Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

I came across an interesting article in the news about a topic that deserves discussion. Evidently, the famous (or perhaps “infamous”) artist Lars Vilks, whose artwork depicts the Prophet Mohammad on the body of a dog, was attacked while giving a talk about the importance of artistic freedom. He’s not the only artist who has come to literal blows over the issue of artistic freedom. Vilks was attacked immediately after he showed a film by an Iranian artist named, Sooreh Hera, who depicts the Prophet as entering a gay bar. Most of us probably recall the riots that left scores of people dead when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten posted the dozen pictures that lampooned Mohammad.

The issue of artistic freedom runs into a wall of religious opposition over the issue of blasphemy. In fact, the word “blasphemy” has a remarkable history. The English word derives originally from the Greek βλάσφημος, “abusive,” “reproachful speech” blasphemous, slanderous, insulting. Indeed, in the Torah itself, blasphemy carries a death penalty for anyone who blasphemes God’s Holy Name (cf. Lev. 24:10-16).

Rabbinic tradition specifies this only pertains to someone who pronounces God’s sacred Name itself [1], which may explain why God’s Name has not been pronounced by rabbinite communities since the 2nd century or so. Karaite Jews, on the other hand, still pronounce the Name YHWH just like their ancestors did in ancient biblical times. Numerous biblical references also attest to individuals who have reviled God’s Name [2].

While Jews have traditionally been champions and advocates of free speech, the issue of blasphemy reveals the difficulties and asymmetrical accommodation that exists between the secular and religious cultures. In Israel today, many conflicts between the Haredim and the secular occur because of the former’s “disrespect,” and “contempt” toward traditional religious values.

Christians are also aware of this problem. Back in 1987 a photographer named Andres Serrano took a picture of a plastic crucifix that was submerged in the artist’s urine, which he referred to as “Piss Christ.”

Truth can be pretty strange at times. Apparently, Serranos is a professed and practicing Catholic! From his point of view, his artistic work characterizes an Augustinian point of Catholic resistance against Protestant Gnosticism. Still and all, I remember the firestorm of debate heard around the country.

Perhaps adding more fuel to the fire, Serranos won a special award by the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art’s “Awards in the Visual Arts” competition. This event was underwritten by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency. Should government be involved in acts that arguably treat religious icons or figures with contempt? Many congressman made a campaign to punish the NEA, calling it as an abuse of taxpayer dollars.

As a Jew, I wonder what would the Jewish reaction have been if the artist decided to use a Torah Scroll instead of crucifix? What would the government have said had the artist depicted a “Piss Mohammed” image instead?

Now, get a load of this: In the United States, many states still have blasphemy laws on the books, but the Supreme Court’s expansive interpretation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes it likely that any blasphemy prosecution would now be regarded as an impermissible establishment of religion.

While such acts of revulsion offend a faith community’s spiritual values, there may be a far greater danger to religion if government decides to squelch all questionable anti-religious expressions, or decides to arbitrate what kinds of “blasphemous” expressions against the great religions of the world are tolerable and which ones are not. As you can see, this is a slippery slope that free governments ought to avoid. Government has no right to micromanage politically or religiously incorrect expressions in my opinion.

In 2005, shortly after the incident of the Koran getting flushed down the toilet, Michigan Senator John Conyers (D) proposed a law that:

(1) condemns bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors, and citizens of the Islamic faith;

(2) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith, should be protected;

(3) recognizes that the Quran, the holy book of Islam, as any other holy book of any religion, should be treated with dignity and respect; and: Continue Reading