Freedom Of Expression Vs Freedom Of Religion
There has been a very publicized controversy lately over a comic strip in a Danish newspaper. There has also been a little heard controversy over a television show in Nashville. These two cases stem from what happens when you try to mix a society where you have both freedom of expression and freedom of religion. It also shows how two different groups react.
For those unfamiliar with the Nashville case, there is an NBC show called The Book of Daniel. It is probably one of the most lame pieces of garbage out there on network television that on its own merits would have eventually been cancelled due to poor ratings. The premise of the show is a preacher who has lost his edge and is basically lackluster in his enthusiasm for his job. It also depicted a jokish image of Jesus.
People are probably more familiar with the Danish cartoon which showed pictures of the Prophet Mohammed, one of which depicted him of wearing a bomb-shaped turban.
Both of these offended a religious group. In the Nashville case, it offended Christians. In the Denmark case, it offended Muslims.
Why did the television show offend Christians? People who belong to certain Christian groups are under the notion that their religion has come under attack by secular people who disrespect their core values and flaunt it in their faces. This show depicts many points that offend their sensibilities. As a result, these groups made letters and calls to the local NBC station in Nashville to get it pulled off the air. The WSMV studio wanted to make a compromise and show it at a later time, but NBC said they must air it at the proper time or not air it at all. As a result, people in Nashville cannot see what the rest of the country can see.
It's just a TV show. It's a pretty bad one and kind of tasteless that would have gone away on its own. Couldn't they just turn the channel and not watch? Had they not created such a spectacle over it, there would not have been more of a hungry audience for it. Their reaction has given this show a cult following.
Personally, I find Pat Robertson highly offensive. In the same manner, instead of not watching his show, should I organize a boycott and curtail his freedom? Or should I be better than his petty Christian followers and let the babies have their bottles of milk until they are ready for some meat? [Hebrews 5:11-14] If, as they claim, God gives everyone free will, why do they choose to take that element away from everyone, followers or not?
Compare this with the reaction of the Muslim world to a cartoonish depiction of the Prophet. If left alone, no one would have been exposed to it other than the usual Danish audience. If kept civil, perhaps the paper could have apologized for hurting the feelings of the local Muslim population and been able to move on. Unfortunately, they made a big deal about it.
Why is it offensive? Like Allah, it is forbidden and offensive to depict images of a prophet. It is akin to idol worship. Depicting the character alone is offensive enough, but on top of that to depict him as a war-monger was over the top. Most Muslims only wanted an official apology from the paper which carried it.
Not all Muslims proved the caricature wrong. There have been threats of physical violence against innocent Danish people over this issue. The EU building in the Gaza area has come under siege by groups threatening acts of terrorism.
Note the difference between the two groups. The Christians organized peaceful protests. Certain groups of Muslims organized threats of violence.
If one is to live in a free world, they must accept tolerance as part of living in that society. Yes, the television show was tasteless and showed a lack of empathy to how a Christian would view it, but no one was being forced to watch it either. Yes, the comic was in poor taste, but no one was being forced to view or believe it.
It is cases like these that bring out the anger in many secular humanists about the need to do away with religion. It curtails the freedom to the rest of the masses who are not caught up in these belief systems.
In the West, we do have freedom of expression. Censorship is a bad thing. Yet, in the West, we do censor all the time, but it is usually in the form of self-censorship out of respect for others.
Google, Yahoo and other search engines have filters set up to show results that won't offend the easily offended. Software companies have devolped programmes to keep children from certain web sites. Television commercials will not air cigarette commercials and are regulated on when to air alcoholic products. Television shows will try to air programs not for children on a later schedule. Newspapers even censor their own content depending on the agendas they reflect.
But things will get out there by people who crave expression and thumb their noses at everyone else. They don't care if it offends, but will let it hang out as boldly as can be. The 700 Club does it all the time.
I do not try to go out of my way to offend any religious group. I just wish religious groups would show that same policy with me. Perhaps if more secular humanists were to sink to the same levels as the religious, we could finally have less meddling in public affairs on a religious agenda.
Official Site of Callen Damornen
For those unfamiliar with the Nashville case, there is an NBC show called The Book of Daniel. It is probably one of the most lame pieces of garbage out there on network television that on its own merits would have eventually been cancelled due to poor ratings. The premise of the show is a preacher who has lost his edge and is basically lackluster in his enthusiasm for his job. It also depicted a jokish image of Jesus.
People are probably more familiar with the Danish cartoon which showed pictures of the Prophet Mohammed, one of which depicted him of wearing a bomb-shaped turban.
Both of these offended a religious group. In the Nashville case, it offended Christians. In the Denmark case, it offended Muslims.
Why did the television show offend Christians? People who belong to certain Christian groups are under the notion that their religion has come under attack by secular people who disrespect their core values and flaunt it in their faces. This show depicts many points that offend their sensibilities. As a result, these groups made letters and calls to the local NBC station in Nashville to get it pulled off the air. The WSMV studio wanted to make a compromise and show it at a later time, but NBC said they must air it at the proper time or not air it at all. As a result, people in Nashville cannot see what the rest of the country can see.
It's just a TV show. It's a pretty bad one and kind of tasteless that would have gone away on its own. Couldn't they just turn the channel and not watch? Had they not created such a spectacle over it, there would not have been more of a hungry audience for it. Their reaction has given this show a cult following.
Personally, I find Pat Robertson highly offensive. In the same manner, instead of not watching his show, should I organize a boycott and curtail his freedom? Or should I be better than his petty Christian followers and let the babies have their bottles of milk until they are ready for some meat? [Hebrews 5:11-14] If, as they claim, God gives everyone free will, why do they choose to take that element away from everyone, followers or not?
Compare this with the reaction of the Muslim world to a cartoonish depiction of the Prophet. If left alone, no one would have been exposed to it other than the usual Danish audience. If kept civil, perhaps the paper could have apologized for hurting the feelings of the local Muslim population and been able to move on. Unfortunately, they made a big deal about it.
Why is it offensive? Like Allah, it is forbidden and offensive to depict images of a prophet. It is akin to idol worship. Depicting the character alone is offensive enough, but on top of that to depict him as a war-monger was over the top. Most Muslims only wanted an official apology from the paper which carried it.
Not all Muslims proved the caricature wrong. There have been threats of physical violence against innocent Danish people over this issue. The EU building in the Gaza area has come under siege by groups threatening acts of terrorism.
Note the difference between the two groups. The Christians organized peaceful protests. Certain groups of Muslims organized threats of violence.
If one is to live in a free world, they must accept tolerance as part of living in that society. Yes, the television show was tasteless and showed a lack of empathy to how a Christian would view it, but no one was being forced to watch it either. Yes, the comic was in poor taste, but no one was being forced to view or believe it.
It is cases like these that bring out the anger in many secular humanists about the need to do away with religion. It curtails the freedom to the rest of the masses who are not caught up in these belief systems.
In the West, we do have freedom of expression. Censorship is a bad thing. Yet, in the West, we do censor all the time, but it is usually in the form of self-censorship out of respect for others.
Google, Yahoo and other search engines have filters set up to show results that won't offend the easily offended. Software companies have devolped programmes to keep children from certain web sites. Television commercials will not air cigarette commercials and are regulated on when to air alcoholic products. Television shows will try to air programs not for children on a later schedule. Newspapers even censor their own content depending on the agendas they reflect.
But things will get out there by people who crave expression and thumb their noses at everyone else. They don't care if it offends, but will let it hang out as boldly as can be. The 700 Club does it all the time.
I do not try to go out of my way to offend any religious group. I just wish religious groups would show that same policy with me. Perhaps if more secular humanists were to sink to the same levels as the religious, we could finally have less meddling in public affairs on a religious agenda.
Official Site of Callen Damornen
posted by Callen Damornen at 1:18:00 pm
3 comments
