Hocus Pocus

by adam at 05:49 AM on July 18, 2005

There's a lot of sectarian violence in this world. I mean a LOT. Some people seem eager to do violence to one another based on slights, real or imagined, against their faith. This is obviously something that's been going on for some time, and in a liberal democracies in particular it seems hard to solve. In relatively homogenous countries governed by a tyrant of some sort (king, etc.) the path is clear: outsiders are outside and their persons and beliefs are thus good fodder for your guns, cannon, sharpened sticks, what have you.

In a liberal democracy that professes to welcome outsiders and be tolerant of their views, the way is a bit muddier. France probably has it the easiest, in that the French make it clear that they expect people who move to France to become French and no mistake. It's thus been perfectly in keeping with French standards (despite some distaste on the part of observers) to rule that religious displays in public are a violation of French secularism, for instance.

In the US and Britain, however, we've embraced multiculturalism to some degree. This by itself isn't a bad thing - we allow for the possibility that our cultures can grow and be enriched by the cultures of new arrivals. We've reaped many benefits thanks to this relative openness (I think with my stomach so the incredible variety of cuisines available in our cities is first to my mind).

On the other hand, we don't have a good response to disinterest on the part of immigrants in integrating into the culture of their adoptive home. Here in the US, for instance, we are basically powerless to compel anyone to learn the national language if they choose not to, or to deal with those who govern their own households in ways that are not strictly illegal but violate our principles of womens' or childrens' rights. If a husband won't allow his wife to drive or work, or won't allow his children to date once they reach high school, or select their own careers once they graduate from college, we are prevented from acting based on our equally strong principle of respecting the cultures of our neighbors.

I think this is a good thing. Government shouldn't be in the business of telling people what they can't do in their own homes unless someone is getting abused, or wants to escape and is bodily prevented from doing so. Government also shouldn't be in the business of deciding which religions are nice and which are naughty - even though there are a lot of beliefs in *most* world religions that don't seem to line up very well with the principles of liberal democracy.

Britain is in a funny position now. They have anti-hate laws on the books for certain groups which fought for them (why hate crimes weren't defined more broadly is anyone's guess). Britain also has seen some anti-Muslim grumbing recently thanks to the recent bombings and even earlier because of what appears to be a culture of intense anti-Western sentiment among some Muslim clergy preaching there. There was also an ugly incident where some Sikh youths got the idea into their heads that having their faith insulted gave them the right to go crazy-go-nuts at a playhouse in Birmingham, and the general "they're stealing our jobs and neighborhoods!" crazies who live everywhere haven't helped create a general atmosphere of tolerance either.

So now they have a new anti-hatred bill winding its way through the legislative process. The proposition seems reasonable: people shouldn't do or say things that inspire hatred of other people's religions. Warnings start going off, however, when one considers what happens in other countries that have similar laws on the books. The notion of making illegal "documents which violate religion X" seems ... well, a bit undemocratic too. Especially when you consider, for instance, that the religious writings of pretty much every religion directly contradict those of every other religion.

No matter what you believe, you must accept (well, I guess you don't HAVE to accept it - you could just go absolute ape-shit all the time) that the world is filled with people who believe that your religion is absolute nonsense. There are lots of people who believe that Moses or Krishna never existed, that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, that Mohammed wasn't inspired by God, etc. And if you have an answer to someone's fun-making or challenge, then by all means let's hear it. But I'm worried when we start silencing citizens for fear that people will be offended. I have the right to hate not only your religion but you personally. I have the right to question or mock what I think is silly or dangerous, whether religious, philosophical, or whatever. My right to call silly buggers on your religion is no different from my right to speak out against any other belief (political, etc.). And if there is anyone who can't take the heat, who can't hear their religious views challenged without flying into a violent rage, then I've got news: that discomfort is the price of free speech. If it's too much to bear, there are a lot of contries in the world where you won't have to worry about it.

This just seems a bit too close to a law against blasphemy. And that, I fear, isn't the mark of a healthy democracy at all.