Of Blasphemy and Racism

Blasphemy!  Heresy!  Treason!  Racism!  All loaded words, used less to convey meaning than for their effect as weapons.  Few weapons in history have been as powerful.  They have killed thousands, perhaps millions, and silenced many more.  “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”  These will.  They are intended to.

Consider “blasphemy.”  It is a common hammer of religious leaders who are doubtful of their deity’s ability to defend himself.  These nervous clerics and acolytes step in to threaten and, where they can, inflict the harshest penalties against any and all they accuse of “blasphemy,” which usually means saying anything that the listeners consider untoward or disrespectful vis-à-vis their deity.  The harshness of the penalties, and the vagueness of what qualifies as an infraction, create a terror that intimidates both speech and action among others, which is the basic purpose of the label.  The religious leaders of Judea during the days of Jesus’ mortal ministry repeatedly tried to silence Him by hurling “blasphemy” at Him.   On the day of His death, they cried blasphemy to stir up the anger of the population—although they used another word, “treason,” when addressing the Roman authorities.  Several dozen nations today (with little opposition from the U.S. State Department or other executive branch officials) are seeking to make blasphemy a globally recognized crime, at least when touching upon Islam or its sensitivities.

“Heresy” has similar uses.  Rather than a crime of the impious, it is invoked in pious disagreements about whom or what is sacred.  The Spanish Inquisition comes readily to mind.  The accusation seems to be most commonly employed by those who lack confidence in the convincing power of their doctrines when faced with competing ones.  “Heresy” is intended to close ears, “heretic” to silence speakers, both intended to end the debate.

Next we come to “treason,” which can be a real phenomenon and a genuine crime against the nation or people, and when proved and the traitor caught usually answered with stern—if not brutal—penalties.  Genuine treason puts the nation or community at risk by exposing weaknesses to enemies. 

In former times, as well as in nations governed by authoritarian regimes, “treason” has been invoked, however, less to label traitors to the state and the society as to subdue opponents to the supreme leader.  Kings, emperors, czars, dictators, and others of the ilk sit nervously on their thrones—and for good reason.  They lack legitimacy yet enjoy immense power (or its illusion), which lures other would-be despots.  Nearly every one of the Roman emperors, for example, met death at human hands.  The Soviet Union never had a legitimate transfer of power from one boss to the next.  Tyrants, therefore, have little tolerance for opposition and are credulous of every rumor of resistance.  That makes accusations of “treason” powerful tools of terror for scoundrels in such societies to employ to settle grudges, dispose of enemies, steal lands and wealth, or otherwise gain advantage.  Many innocents have been so victimized.

Which brings us to “racism.”  This is a modern weaponized word.  Originally coined to identify people who would justify plunder and oppression by employing racial prejudices, it has been preserved long after such plans and schemes are suppressed by law and proscribed by social convention.  Indeed, the word only works as a weapon because of the universal social opprobrium already attached to it.  Its power as an epithet comes because no one in civil society considers it tolerable, any actual existence a bizarre aberration.  Calling someone “racist” is tantamount to accusing him of being unfit for public association and worthy of ostracism.  It is therefore used most commonly today, like the use throughout history of the other weapon words, to end debate, to intimidate opponents, to plunder wealth, and in general to gain advantage.  “Racism” is the modern world’s “blasphemy,” “heresy,” and even “treason.”  “Racism” is used to cause hurt, even where the absence of authentic racism causes none.  Worse, it is used by real racists to shield or camouflage their own bigotry.

Employed as a weapon word, racism is losing meaning.  When was the last time you heard a reasoned discussion and debate of racism?  Intellectual dialog is avoided for fear that raising the subject in an impartial way will court exposure to accusation, much as discussion of blasphemy, heresy, and treason in times past.  What is left, for example, when racism no longer means conscious prejudicial action but is applied—as it is by the Obama Administration—to mean manufactured statistical discrepancies among people who admittedly have no intention to act in a prejudicial manner? 

For the wielders of the weapon, the meaning of racism must be kept general and undefined to maximize the number of potential targets.  Feeding the outrage attached to it is a constant labor as is constantly finding new eruptions of racism where none exist.  The recognition of racism (especially where it is absent) must be automatic and assumed proven when employed—addressed if at all only by the mea culpa of the accused, followed by public contrition and the ceding of wealth or advantage to the accusers.

Where, I wonder, does the real racism lie?  Can racial distinction and prejudice wither when they are regularly conjured for personal advantage?   What does that do to a society where laws and culture already universally hold racism in contempt?  What is the appropriate term for the moguls of the racism industry who prosper by the preservation and promotion of racism?  When will the public immolations for private gain end?