In the spirit of religious tolerance and total non-violence, I offer this Photoshopped image intended to make you think:
I had buried this image in a long post where few would see it, but wanted to give it some signal boost since it could spark debate about the ethics of using cartoon characters to sell an idea or product, and broader issues. Some key points are:
- Combining the Maggie Simpson and Je Suis Charlie icons (as FOX did) should raise a few eyebrows.
- For some I Am Charlie refuseniks, throwing total support to the magazine is too simplistic an answer to complex problems.
- One of the best articles highlighting the contradictions is Scott Sayare’s here in The Atlantic.
- The ultimate answer lies in insight, religious tolerance, and balancing freedom of speech with freedom of religion, freedom from vilification, and respect for the dignity of each person.
- The Islamic extremist message gains traction from the free speech extremist message, and vice versa. The reasonable middle becomes harder to locate.
- When free speech is balanced with wisdom and compassion, it’s easier for people to eke out a middle ground where they begin to hear each other. Neither Islamic extremists nor Charlie Hebdo represent that fragile middle ground, though obviously the terrorists who killed people perpetrated an infinitely greater wrong than the cartoonists who provoked them.
- The controversy surrounding Charlie Hebdo doesn’t occur in a vacuum, but rather against a backdrop which includes the French law banning Muslim women from wearing headscarves in some places.
- I am neither French, nor Muslim, nor female, but I know of no one who favours religious tolerance who thinks the French ban on headscarves is enlightened social policy. Rather, it tends to create hurt feelings and an anti-assimilation backlash.
- The distinctly French view that the entire public space must be secularized through rigid laws banning religious garb and religious expression is an extreme view which is ultimately incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
- While not everyone is religious or spiritual, those who are contribute much to the beauty, wisdom, and colour of the world we live in, and also have a role to play in finding solutions to society’s problems.
- Spirituality is a natural part of life. Although it’s often convenient and appropriate to distinguish between the secular sphere and the religious sphere, the boundaries between them should be fluid, like the shoreline and the sea.
- Religious freedom means the freedom to live life integrally and not be forced to doff one’s hijab, yarmulke, or sari for fear of being arrested, ticketed, or refused entrance to a public facility.
- These are differences which need to be worked out peacefully through respectful dialogue.
In closing: I sometimes feel guilty about repeating certain themes, such as the need for religious tolerance. But this message needs to be repeated a thousand different times in a thousand different ways, because it’s key to building our future world.
Religious tolerance isn’t the end of a conversation, it’s only the beginning of one! Religious tolerance comes through insight, and this insight is achieved through education, study, and soul-searching. That’s a little harder than choosing a prefab opinion from Column A or Column B, but the results are worth it!
The views expressed are my own, and do not represent any other person or organization.