Tag Archives: J. Christopher Stevens
So I watched the video Innocence of Muslims that supposedly caused the outrage ultimately leading to novel US protests throughout the Middle East.
First of all, it was clearly a satire. The issue is that of blasphemy, which is illegal in many of the countries with these protests. Blasphemy is often recognized as unacceptable within the religion itself, versus being illegal in a country that predominantly constitutes of those in said religion. The latter likely implies the former (i.e. being illegal likely means it is unacceptable in the dominant religion). Although perhaps ironically, the Quran and hadith do not mention blasphemy, whereas Christianity condemns it.[1,2] In the case in question, the issue was about the legitimacy of Muhammad’s teachings. Given the laws within the countries and the video, it’s no surprise that the protests have erupted. What I personally find puzzling however, is why in the 21st century blasphemy is still taken seriously.
Blasphemy essentially involves questioning that which is assumed to be true. There is an inherent anxiety in this, for if the assumptions are without merit, the whole religion falls apart. Now of course, if the assumptions are with merit, then questioning them is meaningless, so why punish individuals in this case? Won’t their absence of finding anything troubling with the religious assumptions and corresponding time wasted in the process be punishment enough?
Now take two other institutions that have assumptions that are questioned: law and mathematics. In law, the assumptions are the laws themselves. Yet for ubiquitously accepted reasons, we permit our legislative representatives to amend and refine laws so that they are compatible with the time period. Similarly in mathematics, one may start with some axioms and prove something from them (or analogously, start with some laws and note an acceptable behavior), then later the mathematician may change the axioms to prove something more general or more specific.
Thus for the same reasons, I’d argue that the questioning of the assumptions within a religion could only be beneficial to it–except perhaps to those who benefit from the doctrine at a given time. Religion, like law, may particularly benefit some members at a given time, and such members may be reluctant to welcome change. This is something of which I claim all members of the institution need to be aware. For if you fail to question the authority and dogma, you simultaneously give permission to sustain what may amount to a select few disproportionately benefiting.
 Mark 3:29