The World of Religions No. 56 – Nov/Dec 2012 –
There are the religious fanatics. Those who kill in the name of their religion. From Moses, who commanded the massacre of the Canaanites, to the jihadists of Al-Qaeda, by way of the Catholic Grand Inquisitor, religious fanaticism takes various forms within monotheistic religions, but always stems from the same core identity: killing—or commanding killing—is done to protect the purity of blood or faith, to defend the community (or even a culture, as in the case of Brejvik) against those who threaten it, to extend the religion's hold on society. Religious fanaticism is a dramatic deviation from a biblical and Quranic message that primarily aims to educate human beings to respect others. It 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 thoroughly analyzed and denounced by Enlightenment philosophers more than two centuries ago. They fought for freedom of conscience and expression to exist within societies still dominated by religion. Thanks to them, we in the West are free today not only to believe or not to believe, but also to criticize religion and denounce its dangers. But this struggle and this hard-won freedom must not make us forget that these same philosophers aimed to enable 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 inciting conflict. Indeed, John Locke believed, in the name of social peace, that the most virulent atheists should be forbidden from speaking publicly, just like the most intransigent Catholics! What would he say today to those who produce and distribute online a film that is artistically deplorable, attacking what is most sacred to Muslim believers—the figure of the Prophet—for the sole purpose of stirring up tensions between the West and the Islamic world? What would he say to those who add fuel to the fire by publishing new caricatures of Muhammad, aiming to sell newspapers and fanning the still-smoldering embers of anger felt by many Muslims worldwide? And what are the results? Deaths, Christian minorities increasingly threatened in Muslim countries, and heightened tensions around the globe. The fight for freedom of expression—however noble—does not negate the need for 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 fantasy and a few caricatures.
We live in an interconnected world subject to numerous tensions that threaten world peace. What Enlightenment philosophers advocated on a national scale is now valid on a global scale: caricatured criticisms whose sole purpose is to offend believers and provoke the most extremist among them are foolish and dangerous. Their main effect is to strengthen the camp of religious fanatics and undermine the efforts of those trying to establish a constructive dialogue between cultures and religions. Freedom implies responsibility and concern for the common good. Without these, no society is viable.
http://www.lemondedesreligions.fr/mensuel/2012/56/