Even if the world manages to avoid the very real risk of a nuclear Armageddon, triggered by Iran's acquisition of nuclear capability and then either it or Israel deciding to neutralise the threat that each perceives that the other one poses it, there is another no less serious danger that humanity faces emanating from the same quarter.
This is the risk of global mental sclerosis to which humanity would fast be in danger of succumbing were either the UN, or failing that then the EU, to accede to current Muslim demands for each to impose curbs on the freedom of individuals publicly to criticise or lampoon religions.
On the surface, such called-for curbs can appear fair and reasonable. Jews, Christians, Hindus, atheists, Buddhists Sikhs and Muslims will all receive equal protection from their respective religious beliefs and practices, or lack of any, being criticised, satirised or insulted. In reality, such blanket protection is neither fair nor reasonable. For not all belief systems, and associated codes of practice, are equally as benign and hence worthy of respect and protection as each other.
Just as it would be ludicrous for the UN or EU to accede to any demand by neo-Nazis for their creed and its associated practices to be spared criticism, insult, or being lampooned, so there are versions of some world religions -- even, maybe, some world-religions simpliciter - that equally deserve not to be protected from severe criticism, insult and ridicule.
Should, in the supposed name of equal fairness to all different religions and faith groups, all religions become insulated by international or EU law from criticism or being lampooned, then humanity would suffer almost as profound an injury as that which it would sustain through suffering the calamity of nuclear holocaust.
For what is the special value of humanity, if it is not based on its being the one species with the capacity to think for itself and develop mentally?
What point does its survival have, if it should cease to be able to exercise that capacity and thereby develop and progress through thought and enquiry?
At least, the other animals do not pose the risk of which mankind has been recently accused -- of threatening to induce ecological catastrophe.
By their very nature, people’s religious beliefs, or the lack of them, touch matters of their deepest concern. Therefore, these beliefs of theirs are ones whose criticism, challenge, or being mocked are liable to evoke in those who harbour them the strongest emotions of hurt. But to deny people the right to criticise and challenge such beliefs, or the lack of any, on the part of others is to inflict on these latter a potentially far greater harm than any that they might suffer by having their religious beliefs or unbelief criticised, challenged, or lampooned.
I am beginning to tire of the current cartoon wars, and the continued pusillanimous response of so many western countries, particularly the UK and US, in the failure of their governments and press to come to the active moral support and defence of the Danes who have had the courage to tug the beard of the prophet.
However, before I give up writing further about the subject, I cannot forbear quoting at length from a letter first published in the Observer newspaper back in March 1989, at the height of the Salman Rushdie affair, and of which I still retain a battered photocopy.
For reasons which were all too obvious then, and more so now, all that the paper was prepared to divulge by way of the identity of the letter's author was that he or she lived in the city of Karachi.
For me, this letter says all anyone needs to know to understand why it would be the height of folly to the point of global, or European, intellectual and moral suicide were the UN, or EU, to agree to any Muslims demands for curbs on the freedom of people to criticise, caricature, and ridicule each other's religious beliefs.
The letter runs as follows:
‘Sir— Salman Rushdie speaks for me in ‘The Satanic Verses’, and mine is a voice that has not yet found expression in newspaper columns. It is the voice of all who are born Muslims but wish to recant in adulthood, yet are not permitted to do so on pain of death.
‘Someone who does not live in an Islamic society cannot imagine the sanctions, both self-imposed and external, that militate against expressing religious disbelief. ‘I don’t believe in God’ is an impossible public utterance even among family and friends. Muslims hate Rushdie not so much for his irreverence as for his doubt; for his questioning ‘divine inspiration’; for his humanisation of the Prophet, who had of late begun to acquire divine characteristics.
‘ In the ‘Dar-ul Islam’ (Realm of Islam) we may not debate such issues even in the privacy of our own homes. We may talk of ‘progressive’, ‘enlightened’, interpretations of Islam and curse the mullahs for their orthodox fundamentalism, but we may never question the veracity, rationality, justice or moral rightness of basic beliefs. And if we dare to recant, then it is the religious obligation of the faithful to execute us.
‘So we hold out tongues, those of us who doubt. Call it cowardice or hypocrisy, tact or appeasement, we bury our heads in the sand and wish it all away. But it comes home to us in our children, whose intellectual and spiritual straitjacketing begins early in the Realm of Islam.
‘Then, along comes Rushdie and speaks for us. Tells the world that we exist – that we are not simply a mere fabrication of some Jewish conspiracy. He ends our isolation. He ends it and simultaneously deepens it; frees us only to imprison us anew. Today it is impossible to speak of Islam in anything but the most hallowed and sacrosanct of terms. Holier-than-thou attitudes are being affected everywhere. The book is reviled, the execution of the author demanded even by those who might otherwise have been credited with being fairly civilised. I have not met a single critic who has actually read the book.
‘ The agony of dissent which finds no support is unbearable.... For secularists like myself, imprisoned in the theocratic dungeon that is a Muslim nation today, the isolation is total. I weep for my daughter, just four-and-a-half years old, already being taught to recite the affirmation of faith and learning religious dogmas by rote at school. I want to tell her what I believe but don’t want her to be the victim of ridicule by her peers – or worse, should she repeat such heresy publicly.’
There are many today in the Muslim world who must feel the same way as the writer of that letter of whom, unlike the letter-writer, many must live out their narrowly- constrained lives in autocratic self-segregated ghettoes in Europe or the USA.
Even those Muslims who do not currently feel the same about their religion as that letter-writer will be deprived, should global or continental curbs on the freedom to criticise religions be introduced for which so many of their coreligionists are currently calling, of opportunity to find their way to freedom of mind, and, hopefully beyond that, to freedom of expression and association too, including that to leave their religion without fear of being killed in consequence.
There should, indeed, be universal mutual tolerance and mutual respect. But that is a two-way street. It demands from religious believers, as the price of their enjoying the freedom to practise their faith in a plural society and world, the same forbearance towards those who think their cherished religion to be misguided, as they must suppose all who do not adhere to that same religion to be.
Comments (3)
The Universal House of Justice, the governing council of the Baha'i world, says the following in a message to the world's religious leaders:
"To this accounting must be added a betrayal of the life of the mind which, more than any other factor, has robbed religion of the capacity it inherently possesses to play a decisive role in the shaping of world affairs. Locked into preoccupation with agendas that disperse and vitiate human energies, religious institutions have too often been the chief agents in discouraging exploration of reality and the exercise of those intellectual faculties that distinguish humankind. Denunciations of materialism or terrorism are of no real assistance in coping with the contemporary moral crisis if they do not begin by addressing candidly the failure of responsibility that has left believing masses exposed and vulnerable to these influences."
But religion need not stifle the life of the mind, but should, rather, foster the asking of questions and exploration of truth. In a statement entitled "Freedom to Believe", the Baha'i International Community's UN Office in New York says the following:
"The freedom to hold beliefs of one's choosing and to change them is central to human development. It is the individual's search for meaning and the desire to know who we are as human beings that distinguishes the human conscience."
Posted by Barney | February 11, 2006 10:27 AM
Posted on February 11, 2006 10:27
Spot on David. You've written some excellent pieces on this subject. There are probably millions of people in this position who are quietly enjoying the ridicule of their imposed religion. I live in Bradford and I have met several Muslims for whom their religion is an external imposition. But so surrounded are we already with the fear of offending someone, yet alone the terror of arousing the wrath of a religious psychopath, that the subject is circumvented and little discussed.
For the EU and the UN to be contemplating the outlawing of criticism of religion just shows how easily they will cave in to religious bigotry.
We don't need less discussion, we need more. And why are these measures being suggested now? Because there is a growing and intolerant minority in our midst which is vociferous and violent. If we're not careful (particularly as their numbers grow), they will keep agitating for the erosion of everything that makes European civilisation dynamic, progressive and open.
Posted by Mike Wood | February 10, 2006 5:57 PM
Posted on February 10, 2006 17:57
Well said David, your blog is a rare combination of brains with guts. Intellectual and moral refreshment after what has been a week of defeat for reason and freedom.
DD
Posted by Daniel Deme | February 10, 2006 5:34 PM
Posted on February 10, 2006 17:34