Soccer Dad

The international religious court

Dr. Robert O. Freedman has a solution to the International Cartoon Crisis. (Unfortunately, the Baltimore Jewish Times's website doesn't really have an archive so you better read or save this gem before it disappears into the ether. I can only hope that some other publication or organization will pick it up before then.) Friday

The problem, of course, is to determine the difference between legitimate criticism of someone who acts in the name of a religion, and the negative depiction of that religion.

To solve that problem, I propose the creation of an International Religious Court, composed of Christian, Muslim and Jewish clergymen with one clergyman representing each of the three religions. Anyone feeling that his or her religion was insulted could appeal to the International Religious Court for a ruling on the matter, and the court would then determine whether a penalty should be invoked. It would be the responsibility of the government on whose territory the action took place to impose the penalty.

First of all this surprised me. Usually those of Dr. Freedman's persuasion reject the idea of giving a religious body any sort of authority over political matters. Apparently now, Dr. Freedman would approve of the Israeli government giving authority to the Chief Rabbinate.

And of course this religious court would serve to defuse tensions that might arise over insensitivity displayed towards another one's religion.

So if a Muslim in France, for example, decided to convert to Christianity - which is an affront to Islam - an Islamic country could appeal to this international court to have the apostate executed. And if a cartoonist in Denmark, hypothetically, drew a cartoon that was offensive to Islam, an Islamic country could appeal to the International Religious Court and appeal to have the cartoonist's hand amputated or, if the cartoon was really offensive, have the cartoonist stoned.

But why am I focusing on affronts to Islam, what about affronts to other religions. So say if Palestinians destroyed the tomb of Joseph, a Jewish shrine, hypothetically, Jews could appeal to the court for a punishment to be adminstered to the perpetrators and that would prevent violent worldwide Jewish protests, where Jews would burn cars and beat policemen in retaliation.

Or, if say, an Islamic government, chose to destroy Buddhist statues, totally hypothetically of course, this court could resolve the ensuing crisis by meting out punishment to the guilty parties. And that would prevent worldwide violent Buddhist protests to the violation of their sacred idols.

But many it wouldn't work because the hypothetical court would only have representatives of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. What about Buddhism and Hinduism?

Maybe Dr. Freedman needs to go back to the drawing board.

UPDATE: LGF writes (and thanks for the link!)

It takes a lot to make my jaw drop these days, but here’s an op-ed in Baltimore’s Jewish Times that achieved this near-impossible feat.

UPDATE II: This post is featured in this week's Carnival of the Insanities, with a pithy observation.

Technorati tags: Cartoon crisis, Islam, Religion.