My post last week in the immediate aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo murders received an unusual amount of favorable feedback from readers of varying persuasions, for which Iâ??m grateful. It was also written in a mood that was perhaps not completely nuanced and reflective, so I want to return to the issues now in the hopes of both clarifying and qualifying certain elements of the argument. This will be the first of at least two posts trying to do just that.
The original post made three broad points: First, that laws against blasphemy and offense-giving are generally a terrible idea; second, that cultural restraints (in various forms) on blasphemy and offense-giving are quite often reasonable and decent; and third, the kind of offense-giving thatâ??s often most worth defending or even embracing is the kind thatâ??s made in the face of, or in response to, lethal violence.
Read Full Article »