Well, once again, we see certain people in the Muslim world going up in arms because of the darts they believe the magazine is throwing at their faith. The owners and editors of the magazine, and political entities in the Western world, are defending the contents of the magazine in the name of "freedom of speech." The owners of the magazine now are going as far as saying that they only make fun of religion when religion becomes "entangled with politics." We see, in a sense, a resurrection of the dynamics of the time when the leader of Iran (Ayatolla Ruhollah Khomeini) declared a death sentence of Solomon Rushdie for his writing and publication of "The Satanic Verses." Certain points need to be emphasized here. They are:
1. The actions taken in France are not approved by the Muslim religion, or for that matter, the Muslim world as a whole. What certain people did in the name of Islam, is not tantamount, by any stretch of the imagination, to a Muslim-sponsored activity. The mere fact that certain Muslim leaders quickly condemned these actions is a clear indication that the Muslim religion, in and of itself, is not a "terrorist religion," as some may want to caricature and paint it.
2. The owners and editors are either totally naïve or totally dishonest when they say that the only time that they ridicule religion is when religion becomes "entangled in politics." Just exactly who the hell do they think they are kidding? Politics and religion have been entangled throughout human history almost from the very beginning. Whether in the form of a theocracy (a society based on divine law, such as in ancient Israel), or a secularly-oriented government giving tacit approval of and/or support certain religious practices, politics and religion have always in one way or the other walked "hand in hand." When Portugal and Spain carried out their colonizing activities in the Americas during the sixteenth century, the cross and the sword were integrated. The Crowns would send their respective missionaries to pacify the indigenous people so that when the soldiers arrived, they would meet with little resistance, because the missionaries would take great pains to inculcate in their minds that "the powers that be are of God," and that it was the will of God that they submit to the imperializing powers and their particular religious institution (the Church) on penalty of annihilation and death. The same thing would happen later on when England would establish its colonies in the Americas and the Caribbean. So again I raise the question, just exactly who in the hell do the managers of Charlie Hebdo think they kidding?
3. Freedom of speech and incendiary, inflammatory speech are not one and the same. It is one thing to exercise democratic right to express one's views or perspectives on any given issue. It is another thing entirely different to use that right in an irresponsible manner, especially when it comes to things such as religious sensitivity. Am I saying that the radical Muslims were correct in they way that they reacted? Absolutely not! But we must understand, that with human nature the way it is, that people will respond correctly or incorrectly to agitation and ridicule. A perfect example of this is in my culture, , i.e. Hispanic culture, it is considered quasi-blasphemy for one to mention a person's mother in a negative way. In our culture, one's mother is considered sacred, and in many respects, the most sacred thing after God. In the African American culture, many years ago, if someone said to a person "Your momma," the end result would definitely be armed aggression.
En fin, this writer (yours truly) believes strongly in the democratic right of freedom of speech. But as I said before, that freedom should be used responsibly and respectfully. It should not be used to sow the seeds of agitation and contempt. And since we do not live in a world built on ethics per se, what else can we expect when people utilize incendiary and inflammatory manners of speaking? Let us then, as civilized, decent, and intelligent people measure our words before we speak. I do not say that we should speak or not speak on the basis of potential consequences, but rather on the basis of what is ethically correct and conducive to harmonious relationships and peaceful co-existence.
Grace and peace,
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
The fundamentalist mindset is dangerous in any religion and many examples of it leading to violent extremism can be pointed to in all. It seems to have become especially virulent in Islam in our time, to such an extent that one can say the religion has been hijacked by extremists. Unfortunately, extremists never compromise, preferring to die for what they believe instead. That being so, why would anyone purposely try to goad, embarrass, or humiliate them unless you believe that you are already in some sense at war with them or with what they believe? Now I understand that "the art of satire, ... has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny..," as Salman Rushdie has said, but tyranny's response has always been violent. So was this response unexpected ? But, what about freedom of speech? This may be less about freedom of speech than about attacking the hated Muslim extremist (arguably a not unworthy goal) with every weapon at our disposal. Maybe civilians should not be doing what should be left to the military. Especially if you count an otherwise peaceful population of Muslims among your countrymen. Incidentally, if I would like to go ahead and attack the hated extremist with my words or with cartoons, why do it by attacking that which is revered by the non hated non-extremist as well? Can we see how this would work if it were Christian extremists who were involved? Or Buddhist extremists (alright, that might be harder to imagine)? Christ in a bathtub of blood? The Buddha? Really?
ReplyDeleteJose Lecour
Bro. Lecour: Thank you so much for your comments. As always, they are very insightful. As you know, there are extremists in all religions, including Christianity. The history of Christianity is not a pretty one when we think of the witchhunts, the Crusades, and the cross and sword going together in the colonization of the Americas. Your point is so well-taken. If we hate extremists of any religion or political persuasion for that matter, why attack their revered ideology, especially if the ideology is precious to those who are not considered "extremists?" Again, thank you so much for your input.
ReplyDeleteJuan Carmona