Hiding Behind the cloak of Religion

This article was posted by a former colleague on fb. It highlights two types of behaviour which would otherwise be regarded as criminal and repugnant, but because it is linked to religion, it is excused.

First are the death threats and plots resulting from some cartoons published in a Dutch newspaper a few years ago apparently depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammed. The second, the systematic cover up of paedophile Catholic priest which was exposed in recent years and for which the Pope allegedly played a role in and has, in recent days, made a public apology. The author argues that nobody should be permitted to hide behind the cloak of religion. We should apply the same standards (perhaps even a higher standard) on those who claim to be religious. All involved in these two examples, should be tried and possibly jailed.

I agree.

However, in relation to the first scenario – that of the freedom of expression and the freedom of religion must be balanced.

Criticism is vital to growth and development. Religious people, like everyone else, should be willing to accept such criticism.

The key is to recognise that motivation and methodology when engaging in criticism are extremely important. It often determines whether and how the criticism is received. If one’s motivation is for the recipient’s growth and development, then it is admirable and should be encouraged. If it is merely to belittle and ridicule, then it should not be tolerated. If one’s objective is the former, care has to be given to presentation. One cannot set out to ridicule and offend and then complain when the recipient is offended and reacts accordingly.

Cartoons have always been adopted to make fun of and criticise all manner of beliefs – religious or otherwise. Images and parody are very powerful tools and it precisely because of this power that it requires more care (as was said in the movie Spiderman - “with great power comes great responsibility”). While threatening to kill the cartoonist would certainly constitute a criminal offence, perhaps the cartoonist themselves should be taken to task for their actions.

To illustrate I shall use examples of religious people who have been called to account for adopting such practices. Comics produced by Chick Publications routinely belittle and ridicule other religious beliefs (eg Hinduism and Islam) and therefore have been banned in Singapore. As such, importing and distribution of these materials constitute a criminal offence. A Christian couple was therefore recently prosecuted for distributing them. Similarly, a pastor was reprimanded and made to publicly apologise to religious leaders for belittling their religious beliefs from his pulpit.

Such a balance is certainly vital in a multi-cultural and multi-religious society like the one that exists here.