Food for thought...

From the pen of Nick Spencer, from the London Institute for Contemporary Christianity:

Art should illuminate. And cartoons, as valid an art form as any other, should help us to see ourselves and our world more clearly, exposing faults, parading idiosyncrasies, mocking pretensions.

Regrettably, our response to such illuminations often sheds more light than the illustrations themselves. Such is the case with the reaction to the satirical images of the prophet Muhammad published in various European newspapers over recent months.

It has shown, among other things, how there exists a silent hierarchy of religious sensitivity in Britain. Christian offence at Jerry Springer – The Opera or Gilbert and George’s Sonofagod exhibition (to name but two) is clearly not as important as the potential Muslim reaction to a cartoon of Muhammad.

It has shown how, for some Muslims in the UK, an insult to Islam greatly outweighs the moral and legal framework in which they live, justifying open incitement to violence and murder.

And it has shown how wide is the gap that separates what we might loosely call the religious mentality of the ‘Rest’, which believes that some things should remain beyond ridicule, and the secular one of the ‘West’ that claims that nothing is.

Different as these three matters are, they all point towards one key question: what (if anything) is of ultimate value to us? What (if anything) is sacred?

Our answer to this question will dictate those to the many others that cluster around it: Is there a limit to artistic freedom? Does freedom necessarily involve the freedom to offend? Is religious or national identity more important? Is anything beyond ridicule?

A very good point, Mr. Spencer. Is it unreasonable to expect all use of freedom to also be tempered by respect? Is it my right to infringe on other people's rights?