Defense of the Sacred

by Daniel Steinhelper

SojoMail 3-01-2006

The use of political cartoons to satirize Islam is a cause of great concern for all people of faith. These acts revisit the controversy of American and British artists' use of Christian imagery in ways that offend faith sensibilities - submerging a crucifix in urine, covering a Madonna in feces. Regardless of any intended political or religious critique, the cartoons' overwhelming effect was to deeply offend and provoke, to penetrate to the very core of people's hearts by affronting their belief in the sacred.

A serious and engaged criticism of particular aspects of the Muslim world would demonstrate a significant awareness of and sensitivity to the teachings of Islam. But the cartoons instead had an effect comparable to that of what's known as the desolating sacrilege, a pagan altar that the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes set up in the temple in Jerusalem - an incident alluded to in the book of Daniel and in the New Testament gospels. This was an act of violence against Jewish beliefs; it defiled a profoundly sacred space. The intent was perhaps to ensure the political allegiance of the Judeans, but the effect was to cut off communication between believers and God. While this example of an affront to the sacred is as extreme as any, Muslims' pain in seeing the cartoons of Muhammad is no different.

The cartoons were intended to express social and political points, but for many Muslims these were lost in the newspapers' disregard for the significance of depictions of Muhammad, who gave the command to never create images of him. In the repeated reprinting of the cartoons, any legitimate statements were further eclipsed by this apparent lack of respect for belief in the sacred.

Roger Koppel, editor of the German newspaper Die Welt, defended his decision to reprint the cartoons, saying, according to the BBC, "[W]e think we are living in a secular society where even religion can be subjected to criticism and satire. It's not acceptable in a Western country, if you publish a cartoon like this, that the newspaper has to apologize, or even the prime minister has to apologize." Koppel's statement confirms that he does not seek an engaged critique of and conversation with Muslims. Instead, he retreats to his own convictions and refuses to take seriously the ways in which his decision to reprint the cartoons affected Muslims. Koppel's expression of his rights reflects his theoretical and professional commitments, but it does not display the strength of character that might compel him to value others' commitments and beliefs alongside his own.

While Christians' understanding of the sacred differs from that of Muslims, we are called to thoughtfully engage others in our communities and our world and to stand with them when they are hurt. If we make efforts to understand Muslims and their conceptions of the sacred, we can then empathize with them when someone offends them so deeply - because we understand what it is like to feel the pain of sacrilege.

People with very different views - including those who place the highest value on faith and those who assign this to reason - should be able to come together in the spirit of mutual respect. Free expression can find meaningful alternatives to the offensive desolating sacrilege; it can create space in which people of diverse perspectives can engage each other. We must stand up for others when their ultimate values are insulted and invalidated. Freedom relies on the higher law of love, which respects all human beings and their expressions of what is sacred. This law of love can lead to a more genuine and civil society.

Daniel Steinhelper, a Wheaton College graduate, is a master's student in the divinity and social service administration schools at the University of Chicago and an intern at Interfaith Youth Core, a Chicago-based organization building inter-religious understanding.