We Americans should renew our commitment to freedom of speech, including expressions of free speech that criticize and even mock religion, or certain aspects of a religion. I do not condone physical violence by religionists in the name of their religion. But I have no objection to non-violent protests by religionists whose sensibilities are offended by somebody else's exercise of free speech in the United States.

::::::::

Duluth, Minnesota (OpEdNews) May 4, 2015: Police officers have killed two armed men in Garland, Texas, who had opened fire on a guard at an exhibit deliberately designed by a local anti-Islam group to offend Muslim sensibilities by exhibiting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

As I write, the identity of only one of the armed men who were killed has been made public. So we do not yet know the identity of the second man.

No doubt cartoons of Jesus (also known as the mythic Christ) published or exhibited in the United States would offend Christian sensibilities in the United States.

But I am in favor of allowing criticism of religion, including cartoons mocking certain aspects of a religion, in the spirit of free speech in the United States, provided that it is non-violent. I do not condone physical violence as a way to express anti-religion criticism. For this reason, I do not condone what the gunmen in Texas are reported to have done in shooting a guard at the exhibit.

Now, for understandable reasons, Pope Francis recently said that free speech should NOT include mocking religions -- as the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad supposedly did. No doubt Pope Francis would prefer NOT to see the Roman Catholic religion, or certain aspects of it, mocked publicly in cartoons, or otherwise criticized or mocked publicly.

But why should mocking religion in cartoons, or otherwise, be off limits in the United States? In other words, why shouldn't free speech in the United States include mocking religion, or certain aspects of a religion?

Now, before the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the Roman Catholic Church was officially teaching certain things that were debatable, to say the least. But Vatican II officially changed the debatable teachings, thanks in large measure to the American Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray. For an account of his pivotal role in Vatican II, see Garry Wills' book THE FUTURE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WITH POPE FRANCIS (2015; see the index for page references for Murray).

However, before Vatican II, Paul Blanshard had published books criticizing the church's debatable teachings: AMERICAN FREEDOM AND CATHOLIC POWER (2nd ed., 1958; 1st ed., 1949) and COMMUNISM, DEMOCRACY, AND CATHOLIC POWER (1951). Also see the book PAUL BLANSHARD ON VATICAN II (1966).

To keep Blanshard's penetrating critique of certain church teachings at the time in perspective, we should remember that Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, a Roman Catholic, was notorious for alleging that certain people in government positions were un-American.

In a similar spirit of suspecting other people's loyalty as Americans, Blanshard was calling the loyalty of American Catholics into question because of certain official church teachings at the time.

Historically, anti-Catholic criticisms have not been unheard of in American culture. For example, certain Protestant preachers routinely characterized the pope as the Anti-Christ and the prostitute of Babylon. Colorful invective, eh? But mocking the pope as the supposed Anti-Christ and prostitute of Babylon did not result in the abolition of the office of the pope in the Roman Catholic Church, or of the Roman Catholic Church.

Despite that long history of anti-Catholic criticisms in American culture, had no criticisms of certain official Roman Catholic teaching been expressed by American Protestants such as Blanshard, it is hard to imagine that Fr. Murray would have been motivated to speak out or that Vatican II would have been motivated to change the relevant church teachings at long last.

All Americans today, not just American Catholics, should be thankful that Vatican II's intervention changed the church's official teaching that Murray and Blanshard, each in his own way, criticized.

But what about anti-Protestant criticisms in American culture? Tom Paine criticized organized Christianity. But American Protestants did not appreciate his criticisms, to say the least. As a result of their push-back, he is not remembered today as a Founding Father, as he deserves to be remembered.

Arguably the most notorious and problematic criticisms of a religion, or aspects of the religion, are certain anti-Jew expressions in the Christian scriptures.

Fortunately, Vatican II also officially took a stance against centuries of anti-Semiticism. For a history of the church's anti-Semiticism, see James Carroll's book CONSTANTINE'S SWORD: THE CHURCH AND THE JEWS: A HISTORY (2001).

In recent translations of the Bible, inclusive language has been used in translating certain texts that can be construed as allowing an inclusive translation.

However, in Willis Barnstone's poetic translations in THE RESTORED NEW TESTAMENT (2009), he uses straightforward English to render the anti-Jew expressions, because he thinks that this is the only honest way to translate certain texts. I agree that the texts in question should be translated accurately and honestly. In translations of the New Testament, accompanying commentary should explain the historical context of the bitter rivalry that prompted the break-away Christian Jews to engage in such invective against their fellow Jews. After reading examples of anti-Jew aloud in the context of church services, preachers should explain the historical context in which such invective emerged. We should not try to sweep the anti-Jew invective under the carpet, so to speak. Instead, we should try to understand the overall historical context in which it emerged.

Thus far, I have given historical examples of criticism of religion and resistance to and push-back against the criticism.

More recently, some Harvard students announced that they were going to stage a Black Mass. By definition, a Black Mass mocks the Roman Catholic practice of the Mass. Because of the fervor of the push-back to the announced Black Mass from the political correctness crowd at Harvard, the students were persuaded not to stage a Black Mass.

Unfortunately, there are certain other examples of the fervent political correctness that contradict the spirit of free speech on campuses across the country.

As I say, I am in favor of the spirit of free speech in the United States, including forms of free speech that mock religion, or certain aspects of a religion, including aspects of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, the three monotheistic religions in the United States. Naturally I would also expect that free speech in the United States would allow push-back from people in the religion being mocked or criticized.

In closing, I repeat that I do not condone violent protests against a religion. But I am in favor of allowing non-violent protests, and non-violent expressions of criticism, against a religion in the United States in the spirit of free speech.

Authors Website: http://www.d.umn.edu/~tfarrell

Authors Bio:

Thomas James Farrell is professor emeritus of writing studies at the University of Minnesota Duluth (UMD). He started teaching at UMD in Fall 1987, and he retired from UMD at the end of May 2009. He was born in 1944. He holds three degrees from Saint Louis University (SLU): B.A. in English, 1966; M.A.(T) in English 1968; Ph.D.in higher education, 1974. On May 16, 1969, the editors of the SLU student newspaper named him Man of the Year, an honor customarily conferred on an administrator or a faculty member, not on a graduate student -- nor on a woman up to that time. He is the proud author of the book WALTER ONG'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO CULTURAL STUDIES: THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF THE WORD AND I-THOU COMMUNICATION (Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2000; 2nd ed. 2009, forthcoming). The first edition won the 2001 Marshall McLuhan Award for Outstanding Book in the Field of Media Ecology conferred by the Media Ecology Association. For further information about his education and his publications, see his UMD homepage: Click here to visit Dr. Farrell's homepage.

On September 10 and 22, 2009, he discussed Walter Ong's work on the blog radio talk show "Ethics Talk" that is hosted by Hope May in philosophy at Central Michigan University. Each hour-long show has been archived and is available for people who missed the live broadcast to listen to. Here are the website addresses for the two archived shows:

Click here to listen the Technologizing of the Word Interview

Click here to listen the Ramus, Method & The Decay of Dialogue Interview