The March 2006 issue of The Insurgent offered cartoons, ranging from grotesque to silly, satirizing the crucified and risen Christ, as well as several reflections critical of Christian belief, history and practice. Responses from several students and others who have communicated their objections show the inflammatory effects of these representations. With the exception of one article, “A Little Ranting and Raving: Christianity,” these effects come with very little actual content suitable for discussion. Such acts by a publication that purports to engage the University community contribute to a campus climate that discourages true exchange of contrary views. It is the mission of the University to provide an arena for dialogue and debate through rational argument in which all views are invited and none are censored by hostile speech. The claims and the arguments of The Insurgent deserve engagement, and the passion behind these claims and arguments rightfully belongs to their expression. But this does not justify a manner of expression that inhibits genuine dialogue.
As faculty and staff who are Christian, we are not particularly surprised or even shocked by the mocking and hostile tone in such representations of Christianity. There is nothing new about mockery of religious beliefs in general, and followers of Christ in particular have understood from the beginning that their path is at odds with the values of the world and likely to encounter disbelief, rejection and sometimes hostility. Christianity is in no way an “easy way out,” nor should it expect any protection from such hostility beyond that which the law provides all citizens. The editors of The Insurgent explained that the rationale for an issue poking fun at Christianity was to encourage religious tolerance in the wake of Muslim outrage over cartoons published in a Danish newspaper – such action, they claimed, would help people reflect on how it feels to be ridiculed. While it is questionable that such an approach fosters genuine religious tolerance, we can agree, as Christians, with the intended goal. It was Jesus, after all, who famously framed the Golden Rule to treat others the way one would want to be treated oneself. Seeking to understand others and to treat all with respect are specifically Christian virtues, shared as well by other religions and humanitarians. As educators, moreover, we believe in reasoned dialogue, which caricature and ridicule of the kind manifest by The Insurgent undermines. In this sense the real “offense” of this March 2006 issue is to the climate of reasoned exchange that is the responsibility of all members of the University community to maintain.
The Insurgent collective has agreed to publish, in its next issue, a response by us to its criticism of Christianity. In this response we will elaborate our reasons for contesting their claims, as well as certain points on which we might hope for common ground. The current focus on offensive speech needs to yield to dialogue about the tenets of religious belief and practice. To this end we wish to contribute.
George Sheridan, Doris Payne, Mark Watson, Jack Maddex, Ted Smith, Tom Stave, Clarice Wilsey and Daniel Falk are part of a small ad hoc group of faculty and staff, which has been meeting informally since the beginning of the academic year, with no agenda