Wednesday, May 16, 2018

Jesus Christ Superstar and Free Speech

I attended the Lyric Opera’s performance of Jesus Christ Superstar this weekend.   This rock opera, along with Tommy, are two of my favorites (I plan to attend Roger Daltrey’s performance of Tommy later this summer).   The music score to Jesus Christ Superstar is one of the first albums I ever purchased (Black Sabbath’s Paranoid was one of my other earliest purchases, which may go a long way toward explaining my theological discord).   As a boy, I listened to Jesus Christ Superstar over and over again and a booklet with the lyrics came with the album so I knew all the lyrics.  The rock opera was an innovative, modern way to present that ancient story.   Jesus Christ Superstar was filled with emotion and conveyed the complexities of Christ’s life, the division of the earthly and the divine, the humanity of Jesus and the threat that He posed to the Roman authorities.  The music and the lyrics were masterful and the music had a great beat, reflecting the golden age of rock of the late 60’s and early 70’s.   I also attended a strict Catholic grammar school, and I still have memories of the nuns fussing about it, calling the rock opera “blasphemous,” especially criticizing it for ending with the death of Jesus and completely omitting the resurrection (fair point, I think).   Yet, although the Christian story was incomplete and took a few liberties, it brought the gospel to life for many of us. 

Following Jesus Christ Superstar (turned into a movie in 1973, which was well done), Monty Python did an irreverent parody and satire of Christianity- The Life of Brian in 1979.   The Life of Brian has been heralded as one of the greatest comedies of all times and while it was by definition, blasphemous, and was shunned by the BBC and some local towns in the UK, the film was ingenious and uproariously funny.  Its edginess and Monty Python silliness can still elicit guffaws with Christ and the two thieves singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life” as they hang on the cross and the reference to “Biggus Dickus” by Pontius Pilate.   Despite its outlandishness, there were no riots, no violence, no mass protests opposing the film.  No one died as a result.    More recently, The Book of Mormon, first staged in 2011, took a direct, playful swipe at a particular sect of Christians, the Mormons.  It also was widely acclaimed and I saw it a few years ago with my son.   Rather than howling about how offensive the film was, the Mormons simply rolled with it, and even took out ads in the playbills that read, “You saw the musical, now read the book.”

The only time I remember artists getting Christians riled up was the work “Piss Christ,” funded by the National Endowment for the Arts, which depicted a crucifix in urine.  That work did provoke the ire of many Christians, but the irritation was mostly over whether the government should pay for this.  The only real threats were directed at cutting off government funding.  

Seeing Jesus Christ Superstar and reflecting on some of the other artistic portrayals of Christianity made me pause and ask some questions about Islam, and ultimately whether Islam is compatible with the West.   But merely asking that question triggers a hysterical accusatory response of “Islamophobia,” a synthetic word designed to cut off discussion and debate.  Given the experience of Europe, it is a question that should be asked. 

I will also not pretend to be a religious scholar, and I acknowledge that my theological depth of knowledge of my own faith—Catholicism is only ankle deep and I do not pretend to know a great deal about Islam and its belief system.  But I do observe things, and have enough knowledge to at least raise questions.   And whether or not Islam is fundamentally compatible with the West is a question that needs to be answered and needs to be subject to debate and grounded in reality.  I also understand that Islam is complex and has sects and gradations and just like Catholicism, there are adherents that are strict about their faith and some that are, like me, looser and prefer a more a la carte menu. 

But I have some reservations about Islam’s ultimate compatibility with the West, and those reservations rest on three components.  First, is that unlike Christianity and Judaism, Islam does not appear to recognize a difference between church and state.   For a great number of Muslims, they are intertwined.  And the two nation states where Islamists have seized the controls of government—Iran and Turkey—those societies and economies have suffered greatly.   Secondly, is the difference between the founders.  Christ was a messenger of peace- love thy neighbor as thyself is a basic precept of Christianity.  Muhammed, in contrast, was a warlord, and was interested in conquest.  The founder’s themes are hard to ignore.  The third aspect, and one the only one that I will address here, is Islam’s aversion to free speech.

The initial provocation from Islam regarding free speech came in 1989 from Ayotollah Khomeini, who put a fatwa on writer Salman Rushdie for his novel The Satanic Verses, published in 1988, forcing Rushdie into hiding for years.  Dutch film make Theo van Gogh was gruesomely murdered in 2004 after producing his film “Submission.”    In 2008, a Danish newspaper was forced to apologize after setting off riots when it published a cartoon depicting Muhammed with a bomb in his turban.   Borders book chain (since defunct) self-censored and pulled copies of magazines and newspapers carrying the cartoon out of concern for the safety of their customers.   In 2015 the offices of Charlie Hebdo were attacked in France resulting in the murder of 11 people and the attackers injured 12 more.

Islam has largely been behind hate speech laws and other institutional curtailment of free speech.  Britain has stepped up enforcement of its hate speech laws, and British police monitor social media to ensure that posts offensive to Muslims are dealt with.  Canada recently passed C-16 which contains language which restricts language that reflects “Islamophobia,” that Jordan Peterson has spoken out against.   There has been a push at the U.N. to curtail “blasphemy,” and even in the U.S., President Obama warned that “the future must not belong to those that slander the prophet of Islam.” 

Recently, the College of the Holy Cross announced that it was going to shelve its mascot—the crusader because Muslims found it offensive.  Can you think of an Islamic institution or organization that changed its symbol or logo because it was offensive to Christians or Jews?

As a sometimes rebellious Catholic, I am free to criticize the Church and the Pope—which I vociferously have on many occasions.    I am free to reject and question doctrine.   I am free to poke fun at my own faith and its practices (I thoroughly enjoyed Do Black Patent Leather Shoes Really Reflect Up?), and some of its traditions.   I can mock the Catholic Church and even other faiths without threat of violence to me (today, for instance, the Vatican expressed concern over tweeting nuns—really??).  Assume I had a 11 year old boy and assume my local church was sponsoring a weeklong religious retreat for young boys chaperoned only by 10 Catholic priests.  Given the sex abuse scandals, no one in the world would call me Catho-phobic because I expressed reservations about permitting my son to attend unaccompanied.  No one would say, “Gee, it’s only a minority of priests that do that sort of thing.  Why are you worried?” Do the same standards not apply to Islam?

Free speech in the West is our most vital freedom.   In the West, generally, and in America especially, we curtail it only under the narrowest of circumstances, although it is being eroded in Europe and on college campuses in the U.S.   In the nearly 50 years since the initial production of Jesus Christ Superstar and other satires and parodies of Christianity in the West, there has not been a single death or violent incident arising out of them. 

But after seeing Jesus Christ Superstar, it occurred to me that one test as to whether Islam is compatible with the West would be to produce a good natured musical parody of Islam and Muhammed, complete with dancing girls and shortie burkas.    I ask a simple question of whether you would bring your family to opening night?   Would there even be an opening night?  Could you have an opening night, or any other night for that matter without hardened security?  

We should not be afraid to ask those important and complicated questions and not permit others to stop us from asking them.  America is a welcoming and tolerant nation.  But there are two provisos.  First, if your religious creed bumps up against OUR sacred document (the Bill of Rights), yours must yield.  And second, we are a free and open society.   You should be expected to adapt to our social norms and not expect us to adapt to yours.


No comments:

Post a Comment