Anglican Bishops Against Free Speech
By David Mills
FIRST THINGS http://www.firstthings.com/
September 19, 2012
Four Anglican bishops serving in northeastern Africa and Cyprus have written the United Nations asking that "an international declaration be negotiated that outlaws the intentional and deliberate insulting or defamation of persons (such as prophets), symbols, texts and constructs of belief deemed holy by people of faith." They make this proposal in response to the recent movie on Muhammad and "similar offensive incidents [which] have occurred in some European countries" and "evoked massive and violent responses worldwide."
It is a bad idea, a very bad idea, on many levels. For one thing, such a law would violate the Western ideal of free speech we should not give up. For another, it would quickly be used to suppress not only "deliberate insulting or defamation" but reasonable criticism and disagreement. One man's well-and kindly-argued belief that another man is in error can be to that other man insult and defamation, especially if he has no natural appreciation for the free exchange of ideas.
What if, for example, someone pursuing higher critical studies of the Koran decides that much of it is made up, the way for two centuries now many people have argued that much of the gospel story is made up? What about the basic Christian proclamation of the uniqueness of Christ as the Savior of the world, which, however nuanced and with however great an understanding of the value of other religions (as described in Nostra Aetate, for example), still declares that other religions are deeply mistaken?
Would not those ideas be taken by the followers of the religions criticized as insult and defamation? And why should only the beliefs of the religious be protected? Shouldn't the "constructs of belief" of secular people be equally protected? If they believe that, say, the practice of homosexuality is a human good, shouldn't they be protected from the insult and defamation of those who insist it isn't?
Restrictions on free speech only expand. Nearly everyone, understandably, wants his ideas protected and freed from public evaluation. A proposal that begins with the hope that people will stop insulting Mohammad will grow to include limits on all sorts of ideas the proposers never intended. Except, of course, in the West, limits on attacks on Christianity. We will not see the solicitude extending to Islam and even to secular commitments extended, or extended very often or very far, to Christianity.
It is significant that the bishops, one of whom is a former colleague of mine, write solely about incidents of Muslims reacting violently to ideas or works they don't like. We don't see Christians, or Jews, or Buddhists, or Sikhs, or anyone else responding to ideas by rioting, much less by rioting against and killing people who don't have anything to do with the ideas they dislike. There's a reason many people are making jokes like "Remember the time we stormed the British embassy when The Life of Brian came out, and pulled down their flag and beat up all those guys working there? That'll teach them not to insult our faith. It was gre . . . oh wait, we didn't do that." It is a bad thing when violence and the constant threat of violence lead people to concede unilaterally an important part of their culture and law to placate those who do not think like that. That tells the world, and the violent themselves, nothing good.
*****
Bishops, Religious Freedom, and Islamist Terror
Mark Tooleywww.theird.org
September 21, 2012
Sadly, four Anglican bishops in the Middle East have joined to endorse international blasphemy laws.
"In view of the current inflamed situation in several countries in response to the production of a film in the USA which evidently intends to offend our Muslim brothers and sisters by insulting the Prophet Mohammed, and in view of the fact that in recent years similar offensive incidents have occurred in some European countries which evoked massive and violent responses worldwide, we hereby suggest that an international declaration be negotiated that outlaws the intentional and deliberate insulting or defamation of persons (such as prophets), symbols, texts and constructs of belief deemed holy by people of faith," they wrote the United Nations general secretary.
The four bishops serve in or are responsible for churches in Egypt, Cyprus and the Gulf, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa.
The bishops' letter, as noted by "Anglican Ink," somewhat echoes the 2011 United Nations' resolution urging nations to "combat" negative speech and attitude about religious groups. It dropped a specific reference to "defamation" long pushed by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) of 56 majority Muslim countries. Like the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the resolution affirms freedom of expression. But clearly its emphasis is on squelching criticism.
Likewise the Anglican bishops insisted their proposed declaration would not contradict freedom of expression. But their suggestion is to "outlaw" defamation of religion, which certainly does assail free speech. They understandably want to preempt violence, but by restraining "malicious opinions." The bishops concluded that "as people living here in the Middle East, we see that the way ahead for peaceful coexistence and religious harmony is through mutual respect and love."
Who can fault these poor bishops, responsible for tiny, besieged flocks, saying what they must for continued survival? Unlike the U.S. Embassy in Cairo trying to appease the mob, Christian communities in the Middle East have no earthly power to defend them. Amid ongoing Christian exodus from the region, they are trying to preserve what remains. God bless them. But Christians elsewhere, with other people of conscience, must defend truly free expression, even when Islamist killers threaten. Otherwise, today's free societies may slide into what these bishops must now routinely experience.
Christians in sub-Saharan Africa, who unlike declining Mideast churches are surging in numbers, are typically more robust in defending religious freedom. Nigeria's Catholic bishops recently denounced the Islamist terror group Boko Haram and demanded their national government act aggressively to defend vulnerable Christians in the country's mostly Islamic north.
"The patience of Christians, especially in the north, has been tried and tested for too long now through the unprovoked and senseless killing of Christians by the dreaded Islamic sect," the bishops announced. "We ask that the reckless attacks on them and other innocent Nigerians be brought to a halt through the proper use of intelligence and expertise available of government and security agencies both within and beyond Nigeria."
Nigeria's Catholic bishops cited their national Constitution's protection of religious freedom. But they regretted that "some Nigerians misunderstand their right to religion as right to persecute other Nigerians of different religious persuasion. The right to propagate one's religion must not be exercised in ways that violate the right of people of other religions. We deplore the use and abuse of religion to trample on the rights of others."
Not shy, the bishops denounced their violent enemies as blasphemous and fraudulent. "We wish to note that those who claim that they love God while hating their fellow human beings, even to the extent of killing them, are liars," the bishops declared. "God has not given anyone the right to kill in his name. Neither has he authorized anyone to violate the dignity of other human beings."
One bishop preached to his fellow Nigerian prelates: "We must speak out loud and clear against some states in the northern part of our country, where the fundamental human rights of Christians to freedom of religion and worship are abbreviated, where Christians are not permitted to proclaim their faith publicly; where they are not allowed to acquire lands for the building of Churches, schools and hospitals."
Despite supposed national legal protections, Muslim law often prevails in Nigeria's northern provinces. Nigeria's Catholic bishops, similar to its Anglican and most other Protestant leaders, do not trumpet limits on freedom of speech to "protect" religion but instead are demanding full religious liberty for all persons.
No doubt many American church leaders could profit from their courageous and morally consistent example.
The following article appeared on the American Spectator website and was reposted with permission
By David Mills
FIRST THINGS http://www.firstthings.com/
September 19, 2012
Four Anglican bishops serving in northeastern Africa and Cyprus have written the United Nations asking that "an international declaration be negotiated that outlaws the intentional and deliberate insulting or defamation of persons (such as prophets), symbols, texts and constructs of belief deemed holy by people of faith." They make this proposal in response to the recent movie on Muhammad and "similar offensive incidents [which] have occurred in some European countries" and "evoked massive and violent responses worldwide."
It is a bad idea, a very bad idea, on many levels. For one thing, such a law would violate the Western ideal of free speech we should not give up. For another, it would quickly be used to suppress not only "deliberate insulting or defamation" but reasonable criticism and disagreement. One man's well-and kindly-argued belief that another man is in error can be to that other man insult and defamation, especially if he has no natural appreciation for the free exchange of ideas.
What if, for example, someone pursuing higher critical studies of the Koran decides that much of it is made up, the way for two centuries now many people have argued that much of the gospel story is made up? What about the basic Christian proclamation of the uniqueness of Christ as the Savior of the world, which, however nuanced and with however great an understanding of the value of other religions (as described in Nostra Aetate, for example), still declares that other religions are deeply mistaken?
Would not those ideas be taken by the followers of the religions criticized as insult and defamation? And why should only the beliefs of the religious be protected? Shouldn't the "constructs of belief" of secular people be equally protected? If they believe that, say, the practice of homosexuality is a human good, shouldn't they be protected from the insult and defamation of those who insist it isn't?
Restrictions on free speech only expand. Nearly everyone, understandably, wants his ideas protected and freed from public evaluation. A proposal that begins with the hope that people will stop insulting Mohammad will grow to include limits on all sorts of ideas the proposers never intended. Except, of course, in the West, limits on attacks on Christianity. We will not see the solicitude extending to Islam and even to secular commitments extended, or extended very often or very far, to Christianity.
It is significant that the bishops, one of whom is a former colleague of mine, write solely about incidents of Muslims reacting violently to ideas or works they don't like. We don't see Christians, or Jews, or Buddhists, or Sikhs, or anyone else responding to ideas by rioting, much less by rioting against and killing people who don't have anything to do with the ideas they dislike. There's a reason many people are making jokes like "Remember the time we stormed the British embassy when The Life of Brian came out, and pulled down their flag and beat up all those guys working there? That'll teach them not to insult our faith. It was gre . . . oh wait, we didn't do that." It is a bad thing when violence and the constant threat of violence lead people to concede unilaterally an important part of their culture and law to placate those who do not think like that. That tells the world, and the violent themselves, nothing good.
*****
Bishops, Religious Freedom, and Islamist Terror
Mark Tooleywww.theird.org
September 21, 2012
Sadly, four Anglican bishops in the Middle East have joined to endorse international blasphemy laws.
"In view of the current inflamed situation in several countries in response to the production of a film in the USA which evidently intends to offend our Muslim brothers and sisters by insulting the Prophet Mohammed, and in view of the fact that in recent years similar offensive incidents have occurred in some European countries which evoked massive and violent responses worldwide, we hereby suggest that an international declaration be negotiated that outlaws the intentional and deliberate insulting or defamation of persons (such as prophets), symbols, texts and constructs of belief deemed holy by people of faith," they wrote the United Nations general secretary.
The four bishops serve in or are responsible for churches in Egypt, Cyprus and the Gulf, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa.
The bishops' letter, as noted by "Anglican Ink," somewhat echoes the 2011 United Nations' resolution urging nations to "combat" negative speech and attitude about religious groups. It dropped a specific reference to "defamation" long pushed by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) of 56 majority Muslim countries. Like the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the resolution affirms freedom of expression. But clearly its emphasis is on squelching criticism.
Likewise the Anglican bishops insisted their proposed declaration would not contradict freedom of expression. But their suggestion is to "outlaw" defamation of religion, which certainly does assail free speech. They understandably want to preempt violence, but by restraining "malicious opinions." The bishops concluded that "as people living here in the Middle East, we see that the way ahead for peaceful coexistence and religious harmony is through mutual respect and love."
Who can fault these poor bishops, responsible for tiny, besieged flocks, saying what they must for continued survival? Unlike the U.S. Embassy in Cairo trying to appease the mob, Christian communities in the Middle East have no earthly power to defend them. Amid ongoing Christian exodus from the region, they are trying to preserve what remains. God bless them. But Christians elsewhere, with other people of conscience, must defend truly free expression, even when Islamist killers threaten. Otherwise, today's free societies may slide into what these bishops must now routinely experience.
Christians in sub-Saharan Africa, who unlike declining Mideast churches are surging in numbers, are typically more robust in defending religious freedom. Nigeria's Catholic bishops recently denounced the Islamist terror group Boko Haram and demanded their national government act aggressively to defend vulnerable Christians in the country's mostly Islamic north.
"The patience of Christians, especially in the north, has been tried and tested for too long now through the unprovoked and senseless killing of Christians by the dreaded Islamic sect," the bishops announced. "We ask that the reckless attacks on them and other innocent Nigerians be brought to a halt through the proper use of intelligence and expertise available of government and security agencies both within and beyond Nigeria."
Nigeria's Catholic bishops cited their national Constitution's protection of religious freedom. But they regretted that "some Nigerians misunderstand their right to religion as right to persecute other Nigerians of different religious persuasion. The right to propagate one's religion must not be exercised in ways that violate the right of people of other religions. We deplore the use and abuse of religion to trample on the rights of others."
Not shy, the bishops denounced their violent enemies as blasphemous and fraudulent. "We wish to note that those who claim that they love God while hating their fellow human beings, even to the extent of killing them, are liars," the bishops declared. "God has not given anyone the right to kill in his name. Neither has he authorized anyone to violate the dignity of other human beings."
One bishop preached to his fellow Nigerian prelates: "We must speak out loud and clear against some states in the northern part of our country, where the fundamental human rights of Christians to freedom of religion and worship are abbreviated, where Christians are not permitted to proclaim their faith publicly; where they are not allowed to acquire lands for the building of Churches, schools and hospitals."
Despite supposed national legal protections, Muslim law often prevails in Nigeria's northern provinces. Nigeria's Catholic bishops, similar to its Anglican and most other Protestant leaders, do not trumpet limits on freedom of speech to "protect" religion but instead are demanding full religious liberty for all persons.
No doubt many American church leaders could profit from their courageous and morally consistent example.
The following article appeared on the American Spectator website and was reposted with permission
No comments:
Post a Comment