blasphemy

I first learned the word blasphemy in sixth grade, when I carried a laptop of one brand in a case embroidered with the logo of another. "Isn't that blasphemy?" a teacher joked. I asked him what that meant. I don't remember the exact explanation, but I do remember his tone being flippant.

Blasphemy is one of those concepts that modern, secular people have an extremely difficult time grasping. It seems arcane, primitive, and childish to an enlightenment skeptic to punish someone for some act of expression that offends the sensibilities of others. Yet there is a rising trend that seems to be doing exactly that in our contemporary world. When social justice activists whine about "violent" acts of speech, for example, this is quite literally a denunciation of blasphemy.

Social justice activists and religious fundamentalists share a common interest in punishing offensive expression, conveniently defined as any expression that they themselves deem offensive. It is not a surprise, then, when academics are ostracized or even fired for displaying images of the prophet Muhammad to students in an art history lesson, or professors of law are reprehended for asking students to read "triggering" texts or to think "unsafe" thoughts in the classroom. How can it be that two such radically divergent streams of thought have converged on the idea that suppression of speech and censorship of expression can make a better world? I suppose one might think that limiting by force the amount of injurious speech uttered will subsequently reduce the amount of harm felt in the aggregate. To me, at least, it seems that the cost of suppression in exchange for the supposed benefit of comfort or safety is hardly worth the trade.