The World of Religions No. 56 – Nov/Dec 2012 –
There are those who are mad for God. Those who kill in the name of their religion. From Moses, who ordered the massacre of the Canaanites, to the jihadists of Al-Qaeda, including the Catholic Grand Inquisitor, religious fanaticism takes various forms within monotheistic religions, but always has its source in the same crucible of identity: we kill—or we prescribe killing—to protect the purity of blood or faith, to defend the community (or even a culture, as in the case of Brezhnev) against those who threaten it, to extend the hold of religion over society. Religious fanaticism is a dramatic deviation from a biblical and Koranic message that aims primarily to educate human beings to respect others. This is the poison secreted by communitarianism: the feeling of belonging – to the people, to the institution, to the community – becomes more important than the message itself and “God” is nothing more than an alibi for self-defense and domination.
Religious fanaticism was perfectly analyzed and denounced by the philosophers of the Enlightenment more than two centuries ago. They fought so that freedom of conscience and expression could exist within societies still dominated by religion. Thanks to them, we are free today in the West not only to believe or not to believe, but also to criticize religion and denounce its dangers. But this fight and this hard-won freedom should not make us forget that these same philosophers aimed to allow everyone to live in harmony within the same political space. Freedom of expression, whether intellectual or artistic, is therefore not intended to attack others for the sole purpose of provoking or sparking conflict. Moreover, John Locke considered, in the name of social peace, that the most virulent atheists should be banned from public speaking, like the most intransigent Catholics! What would he say today to those who produce and distribute on the internet a pathetic film from an artistic point of view, which touches on what is most sacred for Muslim believers – the figure of the Prophet – with the sole aim of activating tensions between the West and the Islamic world? What would he say to those who add to it by publishing new caricatures of Muhammad, with the aim of selling newspapers, fanning the still-hot embers of anger among many Muslims around the world? All this for what results? Deaths, increasingly threatened Christian minorities in Muslim countries, increased tension throughout the world. The fight for freedom of expression – however noble it may be – does not exempt one from a geopolitical analysis of the situation: extremist groups are exploiting images to rally crowds around a common enemy, a fantasized West, reduced to a cinematic delirium and a few caricatures.
We live in an interconnected world subject to numerous tensions that threaten world peace. What the Enlightenment philosophers advocated at the national level is now valid on a global scale: caricatured criticisms whose sole purpose is to offend believers and provoke the most extremist among them are stupid and dangerous. Their main effect, above all, is to strengthen the camp of the God-loving and to weaken the efforts of those who try to establish a constructive dialogue between cultures and religions. Freedom implies responsibility and concern for the common good. Without them, no society is viable.
http://www.lemondedesreligions.fr/mensuel/2012/56/