Blasphemy or Free Speech?
1 February 2006 by Gil
I have an ongoing interest in the way religion is talked about and perceived, especially within the context of a pluralistic culture. One of the recent stories that has caught my attention is the ongoing controversy around a Danish magazine’s decision to run a cartoon that caricatures the prophet Muhammad. This has led to a diplomatic crisis between Denmark and some Arab countries. The controversy has just been rekindled as French and German papers have republished the cartoons as a sign of solidarity with the Danes.
What is most interesting to me is that this is a clash of fundamentally different worldviews. On the one hand you have the ‘religious’ Muslim who feels that this is a blasphemous act that he/she should be protected from. In this worldview, society exists under governance of God and all elements of that society answer to God. To blaspheme is to risk the wrath of God. On the other hand you have ’secular’ European with his/her radical commitment to free speech and the ‘right to blasphemy’. In this view, religion serves the private needs of meaning-craving individual citizens.
Whose rights should prevail? How could such a decision possibly be reached? To me it seems that this is a fundamentally ‘religious’ conflict. The problem is only one side in the dispute would normally be considered religious. Yet secular pluralism is as much a religion as Islamic fundamentalism (and often nearly as dogmatic). It would be good to see a discussion of the merits of these two religious positions but I’m not optimistic that this is coming.
The Aljazeera article quotes the French paper that reprinted the cartoons…
“Because no religious dogma can impose its view on a democratic and secular society, France Soir publishes the incriminated cartoons,” the paper said.
Gil, I think pointing out that both sides of this furor are intrinsically religious is accurate. I also think this places our religiosity in an interesting light. Recently, The Davinci Code raised a much milder brewhaha in evangelical and other Christian circles. It is amazing to me how often fundamentalist beliefs engender an expectation for other parts of society to honor the code of conduct that these beliefs establish. In my view it is foolhardy to expect that our particular faith views should hold sway in any public position or policy. (Whether in government or any other societal construct). Of course it is disheartening to see the secular world with a salivating grin over its ‘right to blasphemy’, but we have missed the point if we think that our (or any religious position) should trump their conduct.
We should expect nothing more than that a world ravaged by the consequences of sin should take anything but pleasure in mocking any type of religious zeal.
And ultimately it is not ours to avenge God — last time i checked my theology text I am supposed to believe that he can take care of that himself - if not now then soon.
I think one of the main problems in society today is the idea that everyone’s beliefs can be permitted simultaneously. The suggestion that regligious freedom and ‘freedom of thought’ can co-exist is ridiculous. I do think that their is double standard in that religious freedom of thought is discouraged if it infringes on a secular freedom of thought.
Muslims are seemingly much more passionate about their religion and any defamation of it than Christians. If i were to see a cartoon, poking fun at Bible characters, I may be offended if it was particularly inappropriate but likely would not raise a big deal. Perhaps we should be more passionate and defensive of our faith and those who are used as examples in the Bible. I’m not suggesting we riot in the streets but we need to find a more proper balance between being entirely passive and rioting.
I also have been interested in the stoy and have been reading up on it…partly and this is a bit of a stretch of comparisson…but the christian righ tin USA has been outraged abotu Kenya West being depicted as Jesus in the Rolling Stone magazine, due to his song “Jesus Walks”…I find the connection interesting only in a sense of would these same Christian Right people be offended at the Muhammad cartoon? Now Europe is also bitterly devided on the imigration laws, as many eastern europeans and middle east people are flooding the job markets and streets of western europe. There is a general dislike and racism that is created in this. I am very curious what the outcome of all this will be…the big problem i see is the desire by some Islamic militants to actually retaliate to the cartoon by terrorism…the exact thing that the cartoon mocks.
I think it says something profoundly disturbing when humanity seeks to “prop up” their faith convictions. Whether it is riots and terrorism or rights legislation and freedom of speech solitarity, both sides reveal how eak their ‘religion’ really is. It can not stand on it’s own two feet.
that is why the challenge to take up the cross (abdicate our rights) is so powerful. It is why pacifism makes any sense at all.
God will not be mocked.
personally I think you and Paul should do a seminar on this topic over that male sex thing you are going to do…
But Dale if i dont do this smeinar how else can i shame young people
hey do what you gotta do all the best this weekend. i think the idea of roping Mark in on it is awesome
I take some issue with the naming of liberal secular democracy as religious. Certainly it has elements of “religion” in terms of appealing to a higher code of values. But I believe there ought to be a separation between the religious values that members (individuals and groups) of the society espouse and the rules that govern discourse in a particular society.
I would name liberal secular democracy as mode of societal discourse rather than a religion. Certainly, there are secularists (a religious perspective) who take the concept of a liberal secular democracy into tyrannical territory - such as the whole banning head scarves. But to take a soceity in this direction is to ignore democracy. Democracy gives all perspectives a voice, while at the same time trying to ensure that no one voice has sole authority.
Jeffrey Stout’s Democracy and Tradition is the best treatment of this subject ever published. I’d highly recommend wrestling with his perspective.
I take some issue with the naming of liberal secular democracy as religious. Certainly it has elements of “religion” in terms of appealing to a higher code of values. But I believe there ought to be a separation between the religious values that members (individuals and groups) of the society espouse and the rules that govern discourse in a particular society.
I would name liberal secular democracy as mode of societal discourse rather than a religion. Certainly, there are secularists (a religious perspective) who take the concept of a liberal secular democracy into tyrannical territory - such as the whole banning head scarves. But to take a soceity in this direction is to ignore democracy. Democracy gives all perspectives a voice, while at the same time trying to ensure that no one voice has sole authority.
Jeffrey Stout’s Democracy and Tradition is the best treatment of this subject ever published. I’d highly recommend wrestling with his perspective.
Interesting contrast between ‘mode of societal discourse’ and religion. I may have overstated the case a bit but I do see some totalitarian elements in the pluralistic worldview (or liberal secular democracy if you prefer).
When a ‘mode of societal discourse’ moves beyond the goals of facilitating discussion between competing opinions to an all-embracing worldview that declares each of these competing worldviews invalid it seems to me that it is close to the realm of religion.
Contemporary pluralistic ideology has moved beyond the idea that there should be no preference expressed for one particular religious perspective to the dogma that no religious perspective can be ‘true’ beyond the realm of providing private spiritual comfort for the individual. This serves to relativize (and trivialize) all religious perspectives.
This may not constitute pluralism as a religion but is definitely a rival worldview that flirts with totalitarian claims and dismisses any contrary opinions as ‘intolerant’ or ‘outdated’.