On the 28th of June 2023, an Iraqi immigrant burnt a Koran in Stockholm, Sweden, during a protest. Some Muslim countries denounced this action, which was condemned by a resolution of the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Some Muslim countries blame the Swedish government for the burning of the Koran, since it happened in an authorized protest and Sweden doesn´t have laws forbidding blasphemy. This has led to a number of diplomatic incidents. Morocco has withdrawn its ambassador in Sweden and other countries, like Iraq, have seen riots in their streets.
The prevailing view in the West is that freedom of expression is an essential human right that must be protected even when it clashes with some sensibilities. It is apocryphally ascribed to Voltaire the saying “I wholly disagree with what you say and will contend to the death for your right to say it”. This saying sums up the importance of expressing ideas in the public space, even problematic ones, so that they can be discussed.
This Illustrated stance of the West, with its defence of the freedom of cult, has led to a secular public sphere with the dissociation of religious beliefs to the private realm. In a secular environment there are no sacred pillars which cannot be challenged, and provoked, in the game of ideas (and affects) that enlivens the public discourse. Actually, things are not really that way. Most western countries hold sacred principles that mustn´t be attacked, even if they are not religious in nature. For example, you can´t defend Nazism in Germany, exhibit preconstitutional symbols in Spain or promote racism or hate towards the LGTBIQ+ community in many other countries. We need some stable foundations on which to build our coexistence, although in the West, these foundations are not religious at present.
The right to honour and the protection of one´s reputation are considered basic rights of the individual that can set a limit to the freedom of expression. Thus, freedom of expression is not absolute even in the West, as a balancing of rights needs to be worked in order to maximize the benefit of society.
In some countries, among which there are many Muslim ones, the foundations that underlie the common worldview and morality are actually religious. There, attacks on these foundations are seen as offensive, potentially destabilizing of the structure of society and spiritually harmful. Blasphemy is considered both a sin and a crime. The perception is that attacks on religious values harm not only the shared ideological space of the community, but its individuals as well.
The Swedish state does not protect religious sensibilities from blasphemers, as it gives priority to the freedom of expression. This is a debatable stance and it has now been challenged by the UN. On the other hand, if the Swedish position was the opposite, forbidding expressions contrary to one or more religious canons, there would also be some people who felt aggravated by that.
Throughout Europe´s history, there has been a Christian dogma which had to be respected by everyone. When the Reformation split the unity of the church, and the partisans of each side fought against the other trying to impose respect to their views (which included the elimination of the heretical expressions of the rest), religious strife led to an untenable situation. The uneasy equilibrium established by displacing religion from the public space, and replacing it with Reason and freedom of speech, allowed to stop the bloodshed, at the price of spiritual impoverishment. This has been the dominant Western position in the Contemporary age, but it´s now being challenged by religious people (mostly Islamic) who come from different traditions.
The social function of religion can be difficult to understand in the postmodern West, which has been traumatized by both religious wars and persecutions, and tries to avoid an issue that has cost it so dearly. Freud has taught us that avoiding the conflicts doesn´t usually solve them, and we are exposed to the return of the repressed.
Personally, and independently of how we solve the general problem of religion in the modern world, I don´t think that burning someone, or something, is an acceptable form of expression. I see that as an aggression led by hate that needs to be confronted. The state, through its laws, needs to stop aggressions towards people and their symbols.
Christianity and the church have been the butt of endless aggressions since the French Revolution. It might now be time to stop and rethink what role religion can be given in our society and what values we support collectively. Relegating religion to the private space might not be a sustainable strategy in the long run. It´s not a trivial matter, we are talking of human rights.
Comentarios recientes