COMPASSN THE SEVENTH of January 2015the Paris office of the satiricalm - PDF document

COMPASSN THE SEVENTH of January 2015the Paris office of the satiricalmagazineCharlie Hebdo wasstormed by extremists who executed ninepeople associated with the magazine, andthree others who were caught in the crossfire.As the assailants left the premises they wereheard to shout, 'we have avenged the ProphetMuhammad.' It is thereby assumed that the also be considered. Stephen Post'ssuggestion that the anti-religious nature of theFrench Revolution is still embedded in Francemay be another helpful avenue forunderstanding the motives of CharlieHebdo Of greater interest to this discussion,however, is the discernment of the type ofsatirists these cartoonists were.Gilbert Highet suggests that there are twotypes of satirists; the optimist and thepessimist. He argues that the optimist likespeople and hopes to cure them of their vices.The optimist uses frank and obscene words,however, he or she does so in order to shockpeople into facing the truth. The primaryfunction of this kind of satire is reform. Onthe other hand, Highet argues that thepessimist hates people, as he or she findsthem to be incurably evil and foolish. Thepessimist, thereby, does not hope for therestoration of the world, but converselyhopes to destroy the world through cruelwords.I would suggest that Highet's descriptionof the pessimist is too strong. A pessimist ismore aptly described as a person withouthope. Such people sense that they cannot offera workable solution to a social or politicalproblem. I would then argue that the cartoonsinCharlie Hebdo were closer to thedestructive, pessimistic style of satire. Thiswill become evident in the comparison withthe Book of Jonah that is a satire concerninga similar political difficulty.The Book of Jonah meets the criteria ofsatire, which includes: grotesqueries,distortions, ridicule, rhetorical features, andirony. Moreover, the narrative of Jonahshares another striking feature with the recentcartoons in Charlie Hebdo. It is a polemicagainst the Assyrians of Nineveh (present dayIraq), who were spoken of as being violentand immoral. At the core of this story is thehapless prophet Jonah. He is commissionedby God to preach against the atrocitiescommitted in Nineveh. Jonah famously runsin the other direction. A chain of fantasticevents bring him to Nineveh, nonetheless.There his mission is a success, as theNinevites change their ways and turn theirhearts and behaviour from violence. However,the instant transformation of these violentterrorists is not the greatest surprise, nor theclimax of the book of Jonah. Instead, thereader is shocked by Jonah's admission thathe fled from God's call, not because of fear,but rather because he knew God would bemerciful to the Ninevites. Jonah wished forvengeance, despite the peaceful outcome inthe story.However, regardless of Jonah's angerthe message of this story is a clear narrativeof hope. God's abounding and unconditionallove can overcome the scourge of evil,where retributive justice andcombativeness fails. This message takesaway the edge or the danger of satire. Thissatire is plainly optimistic, as can beobserved by the English translation ofJonah's name ('faithless one').On the other hand, Charlie Hebdo'scartoons are nihilistic. This destructivenessis best observed in the casual manner in whichMuhammad is depicted contrary to Islamicstandards of blasphemy. Representations ofMuhammad not only provoke extremists whoare certain to respond with violence, but alsovictimise mainstream Muslims. By offendingmoderate Muslims Charlie Hebdo exhibitedthe cruelty of the pessimistic satirist.Moreover, they alienated the community withthe best chance of finding a solution to theproblem at hand.Virginia Ingram is alecturer of academiclanguage and literacyat Murdoch University,Perth. She is theauthor of the bookGrace: Free, costly orcheap? SATIRES OF LOVE AND HATE COMPASSThe severity of this cartoon attack is aplain provocation. Charlie Hebdo providedits readers with outrage but did not offer aconstructive outlet for this intense energy.From this perspective, the Pope's recentcomment that a provocation may be met witha 'punch' is correct. To enrage a personwithout offering a non-violent solution isreprehensible. The likely outcome in thisinstance is violence. The truth of this claim,sadly, is evidenced in the recent carnage inFrance. It may even be suggested that thesecartoons proved to be nihilistic and self-destructive.The legal argument for the freedom ofspeech is complex. It is not the intention ofthis article to enter this discussion directly,nor to suggest legal boundaries for thefreedom of speech and expression. I suggestit is more profitable to focus our attentionon the constructive and destructiveoutcomes of satire. In doing so, we are awareof our freedom to speak and otherwiseexpress ourselves with the view to positivesolutions, or with foreseeable violentresults. Yet, the choices we make point toour intelligence, psychological health, andcivility. The optimistic satire in the book ofJonah offers us a message of love. It ispowerful and constructive. The pessimisticcartoons of Charlie Hebdo deliver thedestructive force of hate. Whether or not wepersonally accept the message of the bookof Jonah, or the destructiveness of CharlieHebdo is a matter of individual choice.However, pessimistic satire is limited; itcannot offer us a solution. On the otherhand, the function of optimistic satire isreform. The book of Jonah offers us asolution to extremist violence by encouragedreform in our god understanding. Todemonstrate this point, the interface oftheology and psychology needs to beinvoked.Psychology can offer perspectives whichheal or conversely damage a human being. Theonly psychologically healing image of God,is the God of unconditional, universal, andradical love; the Jonah message. If we refuseto see this we must cling to the outmoded anddangerous conception of a god who ispreoccupied with defensive-aggressiveness,vengeance, and retaliatory justice. This is theposition of the religious extremist. If this isthe choice we make, we resign ourselves to alife of fear and anxiety, as violence isdemonstrably harmful to human beings. Thisbelief structure cannot bring forth a feelingof peace, but only apprehension of the nextviolent encounter.If like Jonah, we are overtaken by a desirefor vengeance, despite the clear evidence thatit is love which heals and not violence, thenwe may be considered irrational andpathological. We are similarly so, if ourstance is an extremist anti-religious one asCharlie Hebdo appeared to be. It is extremistin so far as it refuses to comply with evenminimum standards of respect for whatreligion holds sacred.Of course, a frank critique of religion isnecessary, as the Book of Jonah suggests.However, this is only constructive if it isbalanced with a sensitivity toward what is heldby the religious to be sacred and an opennessto the possibility that there are positivefeatures and outcomes of religion. At presentthe positive outcomes are evident in thedecision of faith leaders to unite in oppositionto extremism, and to alleviate suffering.Consider this statement from Bishop DavidMurray of Perth Australia,Since our visit to Cairo a few years ago, theAnglican Bishop in Cairo now holds regularmeetings with the leaders of the other churchesand also Muslim leaders. There have been somebeautiful exchanges of mutual love. It could bethat the single mindedness of any fundamentalistgroups (Islamic, Christian, or Jewish) will drivethe moderates together and therein lies the powerof unity in The Spirit.He also went on to speak of the work of theGlobal Freedom Network for the Archbishopof Canterbury and the Pope, which now includes leaders of all faiths, who have cometogether, for example, to eliminate slavery bythe year 2020.10'We are not Charlie', in as much, as weare not pessimistic satirists who have beenannihilated by the dangers of satire, andprovocation. Yet, this is no reason to abandonthe recent catchphrase Je suis Charlie. Thepress has touted this expression as a protestin favour of freedom of speech, yet, this isnot the case. Millions of people across theworld are not claiming the right to beblasphemous, nihilistic and destructivesatirists. If this were the case, the magazineCharlie Hebdo would have had a strongerreadership prior to the assault on theiroffices. Plainly, this style of satire is not,1. Robert C. Elliot. The Power of Satire. (NewJersey: Princeton University Press, 1972), 4-6.2. S. D. Goitein. Jews and Arabs. Their ContactsThrough the Ages. (New York: Schocken Books,1964), 30.3. Robert C. Elliot. The Power of Satire. 4.4. Paul Ricoeur. Freud and Philosophy. (NewHaven: Yale University Press, 1970), 32-33.5. Stephen G. Post. Hope in Paris—An OpenLetter to Charlie Hebdo (New York: The Institutefor Research on Unlimited Love, 2015. Lastmodified January 26, 2015). http://ordinarily, that popular, because people arenaturally more hopeful, and inclined topositive solutions. In this instance, whenpeople speak of freedom of speech, they arearguing for the freedom to express dismayat the injustices of the world. Moreover, wewant to put an end to these injustices.Freedom requires and wishes forresponsible action.The scenes of unity, hand-holding and theoutpouring of love we encountered after therecent events in Paris are the real meaning ofJe suis Charlie. It is an expression oftransforming unity and love. The argument foran alleged moral right to speak with inflaminghatred appears contrary to this display ofsupport. 'Love never fails' (1 Cor. 13:8).NOTESwww.unlimitedloveinstitute.org6. Gilbert Highet. The Anatomy of Satire. 21.7. David Marcus. From Balaam to Jonah. Anti-prophetic Satire in the Hebrew Bible. (Georgia:Scholars Press, 1995), 9-28.8. Stephen G. Post. Hope in Paris—An OpenLetter to Charlie Hebdo.9. J. Harold Ellens. Radical Grace. How Belief ina Benevolent God Benefits our Health. (London:Praeger Publishers, 2007). 1-1010.Bishop David Murray. Email Correspondence(January 18, 2015). The Vatican and four prominent French imams issued a joint declaration thatdenounced the attacks but also urged the media to treat religions with respect.Francis, who has urged Muslim leaders in particular to speak out againstIslamic extremism, went a step further when asked by a French journalistabout whether there were limits when freedom of expression meets freedom ofreligion.Francis insisted that it was an ‘aberration’ to kill in the name of God andsaid religion can never be used to justify violence.But he said there was a limit to free speech when it concerned offendingsomeone's religious beliefs.SATIRES OF LOVE AND HATE