Recent immigrants, who frequently come from countries where the law defines critical comments about religion and ethnicity as "hate speech," sometimes fail to understand that the First Amendment means exactly what it says--that Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Many American-born religious believers would also prefer that the framers of the Constitution had written that Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press--except when the exercise of that freedom hurts other people's feelings or challenges their faith."

That said, religious groups, including minorities, have enormous power (far too much power, in my opinion) to dictate positive images of their faith to the mainstream print and broadcast media. Religion is a humor-free zone as far as network television and mainstream newspapers and magazines are concerned. For that matter, non-humorous criticism of religious institutions is generally reserved for genuine scandals, such as the financial misdeeds of sleazy televangelists and sexual abuse by the clergy. We can only be grateful to the framers of the Constitution that sharp criticism of religion, including satire, is permitted in movies, on pay television, and in books--none of which, I should point out, anyone is obligated to watch or buy.

Public legality, of course, has nothing to do with what is acceptable in private. At a party, one is well-advised not to make any jokes about religion or ethnicity--unless all of the people at the party are members of one faith or one ethnic group. Two Jews may laugh uproariously at a joke based on a Jewish stereotype--if one Jew is telling the joke to another Jew--but the joke may not seem very funny if told by a Christian. I assume that the same generalization applies to Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists. And since humor seems to be a hard-wired human trait, I imagine that Hindus, like members of every other group, tell jokes to one another that they wouldn't like hearing from an outsider.

It is truly a shame--and a testament to the poor quality of education about our own history--that more Americans do not understand that the benefits of free speech far outweigh the importance of anyone's hurt feelings. In the 1970s, I was called a "First Amendment junkie" by feminists who wished to censor pornography. (For more on this subject, see my "Secularist's Corner" post of June 13.) I'm proud of that designation, even though pornography, like public vulgarity and stupidity, is one of the prices we pay for freedom of speech. (I am not talking, by the way, about kiddie porn--which is illegal because it is a form of child abuse.) The best remedy for hurtful and hateful speech is more free speech by people and groups empowered to speak out on their own behalf. The Constitution grants us all that power.

P.S. I don't find Mike Myers funny, so I won't be seeing The Love Guru. Somehow, I doubt that the reputation of Hindus is going to take a nose dive in America as a result of this movie. Now Hindus might have something to worry about if the Marx Brothers were still alive and made a comedy about Hinduism. Groucho, Harpo, Chico and Zeppo could make any god or religion look ridiculous. They could make atheists look ridiculous too. I'd pay to see that movie.