False prophets, true freedom

The man who has generated more talk across Jamaica in the last two weeks than any deejay, athlete or politician, doomsday preacher Michael Lewis, has been fired from his job after appearing on television to express his obnoxious religious views.

This would be a scandal punishable by law in a democracy like the United States or Canada, but in Jamaica, Lewis should be relieved to escape our shores with his life, having committed blasphemy. But give us some time to mature, for we will only be 50 next year.

Massachusetts hanged Mary Dyer in 1660 because she insisted on advocating her Quaker views. In 1917, Iowa's governor made publicly speaking German a crime. When a Wyoming man was overheard saying, Hoch der Kaiser ('Up with the Kaiser')," a group of people hanged him - but not before cutting him down to make him kiss the American flag. They were acquitted.

People in North America would be stunned that we who boast of our respect for civil liberties are still firing people because of their religious views. But that would be nothing to many of us in this intellectual garrison once the person "violate the order".

Jamaican employers know their fellow Jamaicans. Indeed, many were urging that he be locked up for public mischief, committed to Bellevue, and one fellow journalist even told me he should be caught and beaten on the streets. (He had the same recommendation for homosexuals some time ago.) I feel embarrassed that people in the First World are reading this, but I feel constrained to disclose it. In a conversation with me on Monday, Lewis was asking me whether I thought the police would escort him to the airport. This is a Jamaican. What, is this Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia or Saudi Arabia?

People in influential positions told me seriously and with passion that they would not employ someone who espoused the "crazy ideas" of Michael Lewis, who believed that Judgement Day would begin on May 21. His own judgement would come into question, they told me.

I always knew that our foundations for democracy and press freedom were very weak because of our incredible intolerance, partisanship, bigotry and contempt for diversity and pluralism.

The discussions all over Jamaica and among all classes and age groups over the last few days, have again highlighted a very serious and appalling defect in our democratic ethos; as well as demonstrated our hostility - even among our intelligentsia - to cosmopolitanism and ideological pluralism.

Let's examine the major issues surrounding this controversy over our 'doomsday preacher'. I am the culprit who brought him on television, so I have an axe to grind. Examine my arguments rigorously and very critically and watch for my lapse in logic to debunk them.

First, it was felt that Lewis drove fear and generated panic among most Jamaicans and, therefore, his action was akin to shouting fire in a packed cinema. Fact: Vox pop carried on radio, television and in the newspapers showed that everyone interviewed said, "No man knows the day or the hour" when Christ would return and that this man was talking absolute nonsense and rubbish. I never knew so many people knew that text. Most people - overwhemingly - dismissed out of hand what Lewis said.

Did some get scared? Of course. Should media refrain from carrying views that could, potentially, scare people? Is it wrong to do so? Should we as journalists have reported on gruesome murders and runaway crime when that was our biggest problem? Was The Gleaner scaring people by having crime on the front page and should television news not report it because people could get scared and panic, especially children? If we hold that media must, in all cases protect even the few from the possibility of fear and panic, this could lead to dangerous conclusions.

scary book

But wait a minute: Have any of you ever read the Book of Revelation? What a scary book! The talk about earthquakes, rocks falling on people, terrible plagues, pestilences and people being burnt to cinder are all in that book of the Bible! Should 'Religious Hardtalk' ban all preachers who still believe in a literal hellfire which, incidentally, burns for all eternity? Now isn't that more scary than what Michael Lewis said?

If you want to protect people from the possibility of fear and panic, you would have to ban fundamentalist preaching about hell. You remember seeing some scary, really terrifying movies about hell as a child? And do you remember having nightmares about Jesus' coming back, bursting through the clouds with angels, loud trumpets and earthquakes taking place at the same time? It's because most of our preachers today are preaching more about health and wealth why we forget that some pretty scary things are still in the Bible, and not just in Revelation.

If free speech can only be allowed when there is no possibility of scaring anyone or making anyone panic, reporting on the horrors of wars; covering the effects of global warming and pandemics could scare the hell out of us.

What about the view that media shouldn't "pander to stupid, ridiculous, crazy superstitious views?" Now tell me, apart from putting a specific date to Christ's return, what is inherently 'mad' about what my guest said, which is not believed by many other Christians still in their high-profile jobs?

Many supposedly sane Christians believe that Jesus Christ, who died more than 2,000 years ago, is living now in heaven and will any day now burst the skies with legions of angels, resurrect people who died thousands of years ago and give them eternal life. They believe that God will destroy this world with fire and brimstone and that this will happen very, very soon. Why are they not mad and why should they be allowed to speak freely on 'Religious Hardtalk' and keep their jobs, but Michael Lewis must be fired, locked up, thrown in Bellevue, or beaten and exiled in America, which allows him to expound any crazy idea? (All the big American media gave coverage to Judgement Day.)

absolute madness

Catholics believe that when they take the Eucharistic wine and bread, they are literally drinking Jesus' blood and eating His literal body? Is that not absolute madness to atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Victor Stenger, Michael Martin, and others? The idea that God is One in Three and Three in One - a self-confessed 'mystery' impenetrable by human reason - is this not absolute craziness to enlightened secularists who dominate the academy? If we are going to be consigning people to the asylum because of 'weird, crazy beliefs', maybe we should start reading some philosophical critiques of our favourite doctrines accepted without question. One of the benefits of a humanities education - especially in philosophy and comparative religions - is that it increases one's tolerance and epistemic humility.

Michael Lewis in every instance, except for his dating of the return of Christ, believes what other Christians believe. His view that his leader has the right interpretation of the Bible and that all churches are false is believed by many unorthodox groups. 'Religious Hardtalk' explores these 'crazy', non-mainstream views because the programme is designed to broaden people's perspectives and challenge our unquestioned ideas. It is to give a voice to those whose voices have been traditionally marginalised and suppressed. This is what a free press must be committed to doing, however uncomfortable it is to the those in their cocoon.

Intolerant, hostile and rhetorically violent opposition to divergent views could have a chilling effect on those making executive decisions in media, and civil-society groups and well-thinking Jamaicans concerned about religious and intellectual liberty and press freedom should not remain silent. We must beat back illiberal, undemocratic views which seek to suppress unorthodox views.

Freedom is not absolute. That's true. We should not be free to disseminate ideas which promote violence, for example. Did Michael Lewis do that? A Clovis cartoon on Tuesday captured it well: "Is the first Jamaica ever quiet so!" a policewoman exclaims to her colleague. "It look like the shotta dem gone in the rapture," he replies, his feet comfortably atop his desk - no work to do. Last weekend recorded one of the lowest murder rates, as wicked people contemplated their actions.

Lewis helped those few who gave him the time of day or any slight chance of being right to reflect on lives and their readiness for the judgement. The rest were busily trading jokes about rapture and having a good laugh - which, in these stressful times, we needed.

Even if you say Lewis' views were 'superstitious nonsense' and 'craziness', people have the right to proclaim those views. And, Christians, watch it: There are some very bright atheists who believe that your cherished views are just that! What if they controlled TVJ and decided your views should not be aired? Why do you think Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other countries with Shari'a law ban Christianity and other 'infidel' religions? Because they say they are dangerous and superstitious. Communists also protect their people from 'superstitious ideas'. Muslims say the cherished Christian belief that Jesus is God is blasphemous and you can be killed in some countries for believing and propagating it, for Allah has no equal.

An execution order was issued for Salman Rushdie because he dared to criticise the Qu'ran and Muhammad in The Satanic Verses. A Danish cartoonist's depiction of the Prophet Muhammad caused violence and death in many countries which protested such 'disrespect'. The Muslims were offended and insulted. Be careful of theocracy and wanting to impose Orthodox, mainstream Christian views on a secular society. That is dangerous. It is not Michael Lewis' or Harold Camping's easily refutable views which constitute the greater threat. They are already discredited. It is our intolerance and hostility to difference and diversity which is pathetic.

Should Rastas be free to come on TVJ and say Selassie is God, is still alive living somewhere and Christianity is the white man's religion? US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr was right: We must embrace 'freedom for the thought we hate'. That's the ultimate test of democracy.

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and ianboyne1@yahoo.com.