I have come to believe over the years that religion, by its very nature, is extremist.
There are, of course, degrees of extremism, and one particular religion tends to out-extreme others just lately. But religion, based as it is on faith in defiance of reason, is extremist by definition. Fundamentally so, you might say.
The Paris satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo is a weekly exercise in secular extremism, to wit: it relentlessly mocks and criticizes whatever target is in its sights, be that a celebrity, a politician, or, yes, a religion. It's extremism because it goes out of its way to offend. Satire doesn't work very well when it's gentle. But most of us, even ardent defenders of free speech, don't spend our working lives trying to piss off the world to make a point.
In the wake of the horrific attack in Paris that killed ten members of the Charlie Hebdo staff and two police officers, it once again becomes vitally important to pick a side. Yet again, three jihadis have attempted to rock our civilizational boat. Now when someone tips your boat, you only have two choices. You can tip with it, and perhaps wash overboard...or you can scurry to the other side of the boat -- only as far over as necessary -- and counterbalance.
Staying in the center -- doing nothing -- isn't good enough. You'll eventually be pulled in the direction you're being tipped, and be lost.
Now, three people with murderous intent aren't going to sink our ship, which has been building since the Enlightenment. There are forces at work in our society who apparently believe otherwise, and are urging all of us to run as fast as we can to the other side of the boat...and fight murder with murder. This is not a wise course of action: it will only rock the boat the other way, provoke a like response, and the wild rocking will eventually tear the boat apart.
But standing in the center will not do. And so I stand with Charlie Hebdo.
I think a god who can't take care of his own prophet, a god who is mortally offended by drawings, is a very weak god indeed, worthy of nothing but ridicule. A god who commands his followers to kill in his name is a devil. And anyone believing in such a god is a fool.
I don't like to pick fights. But given a choice between fighting on the side of reason and fighting on the side of illogical faith, I'm going to pick reason every time. And I will stand up and do it proudly, knowing that if I'm ever killed for my actions it will only prove their inherent rightness.
4 comments:
Je ne suis pas Charlie.
Not because I think that anything about the killings, or extremism is acceptable, but because Charlie Hedbo is nasty. There may have been a time when satire was something that involved questioning and maybe reflection and dialogue, but most of what I see that is called satire is just attack. Of course, if the nastiness makes me uncomfortable i am accused of not having a sense of humour.
I don't understand why freedom of speech is freedom to say vile nasty things with impunity.
By no means to I believe that saying vile things should get you killed. But I'm not going to go around saying vile things to protest these deaths. Instead I am going to try to be kinder. To understand that words have meanings and consequences. The consequences of vileness and vitriol are more vileness and vitriol. I think civilization is nasty enough without me condoning nastiness.
karen, thank you for your comment.
I agree that Charlie Hebdo is nasty much of the time. (By no means all: there's one cover that is widely being disseminated, probably because of its relative mildness: Mohammad saying something like "it's so hard/annoying to be loved/worshipped by idiots.")
I love your response, and in most contexts would echo it. Love and kindness *should* be the response to hate. But at the same time, as you say, nobody should be killed over a drawing, no matter how offensive, and demanding not to be offended is not acceptable in a free society.
I hadn't seen that cartoon and it did make me laugh out loud. I have often thought that god must feel that way.
The thing that troubles me is that things never happen in a vacuum and all actions come from something. I also know full well that I have no understanding of the social and cultural climate in France. I think there is a lot of pressure on "foreigners" and I really cannot imagine what that must be like. I don't condone violence. It frightens me, saddens me and I believe it diminishes us. If I have a religious belief, it is that our job here is to transcend our violent and selfish reflexes. But I think I understand where violence comes from. I think it comes from a sense of impotence, frustration and inability to articulate both of those things as well as the condition that causes them.
I think I can understand this without condoning it.
I guess really what I think is that it is not a simple situation and I am having a lot of trouble grappling with it. It's been on my mind, and causing me grief and its probably going to continue to do both.
Thanks for writing about it.
And thank you for your thoughtful replies.
In this particular case, what really bothers me is the strange obsession that *some* Muslims have with how their faith is viewed. Even when I was a Christian (and I strongly believed for a time), the fact that there were atheists making mock of my faith was beneath my notice. I certainly would never defecate on a cross--if someone else did, it was up to God what to do with him, and didn't concern me at all. Let alone a drawing? Please. Let Allah deal with the mockery, if He will.
I have written myself, and not long ago about the perpetuation of violence, most recently talking about the criminal factories we call prisons. I am the farthest thing from an "eye for an eye" guy you're likely to meet. But a drawing isn't a gunshot and expression isn't free if "offensive" expression is prohibited.
Post a Comment