On the Blurry Line Between Law and Social Norms vis-a-vis the Recent Muslim Outrage at Danish Cartoons

I suppose that those of us who have been keeping up with the news lately (and Lord help us who have done so!) are aware of the big stink created over the cartoons caricaturing the Prophet Mohammed printed in Danish newspapers. Fr. Jim Tucker of Dappled Things has written a very thoughtful reflection on all of this.

He raises several points throughout and I don't want to take the time to comment on each of them. But, one issue in particular that he brings up surrounds the notion of civility. As this is something near and dear to my heart, I thought I'd interact with it. Pointing out our first amendment rights of the press in the US and how these rights do not necessarily have one-to-one correspondence over in Europe, we here in America would be quick to jump on the bandwagon and protest the Muslim protesters who have (unsurprisingly) resorted to violence in some cases of the recent protests. Clearly we would all recognize the distinction between being peaceably intolerant and violently so.

However, I guess the issue concerning civility gets into the severity of certain offenses and just how far the long arms of the law ought to extend. Just as not all sins are created equal, not all offenses are either. I recall the event of some years ago an artist placing at exhibit one of his latest 'pieces' which was comprised of a crucifix in a jar of urine and blood. I'm speaking of Andres Serrano's Piss Christ photographs. Or go to film and musical theater and such offensive pieces as The Last Temptation of Christ or Jesus Christ Superstar imply all manner of sexual and other implications regarding Christ, which would all be deeply offensive to Christians. So much so, even, that one wonders where the lines of free press end and direct infringements of my rights begin.

So, what Fr. Tucker does is point out the distinction to be made in all of these issues between the moral/social realm and the legal realm. Morally speaking of course all these things (including the recent Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed irreverently) are morally amiss. However, whether they are legally so is much less obvious - Fr. Tucker argues that it is likely the case that America's 1st Amendment protection of such things is superior to any attempt at censorship.

But, picking up the discussion where he does not venture, I think that when civility has been all but lost in a given culture, as is certainly true today of the affluent West, turning to the law for protection of things sacred doesn't seem too far-fetched, does it? I understand the argument that wants to advance the notion that ultimately it should be the people who freely (without the intervention of government) do the censoring and keep such unbelievably irreverent, insensitive, and uncivil people at bay. But, the problem is that we don't live in a civil culture. We live in a culture rushing to tolerate everything--even the most intolerant acts. Yes, absolutely, we need, desperately need a return to a more civil past (like the Georgian or Victorian periods) and ultimately only in such a mini-Renaissance will we be able to affect such widespread undermining of those who are extremely uncivil. However, until that day comes (or even if it comes), what are people to do with regard to balancing liberties of speech and press with the protection of things sacred? I'm not so convinced that the issue is easily divisible along legal vs. moral/social lines, for laws are often enacted for social reasons and usually have everything to do with affecting the peace of society. That a society would not deem it necessary to protect its people's most holy and sacred things from profane acts is seen as an advancement in Western civilization? That is unconvincing to me.

We're all wondering what will ultimately curb the desire of the press (or anyone else) to print (or do) something profane or extremely uncivil in matters of religion and it seems to me that we're banking on civility to ultimately win the day and triumph over such individuals. We'd rather not have to resort to further limiting the press and free speech. My question would be one in return. What evidence is there to suggest that civility has enough embodiment in the contemporary world to pull this off? Even amidst the widespread threats of Danish boycott and actual violence seen in the Muslim world over this recent issue, the Danish government is unrelenting in defending its press' rights to engage in such things. If these types of things won't curb the irreligious and affluent West from engaging in such gross displays of incivility, we're to believe that a peaceable protest will?

But, perhaps I'm just too pessimistic...