More on the Muslim reaction to Danish cartoons

Folks,

I want to share the response of the Holy See to its reaction to the Danish cartoons and the Muslim reaction, as translated by Zenit.Org:

VATICAN CITY, FEB. 5, 2006 (Zenit.org).

In response to several requests on the Holy See's position vis-à-vis recent offensive representations of the religious sentiments of individuals and entire communities, the Vatican press office can state:

1. The right to freedom of thought and expression, sanctioned by the Declaration of the Rights of Man, cannot imply the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers. This principle applies obviously for any religion.

2. In addition, coexistence calls for a climate of mutual respect to favor peace among men and nations. Moreover, these forms of exasperated criticism or derision of others manifest a lack of human sensitivity and may constitute in some cases an inadmissible provocation. A reading of history shows that wounds that exist in the life of peoples are not cured this way.

3. However, it must be said immediately that the offenses caused by an individual or an organ of the press cannot be imputed to the public institutions of the corresponding country, whose authorities might and should intervene eventually according to the principles of national legislation. Therefore, violent actions of protest are equally deplorable. Reaction in the face of offense cannot fail the true spirit of all religion. Real or verbal intolerance, no matter where it comes from, as action or reaction, is always a serious threat to peace.

Commentary. Wow, pretty much what I said back on February 2, but without the edge.

I remind our Muslim friends of what we did here in the States to squash the rebroadcasting of the South Park episode which many Catholics like me found offensive and tasteless: we wrote letters to parent companies, we appealed to the hearts of a few individuals of Viacom's (the parent company of the Comedy Channel) Board of Directors and to those who purchased advertisements in the program, which threatened the wallets of all involved. What happened? The episode is not going to be broadcasted again, neither in the U.S. nor in the U.K. I find it doubtful that it will be translated into Spanish and then broadcasted in Catholic Latin America.

Now, let me tell you what's not going to happen:

1. We will not call on Viacom not to bundle the episode into the South Park season serials in DVD and sell it.

2. We will make no calls for "the government" to stop Viacom to distribute and profit from this or any other episode.

3. You will not see irate Catholics rioting in the streets and burning down Viacom's corporate headquarters or any of its filial TV studios.

4. No one will die as a result of Viacom's and South Park's impiety.

The fact of the matter is that in a free society, we have to be tolerant of dissenting opinions and of the execrable sense of humor of some of our fellow citizens. This kind of humor has a niche audience who is willing to pay for this trash; caricatures of Our Lord Jesus Christ, or photographic satire--Penthouse Magazine comes to mind--with the Lord as a subject are old in post-Christian Europe and America. It irks me, but I have to respect their freedom of speech or otherwise they will not respect mine as a Christian believer--something that it's increasingly becoming common.

What I ask is that TV producers do not inflict their garbage on audiences outside of their niche without our knowledge or permission. That's why government has a responsibilty to keep offensive material from minors, and why private enterprise deviced "V" chips for TV sets to help parents screen out objectionable content, among other measures.

Certainly, TV and other media producers need to attend "sensitivity training" to learn what are the red-lines they can't cross that would probably tick people off. There's no need to be offensive in order to make rethorical points.

Muslims in traditionally Islamic countries can learn from these grass-roots approach. In fact, they must learn it if they want to foster rational discourse within their own countries, and not sucumb to mob rule, nor to increased government censorship over their media. Considering where the protests are taking place--Syria, Iran, Lebanon--the reaction has been pretty hypocritical in my view. These repressive states allow these protests as a safety valve, for their citizenry to vent their frustrations and emotions against "foreign threats" and not against the ills brought to them by their own regimes.

And then, of course, are the blatant lies and distortions that many media outlets in the Muslim world unleash against Jews and Christians, for which there is no outrage from average Muslims in the street. Like I stated before, I might be more sympathetic to their feelings if these weren't accompanied with so much hypocrisy and lack of criticism to what passes as "truth" in their own media.

Perhaps it won't be long when mobs elsewhere in the world destroy embassies and consulates belonging to traditionally Islamic countries in response to real or perceived slights made by some Muslim against non-Muslim sanctities elsewhere.

But, is that what the rabble-rousers really after? Anarchy? Hatred? War? Sometimes I wonder...