The Right to Blaspheme- Religious bullying in the guise of offence
- poetryfortheinsane
- Jun 30, 2023
- 16 min read
No Sri Lankan who keeps half an eye on current events could have failed to have noticed the relatively back to back charges of blasphemy levelled against the self proclaimed prophet Jerome Fernando, comedian Nathasha Edirisooriya, and Bruno Divakara for owning the YouTube channel that originally posted Edirisooriya’s bit in question. Nor could they have failed to have noticed all the people rushing in to add their own two cents on the matter, from politicians to religious figures, with some getting arrested themselves for the incitement of violence (I’m thinking of a certain saffron robed toad). And so, I though to myself “I’ll bite. What better topic for me to weigh in on than on my old hobby of recreational blasphemy’.
(Also, a quick note to my readers. Skip this if you just want the article.
I would like to start by saying hello to my returning readers as well as the new ones. I have been absent from this blog for a long time and for that I apologise. I have my own reasons as you all know and it just wasn't possible for me to continue this at the time. Nevertheless, I am back now, given that I have nothing but time on my hands and I hope to keep doing this even when I do become busy again with work. I must also confess that my writing skills have grown a little rusty from disuse, and so I apologise if this eloquent rant of mine seems a bit unevenly paced or hard to read. It is a bit stiff at the start, but I promise it picks up the pace quickly.
But, putting all of that aside, thank you for being here. It really does mean a lot.)
Before we go into any discussion of what these people did, or even into the notion of blasphemy itself, we must first get one thing clear.
We don’t have the right to absolute free speech in Sri Lanka, although no country does, to be honest.
What we do have is the ‘freedom of speech and expression including publication’, as laid out in Article 14 (1) (a) of the constitution, which is to be considered in light of Article 15 (2) when dealing with the present situation, which states that this right may be subject to exceptions for the sake of religious and racial harmony, among other things. Because of this exception, the Penal Code is able to lay out various forms of blasphemy as offences under chapter 15.
What this means in simple terms is that while we may generally say whatever we want, this right can be taken away where religion is concerned, and as such, it has indeed been taken away when it comes to blasphemy.
However, that’s merely the legal backdrop. We’re not here to talk about what is and isn’t a legal right. Legally, what they did may be argued to be wrong. I’m not here to debate that. That’s the role of the legal draftsman, the lawyer, and the judge, and despite the daily torture of my law degree, I am none of those things. What I am concerned with is the realm of ideas and whether this ought to be an offence, irrespective of whether it is or it is not at present.
*A while ago, I wrote an essay on free speech which you can find here if you’re interested, which I will be drawing from quite a bit as it deals with much the same things to a certain extent, although this is focused particularly on the right to blaspheme.
First, let’s start with this question:
Why should I have the right to insult or question your religious beliefs?
That is the first question that must be answered.
Of course there are many aspects to this answer, but I think the most important one is that as I’ve already discussed in my earlier essay on free speech, in the marketplace of ideas, there are none so sacred that they are beyond criticism. How can you see if an idea is correct or if it holds weight unless it is challenged, ridiculed and put to the test? The only way to verify the validity of any idea is to see how it holds up to criticism. While this process is doubtless an unpleasant one for anyone who has sincere faith in a particular belief, there is no other way of knowing if that belief is correct. And for all that the religious preach of faith, there is ultimately no virtue in blindly clinging to an idea without any attempt at seeking the truth. And while this a necessary endeavour for any idea we hold, I think it’s particularly important when it comes to religious convictions because not only do they make extraordinary claims about the very nature of reality itself, but they also presume to tell us how we may live our own lives, governing every aspect of it right down to how we ought to think.
But the right to blaspheme is also an important aspect of the right to free speech. Absolute free speech is absolutely essential for every society as a whole because without this, we are limited in the extent to which we can discuss and question an idea to determine its validity as I already pointed out. If this is to be limited to any extent, it should only be done where it is absolutely necessary to do so, by which I mean things like inciting violence, although even the idea of extending this to hate speech is debatable (but that’s another can of worms entirely). But the right to avoid hurt feelings, even those of an entire religion, is not one of them. This is merely harmless ridicule and the fact that half of the people up in arms about this do not have an appreciation of comedy or the right to free expression is not an excuse to gag the rest of us.
Most religions, if not all, claim to have the answers not just to the question of how to live our lives, but to the nature of reality itself. Nor do they keep these to themselves. Though some religions may deny this, most of them are evangelical in nature and are not content in having the answers (as they claim), but insist on shoving these down our throats as well. No temple is complete without a set of loudspeakers to blare chanting to the entire neighbourhood when they choose to. It is the same with mosques and their call to prayer. Even where we don’t swallow this up, they expect us to be bound by the same constraints that they are.
It is not enough for the Buddhist to stay sober on a poya day. No. They must insist that the rest of us not buy liquor either.
It is not enough for the religion of the majority in any country to let its followers practice their beliefs alone. No. They must have an influence on the laws of the land under the guise of ‘culture’. They must insist that the rest of us act according to it too. They must have these religious festivals be state sponsored and supported, meaning that all of our taxes pay for it.
My point is, whether we subscribe to these beliefs or not, those who do make sure that it affects our life as well. If so, shouldn’t we be free to criticise it too? Not because we’re out to upset innocent religious folk who mind their own business (although that ought to be within our rights too in a free society), but because these ideas affect the rest of us too, irrespective of how absurd they may be. We cannot be bound by their taboos too. Our liberties have been infringed enough.
Then there’s the issue of hurt feelings or disrupting religious harmony, or whatever other fancy term you create to mean the religious getting butt-hurt that someone had the gall to insult their precious beliefs. The fact is that we risk offending and insulting people with every word we utter. If the risk of upsetting someone was a valid cause to silence people, we would never speak again. That risk is ever present as being hurt is a subjective thing and anything we say may be construed by someone as being offensive. All you need to say is ‘that’s offensive’, and the rest of us are supposed to put everything down to baby you and your hurt feelings. That is simply absurd.
Even the religious implicitly make the claim that theirs is the right religion and that all other religions are either false, mistaken, or missing some element that makes their religion the superior one. Is that idea not offensive to every other religion? Every religious person holds views on other religions that would be considered to be offensive by the followers of the religions in question if they were to be uttered in their company. And yet, the moment someone insults one religion, they all flock together despite their own inner thoughts because they know that that could happen to their beliefs next, and so, they are desperate to intimidate the rest of us with their clerical bullying into compliance. I say that these people are entirely too comfortable with the place of respect that they’ve been given and now presume to bully and intimidate the rest of us with their pompous claims of this being a Sinhala-Buddhist nation. It is not. This nation belongs to all its people in equal measure and I dare any man to tell me otherwise. If they can make these claims with no regard for the feelings or beliefs of other religions (as they have a right to do, I believe), then why cannot we do the same with them?
Therefore, I maintain that we need the right to free speech and that this cannot be limited where religion is concerned. Blasphemy is an integral part of the right to free speech and is therefore a right in and of itself. You may believe in whatever you wish to. So long as it does not force itself upon the rest of us, I do not care. But you are not to make me bind myself to the same restrictions and beliefs merely because you do.
Now of course, let’s consider the offending blasphemers in question and see if their ‘crimes’ are really all they’re made out to be.
Let’s start with our supposed prophet. I did listen to what he said and I must confess that I’m not impressed.
The clip in question wasn’t even a proper theological examination of either religion (although I was a fool to even remotely expect that from the likes of these pop-evangelists). Instead it was mere semantic quibbling over an English translation designed to please his flock of sheep who seemingly have pulled their own wool over their eyes listening to the bleating of this charlatan. Nevertheless, being a charlatan isn’t a criminal offence and while I have nothing good to say of the man, I certainly don’t think he deserves to be arrested for it. He was stating his opinion. Nothing more. Even if his opinion goes against the established understanding of Buddhism, so what? Are there not such fundamental disagreements between the various Buddhist sects too? Are we to imprison every Mahayana Buddhist preacher if he tells the famous zen koan about burning the wooden Buddha for firewood?
All our "prophet" did was take what he perceived to be the facts and lay them out in such a way as to support his view. That’s all anyone can do. Even a Buddhist monk who seeks to depart from the standard understanding of Theravada Buddhism in Sri Lanka must do the same. Do we expect the state to interfere in that too?
The role of the government is the running of the state, not the intricacies of theology.
We don’t live in a theocracy. The more the politicians stick to politics and theologians stick to religion, the better. He didn’t insult Buddhism in any way in my opinion, and even if he did, so what? He does not deserve to be imprisoned for it. Every time Buddhists or Hindus or Muslims assert that theirs is the right religion, what are they implicitly saying if not the same thing that Jerome said? You cannot assert that your religion is the right one without asserting, implicitly or explicitly, that all other religions are the wrong ones. That is simply the name of the game. His only offence, if any, was saying in public what everyone else says behind closed doors to those they share a faith with.
As for Miss Edirisooriya, I have much the same things to say. Religion makes extraordinary claims for itself. It is the Buddhists that make the claim that Siddhartha walked and talked and performed miracles as a newborn baby. We non-believers do not assert such things. They do. All she did was take this claim to its logical conclusion. She did not even go so far as to deny its validity. If any offence was taken, that is their prerogative. All offence came from a mere repetition of their own theological beliefs. It is the Buddhists that make these claims, without any evidence mind you, and then expect us to lap it up unquestioningly. But putting this aside, I cannot stress the fact that she did not even deny these claims. All she did was treat these claims as being real and point out its possible implications. If they themselves find these claims to be ludicrous, we cannot help that. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. With no such evidence being offered, and indeed even if they were, we are free to question them.
All I will say to these people, be they the clergy, the devout, or the politicians hoping to pander to a religious voter base, is this: You may believe in and preach whatever you please. You have that freedom. But do not for a second presume to tell me what I can say or think. Your feelings cannot and will not curtail my liberties. If you can make incredulous claims, I have the freedom to ridicule them. It is that simple.
As for that saffron robed toad who stole the limelight, Rajangane Saddharathana Thero, I believe in his right to free expression too. I will defend this right for any person, whatever their religious and political views may be. Nevertheless, let us not forget that his arrest did indeed come within one of the most widely accepted limitations on free speech, that is the incitement of violence, in this case against our humble "prophet" (This is sarcasm for those of you with mud for brains. Please don't come at me claiming that I'm one of his flock). For this statement, I am most definitely in support of him being charged with inciting violence. You simply cannot go about demanding that all true Buddhists must assault this man wherever they find him, and such incitements must be dealt with by the law. However, beyond that, when it comes to his ability to preach and rant, I must support that too under our universal right to free expression, as repulsive and disagreeable as those rants may personally be.
His tirades and diatribes are certainly amusing, but one can’t help but feel that here is a weak and petty man, threatened by the fact that the very claims that he staked his life upon are being called into question. He is a self-avowed racist and yet we’re supposed to take his rants seriously? I think not. Go and listen to his tirades.
He has made zero valid points beyond Sri Lanka being a Sinhala Buddhist nation and that they will not take ridicule. Do our proud nationalists have such thin shells?
This is nothing more than clerical bullying and I am tired of people submitting to it. Are we really meant to be scared or intimidated the moment some monk puts on a fake tough guy act and blares out a few curses? I think not. And as for the ludicrous fools who support this man, they have done nothing but make me lose faith in our people. His ad hominem attacks prove nothing. Here is a member of the clergy, meant to be well versed in theology (in theory at least), and yet he has made no move to defend the validity of the Buddhist claims or provide evidence to support them. Nor has he made any attempt at providing a counter argument to Jerome’s stretched analysis of Buddhism. All he asserted is that he believes it because he is supposed to believe it, and that we must respect it on the mere grounds that they believe it.
Are you offended? Did I hurt your personal convictions? Good. At least this might move you to stop being complacent and reconsider your position. You do have a right to believe what you will. Absolutely. But so do I. And if my belief is that your belief is absurd and nonsensical, you have no right to demand that I set aside my views for the sake of yours.
Of course one must give the devil his due. Yes, it is indeed true that Buddhism is a great deal more tolerant towards other religions that co-exist along side it than those religions themselves have been in countries where they are the dominant faith. It is also true that we owe a large degree of our religious diversity in Sri Lanka to this tolerance.
We did not have to suffer the vile horrors of crusades and inquisitions, nor the tyranny of jihads and sharia law. Nevertheless, for a famously pacifist religion, we must confess that Sinhala Buddhists have been awfully warlike when it comes to Buddhism, giving rise to the almost oxymoronic situation of violent Buddhists. That may, of course, be attributed to the nature of the people and not the religion. After all, we see this trend in all religions once they become accepted by the masses, from the church sponsored and supported wars of Europe to the striking contrast between Islamic policy at various stages of Muhammad’s life. But that is largely irrelevant.
My point is that while Buddhism has indeed helped with the diversity of cultures that we have in Sri Lanka, it is by no means fully tolerant or without issues, meaning that this tolerance cannot be used as a ‘get-out-of-jail-free card’ for religious criticism.
Finally, of course, we must discuss the elephant in the room.
If we introduce the freedom to blaspheme in Sri Lanka, we will invariably upset many people, and knowing our mentality, this is quite likely to lead to riots, violence and racism.
As much as I wish it was otherwise, I cannot honestly deny that. However, this does not deprive us of the principle that we ought to have free speech, whether it is practically sound or not. The behaviour of others cannot deprive us of our rights. If we know these risks, if we are prepared for almost Salman Rushdie levels of persecution, and we choose to take on that risk anyway, the law should not stop us.
And yes, we can indeed use the classic argument that while this is all well and good for the West, we are too backwards and uneducated and culturally different to have such freedoms here. But honestly, that’s just plain condescending. It is as if we are somehow beneath those cultures and haven’t advanced far enough to be entrusted with our own personal freedoms. If we are not at a cultural and social level in Sri Lanka where we can handle our own civil liberties, then the solution most certainly isn’t to be resigned to this pitiful state of affairs, but instead to work towards advancing our culture to a point where we can have a civil debate on religion and personal beliefs without resorting to violence and riots like vile savages.
I am personally of the opinion that religion as a whole is ridiculous at best and hateful and evil at worst. I am free to hold that opinion and you are free to despise me for it. But the fact that half the damned country would be up in arms over it ought not be a valid reason to legally restrict me from saying and believing so. We must of course accept the reality here. If we get serious death threats and threats of personal violence, there is only so much that the state can do to protect us. It might attempt to stop zealous vigilantes, but it cannot always be successful in doing so. However, if we know this and choose to take that risk anyway, what right does the state have to stop us?
The answer is none. So please, don’t waste my time with this nonsense that we just cannot handle it in Sri Lanka or that it is for my own good. I will be the judge of that and if I am willing to take that chance, neither the religious nor the state should have any power to stop me.
Ultimately, the simple fact is this. Blasphemy is utter nonsense designed to keep the religious secure in their beliefs by stopping any and all questioning of these beliefs, and to stop their feelings from getting hurt. It is nothing more than childish behaviour and bullying that we as a society just deemed to be acceptable because it’s about these “sacred” and supposedly unquestionable beliefs. No serious society ought to lock up its citizens merely because they speak their mind, even if it offends other people. This is a risk we have to take every time we speak. We cannot keep silent just because we are scared of hurting someone else’s feelings. Even if it does, so what? If your beliefs seem ridiculous to me, I have a right to point it out, the same way the religious may do if they find my lack of faith objectionable. We are under no obligation to blindly go along with their beliefs just because it is sacred to them.
Buddhists do in fact make the claim that the Buddha walked and talked right as he was born. Ignoring the simultaneous insistence of the Buddha being an ordinary human and that he had supernatural powers and a sinless perfection that we find in Theravada Buddhism, this claim would be utterly ludicrous in any other context. If I said that I had a little brother who did that immediately after birth, you would laugh in my face, and rightfully so. Nevertheless, the moment we slap the label of religion upon it, it suddenly becomes unquestionably accepted without so much as a second thought.
Of course you may make the argument that the very nature of a miracle is that it is out of the ordinary and that if it was believable and regular phenomenon, then it wouldn’t be miraculous in the first place. Nevertheless, we are still given zero evidence for this claim. None whatsoever. Even many Buddhists themselves do not subscribe to the belief in these miracles. Why then are we expected to take this pile of garbage at its face value? At the very least, the Christian and Muslim apologists try to provide some evidence for their miracles, as feeble as it may be. The Buddhists do not provide that either.
Of course the fact still remains that we can’t force this view on blasphemy. In a democracy (yes, we do live in one despite what the political climate would lead you to think), it is the views of the majority that prevails. And if the majority is of the unfortunate opinion that we ought to stick to the present laws against blasphemy, or even tighten it further, then there is unfortunately little we can do. We might disagree, but we cannot force the change and foist the views of a minority onto the rest of the nation. I wish I could put aside my principles and be militant in my demands for it like the religious ever so often tend to be, but I must concede this point. However, what we can do is to convince the rest of the nation the merits of our position, shifting the will of the people towards more libertarian views and bringing us out of this backwards, tribal mentality. It is by our own chains that we have bound ourselves and liberty must be a choice.
Ultimately, blasphemy is religious and clerical bullying and nothing more. You have no special right to not get hurt or offended.
You have no special right to hold your religious views above criticism any more than you have a right to hold your political or social views above criticism. It is high time that we stop imprisoning people merely because some religious idiots, insecure in their own faith, got butt hurt after a few comments or a joke or two. We live in an enlightened society and it is about time that we acted as such.
Simply put: The Blasphemy laws have got to go.
Comments