Western Cowards Say: Religions Should Never Be Insulted
As the Cape Cod Times explains:
The U.S. and British governments defended the principle of free speech but criticized publication of the caricatures, raising questions over whether the newspapers may have crossed a line between freedom of speech and incitement.While free speech should be respected, [British Foreign Secretary Jack] Straw said ‘‘there is not any obligation to insult or to be gratuitously inflammatory.’’
The State Department called the drawings ‘‘offensive to the beliefs of Muslims’’ and said the right to freedom of speech must be coupled with press responsibility. ‘‘Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable,’’ State Department press officer Janelle Hironimus said.
The only “hatred” that has been “incited” by the cartoons is Muslim hatred for freedom, liberty, and the West. Thus, we have the curious sight of Western leaders attacking cartoonists for inciting “hatred” against themselves — as if that were somehow a punishable offense.
It’s interesting that only one American newspaper has published any of the images so far; European papers, however, have published them in support of the Danish newspaper that originally showed them last year.
[T]he Philadelphia Inquirer, day after complaining that The Associated Press should at least distribute the images and allow members papers to make the call, decided to publish one of the drawings on Saturday.
The cartoon was being published “discreetly” with a note explaining the rationale, said Amanda Bennett, The Inquirer’s editor.
“This is the kind of work that newspapers are in business to do,” Bennett told the AP. “We’re running this in order to give people a perspective of what the controversy’s about, not to titillate, and we have done that with a whole wide range of images throughout our history...You run it because there’s a news reason to run it,” Bennett said. “The controversy does not appear to have died down. It’s still a news issue.”
Other newspapers are insisting that it would be “insensitive” to publish images of Muhammad because there is a Muslims taboo against it. Ignoring the fact that not all Muslims have always agreed with such a prohibition, this rationale for not running the images means that the newspapers are accepting Muslims standards about what does and does not constitute blasphemy — they are, in effect, Muslim newspapers now. How long will it be before they refuse to publish images of Jesus because this offends Muslims as well?
Like the American and British governments, other European leaders have shown themselves to be cowards in the face of threats to freedom of speech:
Ursula Plassnik, foreign minister of Austria, which holds the rotating EU presidency, said she understood the offence Muslims felt, adding that EU leaders needed to “clearly condemn” acts that insult religion.
Why should acts that insult religions be condemned? Why should religion be exempt from insults? Obviously there are times when insults are counter-productive and satire will do more harm than good, but we are talking about political cartoons after all — this is a genre where satire and mockery are pretty standard. Political cartoons aren’t designed to provide detailed and reasoned arguments, they are designed to provide images that affect us viscerally, bypassing many of our higher-level linguistic and ideological filters. That’s what makes them so valuable; they cam summarize in a few pen strokes a complex issue.
The reaction of the Vatican has been, if anything, worse:
“We, too, here in Europe, should rebel against the idea of mocking religious symbols,” [Cardinal Archille Silvestrini, head of the Vatican’s department for Eastern Churches] said. “Freedom to satirize which offends other people’s feelings becomes prevarication.” The Italian news agency ANSA reported other clerics support Silvestrini’s position.
“Freedom of the press, including satire, must stop where religious belief begins,” said Cardinal Ersilio Tonini, former archbishop of Ravenna . “There should be more respect for religion, whatever religion it is. What has happened over the last few days is an ugly, very ugly sign which should make us think.”
Why should religious symbols be exempt from criticism, satire, or mocking? Why should religious beliefs be exempt from criticism, satire, or mocking? Why should there be more respect for “religion” when leaders of religion insist that they, their symbols, and their beliefs should be exempt from the same criticism, satire, and mocking that every other belief or belief system may be subjected to?
What are these religious leaders afraid of? I think that they are afraid of the ideas behind the satire and mockery — ideas which are critical of religion generally and some religions in particular. Religions demand “respect” which concedes many of religions’ basic premises; satire and mockery, however, refuse to grant even those premises, forcing religion to work even harder to explain and defend itself.
Matthew Parris explains:
Those protesting against publication are not really doing so because they themselves do not wish to see these pictures. They do not want you or me to see them either. They do not want anyone to see them. They do not want them to exist.
They reason for not wanting others to see the images is because they want to suppress the ideas which the cartoons communicate — ideas which included a lack of respect and deference for religion generally and Islam in particular. It’s tempting to want to avoid gratuitous harm to others by insulting their most deeply-held beliefs, but why should a person’s feelings be a reason to avoid criticizing something which deserves to be criticized — or even deserves to be mocked?
Many faiths and ideologies achieve and maintain their predominance partly through fear. They, of course, would call it “respect”. But whatever you call it, it intimidates. The reverence, the awe — even the dread — that their gods, their KGB or their priesthoods demand and inspire among the laity are vital to the authority they wield.
Against reverence and awe the best argument is sometimes not logic, but mockery. Structures of oppression that may not be susceptible to rational debate may in the end yield to derision. When people see that a priest, rabbi, imam or uniformed official may be giggled at without lightning striking the impertinent, arguments may be won on a deeper level than logic.
I think that, on some level, religious leaders recognize this. They understand that the authority of their religion and of their own personal offices depend upon “respect” not just from their own religious adherents, but from outsiders as well. Without such respect, people simply won’t take them or their claims seriously — and then where will they be? Mockery and satire are designed to undermine such respect by throwing back the covers and revealing just how naked the self-appointed panjandrums of religion really are.
This may be an important reason why Muslim leaders have gone so far as to call for an international law banning “insults” to the symbols and values of all “divine religions.” That sounds like a law tailor-made for abuse. Who gets to decide what qualifies as an “insult”? Who gets to decide which religions are “divine” enough for their “symbols and values” to be protected? Why should “religion” get such special protection, but not any other beliefs and belief systems. I don’t go out of my way to mock and insult religion, but I would take every opportunity to go out of my way to violate such a law were one to be passed.
Syed Atiq ul Hassan writes:
The editor must know that no freedom of expression promotes humiliation or insults against other human being. ... Hurting many by creating imaginary drawings of such a nature that those could consequently lead to violence can not be considered as an activity categorised under freedom of expression.
Hassan opposes the freedom to express ideas which may insult others. As a defender of free expression, I find such comments insulting. Is it OK now if I go rioting in the streets and burn down a couple of mosques? Is it OK for me to demand that Syed Atiq ul Hassan be punished or killed?
Of course not — Syed Atiq ul Hassan isn’t obligated to express only those ideas which no one will find offensive. Neither am I, but for some reason Syed Atiq ul Hassan isn’t willing to extend to me the same rights and liberties which he is happy enough to enjoy. Why? It appears that he only believes in suppressing those ideas which offend his religion.
Syed Atiq ul Hassan is quite clear that he would have used the power of the state to suppress writings by Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen which “insulted” Islam; Nasreen was “insulting” for suggesting changes be made to the Koran, so this tells us a lot about how extensive Syed Atiq ul Hassan’s list of punishable expressions would be. Hassan even throws in a token insult to Christians, the play Corpus Christi which portrayed Jesus as gay. No action was taken against the play, but Hassan would have taken action had he been in charge.
Everyone in the world should be thankful that people such as Syed Atiq ul Hassan aren’t in charge — when people like him are in charge, people live under Taliban-like oppression and fear.
The cartoons need to be defended not just because we need to defend freedom of speech in the abstract, but also because there is a very great need for mockery and satire in the world — not just in general, but also directed at religion. Islam, in particular, has been revealed as desperately needing some mockery and satire precisely because of the reactions to the cartoons. Muslims have demonstrated an inability to accept such criticism which only means that not enough such criticism has existed.
For too long, Muslim leaders have used their religious authority to stifle thought, creativity, individuality, human rights, and progress. To a large extent, this is why Arab Muslim nations are behind the West when it comes to science, technology, education, and political democracy. Muslim leaders and Islam itself need to be the subjects of criticism and satire, otherwise, they will continue to retard progress among Muslims.
Western leaders and western media should not apologize for the cartoons. In fact, they shouldn’t apologize for the offense created, either, because feeling offended is the responsibility of those having the feelings — people have to take responsibility for themselves and their reactions to what goes on around them. Rather than apologize, Western leaders should use this as a “teaching moment” and insist that Muslims in the Middle East come to grips with the fact that real political and social liberty means that liberty exists for everyone, not just those expressing popular ideas.
Unless the freedom to express unpopular and even offensive ideas is protected, then there is no real freedom of expression. Popular ideas don’t need official protection because no one is interested in suppressing them. People who object to protection for unpopular and offensive ideas are objecting to freedom of expression itself; in effect, then, Muslims in the Middle East are rioting against liberty, democracy, and freedom. The “rage” of Muslim protesters is, at its heart, “rage” against the ability of others to not be Muslim, not to respect Islam, and to consciously reject Islam as having value.
Read More:
Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment