“...the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
– 1 Timothy 3:15

| Home | About Us | Archive | Articles | Comment | Directory/Churches | Links | News | Youth |

>> Articles >> A Tale of Freedoms

A TALE OF FREEDOMS¹

by Ong Kok Bin

The ripple effects from the Prophet Muhammad caricature cartoons have not quite died down as yet. We would have expected them to after so many months and weeks. But they have not. This speaks volumes of the intensity of feelings generated by the cartoon controversy and perhaps the obstinacy too of those who perpetrated it. There had been protests — in some places, the protests had given way to violence and deaths: innocent lives caught in the cauldron of vehement belligerency. There had been calls for boycotts of some national products — probably when effected in large cross–boundary cooperative scales, would have brought the lesson home more efficiently to those who needed it. There had been demands for apologies — which were not forthcoming in the first instance; a pity indeed. And there had been some unnecessary stupidities — which threw more fuel into the burning fire.

What is this controversy that seemingly will not go away? Some say it is about press freedom, specifically, the freedom of speech and expression. Some, it is about religious sense and sensibility or the absence of it.

Before we embark on a discussion of the two issues: freedom of speech and religious sensibility or respect for religions, let us trace a skeletal history of how the controversy arose in the first place. It began with one Danish newspaper, the Jyllands-Posten, publishing in September 2005 twelve cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad and caricaturing him as ‘a man of terror and violence’. Apparently, the editors of the newspaper had learnt that a local comedian dared not make fun of the Koran, the holy book of the Muslims, and that illustrators of a children’s book on the Prophet had insisted on working anonymously. The Danish editors frowned on this exercise of self-restraint and perhaps saw it, too, as an act of cowardice. To counter it, they published the twelve cartoons which sparked the waves of outrage throughout the Muslim world. Protests on the ground and calls from Muslim diplomats to the relevant parties for apologies were made. But those who could have saved the situation then refused; and when the apologies came (a tad too late), other European newspapers, for fear of starting an ‘appeasement mentality’, took up the freedom cudgel and republished the cartoons. What started from the office of a few newspaper editors became a conflagration of international proportions; and truly or falsely, a confrontation between two worlds and their respective worldviews.

Freedom of the press and its more generic cousin, freedom of speech and expression, have been sacred cows to the Western world since it became ‘free’. For convenience, we shall lump them into one rubric, viz., freedom of expression; but where and when other idiomatic expressions of this freedom are used in later instances for appropriateness, they shall all refer to the one fundamental idea of the right of individuals or groups of individuals or bodies to express themselves unfettered and without any form of censorship from others. This freedom of expression stems from democratic and humanistic ideals which give supremacy to the individual. Over the last couple of centuries, it has generally served the Western world well as it has given rise to the flowering of ideas and knowledge. A Westerner can be justifiably proud of this right and certainly it is within the confines of his own privilege that he should want to keep and protect it.

However, it will be entirely incorrect to say that this freedom is absolute. It is not. For example, it is an offence to defame someone else and a felony to make a nuisance of oneself as to disturb the public peace. The freedom is non-absolute too if only because the notion of freedom of the press is a false notion, a mirage - if it may be called that. When I was in my teens, I admired the western press, especially when two relatively junior journalists were able to take on the U.S. administration and the Republican machinery and bring down a flawed presidency. However, that was the zenith of my admiration. With time and exposure and learned wisdom, I became a sceptic. I realised that not all the western newspapers are free, or fair, or neutral. Some are leaned to the left, some to the right; some have their own peculiar agenda, some are beholden to a particular patron or interest group, but almost all are invariably nationalistic and culturo-centric when the crunch comes to that.

Take for instance, the U.S. led invasion against Iraq. Before the war, the presses were fed with stories of how Saddam Hussein had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction and had a 45–minute capability of striking a deadly blow against any one of the western powers. During the war, there were ‘embedded’ journalists among the U.S.–British led forces. In the course of the war and in its aftermath, the American newspapers were asked not to publish pictures of the returning ‘body bags’. And in the most recent development, it came to light that the same presses were told not to publish gory pictures of Iraqi prisoners being tortured and bloodied by the American soldiers in the Abu Ghraib prison. So much for the notion of the freedom of the press and expression.

Yet at the height of the cartoon controversy, one European news editor, Roger Koppel of Die Welt, defended his paper’s decision to republish the cartoons: ‘It is at the core of our culture that the most sacred things can be subjected to criticism, laughter and satire. We also know that moral double standards sometimes guide certain reactions in the Arab world. If we stop using our right to the freedom of expression within our legal boundaries, then we start to develop an appeasement mentality’ (The Sun, February 7, 2006. p. 11).

The same words of ‘moral double standards’ and ‘appeasement mentality’ can be thrown back at this particular editor with the question: ‘Aren’t you and your kind particular skilful practitioners of these when the situation demands?’

However, we risk the danger of missing the argument if we keep talking about freedom of expression. As it is, the Prophet caricature cartoons, at their most obvious level, sought to lampoon Islam and its founder. Therefore, they stepped into the realm of religion, a most sensitive area, especially when raw nerves are touched. Most religionists are, by the long mile, passionate about their professed faiths; and Muslims ranked high up the mark in their passion for their faith if only we are careful to take a peep into their history.

The western media may have a cultural penchant to criticize and satirize any subject under the sun. However, in doing so, they must attempt to maintain an integrity of respect for things that are sacred (especially for ‘the other side’). When they fail to do so, they have crossed the line into the profane. The editors of Jyllands-Posten knew the taboo in Islam against images of its God and Prophet. They may have wanted to lampoon the militancy of the most extreme fundamentalist wing among the Muslim adherents, but when they deliberately used caricatures of the Prophet to this end, they have exposed their irreligious disrespect for one of the most sacred tenets in the Islamic faith. It is one thing to satirize, it is quite another to show deliberate disrespect. The former can only humour, but the latter invites foment.

Editors like Koppel may want to insist on ‘our right to the freedom of expression’. Let’s grant them this. However, they also live in a global village. As citizens of this global village, they must not lose sight of the many ‘colours’, ‘hues’, ‘smells’ and ‘fragrances’ that go into the making of the village. This is especially so when they occupy positions which have the capability to influence the flux and contours of these ‘colours’, ‘hues’, ‘smells’ and ‘fragrances’. To insist on one right and risking throwing the global village into a stormy and discordant flux is not being only irresponsible — it is downright evil.

On a scriptural note, Christians enjoy a freedom. Yet they are told: ‘do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love’ (Gal. 5:13b; cf. 5:1). The biblical writer (i.e., Paul) is stating a universal maxim: freedom comes with it its fair share of responsibilities. Freedom is never a licence to agitate, to bring about a foment of unrest. As the same writer warns: ‘If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other’ (5:15).

Still, another biblical writer (i.e., Peter) offers this gem of advice: ‘Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honour the king’ (1 Peter 2:16-17).

For those who want to wear the crown of freedom, take heed to wear it soberly and diligently; otherwise, it might turn into a sword with which it will be used to cut down the freedom of others. When the latter happens, freedom is no longer freedom. It is tyranny.

True freedom respects, loves, fears and honours.

¹This article was written in early 2006.

Articles
1. A Tale of Freedoms
2. Rats! What Do I Do with the Wealth I Have?

The Da Vinci Code, Gnosticism and
the Gospel of Judas
1. The Da Vinci Code: A Christian Response
2. The Nag Hammadi Documents and Gnosticism
3. The Gospel of Judas
4. The Gospel of Judas - A Retake
5. Teachings in the Gospel of Judas Compared (Part 1)
6. Teachings in the Gospel of Judas Compared (Part 2)
7. Teachings in the Gospel of Judas Compared (Part 3)
8. Canonicity and the Gospel of Judas

Archive
The Romans Series
1. Being the Community of God’s People
2. Ethno-Religious Tensions
3. The Power and the Wrath of God
4. Justification by Faith
5. Justification Brings Blessings
6. While We Were Still Sinners
7. Died to Sin
8. Slaves to Righteousness
9. The Difference of the Spirit
10. The Israel Problem
11. The Gentile Problem
12. Community Living
13. Community Unity
14. Community Ethics
15. Loving the Enemy Ethic
16. Extra-Community Ethics
17. The Weak and the Strong
18. Community Formation
19. Paul, the Minister
20. Gems in Greetings

| Home | About Us | Archive | Articles | Comment | Directory/Churches | Links | News | Youth |

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this page may be reproduced, in any form or by any means,
without permission, oral or written, from the Church of Christ, Seremban, Malaysia.