World must stand up to religious censors

By Marci A. Hamilton

It should scare those who believe in democracy that the European Union, in light of protests over the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, might ask the European media to adopt a voluntary "code" that would forbid insults to religion that are similarly offensive.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference, an intergovernmental group of 57 states dedicated to protecting Muslim interests, is pushing hard for the idea. The OIC and the Arab League also have approached the United Nations to obtain a resolution that would protect religious entities from materials offensive to them by threatening sanctions on publishers.
Many nations in Europe already criminalize Holocaust denial and in some, "contempt of religion" is a crime. Such a media code would be the private counterpart of these laws. In addition, anti-blasphemy laws are in place in numerous countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. They are often enforced under the Aegis of sharia, or Muslim law, a set of religious rules that can trump secular principles.
These limitations on free speech are not just on paper. A German court last month convicted a 61-year-old man of insulting Islam by printing the word "Koran" on toilet paper and offering it to mosques. He received a suspended sentence of a year in jail.
Roberto Calderoli, who was pressured to resign as an Italian government minister last month for wearing a T-shirt showing controversial cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, is under investigation for "contempt of religion." He could be charged with offending the Islamic faith.
"At least nine countries have taken punitive actions against publications or their editors" for reprinting the Danish cartoons, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. "Six newspapers in three countries have been forced to close, and at least nine journalists in four countries have been arrested and face potential criminal prosecution. Governments have also issued censorship orders and sponsored protests."
One might have thought that the United States would pose a stark contrast, but the truth is that when it comes to religion, free press and speech principles too often take a back seat.
When the vast majority of newspapers in the USA did not publish the cartoons that are triggering dangerous riots leading to dozens of deaths in places as far-flung as Pakistan, Nigeria, Libya and Afghanistan, they obeyed a dangerous instinct in American society — mindless deference to religious sensibilities and entities, just because they are religious. Had the cartoons depicted individual politicians, or secular historical figures, is there any doubt that the U.S. media would have published them without delay?
U.S. newspaper editors, with a few exceptions such as The Philadelphia Inquirer, have blinked because the cause of this violence is religious offense. The cartoons, though, are an integral part of a story of extreme violence that targets American values. Readers cannot begin to make sense of the riots with their senseless destruction and deaths without seeing the cartoons.
This is paternalism based on an entrenched Pollyanna attitude. It is assumed that religious entities need — and deserve — special cushioning to protect them from accountability.
Yet that is the kind of misguided thinking that made it possible for this society to ignore the suffering of thousands upon thousands of children who have been abused by clergy in the Roman Catholic Church (and other religious institutions). It took many years before newspapers covered the issue or prosecutors took action because in too many cases, they were protecting the church from embarrassment and discomfort. The inevitable result was exponentially more crime and more suffering. Failing to hold religious entities accountable for their actions is, in a word, indefensible.
Islamists are using the publication of sophomoric cartoons in Denmark to justify widespread violence and demands for special treatment in the future. It is a brash grab for power that should be stunning. But too much of the free world is acting as though publishing the cartoons is worse than the violence because the rioting is being carried out by religious entities who have been offended. Other religious groups are all too willing to support the rioters' reasoning. While the Vatican decried the violence, it agreed with the rioters that the freedom of speech "cannot imply a right to offend the religious sentiments of believers." Here is the reasoning that opened the door to worldwide abuse by the clergy within the Catholic Church.
If the free world's response is that it will promise never to offend Islamists in the future, it is failing to hold them accountable for their actions. That is the road to anarchy, and it is dumbfounding in the context of a war that is being instigated by a sect of Islamists. This latter statement is a fact, by the way, not a slander.
Many forget that when this country was first being settled and for many years thereafter, there were laws against blasphemy. In other words, colonial America started with a principle that the religious powers-that-be could not be criticized in public. Anti-sedition laws later banned certain criticism of the government. The First Amendment put into motion an opposing force. It assures a right to believe whatever one chooses and to say whatever one thinks. The blasphemy and sedition laws could not stand in the face of this fundamental principle. Nor can a "media code." No splitting the difference; it's an either/or issue.
The free world must choose. It can hold groups — including religious ones — accountable for their actions regardless of cause. Or it can protect them from discomfort caused by a lively and sometimes unruly public debate, and thereby excuse their crimes. With all due respect, the answer is obvious.

Marci A. Hamilton is a constitutional law scholar and author of God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law.