[Buddha-l] Buddhism and blasphemy

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Sun, 2006-02-05 at 16:46 -0700, Richard P. Hayes wrote:

> This incident reminds me of a conference of Buddhists I was attending in
> 1987. It came to our attention that a popular magazine had just
> published a cartoon of the Buddha fondling his erect penis, with the
> caption "Now we know why he has that smile on his face." A lot of
> Buddhists were quite offended by it, of course, and we had a long
> discussion of what to do about it. The final decision was to do nothing.

On the way to making this decision, one of the considerations was
whether the people who had published the offensive cartoons we being
deliberately or inadvertently offensive. If the offense was inadvertent,
the perhaps something should be said about it so that the publishers
would know something they had not know before. But if the cartoons were
intended to give offense, then the subject should be dropped. The
reasoning was somewhat like that in  Śāntideva. If someone is TRYING to
offend, then one why give him the satisfaction of seeing you obviously
offended? A better response might be to show compassion toward one who
is so afflicted with anger that he feels a need to try to offend
another. After considerable discussion, it was decided that most
probably the publishers had been trying to offend Buddhists, since in
previous issues of the publication in question they had offended Jews,
Christians and Muslims. So the question was dropped.

This past week I happen to have been rereading John Locke's letters
concerning toleration. They are wonderful writings, and we live in times
when they bear being thought about. Locke's principal argument is that
there are a number of matters about which none of us is in a position to
know the truth, and many of those matters are in the area of religion.
Since no one can know the mind of God, we have no choice but to allow
everyone to say what he or she believes about what's on God's mind. The
only limits on toleration are when people claim that God advocates
violence and harm against other people, and when people openly advocate
various other kinds of actions that are illegal or are, by consensus,
deemed immoral. (In Locke's time, he reckoned that Roman Catholics were
advocating violence and that atheists were advocating immorality, so he
was no prepared to tolerate them.)

In our own perilous times, it is not always easy to draw the line
between poor taste and intolerable forms of intolerance. Perhaps no two
of us would draw the line in quite the same place. Being a long-time
supported of the ACLU and other such organizations, I tend to take the
position that such things as holocaust denial, jokes that belittle
people's ethnicity or religion, and cartoons depicting religious figures
in unflattering ways are in very poor taste indeed and should not be
emulated or portrayed as in any way noble. But I personally argue that
such things are not intolerable forms of intolerance, since they do not
advocate violence or other illegal actions. 

Freedom of speech strikes me as so fundamental to the running of a
society that has chosen to be democratic (as opposed to be compelled or
pressured from the outside to adopt democracy) that I am willing to put
up with a lot of things that I personally find deeply offensive (such as
the Superbowl, most video games, about 80% of commercial films and about
75% of what goes on in the name of organized religion). While my
sympathies tend to be very much with those who find most of modern
culture disgusting and tasteless and lacking nobility, my sympathies
cannot be with anyone who reacts to what they find disgusting, tasteless
and ignoble with actual violence, with threats of violence or with calls
to violence. 

The violence we are seeing with increasing regularity is disturbing and
saddening, whether we are talking about Bush's claim that his decision
to put in motion the invasion of Iraq was sanctioned by God, or the
reactions of offended Muslims in Europe. This is far from saying I have
any idea what to do about it. I don't. I think we have come to a point
where increasing violence, like the environmental degradation of our
planet, is almost inevitable. The aggressive human cancer has grown to
the point where there is probably no treatment for it. It is not
sustainable, so it will not last forever. What remains to be seen is how
many sentient beings will remain to see it fail to last.

Sorry to end on such a saccharine note. I feel as if I should say
something bleak, to wipe out the Polyannish aftertaste. But I can't
think of anything bleak just now, so you'll have to accept a rain check
(or is that spelled reign cheque?).

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico