The phrase ‘Je
suis Charlie’ (I am Charlie) is used to support freedom of expression. Charlie
Hebdo, the French satirical weekly magazine, angered the Islamic community when
they published offensive caricatures of Prophet Muhammad. Charlie Hebdo’s
action was predicated on ‘freedom of expression.’ The Islamic response,
predicated on their version of ‘freedom of expression,’ was to launch a deadly
assault on Charlie Hebdo, killing 12 people. 1
Within the
context of the Islamic assault against Charlie Hebdo and from the perspective
of Christianity, we could ask two questions:
1. How
would have Christians responded had Charlie Hebdo employed its freedom of
expression to publish offensive material against Christianity?
2. What’s
the motivating factor for the Christian response?
Christianity Compels Love
& Respect For The Unbeliever
Christianity
considers two vital theological dynamics while examining man’s tirade against
God. First, Christian theology espouses God’s sovereignty and man’s freewill. A
possible entailment of God-given freewill to man is man’s rejection and abuse
of God. Second, God loves man even if he rejects HIM [although God’s love offers
a rejecting man an eternal abode in hell].
God loves the
unbeliever. Hence, HE creates and sustains him by providing the basic
necessities, and, in numerous instances, the superfluous luxuries of this life.
Provision
of basic necessities and superfluous luxuries of this life displays not only
God’s love for the unbeliever, but it also reveals God’s respect for the
unbeliever. God does not insult the unbeliever, for the Bible does not reveal God’s
insult of the unbeliever for his unbelief. God thus respects the unbeliever
during his life on earth by graciously sustaining and not insulting him.
In fact, God
out of HIS love and respect for the unbelieving man offers the unbeliever an option
in eternal abode via hell. Hell is essentially the choice of the unbelieving
person. The unbeliever chooses to live in hell by rejecting God during his
lifetime on earth. Thus he could live outside God’s presence unto all eternity.
This is the manifestation of God’s love and respect for the unbeliever, for God
does not force the unbeliever to believe and love HIM.
On one
hand, God graciously sustains, and does not insult the unbeliever. On the other
hand, the unbeliever, by virtue of his freewill, could reject and abuse/insult
God. This is the harsh theological contrast between God and the unbeliever as
revealed in the Bible.
Given that God
loves and respects the unbelieving man, the believer is required to love and
respect his unbelieving brother/sister. This love and respect should transcend
unbelief and abuse. (The unbeliever’s abuse being considered in this discussion
is an abuse directed against God. This abuse does not harm or kill a fellow
man.) This then is the primary motivation for the Christian to love the
unbeliever and be tolerant of his abuses against God and HIS Word.
Christians Would Not
Harm The Unbeliever
Historic
Christianity has always been under the radar of the unbelievers, so much so
history reveals an assortment of exotic and mundane criticisms against the God
of the Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Bible. In fact one can anticipate
a tirade against historic Christianity around the dates of Christian holy occasions
such as Christmas and Easter; the most recent being Newsweek’s assault against
the Bible and the ad nauseam nonsensical
allegation that Christ had married Mary Magdalene.
The most
recent denigrations of Christ and the Bible are similar to the denigration of
Prophet Muhammad by Charlie Hebdo. To the best of my knowledge, Christians
professing to historic Christianity did not respond violently against the
sources of denigration of the Bible and the Lord Jesus.
Hence it
would be reasonable to conclude that Christians would not have responded in a
violent manner against Charlie Hebdo had the satirical magazine published
offensive material against historic Christianity.
(The unbelievers’
attack in the context of this essay is not a physically violent aggression but
an intellectual attack at the most. Therefore, when the attack is intellectual,
the response ought to be intellectual as well. The intellectual response does
not physically harm anyone.)
Was Charlie Hebdo
Justified? Scope of Freedom of Expression
Was Charlie
Hebdo justified in publishing offensive caricatures of Prophet Muhammed? Did
Charlie Hebdo act within the scope of freedom of expression?
On one hand
is an opinion that defends Charlie Hebdo’s freedom of expression that permits a
rather limitless scope to offend anyone. Facebook’s chief executive, Mark
Zuckerberg, ostensibly defended Charlie Hebdo and spoke against the terrorist
attack since it was against freedom of expression, ““It wasn’t just a terrorist attack about just trying to do some damage
and make people afraid and hurt people. This was specifically about people’s
freedom of expression and ability to say what they want,” said Zuckerberg.”
2
On the
other hand, Pope Francis advocated for a freedom of expression within a limit, ““There is a limit,” he said, speaking in
Italian. “Every religion has its dignity. I cannot mock a religion that
respects human life and the human person.”” 3
Freedom
within a limit could work well within a theistic worldview. Those subscribing
to a theistic framework are expected to respect life and the contradictory
religious worldview of a fellow human being. For instance, the
love-your-neighbor mandate of Christianity prohibits murder or abuse of a
fellow human being.
But Charlie
Hebdo brands itself as a satirical anti-religious publication. 4 Hence,
one should expect tirades against religious views.
What then
is the scope of freedom of expression? A cursory look at God’s relationship
with an unbeliever could pave way for a conducive human response against
unreasonable anti-religious diatribes that offend religious sensitivities.
Here is a
classic case in point. The bulldog of atheism, Richard Dawkins, in his work The God Delusion, considers the God of
the Bible as, “arguably the most
unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust,
unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a
misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal,
pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Significantly, Dawkins attacks God. But how does God respond to Dawkins?
Although
Dawkins’ assault of God is exceptional, God graciously allows him to live and
live well. Thereby God offers Dawkins a chance to repent and believe in the one
true and living God.
God allows
man to abuse HIM rather endlessly. So the scope of freedom of expression seems
limitless from God’s perspective but within one’s mortal existence. When God
allows man to abuse HIM endlessly and mindlessly, could man introduce boundaries
against religious diatribes?
From the
perspective of respect of fellow humans and peace, I would not justify Charlie
Hebdo’s attack on Islam. Having said this, we should recognize an apparently
limitless freedom offered by God to an unbeliever.
Although
Pope’s idea of limited freedom of expression is wise, one cannot expect every
anti-religious Tom, Dick and Harry to respect religious sensitivities.
Therefore, those subscribing to a theistic framework should love and respect
even those who abuse religious sensitivities.
Advocating Reasonable
Response Against Attack On Religion
When the
assault against religion is in the form of a cartoon, shouldn’t the response
also be on the same lines? A violent response that kills and harms lives cannot
be justified under any condition.
Thus we
agree with Pope Francis that ““One cannot
offend, make war, kill in the name of one’s own religion, that is, in the name
of God,” Francis said. “To kill in the name of God is an aberration.”” 5
Let us
continue praying for a reasonable response – a response that does not maim or murder
anyone - even when our religious sensitivities are mutilated. Amen.
Endnotes:
1 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/14/charlie-hebdo-attack_n_6468498.html?ir=India
2 http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/15/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-charlie-hebdo
3 http://time.com/3668875/pope-francis-charlie-hebdo/
4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo#2015_attack
5 http://time.com/3668875/pope-francis-charlie-hebdo/
No comments:
Post a Comment