After the attack on the magazine Charlie Hebdo in early January, many conversations opened up about religious boundaries in the world today. Questions were raised concerning the assault that still remains taboo, even in the following months. Why do some cultures take offense at the artwork of others? Have free speech and self expression been taken too far? And finally, how are we supposed to behave? Can we never comment on a religion that isn’t our own? Must we refrain from depicting Jesus or Muhammad?
Years ago, religious tolerance was observed more frequently, and much more so in America than it is today. Individuals worshipped privately, many more families went to
worship, and certain books, artists, and cultural practices were banned. Although this sentiment is still held dearly in some countries today, in other parts of the world, this notion of religious boundaries has changed. We hear much more frequently of more and more people “crossing the religious line”, and we also hear of more and more of these people being punished for it. US history teacher, Joseph Kleinman, who just finished teaching a course on the Middle Ages, where religious intolerance was a major theme, thinks that the attacks are rooted in absolutism. “When a culture thinks that their ideas are absolutely true…they think of those of others as false, evil, and wrong.”
Additionally, Ethics teacher Robert Schaecher, who taught the History of Religion course at Fieldston, believes that the sacred text of Islam, the Qur’an, is seen as more powerful to its worshippers than the texts of Jews and Christians.
“If [a holy text was] defaced,” Schaecher argues, “the reaction in the west would rarely lead to an act of violence. The Quran is considered to be the revealed word of God as he spoke it. The Bible is the word of God, but written down by humans. In Islam, [if the Quran was defaced] there would be aggressive offensives.”
It’s not easy figuring out where the red line is for satire anymore
Gary Trudeau, satirical writer and cartoonist recently wrote an article in The Atlantic denouncing the Charlie cartoonists. “Traditionally, satire has comforted the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable. Satire punches up, against authority of all kinds, the little guy against the powerful…Ridiculing the nonprivileged is almost never funny – it’s just mean.”
“By punching downward, by attacking a powerless, disenfranchised minority with crude, vulgar
drawings closer to graffiti than cartoons, Charlie†wandered into the realm of hate speech.” Mr. Kleinman, on the other hand, disagrees and thinks that the purpose of cartoons is to poke fun at others. “Cartoons are supposed to be irreverent,” Kleinman says. “I wouldn’t read a respectful cartoon.”
As for our own actions, Kleinman believes that although assaulting other cultures isn’t right, walking on eggshells is not an option either. “We shouldn’t attack [other religions],” Kleinman says. “But we should be commenting on religions that are not our own…the problem is killing someone who comments on these religions. The problem is the culture’s response to others who are deemed wrong.”
“It’s not easy figuring out where the red line is for satire anymore,” Trudeau writes in his article, “but it’s always worth asking this question: Is anyone, anyone at all laughing? If not, maybe you’ve crossed it.”
