Persecuted on Every Side

Unlike the other reposts this week, the following has not appeared on this blog before. It is based on two posts from Signs of the Times:

In the aftermath of the PZ Myers debacle (which I promise not to post on again!) a fair bit of persecution rhetoric has floated around. Both sides seem rather quick to claim the status of victims of their overbearing ideological opponents. In fact, this is nothing new, as this has been a popular political game for years. For instance, back in 2006 Joe Carter wrote an interesting post about the Left's fear of an American theocracy, arguing that it evidences a profound ignorance of the largely populist nature of evangelicalism [I should note that the formatting on Joe's post slightly messed up; I couldn't tell you why, but it makes it harder to read].

A number of his commenters responded that this phenomenon of claiming persecution (whether present or in the near future) is not limited to liberals, but appears just as often in conservative circles. As "ex-preacher" notes, for every secularist decrying "the coming theocracy," there's a conservative complaining about "the war on Christians":

Each side is convinced that the other side is out to get them. There's a strange paranoia among both leftists and rightists that their political/religious opponents are on the verge of coming to some type of absolute power and legislating the other side out of existence.

I think he's exactly right, and unfortunately, this kind of thinking is self-reinforcing. Since almost any kind of victory or inflated rhetoric by the opposition can now be claimed as "persecution" and used to drum up support for a favored policy or organization, this victim mindset can easily outgrow the facts. What used to be taken as evidence that democracy is working—people disagreeing, voicing their views and voting with their consciences—can now be taken as evidence of a vast conspiracy to take over the culture. This, in turn, is used to justify one's own inflated rhetoric and the cycle goes on.

The tactic might help draw attention or garner votes, but the result is always the same: Rather than helping to move everyone toward the middle and thus avoid the feared extremist takeover, this kind of rhetoric only furthers the division between those claiming persecution. Each side becomes more extreme and the chances of one group or the other's fears being realized is increased rather than decreased.

There are, of course, laws that discriminate unfairly against one group or the other; there are "hate speech" regulations that are sometimes abused to restrict freedom of speech; there are also very different views about how this country should be run and there is a chance (however small) that either the extreme left or the extreme right could run away with enough elections to forever change the face of our nation. But there is no coming theocracy, there is no war on Christians. The only way there ever will be is if we insist on our present course of polarizing every debate.

For in point of fact, it is often our rhetoric itself that keeps us from working together. If more of us were willing to give up our victim mindset, Christians might just find that many secularists would be their allies on this matter. For though it is certainly true that left and right, Christian and secular (two very different distinctions) disagree on many fundamental issues, freedom of speech and religion are concerns shared by all. It is only our rhetoric that keeps us from working together. It is our claim to be persecuted that risks leading to the persecution we fear.

Quote – Freedom of Speech

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. (Spuriously attributed to Voltaire)

Further Reactions to PZ Myers and the Desecrated Eucharist

Here are a few more reactions to PZ Myers' Eucharist desecration (UPDATED, see below. For earlier reactions, see here; once again, I may add further worthwhile links as I find them):

The Duty to Defend the (Nearly) Indefensible

That angry email is understandable. Professor Myers is encouraging the desecration of [one of] the most sacred symbols of faith for the vast majority of the world’s Christians. He is doing so while making no great argument or artful satire. He is doing so simply because he despises somebody else’s views. If they feel anguish at his actions, then he mocks them for caring about what he (originally) called a “g-d d-mned cracker.”...

Christians have every right to point out that they think what Professor Myers is doing is wrong. We have an obligation to do what we can reasonably do to keep our services from being disrupted and our cherished ceremonies mocked, but our duty does not end there....

First, we must not confuse the actions of one skeptic with that of most skeptics.... Second, we must recognize that if P.Z. Myers does blaspheme, then it will be a sad act of theatrical atheism doing more harm to his own cause than to Christianity.... Third, we should remind ourselves that Myers is not alone in his lack of love for the feelings of his neighbor.... Finally, we must defend without reservation Professor Myers’ right to express private opinions.

Dohanue on Swastikas and Burning Crosses

Donahue’s statement, in calling for the University of Minnesota to fire Myers, from MYERS DESECRATES THE EUCHARIST

“It is important for Catholics to know that the University of Minnesota will not tolerate the deliberate destruction of the Eucharist by one of its faculty. Just as African Americans would not tolerate the burning of a cross, and Jews would not tolerate the display of swastikas, Catholics will not tolerate the desecration of the Eucharist.”

The important point to note here is that the Swastika and the burning cross (and the Confederate flag, for that matter), are symbols of actual violence committed against Jews and blacks. These are symbols of organizations that not only advocate, but who have actually committed, physical and violent crimes against the people involved.

Nothing in what Myers has done consists of a real or threatened act of violence against a human being.

So, what Donahue is doing in making this analogy to say that the act of putting a nail through a cracker is equivalent to the slaughter of 6 million Jews, the lynching and segregation of blacks, and a century of slavery.

To make such a statement, of course, is to denigrate - to utterly trivialize - the Holocaust, segregation, and slavery.

On the other hand:

The case for firing PZ Myers

I am unapologetically secular, but I hope that Myers gets fired. It disgusts me to agree even for a split second with the likes of wingnut Bill Donohue, but I agree with him. Myers is calling for people to take a religious artifact from a church under not only false pretenses but with intent to degrade that artifact's rightful owner. It is fraudulent and larcenous to present oneself to a priest or a bishop as a Catholic in good standing in a perceived state of grace (as defined by the Church) and to receive the Church's sacrament with intent of defiling it.

Similarly:

P. Z. Myers Must Be Fired

He also is in violation of the University of Minnesota Code of Conduct, which holds that faculty members "must be committed to the highest ethical standards of conduct" (II:2) and that "Ethical conduct is a fundamental expectation for every community member. In practicing and modeling ethical conduct, community members are expected to: act according to the highest ethical and professional standards of conduct [and] be personally accountable for individual actions" (III:1).

It also stresses that faculty members must "Be Fair and Respectful to Others. The University is committed to tolerance, diversity, and respect for differences. When dealing with others, community members are expected to: be respectful, fair, and civil . . . avoid all forms of harassment . . . [and] threats . . . [and] promote conflict resolution."

P. Z. Myers has done none of these things. He is in fundamental breach of the University of Minnesota's Code of Conduct and must be discharged.

I’ve said from the beginning that I don’t think Myers should be fired, no matter how disrespectful his comments—and I still think it would do more harm than good—but I am beginning to appreciate the opposing argument. At the least, I can’t condemn those who are demanding his dismissal, even if I disagree. It is one thing to speak disrespectfully about a religious symbol—it may be rude and counterproductive, but it should certainly not be illegal, nor should a tenured professor have to fear for his job for doing so. But to go the next step and acquire (though deception, if not fraud) the sacred object itself and then to publicly desecrate it—that is something else. Should it be illegal? I don’t know, but it certainly violates the dictates of civil society (and the Code of Conduct of the University of Minnesota). It also sets a precedent which could lead to many similar acts of desecration. Whether that justifies his firing, I’m not sure—in fact, if he were fired that itself would likely spark many more acts of desecration!—but I also must respect the freedom of speech of those who believe he should be.

UPDATE: It looks like freedom of speech is going to win out over decency. I'm shocked that he isn't being reprimanded at all, but I'm glad he's not being fired (HT Greg Laden):

Morris chancellor defends instructor who defiled Eucharist, tore Qur'an

The chancellor at the University of Minnesota, Morris, is standing up for a faculty member's freedom of expression after the instructor posted on the Internet a photo of a defiled communion wafer with pages ripped from the Qur'an....

In response today, University of Minnesota, Morris, Chancellor Jacqueline Johnson said the school has deactivated the link between Myers' personal blog and the university website, emphasizing his views "do not reflect those of the University of Minnesota, Morris, or the University of Minnesota system."

At the same time, Johnson said, while she believes "behaviors that discriminate against or harass individuals or groups on the basis of their religious beliefs are reprehensible," the school also "affirms the freedom of a faculty member to speak or write as a public citizen without institutional discipline or restraint."

In the end, I still think Rod Dreher's response is the most in line with what Jesus would have done:

P.Z. Myers desecrates the Eucharist

It's plain that the raging of Christians only feeds Myers' hatred. But what would he do if the response to his hideous blasphemy is ... love? What would he do if Catholics and other Christians, and even sympathetic members of other faiths, turned up en masse on his campus simply to pray quietly for him? What kind of witness would that be to the wider culture? How might that make straight the path to salvation for P.Z. Myers, and many who now admire him? Wouldn't that be blessing those who persecute you, as Christ commands us to do?

Christian Carnival 233

The Carnival is back in town, this time at Diary of 1. It includes my post on Islam, Christianity and the Freedom to Insult, and many others. Check it out!

PZ Myers Still Plans to Desecrate the Eucharist

In case anyone isn't yet sick of this subject, PZ Myers linked an interview he did this morning with The Minnesota Independent, in which he affirms that he still plans to follow through on his threat:

MnIndy: Has the outrcry over your your post given you second thoughts about getting a host and treating "it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web"?

Myers: The response has done nothing but confirm it: I have to do something. I'm not going to just let this disappear. It's just so darned weird that they're demanding that I offer this respect to a symbol that means nothing to me. Something will be done. It won't be gross. It won't be totally tasteless, but yeah, I'll do something that shows this cracker has no power. This cracker is nothing.

So much for the theory that he was just trying to provoke a response. I'll leave it to you to sort out how thoroughly the interview reveals Myers' ignorance of the full extent of the issues involved.

Violence and Disrespect

Drew Tatusko has up an interesting post asking “Should Atheists ‘Respect’ Religion?”:

One common answer to the question of respect to religious belief that I have encountered in many an argument is an unqualified No. It is a simple argument with little persuasive rhetoric. Religion should not be respected or even much tolerated due to its track record of human harm and its basis in that which has, in the common parlance of the argument, not one shred of evidence. This seems to be the foundation for the entire whirlwind of extremism regarding the theft of a consecrated Eucharist wafer and the less than hospitable reaction from one PZ Myers.

Drew helpfully discusses the tension between this and Myers’ claimed liberalism, but I’m struck by something else: I find it particularly ironic that the very atheists most eager to accuse religion of leading to violence and oppression, are often the same ones boasting of their freedom to disrespect the views of others. It seems to escape their notice that it is precisely such a disrespect which has often been the direct cause of such violence and oppression in the first place, and this has been true both in religious and atheistic (mostly communist) nations. By engaging in such disrespect, Myers and others like him implicitly undermine one of their central arguments against religion.

Do they have the legal right do disrespect religion? Of course. But many things are and should be legal that are nevertheless a terrible idea.

Islam, Christianity and the Freedom to Insult

This post is based on another from two years ago, originally posted at Signs of the Times:

Amidst the brouhaha over PZ Myers’ claimed intent to publicly desecrate the Eucharist, some have been asking how this incident relates to that surrounding those 12 caricatures of Muhammad published in a Danish newspaper in 2005. Strictly speaking, the two cases are quite different. First of all, As Mike Dunford notes (HT James McGrath), there is a clear difference between merely depicting something offensive in a cartoon, and actually stealing a sacred object in order to desecrate it. But thankfully, Myers has not (yet?) followed through on his threat, so it is possible to interpret his words as no more than an in-your-face challenge to what he perceives as false reverence.

But perhaps the more important difference lies in the respective reactions these two incidents received. While Myers and his supporters might like to treat this as proof that Catholics are just as bad as radical Islam when it comes to taking insults, the facts simply do not support this. As Mike puts it:

In the case of the cartoons, the religious group involved was demanding a great deal from those who do not share their faith. The message that they were sending was, "I believe it is a grave sin to draw or print images of the prophet. Therefore, you must never draw or print such an image." That goes farther than demanding that others respect their belief; it is a demand that everyone constrain their actions because of that belief.

In the case of the Eucharist, the demand is much more modest. All that you need to do to refrain from desecrating the Eucharist is to stay away from Catholic churches. Period. That's it. You could argue, I suppose, that this demand also constrains your actions, but that's a bit of a stretch. After all, "don't go places where you haven't been invited" is (in most circumstances) nothing more or less than basic politeness.

And while a very small handful of angry Catholics have sent hate mail and death threats as a result of the present affair, those cartoons sparked real violence. Riots and attacks, even actual murders, spread across much of the Muslim world, all because someone had the audacity not to share their qualms about depicting Muhammad. However Myers may splutter, nothing even close to that has happened in this case. And no, Bill Donohue’s press releases (over-the-top though they may be) can in no way be compared to the fatwas that were issued for the Danish cartoonists.

All of which has reminded me of one of the more absurd responses to those comics. During the very week before Easter of the year they came out, South Park aired its own reaction to the retreat from free speech which had resulted. In the episode Cartoon Wars Part II, they mock the prohibition of any depiction of Muhammad, by claiming to be about to show the Prophet doing something totally innocuous (handing a “salmon football helmet” to another character), though actually showing a black screen with the words “Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Mohammed on their network.” The show then depicted an immediate reprisal by al Qaeda: A video of George Bush and Jesus (among others) defecating on each other and the American flag. Take that free speech!

It was incredibly crude and sophomoric, so it’s little surprise that it drew the ire of some Christian groups, but once again the difference in reactions was telling. Muhammad was shown in a series of otherwise mild comics, published in an obscure newspaper, and sparked rage across half the Muslim world. Jesus was broadcast on national TV, during Holy Week, in the crudest possible way, and this was met with, what? A couple negative editorials and some hand-wringing?

The difference, no doubt, was largely a result of the fact that contemporary Westerners in general are less apt to rage over religious matters than those in some other parts of the world, but I also think it points to something deeper than the current political realities of blasphemy and free speech. It illuminates the nature of two very different worldviews. Islam teaches that Muhammad was a mere man who was so honored by God as to warrant treatment almost as if he were God. In sharp contrast, Christianity teaches that God himself became man, and willingly embraced treatment as a man.

Therefore, to depict Muhammad doing anything at all is to commit blasphemy, and can lead to violent consequences. Yet Jesus can be shown defecating, and the reaction is and should be quite different. That is because the central claim of Christianity—that God came in the flesh—is already a far greater insult than anything South Park could possibly portray.

As Joshua Anderson once argued in reference to Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ, much of the insult Christians do sense in such “art” actually reflects an overly spiritualized view of Jesus. To drop a crucifix into a jar of blood and urine, to show Jesus “crapping” all over the place, even to threaten to desecrate the Eucharist, these are certainly offensive, but can they really compare to the offense of the crucifixion? In that moment, Christians believe, God himself was executed as a rebel.

The day of the crucifixion is known as Good Friday in the Christian Church, but that should not mask the true insult it's meant to recall: God on a cross. The outrageous claim of Christianity is that in Jesus, God himself took on human flesh—blood, urine, feces and all—and faced our jeering insults with grace. Thus, in shying away from showing Muhammad, while openly mocking Jesus' humanity, South Park expressed something deep and important in the difference between Muslim and Christian worldviews, even if only inadvertently.

Free speech—even PZ Myers'—must include the freedom to insult, for the world is full of evil, and sometimes the only proper response will be offensive. Yet freedom also requires a worldview that is comfortable enough with its own humanity to be mocked. On Good Friday, we are told of a God who affirmed that freedom to his very death; on Easter, we are told of a God who laughed even from the grave.