Charlie Hebdo

Charlie Hebdo Reflection

bcicirel Reflection

Interfaith ScholarJulian Vasyl Hayda  gives his thoughts on the recent Charlie Hebdo attacks and response.

While by no means do I condone or even try to excuse Wednesday’s terror attack on Charlie Hebdo, I find it difficult to excuse the content that provoked it. Charlie Hebdo, according to its editors, is openly “anti-religion” and “very racist,” and the buck doesn’t stop with Islam – they also disgrace Christianity, Judaism, and other religions. While people are free not to practice a religion, it still is incredibly important and very sensitive to many others. I agree that sometimes people are overly sensitive to their religions, but this cover, for example, crosses even liberal lines. It reads “Parisians who love the Pope are as dumb as Negroes.” There is another that’s supposed to depict the Holy Trinity in a threesome, and another with the Prophet Mohammed popping into his own mouth.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think they should have been banned, or sued, and certainly no less killed. I’m a big believer of artistic expression and freedom of press. However, this was neither for sake of art, nor was it journalism – it was provocation. This is a case of a group of people being offensive for the sake of being offensive. Honest social commentary doesn’t have to be that offensive.
Now, this publication which treats and depicts people with below the least respect, is being treated like a martyr. For a paper that few people paid attention to or heard of, with a news stand circulation of 30,000, its message of intolerance has reached a massive new audience, and I find that very troubling. A mature person, who lives in the modern world, and no matter how offended he may be, knows that the best way to handle this situation is to ignore it. As pope Francis said, it’s best to be Teflon – let nothing stick, let it roll off.

I pray for the families of those killed, and am horrified at what happened to them. Nobody should be killed for their beliefs, offensive or provocative as they may be. However, I will not defend Charlie Hebdo’s actions, or people standing in solidarity with them and their message. To quote a fellow Facebooker, “emphatically, je NE suis Charlie.”

Suis-je Charlie? My Free Thoughts about Free Speech

bcicirel Seeds of Mission, Social Justice, Spirituality , , , , ,

SUIS - JE

 Fr.Guillermo “Memo” Campuzano, C.M., currently serves as Priest Chaplain for DePaul’s Catholic Campus Ministry.  He has worked on behalf of social justice on several continents and often works with religious communities around issues of faith and mission.  Students adore him and his challenging, humorous, realistic and loving approach to life and relationships as well as his absolute passion for justice on behalf of those who are marginalized. Let’s hope all are inspired to share their thoughts in the wake of his – he loves a lively diálogo.

This is my first blog post ever.  So my readers need to be very gentle and compassionate with my disorganized, free thoughts that I intend to share.  My intention in accepting the challenge to write a blog about Charlie Hebdo is to be thought provoking and not in any way to dogmatize about something that needs to be analyzed very carefully (not just from one perspective).

This week I have read in several magazines and newspapers around the globe about something that deeply captured my attention:  the right to blaspheme – which can mean many things.  In a way, it’s what many in our society consider an absolute right – the right to say anything we want with no limits whatsoever.  The right to blaspheme is the right to say whatever we want about what others consider sacred/absolute in their lives.  Religious people who believe in God are people with an absolute that they call Hashem, Allah, El Shaddai – just to mention the three monotheistic Abrahamic religious experiences.  I am aware that on behalf of this absolute, many acts of inhumanity have been and continue to be made in our society.

For me the paradox is that many people are claiming – after the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack – that they believe in another absolute:  free speech, which gives them the right to say anything they want about other people’s absolutes, even if it is offensive.  That absolute (free speech) is so absolute that they are willing to risk their lives for it.  I say, “What?!?!”  My question:  Is this a battle between secular and religious absolutists?  Does this reoccurring god of the intellectual world have any ethical limits?  Or is it an absolute absolutism?

I am a religious man – and I humbly think I am an intellectual man.  I like to say what I think – that is what I am doing on this blog.  From both perspectives, as a religious man and as a pseudo-intellectual man, I believe that both my faith and my free speech have limits – my absolute respect for life.  I absolutely deny, in my life, the possibility to kill or harm in the name of God.  But I also deny the possibility to risk my life or put other people’s lives at risk just for me to have the right to say whatever I want.  From an ethical perspective I think there is a moment when I morally can risk my life religiously or secularly:  it is when I would give my life to protect the life of others.  This is martyrdom in religious terms – to protect the life of others – or the most radical act of humanity in secular terms.  Is this an absolute where religious and secular worlds can meet?  I hope so.

In our humanity, what is absolute?  To what do we give that value?  What are willing to do to protect it?