Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Jesus Christ!
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_07_26-2009_08_01.shtml#1248796750


   [1]Mark Tapscott (Washington Examiner) writes:

     It's ... long been the rule among prudent politicians with national
     aspirations to say nothing unkind about anybody's religious faith.
     But the silence that has greeted [2]Vice President Joe Biden's use
     of "Jesus Christ" as an expletive in an on-the-record interview
     with The Wall Street Journal, suggests that such prudence has been
     tossed aside.

     Biden isn't the first nor will he be the last politician to abuse
     the name of the man revered for two millennia by Christians of
     every denomination as the Savior, the God-Man who created and
     sustains the universe, and who at His Second Coming will someday
     return to Earth to judge all men. Jesus Christ is, in short, a
     heavy dude, if He is indeed the dude He claimed to be.

     I have no idea what the vice president believes about Jesus. What I
     do know is that he apparently thought nothing of taking the name
     described in Holy Scripture "as the only name given under Heaven by
     which men are saved" and used it the same way most people routinely
     use the words "damn," "hell," and others unfit to print in a family
     newspaper.

     Having myself uttered such words on too many occasions, I can
     hardly fault Biden if this particular incident was simply an
     unintentional slip of the tongue. One would assume that if such was
     the case, Biden would have by now offered an apology.

     But there is no indication on the public record that he has since
     recognized the offensiveness of what he said and apologized or
     otherwise sought to make amends. Queries to Biden's spokesmen went
     unanswered yesterday.

     So the question must be asked: Did Biden intend to offend millions
     of his countrymen who worship Jesus, one of whom happens to be his
     boss, or did he just not care if they were offended?

     Either way, had Biden used the name Mohammed in this manner,
     Muslims would be crying foul. Quite possibly rioting in the
     streets, to boot. And if the vice president had used "gay" or
     "Black" as swear words, folks would be rightfully angry about that,
     too.

     Hate speech is hate speech, whether it is aimed at Christians,
     Muslims, Gays, or African-Americans. Whether or not it should
     prosecuted or, as Thomas Jefferson argued, left undisturbed as a
     monument to tolerance and the strength of rational argument is a
     different issue. Here, it is sufficient to note that hate speech is
     speech meant to demean, ridicule, and discredit all who are
     associated with its target.

     So where is the outrage about Biden's hate speech against
     Christians? We've not heard a peep of protest from the Southern
     Baptist Convention. Nothing from the U.S. Conference of Catholic
     Bishops. Nothing from the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. Nothing from
     the United Methodist Church.

     And neither have we heard from Biden's boss, whose spokesman had
     other things to do yesterday than discuss another veep flap....

     Biden's uncorrected cursing is indicative of the slow strangling by
     the unrelenting forces of political correctness of the religious
     tolerance that is Christianity's greatest gift to America.

     We've reached a point in which the nation's second highest official
     can without fear insult and degrade the name revered by millions of
     Americans, but woe unto him who says a word even remotely critical
     of the PC flavors of the day.

   It may well be that actual insults of Christians or Christianity are
   treated less seriously by some than actual insults of Muslims or
   Islam, or of other groups. And I agree that the term "hate speech" has
   been much stretched by some people.

   But it seems to me that the typical use of "Jesus Christ" as an
   expletive -- the Biden quote was, "I can see Putin sitting in Moscow
   saying, 'Jesus Christ, Iran gets the nuclear weapon, who goes first?'
   Moscow, not Washington." -- is not "hate speech" under any sensible
   definition of "hate speech." It is generally not intended to convey
   hatred of Christianity, or even hostility to Christianity, nor "to
   demean, ridicule, and discredit all who are associated with
   [Christianity]." Nor is it generally reasonably understood that way.

   To be sure, it is seen as offensive by some Christians. My sense is
   that most Christians, including devout ones, view it as at most mildly
   offensive -- a sign of lack of sufficient respect for Christianity and
   for one of the Commandments. But I doubt that most Christians see it
   as even deeply offensive, much less a sign of an intention to express
   hostility to Christianity.

   And this, I think, is pretty clearly visible from normal practices
   among Christians in a mostly Christian country. "Jesus Christ!,"
   "Jesus!," and the like, are in my experience pretty common
   exclamations. This both reflects their being seen as being at most
   only slightly offensive, and further reinforces that: A typical
   Christian, I suspect, would have heard the words used often this way
   by other Christians (even if not the most devout ones), and would
   therefore not associate the words with a likely message of hostility
   to Christianity. He may disapprove of the words, but he wouldn't
   interpret them as deliberate insults, or as "hate speech" "aimed at
   Christians."

   In fact, Tapscott himself acknowledges that he's used Jesus Christ as
   an exclamation himself, and not just once or twice. Why would he have
   done that if the phrase were "meant to demean, ridicule, and discredit
   all who are associated with its target" (presumably all Christians)?
   Why would he have done that if it wasn't just at most mildly
   disrespectful, but "insult[ing] and degrad[ing] the name revered by
   millions of Americans"? I take it that he doesn't regularly mean to
   demean, ridicule, and discredit Christians, or insult and degrade
   Jesus's name. The fact that he -- and others -- use "Jesus Christ" as
   an expletive suggests that it is not indeed inherently seen as
   insulting, degrading, demeaning, ridiculing, or discrediting of Christ
   or of Christians. (Naturally, it could be used in a context where
   other factors suggest that the speaker is trying to insult Christians;
   but no such contextual cues are evident in Biden's quote.)

   Nor is it particularly telling that Biden didn't apologize. Presumably
   he doesn't see there much reason to apologize here, or he thinks that
   an apology would become more of a story than the original quote
   itself. One might argue that this bespeaks insensitivity to the views
   of those who are offended by the taking of Jesus's name in vain, but
   even if that's so, it still doesn't suggest any attempt on Biden's
   part to insult, degrade, deman, ridicule, or discredit.

   Now I think that the lack of Christian condemnation of Biden's use of
   "Jesus Christ" is a sign of maturity on the part of most Christians.
   Even if you think that the term is mildly offensive, there's little
   reason to publicly condemn such mildly offensive behavior, or even to
   call for a public apology. The violation of the Commandments would not
   itself be much of a basis for public condemnation; most Christians
   rightly don't publicly excoriate politicians for worshipping idols, or
   breaking the Sabbath, and see it as chiefly a matter between the
   politician and God. And the offensiveness of the words to the hearer,
   I suspect, is quite mild, for the reasons I mentioned above -- there
   was likely no deliberate desire to insult, and thus likely no
   reasonable perception of insult, so at most there is a slight sort of
   disrespect of what others see as holy.

   But even if there is a basis for some mild condemnation here, accusing
   Biden of "hate speech" -- especially under the "speech meant to
   demean, ridicule, and discredit all who are associated with its
   target" definition -- strikes me as simply inaccurate, given the way
   Biden's use of "Jesus Christ" was likely to have been intended and
   reasonably understood.

   I should note that I've corresponded briefly with Mark Tapscott about
   this, and confirmed that his argument was indeed serious, rather than
   an attempt to perform a reductio ad absurdum of various "hate speech"
   claims. (I thank him for his gracious responses to my questions, which
   led me to refine my argument in some measure.)

References

   1. 
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Biden_s-_Jesus-Christ_-expletive-is-hate-speech_-8027718-51811897.html
   2. 
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Will-Biden-apologize-for-using-Christs-name-as-a-curse-word-51706282.html

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
Volokh@lists.powerblogs.com
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to