Allowing violent extremists to curtail free speech

Q: Atheists are others are protesting a new law in Ireland, under which a person can be found guilty of blasphemy if "he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion." The penalty is a fine of up to about $35,000. Should Ireland or any nation have a law against blasphemy?

In evaluating the pros and cons of any law, one must consider why it has been enacted, what might its ramifications be, who stands to benefit, and who stands to lose. On cursory inspection of the new anti-blasphemy law in Ireland, the answers to these questions are both disturbing and revealing as to the problems it will create.

First of all, lack of specifics in the law leaves a great deal of room for an arbitrary and highly subjective interpretation as to how blasphemy-an almost exclusively Abrahamic religious concept--is to be determined, and more importantly, who will make these decisions. In a country whose government is moving away from its long and close association with one Abrahamic religion, it now seems to be inadvertently doing the bidding of another.

In a truly civil society, free discussion of differing points of view would take place in an open and carefree forum. Sadly, there is no such society today in our world, and ideological thinking easily dominates over open mindedness. Ironically, those who tend to object the greatest and make the loudest charges of blasphemy are often the ones who hold the most negative views of people who believe and act differently. This has been the case throughout much of history, especially in countries dominated by Christianity and Islam.

During the Inquisitions of medieval Europe, heretics were the primary targets of the Church's often violent anger, but those who committed blasphemy were also the victims of suppression, persecution, and execution. Casualties included countless individuals and groups. At the same time, Church writings and proclamations deprecated nearly everyone who thought and believed differently. Over the centuries, while Christian denunciation of alternate religious views has continued, legal suppression of such views has, for the most part, disappeared. In Islam, blasphemy has long been punishable by a variety of penalties, from flogging to death. Yet, negative and blasphemous statements about other religious traditions and practitioners have been commonplace in Muslim writings and sermons for centuries. In many Muslim countries, the suppression of such views remains legal, and violent means are often condoned or justified.

Some observers, including David Quinn, former editor of The Irish Catholic newspaper, have suggested that those behind the Irish law were seeking to placate Muslims and thereby avoid a situation such as the violent reactions that occurred after the 2006 publishing of cartoons depicting Muhammad in a Danish paper. Blasphemy clearly remains a sensitive issue in Islam. Ask Salman Rushdie. In 2005, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), began a ten-year program to have anti-blasphemy laws passed worldwide for use against anyone making critical statements about Islam. In 2008, Muslim countries in the UN were successful in pushing an anti-blasphemy resolution through a key General Assembly committee, and currently Algeria and Pakistan are preparing to put forth another proposal against religious blasphemy in the entire General Assembly. The current proposal uses verbiage taken directly from the Irish law. Several of the countries in the OIC that are behind this move already have laws restricting religious and various other forms of free expression, and they would be able to use the UN law to help justify their existing laws.

The inherent problem with any anti-blasphemy law is that many beliefs in one religion are, by their very nature, blasphemous to other religions. Thus, such laws cannot coexist with freedom of religion or with freedom of expression. This is especially the case where fundamentalists have undue influence in deciding what is to be considered illegal. For example, those traditions in which various deities are worshiped are inherently blasphemous to many Christians and Muslims. The fact that Christians believe Jesus to be divine is inherently blasphemous in Islam, while praying to Jesus, for fundamentalist Muslims, is worse than blasphemy. It is shirk, an unforgivable sin. As a consequence, various Muslim countries restrict the open expression and practice of religions other than Islam. The new Irish law does not, as some claim, protect freedom of religion, nor will it do anything to minimize violence in the name of religion. It simply serves to help justify the growing suppression of alternate religious and non-religious views.

As youths, many of us heard the statement, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." Actually, words can and do hurt many people, but suppression of words can do worse. It can lead to religious and political dictatorship in which far more people will be hurt. In the Dharma traditions, diverse religious views have long coexisted, commingled, and have functioned to inspire a variety of creative approaches to understanding the divine, and also understanding how to live more peacefully with one another.

In reality, the new Irish law is symptomatic of the clash between freedom of speech and expression one hand and the push to legitimize narrow mindedness in the guise of religious sensitivity on the other. People should be allowed to say and write whatever they wish, irrespective of how many people are offended. Most attempts to limit expression simply end up being used to limit otherwise legitimate and necessary critique of existing power structures.

Fundamental to democracy and freedom is the ability to criticize those is power and their laws, be they political, religious, economic, or social. Because it is from within the hierarchies of these structures that determination is made as to what constitutes blasphemy, such laws can function to stifle all forms of free thinking. The Irish who believe their law will somehow diminish violence are naive. When laws are made primarily to placate extremists rather than to benefit the society at large, then the lawmakers are essentially succumbing to fear and are allowing the violent to set the agenda. Although blasphemy in itself does little to make life better, laws used to suppress it make life much worse.

By Ramdas Lamb  |  January 7, 2010; 1:34 PM ET Save & Share:                 
Previous: Raising little blasphemers | Next: Not OK to slander religion or race

Posted by: EINHVERFR | January 10, 2010 2:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: Athena4 | January 9, 2010 11:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.