The fundamental right to blasphemy by Martin Gak

January 8, 2015

Screen_Shot_2011-11-02_at_09.08.48-originalMartin wrote this a few years ago, and in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shootings, I re-print this article in its entirety.

On facebook he wrote; So the news that apparently I have to break to you is that you–especially if you work in media–are not Charlie. Charlie said what you were afraid to say and because there was nobody to stand with him, he paid with his life. Very few have the right to say that they are Charlie tonight.


When as a response to Hillary Clinton’s call for governments in Arab countries to defend foreign embassies from the mob, the Prime Minister of Egypt called on the US to do all it can to stop insults against Islam, I wondered which forms of offense were the ones that he was referring to? Prime Minister Qandil’s request happens to echoe a strong move by several Middle Eastern countries that, over the past few years, have lobbied European governments for the promulgation of blasphemy laws. Insulting a god—any god, we should assume—would become in some manner or other, illegal.

In the context of what has apparently been the reaction to Sam Bacile’s The Innocense of Muslims, one would be excused for taking this plea as an exculpation of the mob. Sure enough, the words of Mr. Qandil were nuanced by asserting the guilt of perpetrators and by appeals to moderation and balance on both sides. That is, the side that in the name of free speech supposedly slandered the Muslim god and his prophet and the Muslim gangs that protecting the honor of their scriptural prophet went on a wild rampage. Yet, the basic idea that the Prime Minister was conveying was that even if these people torching buildings and killing diplomats are criminals, the blame lies ultimately with those who provoked them.

But what type of provocation are we talking about here? YouTube movies? Koran burning? At first blush, these seemed to be the offending acts which we would be safer avoiding. But then if these almost laughable exertions by amateurs theologians and high-school artistes were to be the target of the demand for silent respect to one or other god, what was to be of my offending interest in religion, my secularism and cosmopolitanism, my Facebook postings, my gay friends and my Jewish parents? In fact, we should take stock of what constitute offense to religious sensibilities, since that is what we are being asked to forestall and possibly even legislate. Let me give you a quick list of things that have been taken to offend god and for which people have paid with their lives:

Worshipping a god other than the one your neighbors worship, for instance a golden calf. Producing a semblance of the god who your neighbors like. Saying the word ‘god’ or swearing by it. Claiming that your god had a human body. Claiming that your god did not have a human body (Refer to the Christological disputes from the 1st century onwards and their toll in blood). Denying that a god is three and one at the same time. Affirming that a god is more than one (as in the Trinitarian controversies). Denying that there is a god at all. Affirming that the god has being. Protesting clerical hierarchy (Protestants in catholic territories). Defending clerical hierarchies (as it happened to members of the counterreformation). Not ceasing all activities the day of the week that your neighbors cease all activities. Ceasing all activities the day your neighbors work. Eating meat the day your neighbors don’t eat meat. Not burning a bull the day that your neighbors burn a bull. Eating pork. Not eating pork. Burning books. Not burning books.

Observing astronomical phenomena as did Galileo Galilei. Observing biological phenomena as did Darwin. Doing anatomical research and not finding a soul. Describing a psychiatric condition as related to the body. Having a psychiatric condition which was previously taken to be a demonic possession. Having metaphysical disagreements with Aristotle. Not reading the books your neighbors read. Reading the books your neighbors read without their authorization. Translating books which your neighbors don’t like as it was the case with the Song of Songs taken by the inquisition to be a judeizing book. Philosophizing and Reasoning. Engaging in the unauthorized practice of theology.

Painting nudes, singing loudly and dancing in just about any form. Drinking alcohol. Not drinking alcohol. Eating bread from the hands of a cleric. Not eating bread from the hands of a cleric. Having sex without the approval and certification of a cleric, that is, having sex without being married. Having sex with someone other than your spouse. Desiring someone of your own gender. Having sex with someone of your own gender. Having anal sex with someone of any gender. Falling in love. Dating.

Working or studying while having a vagina. Enjoying sex while having a vagina. Engaging in political activity or military campaigns while having a vagina. Dancing in a wedding party while having a vagina.  Wearing ‘modern’ clothing while having a vagina. Sporting a modern hairstyle while having a vagina. Exposing your legs while having a vagina. Exposing your arms while having a vagina. Exposing your shoulders while having a vagina. Exposing your neck while having a vagina. Exposing your face while having a vagina. Exposing any part of your body whatsoever while having a vagina. Thinking while having a vagina.

The list, actually, goes on. And these are only a few of the activities that have been earnestly taken to insult someone’s god and for whom people have paid with stoning, stabbing, decapitation, shooting, hanging, burning or quartering. In this light, the ultimate responsibility for the murder of Theo VanGogh in Amsterdam was his own, the blame for the attack of Danish diplomatic missions was the Danish government’s and the blame for the demolition of the Buddhas of Bamiyan by the Taliban and the destruction of the mausoleums in Timbuktu by members of Ansar Dine were, well, the builders and designers of these monuments who offended some or other god.

It is indeed at this very juncture where we can see with glaring clarity the importance of the right to blaspheme. Or perhaps we should explain this right in terms that those who are inclined to defend theological concepts with theological categories can understand: it is here where we should see with complete clarity the sanctity of the right to blaspheme in a democratic society.

The respect that is demanded from us under threat of extreme violence is the pious abandonment of our right to reason. This right is incompatible with religious respect because reason offends belief and rational deliberation is incompatible with irrational conviction. It is by reason that we assert the rights of women to bare their arms and legs, to study and to work as autonomous human beings. It is by reason that we assert the right of dancers to dance and painters to paint and it is by reason that we assert the right of the members of our society to believe what they may chose to believe irrespective of whom that may offend by thought or expression. It is by reason that we assert the right to reason and understanding and this right we take to be fundamental. That is to say, the right to think and express offensive thoughts is for us members of cosmopolitan societies, inheritors of the enlightenment the fundamental right to express our reasons against the demands of belief. And this has to mean being free and thus protected from violence against the expression of our reasons. It is the zealot who will have to find a better way to deal with discomfort. Just as all adults learn to do.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: