What's going on here? Blasphemy in a democratic state.

[franceslievens]

Somewhere in September a Danish newspaper printed cartoons depicting the last prophet of Islam. For a good muslim, it isn't allowed to make images of the prophets or Allah, so the drawings are an offence to any and every muslim in the world. Now that world's on fire – literally: the Danish embassies in both Damascus and Beirut have been burnt to the ground. What's becoming of this world? Well, there are a couple of things going on here.

1.
First this is a clash between opposing values. Every human will have those moments when you have to choose which value you hold dearest. This is one of those moments. We all know you can take freedom of speech only so far before it becomes defamation. Any freedom one has, stops where the freedom of the other begins. By depicting Muhammad the way he did, the Danish cartoonist tried to criticize certain Islamic ideas. He achieved his goal of criticising through depicting the prophet, and thus commiting blasphemy according to Islam laws. The cartoonist could have chosen to spare the occasional muslim in his audience and tell his opinion in a different manner. He didn't go for that last option. He chose his freedom of speech, probably because he thought he could state his ideas better this way.
The question lieing underneath it all becomes clear now, I think. Does the notion of freedom of speech extend to blasphemy? Are we in a democratic society allowed to print, say, draw, sing... blasphemous things? Most of the European states are built upon Christian states. Since the Enlightenment period Christianity has retreated from state affairs – okay, actually they were chucked out in most places. This meant that people with other religious beliefs finally got the respect they deserved, but also that all these beliefs stood open for criticism and can't lay claim to an unwavering truth.
Blasphemy is only blasphemy in the eye of the beholder, i.e. for a certain segment of religious people in society. Should we spare those people from what their eyes might see, what their ears might trip over and make blasphemy an exception to freedom of speech, like we did with defamation of the person? No, we shouldn't. First because it isn't feasible and second because blasphemy is regulated by religious laws that only apply to adherents of a certain faith. What is blasphemous to you, isn't for me. The state shouldn't succumb to religious laws. It's religion that succumbs to profane law when it enters public society.

2.
This brings me to a second problem that's widely overlooked at the moment: we have to rethink what's public and private in our society and what the repercusions are of bringing something like religion into the public sphere. Enlightenment brought us a strict distinction between the public and the private realm. Religion became a private business. It's a matter of belief and the state doesn't interfere with what goes on inside your head. In the good old days of Enlightenment it was easy to draw the line between public and private, but now we have the internet and mobile camera phones and news 24 hours a day. Everything has the capacity of entering the public realm, falling under profane law and being judged, criticised and scrutinized by anyone – believer or non-believer, follower or apostate.
Two very large religious communities (to not name Roman-Catholicism and Islam) have placed themselves and their ideas into the public sphere numerous times and will be doing this even more. They give constant criticism on profane laws and demand these laws will be adjusted to their beliefs. This is asking for a return in time, when the Church had the power to make or break laws. The current European law system reflects our current secular society. Law-makers can take their beliefs and morality into the laws they make – of course they will – but they will always adhere to the ideal of following the will of the majority and protecting vulnerable minorities.
Now how far would that protection have to go? Easily we can fall into the trap of constant political correctness. A trap that takes away every criticism possible. Militant feminism can learn us something here: "The private is public," they say, by which they meant that women not being able to enter the workforce and not having their own bank accounts, was in fact a public matter. The law gave women their freedom, but society didn't follow up on it. Women stayed dependent on their husbands, because that was the way things went. Society had to learn that right here, they had to interfere in private matters, because these private matters had an influence on the public life of women.
Religions have pushed their private matters into the public realm by entering debates on moral questions (abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage), but religions fall back on political correctness when it comes to 'us' judging 'them'. We can't, aren't allowed, shouldn't criticise the way certain religions treat women, children, non-believers, because these are private matters. Feminism said it before and it is true in this case. Why should we consider this private? Roman-Catholicism doesn't seem to consider the choice of how you want to spend the last days of your life a private choice. 'They' can criticise 'us'. Therefore by default 'we' are allowed to criticise 'them'.

3.
I've been talking in dichotomies. Never good to do that, but it brings me to a third and last point I have to make. It's about understanding. Most critiques against the cartoons and the reprinting of them circled around "They don't understand Islam" or "They view Islam as intolerant, hostile and violent." This is probably true. Had the cartoonist understood Islam better he'd chosen a different way to express himself. That has nothing to do with political correctness, but with respect towards his fellow citizens that he probably didn't want to criticise. Mostly when something like this happens, you apologise, say you'll never do it again and you bury the hatchet. Everything over and done with.
Here it isn't so. The backlash is enormous and comes from countries that have nothing to do with Denmark whatsoever – unless buy their butter and eat their cookies. Global economy suddenly gives one hell of a hatchet to swing with, and hey, why don't we use it while we're at it! It shows how little these states understand the workings of a secular state. Because of these misunderstandings we start talking in terms of 'us' and 'them'. We aren't able to compromise, because there's talking next to each other, because certain groups can't believe, can't understand, can't imagine that there is a world possible in which God isn't Almighty and religion is a private matter. The protest marches we get now don't seem to be directed against the blasphemous cartoons, but against the secular society as a whole. A godless, immoral society that makes these cartoons possible. 'We' view Islam as intolerant, hostile and violent. 'They' consider 'us' in the same way. The question now is: who will be crusading whom?

Afterthought
In Dutch we have this expression: "It's like cursing in church." It means that you've said something really really bad for which you'd be stoned to death on the spot. Now you don't curse in church, being religious or not. It's a matter of respecting the people whose house you're in.
Unfortunately this affair seems to have turned the whole world into a church. Not only do you abide by the rules of the person's home you're in, you also abide by the rules of the person that lives in another city. The Vatican asking Spain to withdraw their gay marriage law is the same difference. Guess what: the Vatican is a Roman-Catholic state.

Dear reader, if you've come this far through my writing, I can give you now one travelling tip: Andalucia. Nice weather, great food and one of the loveliest assemblies of Islamic art. Those intolerant Christians did make some ugly alterations to what was beautiful architecture, but at least they understood you shouldn't completely demolish it to the ground. Why am I sending you there? Because you can see the beauty of Islamic culture, the tolerance it preached in that part of Europe, the philosophical and scientific knowledge it had. We're too focussed on our own time, and seem to forget that every word of intolerance, every misunderstanding has been there before.

Comments

[chrissie-linnit.livejournal.com]

I've printed this off the re-read and digest on the train to London tomorrow morning. This is a topic that I feel strongly about and I will comment more coherently and try to be as structured as you, tomorrow.

In the interim. Two things I'll throw into the debate:

1. Not every state promotes freedom of speech. So, people born and bred in a state dominated society will tend to adhere more rigidly to state indoctrination (you could insert 'Religion led' before state here too, in some instances).

2. Some facets of some religions, such as Islamic fundamentalist, do not permit 'interpretation' of the word of the Koran. That makes things very black and white when it comes to viewing other societies who, for example, do encourage freedom of thought and speech.

In both cases, I can only comment from my own social standpoint, and I neither condone or condemn people who believe my way of living is wrong. It's different. I'm a christian, a lapsed Catholic. I don't like it when people mock God, but I'm open minded enough that I judge those mocking on a case by case basis and my christianity allows me to forgive those who hate God and ignore those who defile him in other ways.

I feel sorry sometimes that many people who only know fundamentalism will never know or understand forgiveness. They are trying to live life in the 21st century with biblical (excuse the pun) principles. That's hard, if not impossible, and I only see pain and bloodshed as a result. Sadly, nuclear power in some state's hands will be seen as Gods power...

Stopping now before I let emotion overrule sensible argument.

[frances-lievens.livejournal.com]

Oh dear. Once you're done with rereading and digesting you'll probably have that many comments I'll have to rewrite everything up until the last comma. ;-)

To reply to your comments:
1. Correct. And 2. Agree. It's where the 'them' against 'us' comes from and the not understanding what it means to live in a democracy. It's also what I meant when I wrote that "The protest marches we now [get] don't seem to be directed against the blasphemous cartoons, but against the secular society as a whole. A godless, immoral society that makes these cartoons possible."

I too wish that we'd be able to show the good sides of what our society has achieved, teach some tolerance, not only be bullied into cultural relativism.

[chrissie-linnit.livejournal.com]

I tried talking about this with Spouse *inserts BIG eye roll here*.

He immediately hauled out his soapbox and, leaping upon it, declared loudly, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone! Did any of those buggers burning down the Danish Embassies or burning christian state flags consider our sensibilities and christian edicts when they showed live footage of hostages being executed or the Bible being burned> No! And, did we then go and incite violence and burn their flags or the Koran.... yada, yada, yada..." *

I kind of lost track of him when he went a delightful shade of scarlet and his words jumbled together and droplets of spittle flecked his chin. *shudders*

He is, though, fairly typical of his generation here. Holding a (shaky)moral high ground, blinkered and unwilling (anymore?) to sit down and reason things out with his counterparts in other cultures/religions.

I sometimes feel like an exasperated mother/schoolteacher. I just want to grap the two bickering protagonists and bash their heads together...

[frances-lievens.livejournal.com]

Or hit them over the heads with a piece of wood.

You should read what P. has to say about it in a comment further down. Maybe he'll appeal to your spouse. He generally says the same thing, but without a soap box and the Jesus-quote.

[frenchani.livejournal.com]

Well I guess you know my opinion on this. Democracy isn't theocracy, period and people have the right to criticize any religion. The cartoon wasn't about understanding, it was a satire, it aimed at blaming and at being virulent, it's what satiric cartons do!

[frances-lievens.livejournal.com]

You have actually found a contradiction in my comment. Shit, because I meant them both...

"The cartoonist could have chosen to spare the occasional muslim in his audience and tell his opinion in a different manner. He didn't go for that last option. He chose his freedom of speech, probably because he thought he could state his ideas better this way."

and

"Had the cartoonist understood Islam better he'd chosen a different way to express himself. That has nothing to do with political correctness, but with respect towards his fellow citizens that he probably didn't want to criticise."

And otoh, put next to each other like that, they don't seem to contradict, but they can live next to each other. The two quotes tell different parts of the same story. Of course the cartoon wasn't about understanding, but the whole polemic around it has turned into a polemic about understanding. What I was trying to show was that muslims can say we don't understand Islam, but their behaviour, their marches, show that they don't understand democracy and the values inherent in it.
We aren't talking about the cartoon and what it meant to do anymore. We're talking about something else altogether. (At least I was trying to...)

[(Anonymous)]

Agree, and have a few things to add to point 2

First, I would extend the public/private distinction with the explicit distinction between the legal (what we want to be enforced by the law), and what we think is the good thing to do (the morally good, what we find is respectful, politeness, etc.). What struck me in much of the actual debate, is people's ignorance of this distinction. Whether blasphemy is a good idea is an irrelevant question when discussing the sheer right to publish these cartoons. Just like I think it is, at least in general, a bad idea to disregard the law because of a (purported) higher good (something the US has been very good at lately), I do not find it a good idea to use moral arguments to limit one's rights.

Second, most people criticising the press' behaviour seem to hold the following (implicit) view: namely that it is worse to be disrespectful of one's religious beliefs than it is to be disrespectful of ones secular opinions. Though I can see the ground for such a view--people who hold secular opinions tend (again, in general) to be more open towards criticism--according higher value to religious opinions has no place in a democratic society.

And now to tie both points together: I do think blasphemy shows a lack of respect for people who hold some strong religious beliefs, but I do not consider this more disrespectful--and this is a point I find very important to stress--than what some Islamic countries did, namely asking the Danish government to punish the journal who published those cartoons.

The strange thing is that within the debate much attention is devoted to 'not to offend people', but obviously only in one direction. The fact that denying the right to free speech to a non-believer is as offensive to the secular, as blasphemy is to a religious person, seems to get little attention.
Yet, neither fact is a good reason to limit one's right to free speech.

[frances-lievens.livejournal.com]

It took you long to write it, but it made you write something coherent -- which can't be said of my entry. (For those of you following the debate: P. forgot to put his name in...)

I think you've actually mainly said what I was trying to write down, but you were able to make it into a point others understand and weren't blinded by whole polemic on respect and clashing values and not understanding each other. (But like you said on the audiochat, this might have been because you read what I wrote and could "get the words out" after that. Like when someone says something to you and then you go "Oh, what you're trying to say is..." and then the other one says "Yes, that's it!")

Your first comment about the distinction between the legal and the good, is actually new to me, as in I didn't think of it, before you stated it. But yes, it's an important distinction in this case. You can't ask others to abide by your moral opinions, because you are offended by their behaviour, behaviour that doesn't even harm you as a person or others. The right to die is a discussion that falls within this distinction: I don't harm one pro-lifer when I choose euthanasia and still they take it as a personal offence that I am pro-choice.
I can see where your comment comes from at least. It's there in my entry...

Everything you say, does seem to tie in with my opinion that religions (both Islam and certain factions within Christianity) don't know what secularism is and that their behaviour towards it is equally disrespectful as "cursing in church". I said it already: "You abide by the rules of person whose house you're in." And you have the right to criticize those rules.

'Not to offend people' = political correctness. It never works in two ways, because it is the state that should be political correct. The state is the secular organ. People are always considered as 'believers' one way or another. So asking for punishment of blasphemy is asking for the good of everyone. It's a strange consideration, but I think it's true for some. They think of the state as being secular in that it lets people have different beliefs. They don't think people can actually be secular and have no belief.

[Completely OT: We both know (of course) where this disrespectful behaviour comes from: the non-believer is considered less (a heathen, a heretic) than any other believer...]

[(Anonymous)]

I think if a newspaper is going to publish a caricature, such as those, which is an editorialization on Islam then it is rather hypocritical of them to later apologize for expressing that opinion in what is supposed to be a free society.

What is also hypocritical, however, is the Muslim response of late. There those, who would say that Islam is a peaceful theology, are now reacting in violence. They show up the hypocrisy of their own religion. If I were newspapers in Europe, I would continue posting the caricatures, they don't seem to be too far from the truth. It will screw up the American withdrawal from Iraq also.

L.

[frances-lievens.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't say that Islam is a hypocritical religion. It's the followers that are hypocritical. The Koran leaves things open for interpretation. The hijab, for instance, isn't literally described in the Koran. It only says that both men and women should wear decent clothes. For centuries this has been translated as wearing a scarve for women. But we can interpret that. Problems ensue when believers don't want to interpret centuries old texts and regard as "true".

[sister-luck.livejournal.com]

It all scares me very much, because it's such a complex issue and not just an intellectual debate. There are deaths and I'm worried that what's been happening is being instrumentalized by both sides. It all seems to confirm and harden the prejudices both have of each other. There is a great deal of frustration in the Middle East and other Muslim countries, as they feel they are not respected and looked down upon by the West. Most of these countries also have economic and political interior problems, which are only indirectly related to world politcs. The people who live there feel powerless and all this frustration is now finding an outlet. Of course, by torching embassies they don't achieve the respect they crave, quite the contrary. Also, it is difficult for them to understand that a Western government will not censor its newspapers, as they come from countries where this censorship is the norm. Some of the protesters believe that the Danish government should have and could have stopped the publication of the cartoons.
To some extent, I'm also worried about who is pulling the strings behind the scenes and who will ultimately benefit from this. I'm wondering how this situation can be defused.

[frances-lievens.livejournal.com]

Agree, I'm also scared, simply because it isn't a debate. I try to make it into one by writing this, but sides harden and have so different opinions, that they don't seem to be able to ever understand the intelectual debate.

A couple of commenters in European newspapers are currently saying that the riots in the Middle East are actually orchestrated by the governements of these countries to lead the people's attention away from internal problems. I don't know how this is true.
One this is true: thes riots are orchestrated and seem to have a purpose. I'm scared of the purpose they might serve.

In Brussels 4000 muslims came together for a "spontaneous march against the Danish cartoons". One: how can you march against cartoons; and two: 4000 people is the opposite of spontaneous. They stopped at the building where the public broadcasting network resides, because they wanted to show that they were against the freedom of speech press holds dear and that made them reprint the cartoons. I don't think they intimidated anyone by standing in front of that building. It doesn't mean anything, does it?

[sister-luck.livejournal.com]

Well, the 'spontaneous' part of that march was probably just a technicality. I know that here if we want to do a protest march we are supposed to announce it to the police, so that they can clear the route etc. If we don't do it and just turn up, the march is called 'spontaneous', even if it was pre-planned. (Ah, the days of being a student activitst....)
It seems to mean something for them. The protesters want to get heard, even if it ultimately doesn't change anything. I know that my protests against university fees only postponed their introduction, but at least I voiced my opposition.
Religious satire almost inevitably becomes a target, because people don't like being ridiculed with something they feel so strongly about. It has happened with films and books satirizing different religions and as long as the protest isn't violent I think we have to accept it - and not bow down to it, though there might be someting said for a little added sensitivity. Especially as this cartoon issue is now being used to further divisions and as a cartoonist or editor I would not want to be instrumentalized in the current situation.