Defense of the Sacred
by Daniel Steinhelper
SojoMail 3-01-2006


The use of political cartoons to satirize Islam is a cause of great
concern for all people of faith. These acts revisit the controversy of
American and British artists' use of Christian imagery in ways that offend
faith sensibilities - submerging a crucifix in urine, covering a Madonna
in feces. Regardless of any intended political or religious critique, the
cartoons' overwhelming effect was to deeply offend and provoke, to
penetrate to the very core of people's hearts by affronting their belief
in the sacred.

A serious and engaged criticism of particular aspects of the Muslim world
would demonstrate a significant awareness of and sensitivity to the
teachings of Islam. But the cartoons instead had an effect comparable to
that of what's known as the desolating sacrilege, a pagan altar that the
Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes set up in the temple in Jerusalem -
an incident alluded to in the book of Daniel and in the New Testament
gospels. This was an act of violence against Jewish beliefs; it defiled a
profoundly sacred space. The intent was perhaps to ensure the political
allegiance of the Judeans, but the effect was to cut off communication
between believers and God. While this example of an affront to the sacred
is as extreme as any, Muslims' pain in seeing the cartoons of Muhammad is
no different.

The cartoons were intended to express social and political points, but for
many Muslims these were lost in the newspapers' disregard for the
significance of depictions of Muhammad, who gave the command to never
create images of him. In the repeated reprinting of the cartoons, any
legitimate statements were further eclipsed by this apparent lack of
respect for belief in the sacred.

Roger Koppel, editor of the German newspaper Die Welt, defended his
decision to reprint the cartoons, saying, according to the BBC, "[W]e
think we are living in a secular society where even religion can be
subjected to criticism and satire. It's not acceptable in a Western
country, if you publish a cartoon like this, that the newspaper has to
apologize, or even the prime minister has to apologize." Koppel's
statement confirms that he does not seek an engaged critique of and
conversation with Muslims. Instead, he retreats to his own convictions and
refuses to take seriously the ways in which his decision to reprint the
cartoons affected Muslims. Koppel's expression of his rights reflects his
theoretical and professional commitments, but it does not display the
strength of character that might compel him to value others' commitments
and beliefs alongside his own.

While Christians' understanding of the sacred differs from that of
Muslims, we are called to thoughtfully engage others in our communities
and our world and to stand with them when they are hurt. If we make
efforts to understand Muslims and their conceptions of the sacred, we can
then empathize with them when someone offends them so deeply - because we
understand what it is like to feel the pain of sacrilege.

People with very different views - including those who place the highest
value on faith and those who assign this to reason - should be able to
come together in the spirit of mutual respect. Free expression can find
meaningful alternatives to the offensive desolating sacrilege; it can
create space in which people of diverse perspectives can engage each
other. We must stand up for others when their ultimate values are insulted
and invalidated. Freedom relies on the higher law of love, which respects
all human beings and their expressions of what is sacred. This law of love
can lead to a more genuine and civil society.

Daniel Steinhelper, a Wheaton College graduate, is a master's student in
the divinity and social service administration schools at the University
of Chicago and an intern at Interfaith Youth Core, a Chicago-based
organization building inter-religious understanding.
--
Russ T. Nale

http://grace.break.at

God is still speaking
http://www.stillspeaking.com

To send e-mail, remove "youhat" from address