Islam�s choice

Islam�s choice

By Joseph Sinasac

2/9/2006

4

It wouldn�t be surprising if Christians indulged in a bit of schadenfreude regarding the worldwide Islamic outrage over offensive cartoons of the founder of their religion. After all, they have been there, too.

Christians have been quick to challenge such attacks when they�ve been the target. When the British Broadcasting Corporation broadcast the anti-Christian satire, �Jerry Springer: the Opera,� the BBC was flooded with letters opposing the decision and there were protests in the streets. When American photographer Andres Serrano was poking Christians in the eye in the 1990s with his Piss Christ and Piss Pope � photographs of Jesus and the Pope soaked in Serrano�s own urine � he received his own public shellacking. There have been protests and boycotts too numerous to mention over various movies, cartoons and public statements by celebrities. Sometimes these protests have been effective. Other times, not so much.

But the big difference between most of these public Christian reactions to insults to their religion, and the latest Muslim outburst is this: Christians were not burning consulates, or brandishing signs that said, �Behead those who insult Islam.� Nor were they chanting anything akin to �Denmark must be blown up,� and �Let the hands that drew (the cartoons) be severed.�

The difference is at the heart of how religion � any religion � can coexist with groups whose beliefs are at odds with one�s own in a pluralistic society. It is not an easy relationship, nor does it come without its price; Christians have learned this through many mistakes.

But mainstream religions in the West have been strengthened by coming to the realization that respect for their religion cannot be enforced by legal fiat or mob violence. It must be earned in the public square, which means that when you preach peace, you must behave as if you believe it.

This is not to make excuses for the publication in a Danish newspaper � followed by copycats in France, Norway and elsewhere � of crude cartoons depicting the founder of Islam, Mohammed, in various offensive guises. With free speech comes responsibility to use it wisely; in this case, the publication of the cartoons was grossly irresponsible as it seemingly had no other intent than to hurt and insult an entire religion.

But in free societies, the public square is a tough neighborhood. No one can guarantee they will never be offended. Mixed with all the responsible advocates of various ideologies and beliefs are snake-oil salesmen, false prophets and agents provocateurs.

Despite its flaws, however, a vigorous free speech and free press are still the best guarantors of religious freedom. We turn to censorship only with great caution, knowing that our cures may be worse than the disease.

Public debate can both enlighten and inflame; for their own good, religions have to learn how to navigate these treacherous waters while remaining true to their core beliefs. They must learn to respond assertively without responding in kind to the hatred and prejudice so often confronting people of faith in an aggressively anti-religious culture.

For most Muslims living in the West, this is not news and they are impressive at peaceful advocacy of their religion. But many co-religionists have much yet to learn.

- - -

Joseph Sinasac is publisher and editor in chief of The Catholic Register.

This editorial is republished with permission of The Catholic Register (www.catholicregister.org), the largest circulation Catholic newspaper in Canada, a Catholic Online Preferred Publishing Partner.

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.ph p?id=18644