Why We Must Draw Muhammad

by Chris Calvey

I was among the secular student leaders who organized Muhammad chalking campaigns on three college campuses (story 1, story 2, story 3). While it is true that having a legal right to exercise free speech, even if it offends some people, this legal right is not a sufficient moral justification to exercise so-called "offensive" speech. So, I will explain our motivations, highlight the importance of our actions and clear up some misconceptions about the campaign.

My organization, AHA (Atheists, Humanists, & Agnostics), and the other secular student groups who drew Muhammad caricatures did so for the following reasons:

1. To stand in solidarity with those who have been threatened with death for drawing Muhammad (like Kurt Westergaard), and to eventually diminish the risk they face by creating more "targets."
2. To publicly demonstrate that violence and intimidation are not acceptable in a free society and that we will not allow ourselves to be silenced by them.
3. To convey the notion that Islam, or indeed any set of ideas, should not be granted an undue immunity from criticism.
4. To protect our right to criticize religion and to perform actions considered blasphemous, even if many individuals find this offensive.

Our actions were met with outrage from the Muslim Student Association, interfaith groups, and even many members of the atheist community. Responses often derailed into condescending lectures about how people ought to treat one another on college campuses. We maintain that defending the principles summarized above outweighs the sensible precept that one should generally avoid offending others. The most intransigent critics summarily dismiss that drawing Muhammad can ever be a statement in favor of free speech, or at best argue that there are better ways to do so.

Context is everything. We did not, as many have accused, set out to offend Muslims just for the sake of offending them. We are responding to a disturbing movement in western societies towards a "chilling" of free speech, in which a pair of South Park episodes were merely the latest of a long series of events. During the Danish cartoon controversy not a single newspaper, television station, or magazine in the US was willing to display the Muhammad cartoons uncensored, save one notable exception, which was pulled from Borders and Waldenbooks. This voluntary censorship was not done to avoid upsetting delicate American sensibilities, but out of fear of violent retaliation. Unfortunately, the fear is legitimate, and the media conglomerates understandably felt the responsibility to keep their employees safe. However, by kowtowing to religious extremists they set a precedent which rewarded bullying and rendered the intimidating parties more powerful. As history repeats itself this month, Lars Vilks was attacked at a public university in Sweden and his house was set on fire. The lack of support for Vilks and others who depict Muhammad is outrageous. If our media, our government, and our intellectuals won't stand up for free expression, who will?

I also feel compelled to address the frequent parallels that have been drawn between our stick figures and various forms of "hate speech." According to IFYC founder and White House advisor Dr. Eboo Patel, innocuous drawings such as ours are equally as offensive as swastikas. The key difference, which has apparently eluded those who make such comparisons, is that swastikas, the "n-word," burning crosses, and the like have a long and well-established history of being used as symbols of hatred and intolerance towards a particular group of people. Happy stick figures of Muhammad have no such significance. The SSA affiliates who participated in EDMD understood the risk of alienating fellow classmates, which is why we reached out to Muslim communities, published blogs, wrote op-eds, sponsored discussions, and took every conceivable precaution to make our message unmistakably clear.

The absurdity of the swastika comparison shines light on another elephant in the room-Patel and his secular compatriots advocate a kind of "kumbaya" religious pluralism which is incompatible with an honest discussion about religion. Interfaith dialogue should not require that all participants venerate what everyone else personally holds sacred. Rather than pretending that all religious beliefs are compatible, we need to cultivate relationships which tolerate amicable disagreements. You have the right to potentially offend others by not following (or maybe even questioning) their religious prescriptions, but concede that others have the right to offend you equally. In the marketplace of ideas, no single group gets to dictate the rules of discourse. It is ridiculous to politely ask others to confine their freedom of expression within your own predetermined limits, and then to call them bigots when they politely refuse. Minority groups absolutely have the right to feel welcome on campus, but not if they define "feeling welcome" as being contingent upon never having their beliefs challenged.

We must all eventually come to the agreement that no ideas should be exempt from criticism and satire. In a free society, even opinions which the majority may find reprehensible have the right to be heard. The fundamental underlying principle of free speech is that it applies just as much for unpopular and offensive views as it does to orthodox ones. Our right to free expression is being eroded not only by religious extremists, but also by moderate groups such as the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which has introduced so-called "blasphemy laws" to the U.N. When our ability to criticize religion is under threat, as it clearly is today, we have a moral obligation to exercise it to ensure that it is not lost. Although drawing Muhammad appears to unfairly target Muslims, rest assured that we are not indifferent to the injustices perpetrated by other religions.

Chris Calvey is a graduate microbiology student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the president of the Atheists, Humanists, & Agnostics at UW-Madison, and a former member of the SSA Board of Directors.