This House believes that freedom of expression is more important than religious sensitivities

Religion is at the heart of people’s identities and is based upon belief rather than reason so it is not surprising that religious groups sometimes take offence both quickly and easily. While political ideologies, or in certain scientific theories, may be believed as feverently religion by some with these beliefs come an acceptance that there are contrary opinions and a need to reason to persuade. This leaves open the possibility that they can be persuaded through reason that they are wrong. The stakes involved are very different, an eternity in Hell versus losing the next election. A political believer can afford to be malleable in a way a religious believer cant.

Increasingly religious groups offense seems to lead to threats of, or actual, violence[i], the concerted apologies of elected representatives around the world and a total loss of any sense of proportion. If something is offensive to Christians or Muslims then, apparently, other considerations have to take a back seat. Whether it’s Christian homophobia in the Deep South or Islamic Xenophobia in the Middle East, offensiveness is a line that cannot be crossed.

Or, at least, it cannot be crossed in one direction.

For a group of creeds that are so quick to take offence, those religious groups that are the first to call foul seem happy enough to dole it out in the other direction. Even the basic tenets of the major faiths, say the eternal reality of Hell for non-believers[ii], could be seen as offensive by those judged worth of being tortured for all eternity simply for getting on with their lives.

The very predicate of extreme faith – that everybody else lacks a moral compass and is going to suffer tortures for eternity as a result – is fairly offensive – and palpably untrue[iii] - by any standard. Once the discussion moves on to specifics, the insults become more pointed; perverts, fornicators, sinners and murderers (homosexuals, unmarried couples, divorcees and anyone involved with abortion, respectively). Their wrath isn’t limited to individuals, entire nations can be written off as corrupt and evil and damned to an eternity of suffering in the blink of an eye and for little apparent reason. In fact no reason, per se, at all.

If offensive statements are to be prohibited, then surely it should be a general rule. Many secularists find it offensive that theists of all stripes assume that there can be no morality without divine instruction, so that could be the first set of offensive comments to go, closely followed by religious opinions on what people should do in the privacy of their own bedrooms and the doctrines of salvation by faith.

Any other position would be too inconsistent to be worth much consideration.

[i] Religion, Violence, Crime and Mass Suicide. Vexen Crabtree. 31 August 2009.

[ii] Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. Paragraphs 1033 – 1037.

[iii] The Daily Telegraph. Atheists ‘just as ethical as churchgoers’. 9 February 2010.

It is a massive over-generalisation to suggest a link between those who take offence from blasphemous or sacrilegious statements and violence[i]. Furthermore within the predicates of religious thought an offence against god has to be of a magnitude different from one against a temporal power – to question that basic fact is to question religions being religious; it’s nonsensical. Most religions claim a total, but self-supporting, basis for their concept of truth. It is all true or none of it is; it’s nonsensical to believe in an omniscient being who is only one view among many.

However, contrasting those traditions with the European Enlightenment tradition – and, apparently, criticising them for not sharing its values is not only contrary but hypocritical – the basis of the offence is the conflict between the two traditions.

[i] Greenboro News and Record. Anti-abortion violence negate pro-life goals. 11 October 1998.

Why are religious creeds given special license to block others freedom of expression? We live in a world of laws, supported by evidence on the basis of what can be perceived in the world around us. This applies in the fields of politics, law, science and others. Only when it comes to religion (and, possibly national identity) do we tolerate arguments made on the basis of unproven belief. There is of course a role for fantasy in life but protests as a result of people pointing out that it is fantasy seems to be taking things a little far.

Nobody appears to be suggesting that the film Innocence of Muslims was anything more than a badly made, ill-conceived, puerile bit of adolescent vitriol. By any reasonable scale it pales into insignificance compared with, for example, blowing up embassies or issuing death threats against foreign nationals[i].

Were politicians to take action to urge the blocking of free speech on the rather more significant reasons for offence of misrepresentation of scientific data, libel, corruption of legal evidence or the, absolutely routine, misrepresentation of a political position, as President Obama did when calling Google,[ii] they would be written off as a lunatic. However, dress the idea up in a cassock and everyone seems to think that there is a meaningful issue to be discussed. There is no definable difference between saying something inaccurate or (in this case) impolitic about Nero, Plato, Sejong, Al’Khwarizmi or any other historical figure than about Christ, Mohammed or Moses other than the fact that the followers of the last three are more likely to resort to violence. Since when did that become a moral argument?

[i] Bermuda Sun. Obama on Religion. 28 September 2012.

[ii] Greenwald, Glenn, ‘Conservatives, Democrats and the convenience of denouncing free speech’, guardian.co.uk, 16 September 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/16/conservatives-democrats-free-speech-muslims

Quite different claims are made about the origin of the authority of the other thinkers prop mentions. Their authority derives from the contents of their works whereas that of the prophets derives from a supreme being. To question their words is, therefore, to question the power and judgement of the supreme being to establish that authority in the first place. As a result, it is not ‘special pleading’ but an entirely different premise underpinning the ideas that are being profaned. Any attack on that authority starts to undermine the whole religion and its beliefs which is different from secular authors where their works are simply the starting point of a discourse.

It should also not surprise us that politicians act when a religious group is attacked but not as a result misrepresentation of scientific data; religions are large interest groups who may effect a future election. It is the politician’s job to decide whether he needs to take action to placate that group. 

The particular subjects areas often chosen by theists to find offensive make for an interesting list;

• Freedom of expression,
• The rule of law,
• Scientific progress,
• Medical progress,
• Artistic expression

To name but a few. There are remarkably few areas of human progress and development – intellectual or societal – that have not caused ‘offence’ in some religious community somewhere. The best known is of course the Catholic Church’s forcing Galileo to recant his research in the 17^th century. There is no need to seek out obscure fanatics for this purpose, mainstream religious figures seem to genuinely believe that the equality of women is still a difficult issue. To take just one example, in 2012 the supposedly moderate and progressive Anglican Communion is still unsure as to whether the ability to be a senior manager should be determined on the basis of somebody’s gender[i]. With the exception of a handful that are in thrall to religious dominance, every nation state, company, charity, university and scholarly discipline has resolved this question and found itself better as a result. Most religions haven’t even started the process. Now that’s offensive.

[i] BBC Website. Trevor Timpson. Women bishops: Anglicans still unsure over new wording. 17 September 2012.

The fact that religious thought tends to be subverted to defend the status quo is hardly a compelling argument as the same can be said for almost all forms of thought. There is a natural backlash from vested interests against any innovation and religion should not be blamed for having this same tendency. We should however not rule out the need to take a moral approach to some things for example; using stem cells might have huge medical benefits but it still needs to be considered whether it is morally right.

Religion is at the heart of people’s identities and is based upon belief rather than reason so it is not surprising that religious groups sometimes take offence both quickly and easily. While political ideologies, or in certain scientific theories, may be believed as feverently religion by some with these beliefs come an acceptance that there are contrary opinions and a need to reason to persuade. This leaves open the possibility that they can be persuaded through reason that they are wrong. The stakes involved are very different, an eternity in Hell versus losing the next election. A political believer can afford to be malleable in a way a religious believer cant.

Increasingly religious groups offense seems to lead to threats of, or actual, violence[i], the concerted apologies of elected representatives around the world and a total loss of any sense of proportion. If something is offensive to Christians or Muslims then, apparently, other considerations have to take a back seat. Whether it’s Christian homophobia in the Deep South or Islamic Xenophobia in the Middle East, offensiveness is a line that cannot be crossed.

Or, at least, it cannot be crossed in one direction.

For a group of creeds that are so quick to take offence, those religious groups that are the first to call foul seem happy enough to dole it out in the other direction. Even the basic tenets of the major faiths, say the eternal reality of Hell for non-believers[ii], could be seen as offensive by those judged worth of being tortured for all eternity simply for getting on with their lives.

The very predicate of extreme faith – that everybody else lacks a moral compass and is going to suffer tortures for eternity as a result – is fairly offensive – and palpably untrue[iii] - by any standard. Once the discussion moves on to specifics, the insults become more pointed; perverts, fornicators, sinners and murderers (homosexuals, unmarried couples, divorcees and anyone involved with abortion, respectively). Their wrath isn’t limited to individuals, entire nations can be written off as corrupt and evil and damned to an eternity of suffering in the blink of an eye and for little apparent reason. In fact no reason, per se, at all.

If offensive statements are to be prohibited, then surely it should be a general rule. Many secularists find it offensive that theists of all stripes assume that there can be no morality without divine instruction, so that could be the first set of offensive comments to go, closely followed by religious opinions on what people should do in the privacy of their own bedrooms and the doctrines of salvation by faith.

Any other position would be too inconsistent to be worth much consideration.

[i] Religion, Violence, Crime and Mass Suicide. Vexen Crabtree. 31 August 2009.

[ii] Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. Paragraphs 1033 – 1037.

[iii] The Daily Telegraph. Atheists ‘just as ethical as churchgoers’. 9 February 2010.

It is a massive over-generalisation to suggest a link between those who take offence from blasphemous or sacrilegious statements and violence[i]. Furthermore within the predicates of religious thought an offence against god has to be of a magnitude different from one against a temporal power – to question that basic fact is to question religions being religious; it’s nonsensical. Most religions claim a total, but self-supporting, basis for their concept of truth. It is all true or none of it is; it’s nonsensical to believe in an omniscient being who is only one view among many.

However, contrasting those traditions with the European Enlightenment tradition – and, apparently, criticising them for not sharing its values is not only contrary but hypocritical – the basis of the offence is the conflict between the two traditions.

[i] Greenboro News and Record. Anti-abortion violence negate pro-life goals. 11 October 1998.

Why are religious creeds given special license to block others freedom of expression? We live in a world of laws, supported by evidence on the basis of what can be perceived in the world around us. This applies in the fields of politics, law, science and others. Only when it comes to religion (and, possibly national identity) do we tolerate arguments made on the basis of unproven belief. There is of course a role for fantasy in life but protests as a result of people pointing out that it is fantasy seems to be taking things a little far.

Nobody appears to be suggesting that the film Innocence of Muslims was anything more than a badly made, ill-conceived, puerile bit of adolescent vitriol. By any reasonable scale it pales into insignificance compared with, for example, blowing up embassies or issuing death threats against foreign nationals[i].

Were politicians to take action to urge the blocking of free speech on the rather more significant reasons for offence of misrepresentation of scientific data, libel, corruption of legal evidence or the, absolutely routine, misrepresentation of a political position, as President Obama did when calling Google,[ii] they would be written off as a lunatic. However, dress the idea up in a cassock and everyone seems to think that there is a meaningful issue to be discussed. There is no definable difference between saying something inaccurate or (in this case) impolitic about Nero, Plato, Sejong, Al’Khwarizmi or any other historical figure than about Christ, Mohammed or Moses other than the fact that the followers of the last three are more likely to resort to violence. Since when did that become a moral argument?

[i] Bermuda Sun. Obama on Religion. 28 September 2012.

[ii] Greenwald, Glenn, ‘Conservatives, Democrats and the convenience of denouncing free speech’, guardian.co.uk, 16 September 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/16/conservatives-democrats-free-speech-muslims

Quite different claims are made about the origin of the authority of the other thinkers prop mentions. Their authority derives from the contents of their works whereas that of the prophets derives from a supreme being. To question their words is, therefore, to question the power and judgement of the supreme being to establish that authority in the first place. As a result, it is not ‘special pleading’ but an entirely different premise underpinning the ideas that are being profaned. Any attack on that authority starts to undermine the whole religion and its beliefs which is different from secular authors where their works are simply the starting point of a discourse.

It should also not surprise us that politicians act when a religious group is attacked but not as a result misrepresentation of scientific data; religions are large interest groups who may effect a future election. It is the politician’s job to decide whether he needs to take action to placate that group. 

The particular subjects areas often chosen by theists to find offensive make for an interesting list;

• Freedom of expression,
• The rule of law,
• Scientific progress,
• Medical progress,
• Artistic expression

To name but a few. There are remarkably few areas of human progress and development – intellectual or societal – that have not caused ‘offence’ in some religious community somewhere. The best known is of course the Catholic Church’s forcing Galileo to recant his research in the 17^th century. There is no need to seek out obscure fanatics for this purpose, mainstream religious figures seem to genuinely believe that the equality of women is still a difficult issue. To take just one example, in 2012 the supposedly moderate and progressive Anglican Communion is still unsure as to whether the ability to be a senior manager should be determined on the basis of somebody’s gender[i]. With the exception of a handful that are in thrall to religious dominance, every nation state, company, charity, university and scholarly discipline has resolved this question and found itself better as a result. Most religions haven’t even started the process. Now that’s offensive.

[i] BBC Website. Trevor Timpson. Women bishops: Anglicans still unsure over new wording. 17 September 2012.

The fact that religious thought tends to be subverted to defend the status quo is hardly a compelling argument as the same can be said for almost all forms of thought. There is a natural backlash from vested interests against any innovation and religion should not be blamed for having this same tendency. We should however not rule out the need to take a moral approach to some things for example; using stem cells might have huge medical benefits but it still needs to be considered whether it is morally right.

The important issue here is the outcome. In most imaginable instances the person or group causing the offence has nothing to gain. If people of faith find things offensive in a way that a comparable devotee of Marx or Adam Smith does not, why cause that offence? We don’t wander around pointing out that people are ugly or fat – not because it isn’t true but because there is no reason to cause offence except in extreme circumstances[i].

The Innocence of Muslims film is a perfect example; what was its point? As a conversion tool it seems utterly useless. It is hardly setting out detailed theological arguments, it doesn’t seem to be trying to make a point. It’s only apparent function seems to be to cause hurt and offence[ii].

The idea that causing offence to some purpose may be an unavoidable bi-product of life would be one thing but in many cases there appears to be an intention to offend and if this is the case then it should be stopped.

Even where there is another purpose in mind, why not avoid causing offence wherever possible. In no other area of life would we comment of act in a way that may cause offence unless there was great need. If the creators of Innocence of Muslims wanted to point out failings in Islam then they could have had a reasoned documentary considering and weighing up evidence like Thomas Holland’s book ‘In the Shadow of the Sword’.[iii] Freedom of expression is not there to allow anyone to offend whoever they please.

Religious sensibilities should have a block on free expression in the same way other sensibilities do – in the usual course of events, they’re taken into account. Without great cause nobody would criticize troops at a veteran’s event or deliver a broadside against young people at a gathering of students. In the same way, should religious sensibilities, in and of themselves, be a block to freedom of speech? Yes. All other things being equal, should religious sensibilities be respected? Yes, of course.

[i] BBC material hosted on Youtube. Conversation between Jonathan Miller and Daniel Dennett. The Atheist Tapes.

[ii] Omid Safi. Religion News. What would Mohammed do? 12 September 2012.

[iii] Holland, Tom, In the Shadow of the Sword, Little Brown, 2012,  http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5u3Ukw7AftwC&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Who is to judge when an expression has a ‘point’? In the cases cited by Opposition, the ‘point’, however inexpertly made, seems to have been to demonstrate the many flaws and contradictions within the Koran. To suggest that demonstrating that one of the world’s major religions – with one and a half billion followers and several states framing their legal system on the basis of its dictates – is riddled with contradictions and that its modern manifestation bears little resemblance to the original protestations of the prophet hardly seems pointless. Indeed much of the offence that was taken seems to have been caused by the very fact that the film did have a point. 

Freedom of expression should be exercised with care. Everyone who exercises this right has to remember that there are consequences of their actions. The Innocence of Muslims is a good example of this. Dropping explosive comments or artworks into situations[i] that are already fraught with historical tension – sectarian divisions in Europe, religious tensions in the Middle East, the interwoven politico-religious stresses of the United States – should not be done without very good cause. Those who chose to exercise their freedom of expression in this case are at least partially responsible for the protests, and any injuries, that resulted.

It should be recognised that there need to be curbs on the offensive use of freedom of expression in order to prevent the consequences that may result from such expression. National interests dictate that states should take into account religious sensitivities in order to avoid unnecessary conflict.

[i] The Guardian Film Blog. Peter Bradshaw. Innocence of Muslims: a dark demonstration of the power of film. 17 September 2012.

Realpolitik is not a reason to compromise our ideals. Comments and artworks about “explosive situations” are a fundamental part of free expression. Opposition seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that free-expression is okay, so long as nobody minds. If nobody objects to it, there’s no need to have a right to do it. In short we wither accept freedom of expression or not; if there is freedom of expression then we must be consistent and defend the freedom for everyone.

Although it may not prove the issue, it is certainly worth being aware of the fact that when referring to “theists”, proposition is talking about the overwhelming majority of the world’s population and then attempting to portray a small, fundamentalist minority as typical. Even talking mostly secular China into account – where determining religious affiliation is fantastically complicated – fewer than one seventh of the population of the planet profess no religious faith. A probable, although unproven, majority take their religion for granted but see it as no obstacle to free speech.

There is no need to indulge in majoritarian assumptions to accept the basic principal that the opinions of the overwhelming majority are at least worth treating with some respect. After all, with odds of 7:1 against, even the most hardened, fire-breathing of secularists would have to concede that they might have a point. For the rest of humanity, simple experience suggests that avoiding religious groups offending each other is a sensible way of avoiding wars[i]. So whether it’s an odds game for secularists or just altruistic self-interest for others not causing offence would seem to be the more sensible option.

[i] Wikpedia. Religious wars.

It certainly doesn’t prove the point, it does however highlight one. As a result of religious teaching the majority of people have, at different points in history, been certain that;

• The Earth was flat,
• The Earth, or even a particular point on the earth, was the centre of the universe,
• The Earth is less than six thousand years old,
• Certain races were not human[i]
• Women were created inferior to men

If ever evidence were needed that the majority are frequently and alarmingly wrong, then religion provides it in abundance.

[i] For example the Christian concept of Polygenism – the notion that the white races were descended from Adam and others not – has had several outings during history. Among other things it has been used to justify slavery, apartheid and imperialism.