Andrew Sorokowski's column

Suis-je Charlie?

20.01.2015, 08:48
Suis-je Charlie? - фото 1
Ukraine is still a religious society to some degree, and hence, blasphemy is taken seriously. In the early 1990s, as Ukraine gained independence and legislators were considering new draft laws, someone suggested that there should be laws against blasphemy. But today, this is unlikely to happen.

Andrew SorokowskiUkraine is still a religious society to some degree, and hence, blasphemy is taken seriously. In the early 1990s, as Ukraine gained independence and legislators were considering new draft laws, someone suggested that there should be laws against blasphemy. But today, this is unlikely to happen.

The recent murder of twelve journalists of the satirical Paris publication “Charlie Hebdo” by two militant Islamists aroused a storm of outrage worldwide. Fanaticism and intolerance were condemned, freedom of speech was upheld. Liberals proudly identified themselves with the victims, spreading the slogan “Je suis Charlie.” In this they were defending freedom of speech, rather than adopting the particular kind of “speech” for which “Charlie Hebdo” is known – namely, satire, often obscene, directed at religion. But some no doubt favored precisely that kind of content. On the other hand, it was revealed that the tolerance of “Charlie Hebdo” was not unlimited: it had reportedly fired an employee for anti-semitic language.

American political commentator Fareed Zakaria laid the blame for the tragedy not only on the terrorists, but more broadly on the politicization of Islam. He pointed out that the Qur’an does not prescribe the death penalty or any physical punishmentfor blasphemy. In fact, he noted, the penalty isto be found in the Old Testament, at Leviticus 24:16. Zakaria quotes Islamic scholar MaulanaWahiduddin Khan as saying that in Islam, blasphemy is a matter of intellectual discussion, not punishment. 

Tony Barber, European editor of the Financial Times, remarked that “Charlie Hebdo” and similar press organs were simply foolish to provoke Muslims with crude cartoons. American Catholic lay leaderWilliam Donohuealso criticized the victims. While unreservedly condemning the killings, he pointed out that “Charlie’s” anti-Islamic satires had provoked the Muslims. Donohue may have been motivated in part by the fact that the weekly had published obscene cartoons criticizing the Catholic Church.

Of course, the Christian response to blasphemy does not follow the prescriptions of Leviticus. The law of love, after all, has superseded the harsh laws of the Old Testament. Christians distinguish the sinner from the sin.While blasphemy is a serious offense, the penalty should not be nearly as severe as that for murder. And there can be no justification for believers taking the law into their own hands. Donohue’s perhaps unintended implication that the victims got what they deserved is not a proper Christian response.

At the same time, the general public, and some politicians and intellectuals, seem not to have distinguished between the issue of extra-judicial killing – which nearly everyone condemns – and that of whether blasphemy should be illegal. In fact, Ireland still has an anti-blasphemy statute on the books, even though it does not enforce it. Moreover, every country has some restrictions on speech or expression. In the secular West, where the paramount value seems to be preserving biological life, speech can be limited where it might endanger it. In the classic example, shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater is not protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, because it could easily result in loss of life. In a religious society, it is the fate of one’s immortal soul that is paramount; hence, speech that might jeopardize its salvation, such as heresy or blasphemy, is severely punished. The difference is in the values that a society considers important enough to limit free speech.Nations that denounce others for their restrictions on free expression are hypocritical, for all nations restrict it, according to their particular values. As columnist Ruth Marcus has pointed out, France is hardly an exception.

Ukraine is still a religious society to some degree, and hence, blasphemy is taken seriously. In the early 1990s, as Ukraine gained independence and legislators were considering new draft laws, someone suggested that there should be laws against blasphemy. But today, this is unlikely to happen. There are several good reasons for this. For one thing, such laws are not effective. They are difficult to enforce. They unduly restrict freedom of speech and press. And by making blasphemy illegal, they would make it more attractive. A marginal phenomenon would become a symbol of resistance to authority.

Yet the antics of groups like “Femen” trouble some Ukrainians. If the law cannot stop blasphemous words and actions, what can? One should look to the record of how free societies have tried to deal with other social ills. One possibly instructive example is cigarettes. They were long been known to be harmful to public health.  But in much of the world, including even Europe (and especially eastern Europe), smoking is still considered a socially acceptable habit, if not a sign of sophistication. Yetin parts of the United States, it is looked down upon as a sign of backwardness and ignorance. How did this come about? Neither law nor taxes could achieve this. Tooutlaw smoking would have had about as much support as a second attempt to outlaw alcoholic beverages. Rather, it was a campaign of public information about the effects of smoking on health that eventually changed public consciousness. It is, one might say, a matter of culture, and culture can best be modified through education.

The same, in a Christian society at least, could be done with blasphemy. If the public truly understood the value of religion and the moral sickness that leads men to blaspheme – and if religious institutions refrained from actions to provoke them – then there would be little motivation for blasphemy, and the phenomenon would become marginal. For the anti-religious satires of “Charlie Hebdo” are symptoms of a socio-cultural malaise in which enough of the reading public detests religion to support a weekly publication. 

Can Catholics say, “Je suis Charlie”? In the sense that  they condemn extra-judicial violence — yes.

In the sense that every human being must be free to choose between good and evil actions – yes. Permitting some to do what is morally wrong (though not illegal) is a guarantee that others who choose to do what is morally right will be doing so by free choice, not compulsion.

In the sense that freedom of the press must be preserved – again, yes. Without a free press, political freedom is practically meaningless. And without some political freedom, Catholics cannot live in society according to their consciences.

But in the sense of sympathizing with the “values” of Charlie Hebdo, whereby freedom of speech is used to attack what is sacred, Catholics cannot say, “Je suis Charlie.” Because in a Catholic society, all religions would be not only tolerated, but respected. “Charlie” would not need to exist.

Andrew Sorokowski

Recent columns