious holy text, held by Judaism to be the holy words of their deity, than their deity himself?\u00a0 Wow. Just, wow<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n Since when is thought a crime? No, I\u2019m not saying I think I have the rights or qualities of god, singular, I don\u2019t. But I absolutely refuse to deny anyone, anywhere the right to think as they choose. If they choose to believe they are a god, or the only god, that is their business, not mine. You will note that in this section the words that are mine do not capitalize the word god.<\/p>\n I want you to know why I don\u2019t.<\/p>\n It is because I just don\u2019t know. I don\u2019t know if there are gods, or if there is one overall god. I don\u2019t really even know what a god is. From all the writings on that subject I do know what god is supposed to be, but I have a fundamental problem with all of those writings. My fundamental problem with them all, is that they are all<\/em><\/strong> written by men. No man is a god. Therefore since I don\u2019t know who or what god is, of if god is singular or plural, or masculine or feminine, it seems impious of me to ascribe the word a capital letter that indicates reverence. What if the god to whom I ascribe that reverence turns out to be the wrong one, or what if they {plural}, turn out to not exist at all? So capitalizing the word\u00a0 seems irreverent, which I am, so I don\u2019t. Simple.<\/p>\n I said it before, but I have to say it again. From the sublime to the ridiculous<\/em><\/strong>. Now I\u2019m not allowed to be irreverent toward something held to be priceless??? Would my describing the Mona Lisa as “just another portrait<\/em>” be blasphemy?<\/p>\n A three letter phrase commonly used in the texting internet era that begins with \u201co\u201d and ends with \u201cg\u201d pops to mind. But I won\u2019t use it. Why? Because, strangely enough, after all I\u2019ve already written, I think that little acronym is offensive, crass, and rude.<\/p>\n Why do I think that three letter acronym is offensive, crass, and rude? Because it implicitly ascribes special value to our<\/em><\/strong> personal deity. They are ours<\/em><\/strong>, and therefore they are special. I firmly believe in equality, which means that our deity cannot be of greater worth than that of anyone else.\u00a0 I don’t care if your religious text proclaims it is the only “true” religious text, which most religious texts seem prone to doing. It isn’t. It is just another of many religious texts.<\/p>\n Because blasphemy is evil, but it isn\u2019t evil in the way so many think. It is the proclamation that something is blasphemous which is evil, not the utterance itself. Why? Because such proclamations are nothing but weapons in the arsenal of those people who strive to control the way you think. Which is all they are. People<\/em><\/strong>. People, just like you and me. Who gives them authority to chain our thoughts so thoroughly we dare not even think?\u00a0 It certainly isn’t a deity, oh no.\u00a0 Indeed, if anyone gives them that authority, it is you, and you are free to take that authority away.<\/p>\n\n
\n
Since things on the Internet are constantly in flux, the image below is of the page as it existed when I wrote this post.<\/h6>\n
![\"blasphemy\"](\"https:\/\/cgayling.com\/malmaxa\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/01\/blasphemy.jpg\")
<\/a>The very definition of the word blasphemy reveals just how ridiculous the concept is. Allow me to examine it from another view of true. Actually, since I\u2019m a active proponent of Freedom of Speech as a fundamental human right, I don\u2019t need your permission to say what I think, so I\u2019m not asking for it. If you don\u2019t want to risk reading something that might just possibly contradict something you hold so sacred you dare not question it, then leave now. Freedom of Speech does not include a clause that requires other people to listen.<\/p>\nClause 1. \u201cimpious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.\u201d<\/h2>\n
Clause 2. \u201cJudaism.\u201d<\/h2>\n
Clause 3. \u201cTheology. the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.\u201d<\/h2>\n
Clause 4. \u201cirreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc.\u201d<\/h2>\n
Why did I bother writing this post?<\/h2>\n