Charlie Hebdo: Why the Outrage?

The world is still recoiling from the massacre that occurred two weeks ago in Paris when Islamic militants entered into the editorial rooms at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and killed twelve cartoonists and editorialists.  On their way out they cried that they had now avenged the prophet Mohammed.  The response was swift as the world came together - or, I should say, most of the world came together - in a show of solidarity with the victims.  (I did find it interesting that the President of the Palestinian Authority and the Turkish President were in Paris for the march.  One can hardly say that religious toleration is accorded a strong place in either the West Bank or in Turkey these days).


The publishers of Charlie Hebdo added fuel to the debate when, a week later, they published an edition of their satirical magazine with a cartoonish portrait of Mohammed on the front cover.  Instead of a limited publication run - usually in the 30,000 copies per issue - this particular issue had a multi-million copy run.  And what has been the response within the Muslim world?  Violence!  In the former French colony of Niger in West Africa, dozens of churches have been destroyed and many Christians have been killed - just to cite one example.


I have been pondering why Charlie Hebdo would even publish something that they knew might cause such an outrage and why would the Muslim world respond as it did?  The answer is found in an understanding of what we know in the United States as our "First Amendment Right of Free Speech."  We understand that people have a right to express themselves as they see fit.  I remember back in 1987 when the Christian community was outraged when Andres Serrano created a picture showing a crucifix in a jar of urine.  He had entitled the picture "Piss Christ."  For those of you who are old enough, remember the outcry from the Pope down to the local pastors.  To be sure the picture was scandalous and horrific.  It created a deep-seated anger within many of us who had a love and passion for the Lord Jesus.  Yet, I do not remember anyone attacking the creator of the picture nor the museum where it was housed.  There was no violence in the streets.  No one was killed, no property destroyed, no lives devastated.  And yet, the Muslim world's response to a picture of their prophet Mohammed - a portrait that was as hurtful to those faithful followers of Mohammed as was Serrano's picture of Jesus in a jar of urine - resulted in untold violence. 


Why the difference?  As often as it is distasteful, Christians understand that one of the foundational truths upon which Western civilization is based is that of the freedom of expression.  I may not like what you say, but you have the right to say it.  Has America always been faithful to those "First Amendment Rights?"  Sadly, the answer is no.  We just celebrated the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. this past week.  I remember those tumultuous days of the 1960's when the Civil Rights debate was raging.  Although I disagreed with some of what Dr. King was saying, I respected him enough that I listened to what he had to say.  Sadly, others reacted to his message as did those who attacked the offices of Charlie Hebdo and Dr. King was murdered. 


You might way, "Max, I understand the importance of those "First Amendment Rights."  So, why doesn't the Muslim community have such rights.  Here is where it gets very interesting.  Those foundational truths, which include the freedom of expression, are deeply embedded within our Constitution and those of other Western civilizations because they have roots within Judeo-Christian teachings.  In fact, friends, as one reads the Bill of Rights attached to the United States Constitution, the roots of biblical teachings are inherent.  Would you find a "Charlie Hebdo" magazine in Saudi Arabia?  Absolutely not!  Would you find a "Piss Mohammed" picture in a museum in Iran?  Absolutely not!  Why?  Because freedom of expression is not a foundational truth. 


Can "freedom of expression" be hurtful?  Can it be insensitive to the deep heart-felt desires others?  Can it create an inner rage?  Absolutely, it can and often does.  Censorship of speech and expression must be guarded with care.  For when we are forced to think like everyone else, then the world indeed becomes a very disturbing place.