 |
| Add caption |
Have you ever wondered why it seems that criticizing
certain ideas, or claims, is considered taboo? The Church of
Scientology insists that its members use only their approved web
browsers, versions of existing browsers that they usually modify.
Several Islamic nations attempt to pressure internet providers and
various websites, like Facebook, to block or remove certain material.
They even go so far as to pressure them to ban those who produce or
share material they claim is offensive. The problem is that while it
may be offensive to some, it's not offensive to many. It's completely
unreasonable and unjust to attempt impose one's views on others by
being so selfish and inconsiderate of others as to demand that one's
views get special privileges. Yet, there are those who believe
wholeheartedly that they are in the right to demand special
treatment. Some people believe that their beliefs are entitled, by
unestablished but presumed privilege, to not be ridiculed or mocked
or criticized in any way. This attitude strikes me, at first, as
strange and undeserved. To think that some belief is deserving of
some special privilege is a very wrong idea.
Perhaps
this is something that has already been noticed and discussed, but I
think this new term is appropriate. I have not yet encountered such a
term, let alone an identification and discussion on this issue
though. So here it is. I'm calling this phenomenon “Privilegism”.
The root of this term is privilege,
which is defined as the special and favorable treatment which is not
enjoyed by all, or the granting of certain rights to only a few, or
exemptions from some rule, burden or law, or a manifestation of
favoritism. Those who are treated with favoritism, or a beneficial
special consideration, etcetera, are called “privileged”. Those
who believe that their views, their opinions or beliefs are entitled
to a privilege of not being criticized or ridiculed, are obviously
going to act as if it's natural and normal for their beliefs to be so
immune. To their thinking it goes without saying, it is clearly
granted. They assume it's the way it is and should be.
I'm defining “privilegism” as; the belief or attitude, that
certain ideas are sacred and entitled to privileges, especially immunity
from criticism or ridicule and special treatment. A "privilegist" is
one who practices privilegism. An example would be when someone says
something like "how dare you post this offensive picture of Mohammad on
your page! You have no right to do that!" Though it's not limited to religion, it is most often the
case that religious people demand the privilege for their beliefs,
that they are not challenged or ridiculed. On a large enough scale
this privilegism becomes the norm. Even in a technically secular
nation like the United States, when the majority are of a particular
religion, the idea that religion is somehow “sacred” and immune
to criticism or ridicule is commonplace. It leads me to ask “are
they afraid that people won't believe the idea if people can
scrutinize it?” Why do some people want to protect their fragile
but “precious” belief? I think the underlying motivation for
privilegism is comfort. People don't like their beliefs to be
challenged and so they'll do what they must to protect them. This
seems to me to be a clear issue.
There
certainly is a continuum to privilegism. At one end there is the weak
position, the idea that people should just let people believe
whatever they want. They say “don't rock the boat!” On the other
end, the extremist end, the people take it much further. They tend to
believe that anyone who criticizes even slightly, let alone makes fun
of their belief, is blasphemous and deserves punishment. The furthest
this goes is to murdering people because someone else drew a rather
mild cartoon. Of course, there are also societal and legal
counter-pressures that are also at play. This often frustrates the
more extreme privilegists. This is seen when religious people demand
that social networks, for example, ban certain people or groups and
remove material, which the privilegists deem offensive. The fact that
in the US we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion and
freedom of the press means that they can't do very much. But, they
still yell their own obscenities and they try, and though not very
often it's still too frequent that they succeed. Then there is the
other axis. The scale on which a nation values it's liberties.
On this second continuum we can see different societies' values of
liberty. In the US, for example, we tend to value freedom of
religion, freedom of speech and freedom of the press more than in
many other nations. Granted there may be some where they value those
liberties more. In the case of a more civilized, free and secular
nation even the moderate privilegists fail to get their way, more
often than not. But, in some other nations, even the more extreme of
the privilegists are quite successful and so there tends to be much
less liberty. In such places one will likely find blasphemy laws.
Ireland, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea all come to mind,
quickly. Blasphemy laws tend to be among the more egregious of the
privileges that they seek. Even more extreme, though, are places
where they impose death penalties for blasphemy.
They have the attitude that their religious beliefs are privileged in
some way as to justify favoritism and protection. I don't know of any
religion that does not practice this. In fact, it is a confession of
the weak position of a belief or claim to demand special privilege
for it. Why should any idea or belief need to be protected from
criticism? If it is true, if it is well-formed and grounded in
reality, then such an idea or belief should have no desire for
special treatment. Every belief or idea should be subject to
criticism. If it is valid, if it has a modicum of truth it will need
no defense and no privilege. For instance, the idea of evolution by
natural selection does not need to be defended, it needs no special
privilege, because whether or not it is accepted it remains true and
observable. Privilegists, those who employ privilegism, are actually
saying that if they did not seek the special treatment, defense from
criticism and privilege, their beliefs would be too weak to long
survive. Any belief, or idea, which has truth will stand on its own
merits and will long endure. Privilegism is the subconscious
admission that one's belief is more than merely untrue, but that it
is a very wrong idea.
