Dangerous satire

Who is Charlie Hebdo? That’s like asking, “Who is Monty Python?” Few of us had any awareness of the French satirical magazine until jihadists murdered 10 of its staff to avenge Muhammad, whom Charlie Hebdo had often shamefully caricatured.

The almost universal response has been to rally behind the cartoonists in the name of free speech, many declaring, “Je suis Charlie” (“I am Charlie.”) They were saying that the attack on these cartoonists is an attack on all of us because we all have a stake in the rule of law and the freedoms it protects.

Political cartoonist Tom Toles recognized in an interview a difference between political satire and hate speech, “what’s acceptable and what’s smart.” But he emphasized, “Today is not the day to try to draw that line.”

But shortly afterward, Pope Francis went there. Of course he condemned the massacre, but added, “It is true we cannot react violently. But if Dr. Gasbarri here, a great friend, were to say something insulting against my mother, a punch awaits him. But it’s normal. You cannot make provocations. You cannot insult people’s faith.” Here he fills in what Toles surely meant by “what’s smart.”

Charlie Hebdo is not just a satirical magazine. It’s obscene. (Google “Charlie Hebdo cartoons” and you’ll see it right away.) The magazine offends for the sake of offending. All three major religions suffer its visual slurs. Satire can be constructive, especially within a religion, and is bound to be irreverent, especially from outside a religion. But Charlie Hebdo’s graphic assaults on religion echo Voltaire, the imp of the French Enlightenment who decried the Catholic Church, saying, “écrasez l’infâme!” (“Crush the infamous thing!”) Charlie Hebdo’s satire is malicious and its goal is destruction.

Should people criticize other people’s religion? Of course! Everything is open to critical assessment by rational and biblical standards. Should people mock other people’s religion? It depends whether the ridicule is constructive or destructive. Drawing attention to the ridiculous in people’s folly and excess can be an act of love.

Religion opens itself to political satire when it adopts political goals. Islam, except for its mystical or highly personalized expressions, is political. It contains a law—Sharia—that wishes to regulate all of community life with civil authority. Christianity is a faith, not a law, though it has consequences for the moral content of public policy and the moral conduct of political leaders.

But when we contend with religions over these public questions, we owe one another the discourse of decency. Of course, no one who is denied that consideration has a right to violent retaliation. In God’s world, the law of love applies to everyone.

But jihadists are in a different category. They’re Muslim, but insofar as we notice them, they’re a political movement of murderous thugs and should treated as such. This is what Belgium did last week, clearing out a nest of terrorists who were poised to strike. If there is a mad dog in the room threatening to bite you if you make a sudden movement, the wise option is not to assert your liberty but to shoot the dog. Charlie Hebdo asserted its liberty. Belgium shot the dog.