If an unbeliever emits a criticism of a religion, or even a satire of its practices, is it blasphemy?

There is blasphemy when the object of irreverence is considered sacred. From his point of view a non-believer makes no blasphemy if he takes to one or the other aspect of a religion because he has no consideration for anything sacred. But, having certainly some education and experience he will know that his words will be interpreted as a blasphemy by believers in the religion he criticizes roundly. In such case he knows that his statement will be perceived as blasphemous by those who listen to him: he knowingly provokes.

Since the Christian religions have refrained from interfering in the management of the temporal affairs (this was not a voluntary choice on their part, neither at the Vatican nor in Protestant towns constituencies) they have learned to tolerate a critical discourse. This does not preclude some communities to position themselves in a clear and sometimes even violent manner on certain subjects, such as abortion or gay marriage. But, after a long apprenticeship and despite a few relapses, they act within the political debate, well inside of rule of law.

This is less clear in the case of Judaism, because dragging the heavy weight of pogroms repeated throughout history and culminating in the Nazi Holocaust, confusion is made between anti-Semitic racism, criticism of religion, and varied opinions on Zionism and the State of Israel. Also it may seem that the only profanities tolerated by this community are those that are made by its own members. They are doing so indeed, evidenced by the quality of their jokes. But goy, watch out! your interference will be tolerated only if it is benevolent.

Remains the third monotheistic religion: with his dogma of exclusive submission to Allah, the revealed Quran, as well as the Shariah, immutable code emanating from the will of God, it has great difficulty, if not the impossibility, to tolerate any challenge. Where in a minority position there are so-called moderate believers who have learned to accommodate the presence of other religions in the same territory, and a secular society who rules the living together. But these moderates themselves have a difficult position opposite more fundamentalist groups because they have no substantive arguments to justify their laxity. Of course one would expect that over time the interpretations of texts and teachings of this religion will change and adapt to the constraints of a pluralistic world. But if this could happen it will take a lot of time and there are no signs that such a way is under construction. In the meantime one should know that any critical or irreverent attitude towards Islam will be immediately interpreted as an intolerable blasphemy. If in addition it is a satire, then the crime is even more serious.

Why people, presumably educated and aware of these things, make provocations by the publication of texts, drawings, or films that will be abhorred by these communities?

Is it to express an original idea? To contribute to a new understanding of the subject by an artistic work? To pass on a message or a political opinion? It is for such cases that freedom of speech was elevated to a fundamental right and no one shall impose a gag on the authors of such works.

Or then is it just for the sake of provocation, the aim being at best to stir shit, at worst to reveal the violence and intolerance of the provoked party? Here also use is made of the freedom of speech but this use may look somehow perverse. It is expressed not to make any contribution but to create disorder.

Provocation can be part of a destabilization strategy with a well-defined goal. It would be then interesting to know what strategic goal is pursued by these provocateurs. But it can also be the production of irresponsible people, playing with the dogma of impunity related to freedom of speech and unable to think about the consequences of their actions. And when we know that massacres may result some deference should be exercised before playing bully.

Tolerance means accepting the existence of things that are unpleasant to us; it is a voluntary moral attitude that has nothing to do with submission or indifference. Respect means having regard for the other person and ensuring that she or he can act freely. The provocateur shows at once his intolerance and lack of respect. And the one who feels provoked and reacts violently shows also lack of tolerance and respect.

Merci de partager et de diffuser cet article !