Religion and press freedom

Riots and outrage have swept across Afghanistan, Iraq, India, Indonesia and the Philippines in protest of cartoons, printed in Danish and other European newspapers, that depict the prophet Muhammad. Embassies have been burned. Violent threats have been made against those who publish the cartoons, which protesters say are offensive to Muslims. Those publishing the cartoons say it is a matter of press freedom. How would you balance freedom of the press with possibly offending members of a religious group?

First, it was irresponsible for the press to ask for such a lampooning of a key religious figure. Let that be clear.

That being said, the rioters’ actions do nothing to persuade the rest of the world that the terrorist depictions are untrue. It would speak volumes if they could peacefully protest. In doing so, I think they would prove the assertions in the cartoons false and draw the sympathies of the world and the apologies of the press.

We, in the West, need to understand that they believe our press is controlled by the government as theirs is. They have no concept of a free press operating independently of government edict or approval. That is why they are demanding government intervention.

It is incomprehensible to them that our governments are powerless to do anything.

The American press tends to be more conservative and sensitive in these matters than the European press. We don’t normally see the faces of dead bodies, full nudity, the lampooning of religious leaders or other things that Americans deem offensive in our papers.

These things are daily parts of the European press. I think there is a greater understanding that freedom includes responsibility. Yes, they have the right to print these cartoons, but is it the most responsible thing to do on the heels of several weeks of violence by young Muslims who felt alienated by the culture at large?

This almost appears to be an attempt to enflame the situation again. To back down from the rioters’ demands would be to yield to terrorism, but how responsible are the papers in instigating the raging in the first place?

SENIOR ASSOCIATE PASTOR

RIC OLSEN

Harbor Trinity

Costa Mesa

Freedom of speech and respecting religious sensibilities, the “moral high ground” in conflict here, are both important. Freedom of expression is a great value, so is respectful prudence.

Which is more important?

Paul’s basic counsel in 1 Corinthians 10:23-24 is relevant: “ ‘All things are lawful,’ but not all things are beneficial. ‘All things are lawful,’ but not all things build up. Do not seek your own advantage, but that of the other.”

Politically, freedom is more important than seeking the “advantage of the other.”

Spiritually, understanding that we are all free should lead to mutual respect. Being a Westerner, I am for a free press; being a person of faith, I am for mutual respect. (Being Episcopalian, I am for good taste and graciousness.)

I wonder why this international furor has erupted now in reaction against cartoons first printed in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten last September. A minority of Muslims are calling for a boycott of Denmark and any other nation whose press reprints the cartoons; Westerners are standing up for principles of free speech and not yielding to self-censorship in the name of multiculturalism and fear.

While the debate rages, what seems to me to be an important point has been overlooked: Despite the Islamic prohibition against depicting Muhammad under any circumstances, thousands of depictions of Muhammad have been part of both Islamic and Western culture since the Middle Ages.

I remember my high school English teacher in the 1960s showing an illustration of Dante’s Inferno wherein “Mahomet shows his entrails to Dante and Virgil”; Dante described Muhammad as one of the “Sowers of Discord” in the eighth circle of Hell, where punishment is mutilation.

And I remember seeing a 1970s exhibition of illustrations including Muhammad, most of which were from Afghanistan and Persia, at the Metropolitan Museum of Art; one medieval-era drawing showed Muhammad preaching along with a Christian-style halo!

Great artists including William Blake, Salvador Dali, Auguste Rodin and Gustave Dore have depicted Muhammad. The north frieze on our nation’s Supreme Court building features a bas-relief sculpture of Muhammad alongside Moses and other great historical lawgivers.

The television cartoon series “South Park” aired an episode called “Super Best Friends”; in it, the founders of the world’s great religions, including Muhammad, team up for superhero action.

There have been many other contemporary, satirical and/or mocking cartoons featuring Muhammad -- none have sparked responses characterized by widespread violence.

The recent cartoons in Jyllands-Posten are not so new. What’s true is that no other images of Muhammad have ever been so widely publicized or caused such a brouhaha with riotous consequences.

These cartoons, prejudiced though they may be, and the responses to them, terrifying as they are, are symptomatic of much, much larger problems. Given the tenor of tensions in our world these days, I guess timing is everything.

Now, how about a discussion of derogatory portrayals of the Buddha? Of Moses? Of David? Of Jesus?

(THE VERY REV’D CANON)

PETER D. HAYNES