The problem with defamation of religion

By Dr Kevin B. Korb, Durban Review, March 9, 2009

Dr Korb did his PhD in the philosophy of science at Indiana University (1992). He is a reader at Monash University, Australia, and works primarily in the areas of artificial intelligence, philosophy of science and cognition.

Proposal: that the defamation of religions should be banned.

It is understandable that religionists should wish to ban the defamation of their religions. Denunciations of religious beliefs are commonly attempts to replace them with someone else's very different creed, implicitly denying the fundamental right to hold to one's own preferred religious beliefs (see Article 18; UDHR). Already, many forms of speech are banned, and quite reasonably. Calling "Fire!" in crowded venues is nowhere allowed. Incitement to riot or to terrorist acts are commonly outlawed. So, why shouldn't we outlaw insults to religion?

There are clear and compelling reasons, however, to reject the proposal.

An initial point is that "offending" or "insulting" a religion is literally impossible. Relgions are bodies of belief housed in some social context; they are not people. Only people can be offended or insulted, so the quotation marks surrounding the words above are strictly necessary. Thus, if I "offend" your religion, it is actually you whom I am offending, by denying, traducing, satirizing (or whatever) your religious beliefs. The issue in question is whether denying, traducing or satirizing the religious beliefs of others should be protected or banned.

There is a basic, positive argument for protecting religiously "defamatory" speech, namely that its protection is necessary for a properly functioning democracy. Democracy requires a full and open debate over matters of concern to the body politic. Where political speech is suppressed, it is impossible for the body politic to make informed decisions about those issues not open to debate. To the extent that the relevant issues for social decision-making are kept secret, those who are left ignorant are disenfranchised. It is clear that religious beliefs, in many cases, strike directly at the heart of important political issues: living, or dying, under various circumstances; the conduct of scientific research; freedom to travel; the obligation, or not, to pay taxes. A proscription of debate on these matters would simply amount to a proscription on democracy. Whereas many proponents of the proposal see it as a means to protect their culture, it could easily amount to an attempt to project their culture onto everyone else. As the democratic right to political speech is fundamental (Articles 19, 21; UDHR), the proposal must be rejected.

For those who reject this positive argument, perhaps due to a rejection of democracy, there remains a very strong negative argument: there are basic logical problems with the proposal. Those who would suppress speech denying the central points of their religion seldom pause to consider that their own speech denies the central points of the creeds of others. Pantheism denies monotheism; both deny polytheism. Indeed, every religion denies every other. As religionists rarely, if ever, keep their opinions to themselves, they are all of them "defaming" the rest. Thus, the proposal to ban "offensive" speech, if taken seriously, would in fact result in the suppression of all religions. The only ideological beneficiary would be atheism. Of course, in principle the proposal could be narrowed to protect a single religion. But that effort would immediately lead to a further effort to define that single religion, to the exclusion of all others and all heretical forms of itself, resulting in a new Inquisition. Whichever way this proposal is put, it degenerates into an absurdity that would force one person's religion, or anti-religion, onto all others, which is precisely what the proposal was originally intended to prevent. The defamation proposal is inherently incoherent.

UDHR = Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Other articles on Islamophobia

For related articles, visit the Islamophobia section of Durban Review or select from the articles below. Other anti-racism themes, conference details, and news are available from the Durban Review home page.

  • What is Islamophobia?, Durban Review, March 23, 2009.
    A discussion about the definition of Islamophobia and the issue racism against Muslims as well as political usage of the term.
  • Kevin B. Korb, The problem with defamation of religion, Durban Review, 3 March 2009
    The argument in favour of the proposal that the defamation of religions should be banned.
  • Isi Leibler, Islamophobia and discrimination, Jerusalem Post, Nov 26, 2008
    Interfaith activity is productive, attempts to criminalize criticism of religion are not.