By Rabbi Michael Samuel
CHULA VISTA, California –Last Halloween, two atheists decided to poke some adolescent fun at the expense of Catholicism and Islam. One person dressed up as “Zombie Pope” and the other dressed up as “Zombie Mohammed.” Their behavior was outrageous. This is what happened afterwards. A Muslim man named Talaag Elbayomy felt so insulted by the parody that he decided to take action: he assaulted “Zombie Mohammed,” whose real identity is Ernest Perce, the president of the Pennsylvanian Atheist Society.
According to the officer who responded to the incident, Elbayomy admitted he had physically assaulted and choked Perce. Logically, this should have been a shut and closed case. Furthermore, the incident was also caught on camera.
Not necessarily. This is where the story took a rather bizarre turn.
Judge Mark Martin, . a practicing Muslim, was presiding over the case. The judge decided to chastise Perce for his ignorance of Islam, and his disrespect of Muslim culture.
More seriously, Judge Martin refused to allow the video into evidence; he likewise refused to listen to the Police Officer’s testimony that substantiated Perce’s position. Judge Martin claimed that the officer did not give an accurate account; therefore, he would not give any weight to his testimony.
The crime of assault, in this instance, pales in comparison to the misuse of judicial power on the part of Judge Martin and his willingness to curtail freedom of speech. One of the most important dissidents from the Muslim world is a man named Ibn Warraq. Shortly after the famous (or “infamous”) cartoons of Muhammed appeared in the Danish newspaper back in 2005, Warraq wrote a brilliant article entitled, “Democracy in a Cartoon.” [1]
In the interest of brevity, I will quote only a few of the relevant points he makes in his thought-provoking essay. Much of what he wrote applies to our Pennsylvanian case as well.
“The cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten raise the most important question of our times: freedom of expression. Are we in the west going to cave into pressure from societies with a medieval mindset, or are we going to defend our most precious freedom – freedom of expression, a freedom for which thousands of people sacrificed their lives?
“A democracy cannot survive long without freedom of expression, the freedom to argue, to dissent, even to insult and offend. It is a freedom sorely lacking in the Islamic world, and without it Islam will remain unassailed in its dogmatic, fanatical, medieval fortress; ossified, totalitarian and intolerant. Without this fundamental freedom, Islam will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality; originality and truth.
“Unless, we show some solidarity, unashamed, noisy, public solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, then the forces that are trying to impose on the Free West a totalitarian ideology will have won; the Islamization of Europe will have begun in earnest. Do not apologize . . .
“How can we expect immigrants to integrate into western society when they are at the same time being taught that the west is decadent, a den of iniquity, the source of all evil, racist, imperialist and to be despised? Why should they, in the words of the African-American writer James Baldwin, want to integrate into a sinking ship? Why do they all want to immigrate to the west and not Saudi Arabia? They should be taught about the centuries of struggle that resulted in the freedoms that they and everyone else for that matter, cherish, enjoy, and avail themselves of; of the individuals and groups who fought for these freedoms and who are despised and forgotten today; the freedoms that the much of the rest of world envies, admires and tries to emulate.”
When the Chinese students cried and died for democracy in Tiananmen Square (in 1989) , they brought with them not representations of Confucius or Buddha but a model of the Statue of Liberty. Freedom of expression is our western heritage and we must defend it or it will die from totalitarian attacks. It is also much needed in the Islamic world. By defending our values, we are teaching the Islamic world a valuable lesson, we are helping them by submitting their cherished traditions to Enlightenment values.
On the one hand, it seems to me that the judge had every right to criticize the behavior of Perce and his friend for disrespecting religion in an inappropriate way in front of impressionable young children. However, I think he missed an incredible opportunity to explain why this country is so unique in the annals of history because it espouses the unique concept of freedom of speech. Judge Martin could have done much to promote better Muslim-Christian relations by reminding the defendant that he is in a new country. Unlike other countries, the United States protects every person’s civil liberties. Freedom of speech ultimately helps to ensure and guarantee all of our civil liberties.
The noted atheist Christopher Hitchens felt even more strongly than Ibn Warraq. According to him, religion deserves to be parodied when it denies the freedom of its people and others. Hitchens criticized the supine reaction we witnessed from our government after these cartoons were published:
“And there remains the question of Denmark: a small democracy, which resisted Hitler bravely and protected its Jews as well as itself. Denmark is a fellow member of NATO and a country that sends its soldiers to help in the defense and reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. And what is its reward from Washington? Not a word of solidarity, but instead some creepy words of apology to those who have attacked its freedom, its trade, its citizens, and its embassies. For shame. Surely here is a case that can be taken up by those who worry that America is too casual and arrogant with its allies. I feel terrible that I have taken so long to get around to this, but I wonder if anyone might feel like joining me in gathering outside the Danish Embassy in Washington, in a quiet and composed manner, to affirm some elementary friendship. Those who like the idea and those who live in other cities with Danish consulates might wish to initiate a stand for decency on their own account.” [2]
The judge might have criticized Elbyomy and tell him that he modeled poor behavior, and taught his children that it is acceptable to use violence in the defense of religious beliefs. The judge’s lesson about how other Muslim countries deal with religious dissent or apostasy is completely irrelevant. In this country, the Bill of Rights has long tolerated people’s rights to “piss off other people and their cultures.”
The fact that the Judge also felt insulted by Perce’s behavior is all the more reason why he should have recused himself from the case. In this country, the Constitution and the protection of its ordinances are of primary value. Whether it be Catholic Canonical Law, or Halacha, or Sharia Law, these systems of law must remain legally subservient to a legal tradition that has made this country great.
It is unusual to see Christians and atheists on the side of a legal issue. It is even stranger to see liberals who have long championed the separation of Church and State fight to dissolve this distinction over the peculiar ruling of an American Muslim judge, who probably should never have gotten involved in such a case that threatens the historical integrity of our Constitution.
I suspect we have not heard the last word on this fascinating case, but I pray we listen to the wisdom of John Stuart Mill. He wrote, in On Liberty:”Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being ‘pushed to an extreme’; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case“
Notes:
[1] Ibn Warraq, “Democracy in a Cartoon” Spiegel Online International 02/03/2006
[2] Christopher Hitchens, “Cartoon Debate: The case for mocking religion” Slate, 02/04/2006 http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2006/02/cartoon_debate.html
Hitchens goes on to say: “The question of ‘offensiveness’ is easy to decide. First: Suppose that we all agreed to comport ourselves in order to avoid offending the believers? How could we ever be sure that we had taken enough precautions? On Saturday, I appeared on CNN, which was so terrified of reprisal that it ‘pixilated’ the very cartoons that its viewers needed to see. And this ignoble fear in Atlanta, Ga., arose because of an illustration in a small Scandinavian newspaper of which nobody had ever heard before! Is it not clear, then, that those who are determined to be ‘offended’ will discover a provocation somewhere? We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt.
Second (and important enough to be insisted upon): Can the discussion be carried on without the threat of violence, or the automatic resort to it? When Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses in 1988, he did so in the hope of forwarding a discussion that was already opening in the Muslim world, between extreme Quranic literalists and those who hoped that the text could be interpreted. We know what his own reward was, and we sometimes forget that the fatwa was directed not just against him but against ‘all those involved in its publication,’ which led to the murder of the book’s Japanese translator and the near-deaths of another translator and one publisher. I went on Crossfire at one point, to debate some spokesman for outraged faith, and said that we on our side would happily debate the propriety of using holy writ for literary and artistic purposes. But that we would not exchange a word until the person on the other side of the podium had put away his gun . . . The same point holds for international relations: There can be no negotiation under duress or under the threat of blackmail and assassination. And civil society means that free expression trumps the emotions of anyone to whom free expression might be inconvenient. It is depressing to have to restate these obvious precepts, and it is positively outrageous that the administration should have discarded them at the very first sign of a fight.”
*
Rabbi Samuel is spiritual leader of Temple Beth Sholom in Chula Vista. He may be contacted at michael.samuel@sdjewishworld.com