The Right to Ridicule Religion

Mike Valle over at Fists in the Wind writes:

I support the absolute right of all of these people to ridicule religion all that they want. I don't think the government should fund any of it, but I do believe in this fundamental principle: The right to ridicule religious beliefs absolutely trumps the so-called "right" not to have one's religious beliefs ridiculed.

I basically agree with Mike's post.  In particular, I agree that there is no 'right' not to have one's religious beliefs ridiculed, and I also agree that if one is going to violate people's beliefs in the manner of  that 'artist' Andres Serrano then one ought to do it on one's own time and with one's own dime, as the saying goes.  Adolescent  purveyors of schlock who delight in offending the sensibilities of the 'bourgeoisie'  or the 'booboisie' in H. L. Mencken's phrase have no right to taxpayer money.  Dumb notions are rampant on the Left, and one of the dumbest is that a refusal of sponsorship amounts to censorship. This notion is beneath refutation, so I will say no more about it.

But I do have one minor bone to pick with Mike.  He speaks of the right to ridicule religion as 'absolute.'  I wonder what he means by this term.  Does he mean that there are no conceivable circumstances in which the exercise of the right in question could not be justifiably limited or prevented?  If that is what he means, then I disagree. 

Consider property rights.  Absolute?  Are there no conceivable circumstances in which a man's right to property cannot be justifiably limited or infringed?  Suppose I own half of Montana, and the federal government needs a few acres for a defense installation.  It forces me to sell those acres at fair market value.  I say that's a legitimate exercise of eminent domain.  Or how about free speech?  It is widely recognized that one cannot justifiably say just anything anywhere to anybody.  The right to free speech is not the right to speech that incites violence in a situation in which an outbreak of violence can be reasonably expected to occur if the speech is delivered.

Same goes for the ridiculing of religion via speech, gestures, placards, and Serrano style 'art.'  Suppose Marilyn Manson is burning Bibles on stage at some venue in Los Angeles near Biola.  Some Biola students and there and are recognizable as such.  Suppose the ridicule is ramped up to the point that the Christians in the audience are in danger of grave bodily harm.   Then I say the right to ridicule meets its limit.  But that is to say that the right is not absolute.  It is relative to the circumstances.