Religion And The Need For Blasphemy

[Glaswegian]

In their heart of hearts, believers in monotheistic religions like Christianity, Islam and Judaism harbour a deep hostility towards them. The reason for the believer's secret hatred of monotheistic religion has a great deal to do with its authoritarian nature. Monotheistic religions are clearly authoritarian because their adherents are obliged to believe in them. Thus, anyone who refuses to believe in them is promised the worst fate imaginable - viz. Hell.

The obligation to believe in their religion places an enormous psychological strain on monotheists because it requires them to believe in things for which there is no evidence whatsoever (e.g., 'God'); to swallow doctrines which are patently absurd (e.g., 'Virgin Birth'); to regard themselves as abject, pitiful and corrupt (e.g., as 'sinners'); and to embrace a religious system which has inflicted, and continues to inflict, appalling mental, emotional and physical suffering on the human race (e.g., Christianity and Islam). But what is most psychologically grating to the monotheistic believer, what really eats away at him in the innermost core of his being, is that his authoritarian creed obliges him not to think and act for himself (viz. 'God', the Bible, the Torah, the Pope, the Imam, etc. determine these things for him.) Monotheistic religions, then, effectively require their adherents to commit intellectual and moral suicide to a large degree. And this is deeply offensive to all self-respecting human beings.

Given that the authoritarianism inherent in monotheistic religions has a deleterious effect on the human being's capacity for autonomous moral and intellectual development it is hardly surprising, then, that the adherents of these religions unconsciously loathe them. That the hatred which believers feel towards monotheistic religion tends to exist at a subterranean level within them is largely a result of the severity of the penalties meted out historically and in the present day against those who openly condemn and despise such religion. Needless to say, the believer in monotheistic religion experiences a powerful and recurring need to give expression to his repressed hatred of it in order to maintain a modicum of psychological health, and this need usually manifests itself as an irrational compulsion to commit blasphemy.

It will be useful here to distinguish between 'rational blasphemy' and 'irrational blasphemy'.

Rational blasphemy is committed as the result of an individual's being fully aware that monotheistic religion is, to state it plainly, a steaming pile of horse-sh*t and that it ought to be affirmed as such both publicly and within himself. Irrational blasphemy, on the other hand, 'is blasphemy committed as the psychological result of the [monotheistic believer's] own largely unconscious resistance to, and reaction against, the very religion in which he believes.' (Lingwood, 1989 p.15)

Committing blasphemy - whether publicly or within his own heart - should be seen as therapeutic for the monotheistic believer because it can function as a powerful device for undoing the psychological and emotional damage inflicted on him by his religion. Thus, with regard to Christian believers, Lingwood writes:

'In order to abandon Christianity completely - in order to liberate himself from its oppressive and stultifying influence - it may be necessary for the Christian not only to repudiate Christianity intellectually in the privacy of his own mental consciousness but also to give public expression in words, writing, or signs to his emotional rejection of Christianity and the God of Christianity, i.e., it may be necessary for him to commit blasphemy. Such blasphemy is therapeutic blasphemy.' (ibid., p.19)

We should suspect that ex-Christians, -Muslims and -Jews who are unwilling to express their contempt for the religion which they have abandoned and who instead advocate toleration towards it are still polluted by it. That is, although they now claim to be agnostics - or even atheists - the religious poison which once ran freely and potently in their veins has not been fully cleansed from their nervous system.

Ex-religionists who profess that they are atheists or agnostics but who feel the need to defend monotheistic religion in any way are, to some degree, still under its sway: that is, they remain somewhat fearful of the 'God' they claim no longer to believe in, and their apologetics (or efforts to defuse criticism of monotheism by others) are a covert attempt not to draw His wrath down upon themselves. However, it is possible that their reluctance to go on the offensive against their former religion is simply due to natural moral cowardice.

It should be clear from the above that blasphemy is a valuable tool: for by enabling the believer to emerge from the mental enslavement imposed by monotheistic religion it opens the way for him to psychological health, autonomy and maturity.

Regards

James

Reference:

Lingwood, D. P. E. (Sangharakshita) 1989, Buddhism and Blasphemy, Glasgow: Windhorse Publications

[gmc]

We should suspect that ex-Christians, -Muslims and -Jews who are unwilling to express their contempt for the religion which they have abandoned and who instead advocate toleration towards it are still polluted by it. That is, although they now claim to be agnostics - or even atheists - the religious poison which once ran freely and potently in their veins has not been fully cleansed from their nervous system.

Perhaps it is more a realisation that the alternative to tolerance of another's differing beliefs is conflict and violent conflict at that. Contempt and hate go hand in hand.

Trying to ban religon is just as bad as the religous trying to make non believers go to church. you can disgree with someone but still respect them. What you advocate is no different from the proddies going out to beat up a pape on a saturday night.

[chonsigirl]

In their heart of hearts, believers in monotheistic religions like Christianity, Islam and Judaism harbour a deep hostility towards them. The reason for the believer's secret hatred of monotheistic religion has a great deal to do with its authoritarian nature. Monotheistic religions are clearly authoritarian because their adherents are obliged to believe in them. Thus, anyone who refuses to believe in them is promised the worst fate imaginable - viz. Hell.

I don't think this is an accurate statement, but maybe your own expression of hatred towards monotheistic religion.

[Glaswegian]

In the OP I stated that the monotheistic believer feels a secret hatred towards his religion. I think it will be useful here to provide an example of this type of hatred in action. One drawn from real life. The Mohammed Cartoons fiasco from a couple of years ago is a good one. This example is illuminating because it shows how the monotheistic believer's secret hatred for his religion can undergo extremely elaborate forms of sublimation and express itself in a very disguised and distorted way. So let's take a look at it.

WHAT THE MOHAMMED CARTOONS FIASCO WAS REALLY ABOUT

After the patient and dedicated investigator of religious subterfuge has penetrated through each successive layer of psychological sublimation, after he has peeled aside every veil which conceals and distorts, after he has opened up the Russian doll and the whole series of dolls hidden within that doll, after he has negotiated his way past all the decoys which lie between himself and what he seeks - after he has done all of this and much, much more - he eventually comes to the ultimate, underlying motivation behind the Mohammed Cartoons fiasco. Finally he beholds the real motivation lying there before him like a startled, wriggling insect uncovered from beneath its boulder and exposed to the light - the fundamental, covert motivation which was this: The Muslim, at a secret level of his being, wanted the secular West to urinate on him - in a metaphorical sense, of course.

Why? Because when the Muslim interpreted the Western media's publication of the Mohammed cartoons as a degradation of what he most closely identifies with - viz. Islam - he was effectively interpreting their publication as a degradation of himself. And this form of vicarious debasement was necessary for the Muslim because it served to temporarily alleviate the bad conscience he has about his religion.

Why does the Muslim have a bad conscience about Islam? Because, like the Christian and every other believer in monotheism, the Muslim secretly hates his religion. In his heart of hearts, he experiences Islam as an alien reality imposed on him from the outside which undermines his moral and intellectual freedom as an individual. As I said in the OP, the hatred which the Muslim feels towards Islam tends to exist at a subterranean level within him and this is largely the result of the severity of the penalties meted out against those who openly condemn and despise it.

Because the average Muslim lacks the moral courage to give public expression to his hatred of Islam, because he cannot even bear to admit to himself the hatred he feels towards it, because he dare not allow his hatred for Islam to enter his conscious awareness for a single moment, this causes certain psychological defence mechanisms to come into operation in him at an unconscious level. Here I will describe just two of them.

One of the defence mechanisms is reaction-formation which involves the conversion of an unacceptable or threatening impulse into its opposite - in this case, the Muslim's dangerous, subversive hatred of Islam is converted into an ostensible devotion to it which, of course, is much more acceptable to his socio-cultural milieu. A second defence mechanism is displacement which involves the shifting of an impulse from its proper object onto a substitute one - in this case, displacement re-directed the Muslim's unconscious hatred of Islam onto the West and its media and thereby served to provide temporary relief from the conflict and tension produced in him by the ambivalent attitude he holds towards his religion.

This is why the layman, who has no explicit knowledge of the operation of either of the foregoing defence mechanisms, was nevertheless right to suspect that the Muslims who used the Mohammed cartoons as a pretext to profess their 'devotion' to Islam in the most vociferous and violent ways are precisely those Muslims whose faith in their religion is most superficial and tenuous.

The Muslims who complained that the Mohammed cartoons are an insult to Islam were, in actual fact, only pretending to be shocked by these cartoons. Their outrage, no matter how vehemently it was expressed, was only ostensible outrage - pseudo outrage. Had Shakespeare been alive today he would have wrote of the Muslim's phoney outrage over the Mohammed cartoons thus: 'Methinks the Muslim doth protest too much.'

Originally Posted by Glaswegian

In the OP I stated that the monotheistic believer feels a secret hatred towards his religion. I think it will be useful here to provide an example of this type of hatred in action. One drawn from real life. The Mohammed Cartoons fiasco from a couple of years ago is a good one. This example is illuminating because it shows how the monotheistic believer's secret hatred for his religion can undergo extremely elaborate forms of sublimation and express itself in a very disguised and distorted way. So let's take a look at it.

WHAT THE MOHAMMED CARTOONS FIASCO WAS REALLY ABOUT

After the patient and dedicated investigator of religious subterfuge has penetrated through each successive layer of psychological sublimation, after he has peeled aside every veil which conceals and distorts, after he has opened up the Russian doll and the whole series of dolls hidden within that doll, after he has negotiated his way past all the decoys which lie between himself and what he seeks - after he has done all of this and much, much more - he eventually comes to the ultimate, underlying motivation behind the Mohammed Cartoons fiasco. Finally he beholds the real motivation lying there before him like a startled, wriggling insect uncovered from beneath its boulder and exposed to the light - the fundamental, covert motivation which was this: The Muslim, at a secret level of his being, wanted the secular West to urinate on him - in a metaphorical sense, of course.

Why? Because when the Muslim interpreted the Western media's publication of the Mohammed cartoons as a degradation of what he most closely identifies with - viz. Islam - he was effectively interpreting their publication as a degradation of himself. And this form of vicarious debasement was necessary for the Muslim because it served to temporarily alleviate the bad conscience he has about his religion.

Why does the Muslim have a bad conscience about Islam? Because, like the Christian and every other believer in monotheism, the Muslim secretly hates his religion. In his heart of hearts, he experiences Islam as an alien reality imposed on him from the outside which undermines his moral and intellectual freedom as an individual. As I said in the OP, the hatred which the Muslim feels towards Islam tends to exist at a subterranean level within him and this is largely the result of the severity of the penalties meted out against those who openly condemn and despise it.

Because the average Muslim lacks the moral courage to give public expression to his hatred of Islam, because he cannot even bear to admit to himself the hatred he feels towards it, because he dare not allow his hatred for Islam to enter his conscious awareness for a single moment, this causes certain psychological defence mechanisms to come into operation in him at an unconscious level. Here I will describe just two of them.

One of the defence mechanisms is reaction-formation which involves the conversion of an unacceptable or threatening impulse into its opposite - in this case, the Muslim's dangerous, subversive hatred of Islam is converted into an ostensible devotion to it which, of course, is much more acceptable to his socio-cultural milieu. A second defence mechanism is displacement which involves the shifting of an impulse from its proper object onto a substitute one - in this case, displacement re-directed the Muslim's unconscious hatred of Islam onto the West and its media and thereby served to provide temporary relief from the conflict and tension produced in him by the ambivalent attitude he holds towards his religion.

This is why the layman, who has no explicit knowledge of the operation of either of the foregoing defence mechanisms, was nevertheless right to suspect that the Muslims who used the Mohammed cartoons as a pretext to profess their 'devotion' to Islam in the most vociferous and violent ways are precisely those Muslims whose faith in their religion is most superficial and tenuous.

The Muslims who complained that the Mohammed cartoons are an insult to Islam were, in actual fact, only pretending to be shocked by these cartoons. Their outrage, no matter how vehemently it was expressed, was only ostensible outrage - pseudo outrage. Had Shakespeare been alive today he would have wrote of the Muslim's phoney outrage over the Mohammed cartoons thus: 'Methinks the Muslim doth protest too much.'

[Glaswegian]

Originally Posted by Far Rider

Judging from your response, Far Rider, I can see that my post hit the mark. But please let me reassure you: there's no need to be afraid. The truth is good for you. It really is.

Originally Posted by Glaswegian

Judging from your response, Far Rider, I can see that my post hit the mark. But please let me reassure you: there's no need to be afraid. The truth is good for you. It really is.

You assume far too much my friend.

I have to laugh at you now, for I see what you are trying to do. Your beef against orginized religion has clouded your ability to see God.

It's a very common error in mankind.

Drivel on my boy, drivel on.

[Singh-Song]

'In their heart of hearts, believers in monotheistic religions like Christianity, Islam and Judaism harbour a deep hostility towards them. The reason for the believer's secret hatred of monotheistic religion has a great deal to do with its authoritarian nature. Monotheistic religions are clearly authoritarian because their adherents are obliged to believe in them. Thus, anyone who refuses to believe in them is promised the worst fate imaginable - viz. Hell.'

I am Sikh- now, Sikhi is a monotheistic religion, but at no stage in its history has it forced members of other faiths to convert, obliging its members to believe through any other means than what they see or experience personally. And, in direct opposition with the Abrahamic religions, The Sikh goal is gain release from the endless cycle of re-incarnation. If you, GLASWEGIAN, refused to believe- you would be reborn again, you would be offered an infinite number of chances to accept, each of which you would be in every right to turn down. You claim all monotheistic believers have a secret hatred towards their religion? Perhaps you should stop pointing the finger of supposed hate at everybody else and look at your own?

Which of your categorisations, pray tell, do you fall under? An ex-religionist trying to condone the blasphemy he procreates every day, as you outlined in the thread's opening post? You see it as some kind of war, you battle against any concessions to higher belief because you still rue being incapable of it yourself?The truth is, Glaswegian, ANY ex-religionist is still attached to it. Trying to deny that part of your past is like trying to pretend that part of your life never happened, when that part of your life is what made you who you are today. When you can move on from the need to insult all religion whenever the topic pops up, to plain indifference on the topic; only then, can you escape the python-like stranglehold it clearly still has on you...

Oh GOD! Don't you just hate Blasphemy? Jesus H Christ, there's nothing worse is there?

[YZGI]

Originally Posted by Pinky

Oh GOD! Don't you just hate Blasphemy? Jesus H Christ, there's nothing worse is there?

His middle name was Humphry? As in Bogart?