Ian Boyne, Contributor
THE VIOLENT reaction of Muslims to the offensive cartoons first published in Denmark has unleashed an intense discussion globally over free speech versus respect for religious sensitivities. It has also revealed some rather shallow -and frightening - thinking.
One example of such shallowness was the article carried on the editorial page of The Sunday Gleaner last week titled, 'Cultural Arrogance and Religious Bigotry'.
Written by some of the country's leading churchmen in a group calling itself the Forum for Caribbean Theological Discussion, the article is an excellent display of befuddled thinking, reflexive anti-western prejudice and just plain sloppy analysis.
The article speaks about "the callously selfish action by the editor and cartoonists" of the Danish newspaper in publishing the cartoons.
What was selfish about the action? Nobody who knows about the hallowed and sacrosanct tradition of liberal notions of the free Press in the West, however, they might be contravened in practice - would ascribe selfishness to an action very much in line with a tradition of upholding free speech within the law.
CONTROVERSY
In fact, those who have been following the controversy closely would know that the story all began when a Danish children's editor could find no one who had the courage to illustrate a book about the life of Prophet Muhammad because of the ban in Islamic tradition of showing any depiction whatsoever of the Holy Prophet. People turned down the job because of the fear of precisely the kind of criminal action which has come from these militant Muslims.
The Editor of Jyllands-Psoten observed about a have-dozen cases of self-censorship and decided that this was a dangerous trend and he was going to show the courage to buck it. He wrote to an association of cartoonists and asked them to "draw Muhammad as you see him"(The Editor had a full explanation of his motives in last Sunday's Washington Post, which the esteemed churchmen can get a copy of online. I am sure they are not opposed to western computers!)
It is not hard to accept that an editor steeped in the tradition of western journalism, a product of the Enlightenment and liberal democracy, would publish the admittedly offensive and satirical cartoons for other than 'callously selfish' reasons. That many editors in Europe republished the cartoons was a deliberate defiance of the increasing self-censorship because of the fear of Islamic militants who are hostile to free speech. They were published as a protest against those hoodlums. Moderate Muslims need to dissociate themselves from these fanatics and totalitarians who want to remake the world in their crazy image.
IGNORANCE
The view of the churchmen that the European editors are just bigots and, by implication, racists again betrays ignorance. Their action is not cultural arrogance in the sense of a West versus East view or the famous clash of civilisations view. If these churchmen were keen observers of what is taking place all over Europe especially but certainly in North America; if they were reading much outside of theology they would know there is a strong anti-religious bias in the media--a bias against all religions, including fundamentalist and orthodox Christianity.
The implication that these white editors are just purveying the normal white, anglo-saxon bias against Third World peoples and their cultures and religions is plain foolishness. There is a strong secularist bias in the western media, particularly in Europe and Christians get a lot of lampooning. Look at how the American media ridiculed and caricatured Christians because of the Christians' support for George Bush whom the liberal big American media are opposed to.
It is because Christians today have moved away from the intolerant Christendom view of the past; because they have been acculturated to western democratic traditions, thank God, why they are not behaving like the Muslim mob today. Christians take a lot of lampooning and offence from the Western media all the time. If one is following the American and European media closely that will become evident. European societies have become more secularised and in many cases have become hostile to conservative religion and its teachings, particularly those on gender, sexual orientation and sexual practice.
But what is most tragic and damnable about the article by the churchmen is that nowhere is the violence of the Muslims condemned. At least in all the other statements and articles I have read where people have criticised the newspapers for publishing the cartoons, I have seen the condemnation of the violence and mayhem caused by the Muslims. Not from these churchmen. The only mention of the violence is the following which some could read as an acceptance of it.
The men (yes, they are all men) say, "the violent reaction of people in the so-called Muslim world sends a message to those who claim to be the sole custodians of absolute truth". This is absolutely disgraceful: This is no 'liberative violence' or 'violence for social justice'. This is refusal to accept offence, a refusal to turn the other cheek which is supposed to be a cardinal teaching of these churchmen's religious founder, Jesus Christ. The violence should be condemned unreservedly, even if they felt the publication of the cartoons was an error.
The churchmen go on to say we should "show respect without reservation for the religious beliefs and cultural and political values of those whose orientation differs from our own". Why should we? Why should we show respect to religious views which say it's okay to sacrifice people to the River Ganges, to pass children through the fire as some ancient pagan religion did and to promote segregation between the races as some white racist religious groups do today?
Why should we respect the 'Serpent Seed' doctrine taught by some extremist American
religious cults which teach that black people and Jews were not created by God but came through the Serpent's seed? Why should we respect religious views which say women are inferior to men, that religious dissidents ought to be murdered, that suicide bombers are precious in the sight of Allah? We should allow these religious crazies to hold their insane views, of course. I will defend their right to do so within the law.
I believe racists should have the right to publicise their views. I believe that objectionable religious groups should have the right to exist and propagate their offensive views.
As Peter Berkowitz says in a well-argued essay in the scholarly journal Policy Review (August-September 2003): "Liberal respect for individual choice does counsel toleration and calls upon individuals to live with and respect the rights of others, including the rights of those who embrace ways of life of which they disapprove, so long as these individuals are willing to respect the rights of others". John Locke had much to say about the issue of "toleration" Modern society needs to revisit this outstanding philosopher.
POLITICAL VALUES
There are certain political values which are obnoxious and for which we should show no respect (though we should show what Locke calls toleration or tolerance). The political values of fascism, slavery, communism, militarism and unilateralism should be disrespected and rejected--though tolerated.
The churchmen urge us to recognise that "We live in a world of pluralities--cultural plurality, religious plurality, plurality of perspectives", yet they want to exempt the Islamists and radical Muslims from this. Muslims must realise that they live in a pluralistic world. The Europeans, who have their own values and traditions, are not bound to accept the Muslims' definition of the world. They should not be held to honour any Muslim tradition about not depicting the so-called Holy Prophet.
What many people are conveniently missing is that Islamic tradition not only forbids offensive caricatures of the Prophet. It says there should no be representation of the Prophet at all, even if tasteful. It even forbids anyone in drama acting as Prophet Muhammad. Now why anyone follow that restriction if he is not Muslim?
We cannot submit to the tyranny of these fanatics. We have fought too hard for our freedoms and have struggled against the Christian and Islamic despots of the past to go back to the Dark Ages. Are we going to submit to the tyranny of the radical Islamists because they have the power of violence? That is like submitting to the might of the United States because it is the only superpower, or the terror of the extortionists and the dons in Jamaica. Hell no!
Yes, perhaps pragmatically, because the Muslims have proven so adept in inflaming violent passions, we should apply some self-censorship in the interest of saving lives. But that could just as well be seen as cowardice and capitulation.
I agree completely with the Economist magazine which said in its editorial of February 11 that, "Protecting free expression will often require hurting the feelings of individuals or groups". Free expression means the freedom to offend, just as I have offended this group of churchmen, some of whom I consider personal friends, and who have been known to me for nearly 30 years.
The freedom to poke fun at religion must remain. People must be free to burn Bibles and Korans and any so-called sacred literature they want to. I would not do so, but I would not take away the freedom of those who think they want to do that. Some churches were burnt down in Pakistan last week because a Christian allegedly desecrated a Koran.
That the West has been at times hypocritical on this free speech issue is no reason to institutionalise the hypocrisy. It is absurd and unjust that a historian was put in jail for three years last week for denying the Holocaust. In Germany you can go to jail for mass-producing Hitler's picture or displaying a similar likeness. In France last year the Roman Catholic church got a judge to ban an advertisement modelled on Da Vinci's last Supper depiction--only this one had everyone but Judas as a woman. France denies Muslim women the right to wear their religious veils.
All of these are unwarranted intrusions on free expression. A Dutch film director was murdered last year by an Islamist for saying Muslims had sex with goats. A prejudicial and lying generalisation, yes, but he deserved his life despite his rank foolishness. People must have the right to make a fool of themselves in a liberal democratic society.
If a group of Sabbath-keepers take power in Jamaica, we might all be forced to close our businesses on Saturday, close our entertainment venues and lock up inside of our homes if we don't want to go to Sabbath services.
Lord, deliver us from the Muslim, Christian and communist totalitarians.
Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist. Email him at ianboyne1@yahoo.com
