Blasphemy Laws - Antiquated, Dangerous or Protective Shell

Blasphemy Laws

In light of recent developments at the Venice film festival pondering the usefulness of blasphemy laws in Western civilisations seems to be prudent. After all, the Austrian filmmaker Ulrich Seidl was accused of defaming a powerful catholic symbol: the crucifix in his new film Paradise: Faith.

Pro

Contra

Blasphemy has no other purpose than being offensive. As such it cannot be protected by the right to exercise free speech/ expression since blasphemous acts expressions are do not contribute to enriching society as a whole. Offending religious believes is no redeeming quality in a work of art, it has no aesthetic quality to it and political messages can be conveyed through other means than misusing religion. Like every other law on libel, harassment or hate crimes, blasphemy laws are open to interpretation and as varied as their offences but that doesn’t mean there should not be a legal impediment against defamation. As such they are not meant to create a restrictive environment but rather enable people from different religious backgrounds to enter into a productive intercultural dialogue without fear of reprisals to help create a harmonious society, combat defamation and reduce tensions that ultimately lead to violence (Mohamed caricatures) all while guarding certain religious sensibilities. Further Reading/ Information http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/law-crime/house-would-criminalise-blasphemy http://www.article19.org/pages/en/religion-morality-blasphemy-obscenity.html http://debatewise.org/debates/3056-criminalising-blasphemy/ http://ibamedialaw.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/freedom-to-blaspheme/ http://freespeechdebate.com/en/case/jerry-springer-and-blasphemous-libel/ http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2012/05/22/book-review-the-future-of-blasphemy-speaking-of-the-sacred-in-an-age-of-human-rights/ http://www.politicsandreligionjournal.com/images/pdf_files/srpski/godina4_broj2/9%20nova%20laura%20tomes%20vol.iv%20no.2.pdf

The controversy surrounding so-called blasphemous works of art can enrich society, as it forces the observer to engage not only with the subject but moreover with the discursive practices linked to the subject. It makes religious taboos visible and promotes social and societal change. In a post-enlightenment secularized Western world, church and state are usually separated and freedom of speech rules supreme as one of the constitutional laws. Blasphemy is defined as offensive to the religious sensibilities of the observer. Yet, we do live in a democracy where majority rule dictates which bill can be passed. However, religious feelings are subjective and personal. A law needs to be based on a clear definition and not an arbitrarily drawn line that puts not only the defendant into a difficult position but also judge and jury. Which guidelines are to be applied? And who draws the line according to which principles? Are we to consult philosophers, the clergy or is the government responsible as arbiter? Who is to guarantee that the judge can take his own opinions and values out of the equation to judge dispassionately according to the letter of the law? Where do we allow exceptions? There is no objective empirical method to judge what is offensive, thus the scope of the law would necessarily have to be rather vast, subcultures and minorities would have to be included. A free exchange of ideas, without passing  judgement, is more likely to produce a peaceful dialogue than any attempts at forcefully silencing criticism. Any attempts at censorship did not make the problems magically go away. On the contrary without communication discontentment can only increase cultural misunderstanding, tension and violence. However it is to be noted art does not kill people, people kill people. The viewer, the audience, the reader has a choice whether to feel offended by the images of Jesus having sex with Mary Magdalene or not. Although the freedom of expression is guaranteed in most Western constitutions it is a choice how you use that right. respond to a caricature of the prophet. Ink and paper did not threaten the lives of anyone. People resort to violence but that too is a choice. Did the Italian comedienne who said Pope Benedict XVI would go to hell and be tormented by homosexual demons insult God, the person of Pope Benedict, the office of the Pontifex or the views of a religious person on homosexuality? Does that warrant a prison term up to five ears? In Germany Bamberg’s archbishop Ludwig Schick called for tougher sentences. But were do we draw the line at religious censorship, after all, the Chinese dissident Liao Yiwu only wrote a poem about the Tiananmen crackdown which landed him in jail for four years. And the Western world was outraged by the his treatment. What would an appropriate punishment be for using your voice to criticise religious defamation? In the middle ages people burned on the stake as witches and heretics? Surly we should not regress to such a state of fervent morality?