Good piece. Some of this is less due to a concern about religious offence, than a general liberal position that one does not ‘punch’ down on an oppressed groups beliefs. There are also non-religious beliefs that have become ‘sacred’ in this manner. These are policed by social ostracism, enforcing a ‘people like us don’t say things about things like that’ mentality, just as the old blasphemy laws protected Christianity and no other religion, the de facto blasphemy laws are not equally applied. A new art installation in the style of Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ would not bring about the same polite society concerns now: it’s amusingly quaint that people still do anti-Christian work these days, given it is an approved target.
The real driver is fear of violence, which as you note is real, and (as at a lower level) attempts to destroy people’s livelihoods when offence is felt. The latter is not contained within one religion, with many contemporary non-religious belief systems which people seek to impose, and it is hard to see how threats of violence will become common in these groups since it is effective.
An excellent piece with which I'm in total agreement. And thank you for mentioning the Ahmadis, who are viciously persecuted.
I just want to add though that I think it is hard for those of us in Christian or secular countries to understand just how depictions of the Prophet are viewed by many Muslims. I think it really does feel to them like an actual attack, a deliberate attempt to hurt them. So while I would absolutely argue that we *should* be able to show such cartoons, I would question whether it is helpful to do so. I wouldn't expect to sit in an RE lesson and hear my teacher making fun of Christianity, and I think we have to consider that Muslims students may feel demeaned by this.
I hope I wouldn't ever go out of my way to be gratuitously offensive about any religion purely for its own sake. That said I don't think it should be punished in law or otherwise. In the case of the teacher, the school's own investigation found that he wasn't using the image to make fun of Islam, but to illustrate a wider point about blasphemy and societal reactions to it (which he most certainly did, albeit not in the way he intended).
I don't think it should be punished in law, or in any way. And I totally get that that wasn't his intention.
In short, it's something we should be free to do, I just wouldn't advise doing it because of the upset it would cause. It's like calling someone fat to their face. I should be able to, but I think I should choose not to.
Islam actually teaches that Muslims should rise above this sort of thing and not retaliate, anyway. There’s no religious basis for this kind of violent, angry response.
Nobody really believes that any set of beliefs at all should be respected. I’m a cricket fan, holding the game to be in the words of the late Norman Geras “one of the most sublime creations of the human spirit”. But if I said that means that no one should be allowed to say that cricket is dull and boring and nowhere near as good as soccer, etc., et., I would be told to stop being silly. It’s beliefs designated “religious” that are supposed to be entitled to respect, but why they are different from all other beliefs is never explained. It can’t be because they are so deeply held. Some religious people are full of doubts, and some believers in various non-religious doctrines are quite fanatical. It’s all very odd.
Good piece. Some of this is less due to a concern about religious offence, than a general liberal position that one does not ‘punch’ down on an oppressed groups beliefs. There are also non-religious beliefs that have become ‘sacred’ in this manner. These are policed by social ostracism, enforcing a ‘people like us don’t say things about things like that’ mentality, just as the old blasphemy laws protected Christianity and no other religion, the de facto blasphemy laws are not equally applied. A new art installation in the style of Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ would not bring about the same polite society concerns now: it’s amusingly quaint that people still do anti-Christian work these days, given it is an approved target.
The real driver is fear of violence, which as you note is real, and (as at a lower level) attempts to destroy people’s livelihoods when offence is felt. The latter is not contained within one religion, with many contemporary non-religious belief systems which people seek to impose, and it is hard to see how threats of violence will become common in these groups since it is effective.
A great article, James. Please continue to support freedom!
Thank you!
An excellent piece with which I'm in total agreement. And thank you for mentioning the Ahmadis, who are viciously persecuted.
I just want to add though that I think it is hard for those of us in Christian or secular countries to understand just how depictions of the Prophet are viewed by many Muslims. I think it really does feel to them like an actual attack, a deliberate attempt to hurt them. So while I would absolutely argue that we *should* be able to show such cartoons, I would question whether it is helpful to do so. I wouldn't expect to sit in an RE lesson and hear my teacher making fun of Christianity, and I think we have to consider that Muslims students may feel demeaned by this.
I hope I wouldn't ever go out of my way to be gratuitously offensive about any religion purely for its own sake. That said I don't think it should be punished in law or otherwise. In the case of the teacher, the school's own investigation found that he wasn't using the image to make fun of Islam, but to illustrate a wider point about blasphemy and societal reactions to it (which he most certainly did, albeit not in the way he intended).
I don't think it should be punished in law, or in any way. And I totally get that that wasn't his intention.
In short, it's something we should be free to do, I just wouldn't advise doing it because of the upset it would cause. It's like calling someone fat to their face. I should be able to, but I think I should choose not to.
Islam actually teaches that Muslims should rise above this sort of thing and not retaliate, anyway. There’s no religious basis for this kind of violent, angry response.
Nobody really believes that any set of beliefs at all should be respected. I’m a cricket fan, holding the game to be in the words of the late Norman Geras “one of the most sublime creations of the human spirit”. But if I said that means that no one should be allowed to say that cricket is dull and boring and nowhere near as good as soccer, etc., et., I would be told to stop being silly. It’s beliefs designated “religious” that are supposed to be entitled to respect, but why they are different from all other beliefs is never explained. It can’t be because they are so deeply held. Some religious people are full of doubts, and some believers in various non-religious doctrines are quite fanatical. It’s all very odd.