Who Is Responsible?

Someone in America makes a video of Buddha. In it they claim he was a wife beating, sadistic moron who made up a goofy religion and laughed seeing those he was deceiving trying to figure out meaningless Koans. Not in anyway true, but the artist says it is done to create an emotional response in people, to have them in the end be more critical of religious beliefs.

The video is edited by a Buddhist and puts in Hindi, Japanese, Tibetan, and Chinese subtitles. The video is re-released in India, Japan and elsewhere. Very quickly crowds of Buddhists hit the streets in these countries and violent protests take place in front of the Embassies of the America. They harm or kill American citizens and others working in the Embassies.

Who is responsible for the reaction of these Buddhist believers?

First lets look first to the individual Buddhists who stormed the Embassy. Each has in their power the capacity to decide whether or not to throw rocks or bombs into the Embassy. This dismissal of individual responsibility because of the so-called “mob psychology” is one way to allow more mobs to do more damage to life and property.

In fact, in determining legal responsibility for mob behavior, we focus on individuals who throw the rocks and those who encouraged them as being responsible for their actions. If we did not, again, we would lose all semblance of the rule of law.

Then there are the Buddhist religious leaders who exacerbate the angry feelings of their members and send them out from religious services to do more protests and more harm to others. Thus this artistic work of the videographer is used to enflame passions.

Then there is the person or persons who placed the subtitles onto the video and re-released it on the internet. What was their rationale for doing this? Is it fair to say they wanted to use this video for their own purposes having nothing to do with the artist’s intent?

As individuals we may dislike the content of this person’s video. As a nation, we may feel it is an abomination. However, we all have the obligation to defend this individual’s’ ability so to do. That should be our automatic response. We have no censors for our free expression of ideas. The ideas expressed in the videotape in question may not match ours, but we cannot dismiss our freedoms because other people react explosively to them. If we begin to do thus, there will be others who use this means of pressured censorship to prevent American citizens from expressing a myriad of statements or artistic expressions.

This is an imaginary scenario. Irreverent statements have been made of Buddhism, I’ll bet. Some of them may be on the Internet somewhere right now. Most possible. My purpose in bringing up this scenario is to compare the imaginary reaction of Buddhists to the so-called disrespect of Buddha to the same reaction in Muslim countries concerning the so-called disrespect of Mohammed.

A few examples of organizations attempting to censor artistic expression:

            -People who are offended by the use of language esp. that of the “n” word in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn seek to prevent libraries from having the book;

            -Christians tried to close down and take away NIA grant money from the artist who depicted a crucifix in human urine;

            -Various people attempted in several cities to close an exhibition of Robert Mapplethorpe’s photographs due to so-called offensive pictures therein;

            -Christians attempted to have the movie The Last Temptation of Christ removed from theaters due to disrespect of the person of Jesus who is not considered a mere prophet by believers, but the true son of the God.

We must communicate to Muslim nations that they must adapt to our cultural norms, instead of going “berserk” each time a person expresses through their free of speech something about their religious leader. The US Government should not pursue anyone who expresses themselves in ways that are protected by the laws and constitutional rights of this nation.

Not that long ago, a “fatwah” was placed on the person who published a book in English called The Satanic Verses. Salmond Rushdie, the author who had a price on his head from a religious leader of Iran, went into hiding for over a decade.  He was accused of blaspheming the name or person of Mohammed. The US press was in complete agreement that the attempt to assassinate artists for controversial work was immoral and the effort of religious zealots should be stopped.

At that time the non-Muslim world was stunned that Muslims would condone such an action of putting a ‘hit’ on an author. This was a step back from a civilized world. Who else would any zealous Muslim place a “fatwah.”? Would those writing articles in support of Mr. Rushdie be put on the fatwah list?

Then came the effort by Denmark’s newspapers to assert the fact of freedom of expression by printing cartoons with Mohammed depicted in various humorous ways. Some artists who were approached to draw a cartoon for this effort wouldn’t out of fear of fatwahs being announced against them. They were afraid to express their artistic interpretations. They self-censored. Other papers would not print the cartoons out of fear or reprisals to them or their families.

There is reported on NPR radio this evening that the Muslim nation members of the United Nations want a rule put in place in the UN documents that no nation member will permit their citizens to say anything disrespectful of Mohammed. Who knows how far this will be carried in the UN General Assembly. The US Ambassador should be outspoken in her denunciation of this effort.

The US should not sign any document agreeing with this position. The US should continue not to allow its citizens to be tried under the UN World Court. Our constitution and freedoms ought not be subjected to outside interpretation. The US should not change; the Muslim countries need to get their police forces to protect US Embassies from mobs seeking to enter them illegally.

We are in a pluralistic diverse world. The obligation to adjust to diversity ought not fall on the nations of the West all the time. It is time for the UN to implement rules that any government that allows its citizens to place fatwahs on people of other nations will be punished by removal from the General Assembly. All ability for that country to enter into any trade agreements with another country would be prohibited.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it?  Yet that is what Muslim countries are expecting Western, non-Muslim countries to do.