Top Banner

Lebanonwire Prominent Lebanese Best  in Lebanon Useful Data Historic Documents Selected Data

Logo

Breaking News Lebanon Links Mideast Links

Mideast News

About Us Contact us
blank.gif (59 bytes)

Lebanonwire, March 17, 2003

The Daily Star

blank.gif (59 bytes)
Israeli Press Review
The dangers of crying out to God
Khatoun Haidar

The Lebanese Constitution guarantees the right of free opinion and belief. It is expected that this right would be echoed in laws sanctioning the freedom of expression. The law guarantees freedom of expression within boundaries set by an elected legislature embodying the consensus of the popular majority. The basic principles of democracy are thus safe, and the proper implementation of the rule of law would be a normal democratic exercise.
A person has the right to profess any faith he chooses to adopt. He further has the right to proclaim that he is a non-believer, but it isn’t clear if he has the right to profess deism or atheism as Lebanon lacks the required secular civil structures.
If one is to write about religion or religious subjects, he has to take into consideration the Publications Law, which outlaws anything that could incite religious or sectarian strife. When Aql Awit wrote A Letter to God, published in the An-Nahar daily on March 11, he was suddenly thrown in the midst of a public outcry and faced public accusations. The validity of the accusations will surely be discussed for a long time after his trial ends.
Having read the offending letter, I found myself incapable of discussing the issue within the context of freedom of expression, freedom of the press, or personal freedoms. The essence of the letter doesn’t give rise to a debate about the constitution, religious rights or any of the above facts. The letter is simply the outcry of a deeply-religious person doubting his faith and suffering from it. A sensitive soul revolting when faced with injustice and suffering reveals a childish belief that good must win.
He starts his letter as a frightened person would, explaining that he isn’t revolting, just pleading. It is beyond my comprehension how his letter could offend anyone. Any person facing the unexpected loss of a dear one cries out: “God, why me?”
Where is the offense? Is it because this cry isn’t related to a personal loss, but to an injustice that fell upon a whole nation? I can’t believe that any person who read the letter and understood it could be offended.
It is detrimental to a society to feel threatened by any publication that mentions God outside the discourse of the recognized churches or established representatives of Islam, especially when this society has opted to outlaw any discourse that may hurt religious feelings. It is very easy to cross the line and enter into the realm of censorship, bigotry and intolerance. In such an atmosphere, legitimate philosophical discussion becomes taboo and religious thought become heresy. Free thinkers and innovators end up staying away from public view; development and progress in such a depressing scenario becomes a distant, unachievable goal.
The sad reality in this matter is that most of the “offended” I discussed the matter with had not read the article. They had read the comments of others and heard the inflammatory declarations of some. The public outcry didn’t arise from the readers of the letter, but from the incitement of those who found it offensive. I don’t doubt the sincerity of those who found the letter unacceptable, I am just pleading with our religious intelligentsia to be more tolerant.
An article, debate or discussion are the proper response; violence and anger are counter-productive, meaningless and an incitement toward civil strife and divisions at a time the region and the whole world are facing tremendous challenges.
It is dangerous for a society to give the populace the right to determine the legality of a law. In a democracy, the legislative body is elected and thus has popular support. Laws are aimed at ordering society, preserving the interests of the majority and protecting the rights of the minority. These are the essence of the customs and practices that bind us as a community. A law that restricts the freedom of expression by as wide a definition as “offending religious sensitivities” is a recipe for catastrophe. Who determines the nature of the offense? How many people have to be offended? How to quantify and who is to quantify?
From now on, whenever I shout in distress: “God why me?” I will feel compelled to look around my shoulder to check out if some zealot is offended!

Khatoun Haidar is a freelance writer. She wrote this commentary for The Daily Star

Copyright©Daily Star

back.gif (883 bytes)