For those not familiar with the
Ten Commandments, let’s start with the first commandment, “Thou shall not
Kill.”
Of course in Judeo-Christian
morality, nothing justifies the killing of innocent people, and anyone that
claims to believe in God and does such a thing is nothing more than the agent
of evil (the devil). There is little
doubt that anyone that believes that they can murder because their
religion was offended will have a
very steep climb into the gates of Heaven, to say the least. As Pope Francis recently said, killing in the
name of God is a perversion of religion.
It appears now, however, that the
media, is now attempting to make the slain employees of Charlie Hebdo champions
of freedom of speech. Although on a
lower level it is true that these cartoonists believed and engaged in
publications under their right of freedom of expression, but the story does not
end there. The deeper question is did
they, the cartoonist at Charlie Hebdo, have the moral right to publish obscene cartoons
of religious figures?
As one philosopher once states, freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought. With freedom comes the collateral obligation of
responsibility and moral virtues. Because
without those two components there can be no true freedom, but only chaos.
With freedom comes
responsibility. Does anyone in the name
of freedom of speech have the moral right, the sensibility, to engage in sacrilegious
speech and publication against any one’s faith, no matter how, misguided and
foolish that faith may be? No answer is
no.
The bigger debate, which has not
been addressed by the media is the why should anyone be allowed to engage in
sacrilegious speech and press against anyone religious figure. No matter how foolish and comical those
religious teaching may or may not be.
As a Christian and specifically, a
Roman Catholic, I have witnessed the relenting Christian, and more
specifically, Catholic bashing. This
bashing is common place in Hollywood movies, television, talk show hosts, “artists” comedians,
and the press. This bashing is often
outright false, obscene, pathetic and sometimes pornographic. I too, am saddened and sensitive to these
blasphemies against my Church and my God.
I can sympathize with the followers of Muhammad who feel the same
sadness when their faith is unfairly bashed.
My position is this: the murderers
are fully responsible for what they did and should be treated with the full
force of the law. Nothing justifies the killing of innocent people for acting
foolishly and publishing obscene material. However, although they had the legal
right to publish obscene portrayals of religious figures, they certainly do not
have the moral right to do so.
Charlie Hebdo’s obscene portrayal
of religious figures has zero redeeming value.
If people want to debate the redeeming values of Islam or the lack of
redeeming values of this religion, that is a fair an honest debate that no one
should be allowed to sensor. However, no
one in a civilized society should believe that portraying any historical
religious figure in obscene pornography depictions is either wise, or morally
acceptable.
This is the real debate, something
that the politically correct “talking heads” in the media have refused to
address.
It is unwise and morally
unacceptable to portray any religious figure obscenely and call it art or
freedom of express. The publishing of
filth serves no legitimate purpose, has no redeeming values, and is certainly
not moral or virtuous.
