Letters to the Editor: Why put religion above ridicule? Debate it like anything else

To the editor: Columnist Nicholas Goldberg says it’s wrong to insult religious beliefs, even though he correctly insists that there should be no legal consequences for doing so. Polite standards should not exempt religious beliefs from critical examination, doubt and ridicule.

We don’t believe that criticizing economic theories should be socially disfavored. There is no reason to elevate belief systems about how the universe is put together to a higher level of protection from offensive comments. We don’t think that good manners are abandoned when capitalists ridicule socialism or when socialists ridicule capitalism.

Society needs a robust debate about whether our existence is a natural occurrence or whether there is a supernatural basis for reality. To legally allow insulting religious beliefs, but formally disapprove of it, continues to provide undeserved deference to such beliefs.

Religious advocates should have to defend their ideas on a level playing field.

Edward Tabash, Los Angeles

The writer chairs the board of directors of the Center for Inquiry.

..

To the editor: I always appreciate Goldberg’s columns, and the subject of blasphemy laws is a very important one. He is also speaking of free speech, and at the end he is correct in warning us of MAGA Republican efforts at censorship.

But he’s off when he says that “Jesus was tried and condemned for blasphemy.” Not really. Blasphemy may have been a pretext, but the murderers were an unholy cabal of Roman occupiers and their Temple Quislings. (Christian nationalism, anyone?)

In the original Greek text, these people executed Jesus as a “lēstḗs,” as were the two who were crucified beside him. “Thieves” is a misguiding translation. The standard New Testament dictionary gives “robber, highwayman, bandit,” not a simple pickpocket or purse snatcher.

A lēstḗs was an opponent of Rome’s imperialism — someone “woke” to the dangers of plutocracy, oligarchy, kleptocracy, theocracy and the thieves of free speech.

Tim Vivian, Bakersfield

The writer is a professor emeritus of religious studies at Cal State Bakersfield.

..

To the editor: Goldberg states that “it’s offensive to deny, denigrate or mock people’s gods or prophets, beliefs or rituals.”

If a religion suggests that the followers have any rights over a dissenter, that is precisely why that religion must be denigrated and denied.

Jon Hartmann, Los Angeles