Sarah Harte: Religion and free speech are often uneasy bedfellows

Even some atheists I know were appalled at Trump's blasphemy — but if freedom of speech is a core value, then we must leave him to it 

Monty Python's Life of Brian: Many people found it grievously offensive.

Pope Leo, a powerful critic of the war in Iran, is knocking it out of the park, refusing to engage in dialogue with Trump. The most effective way to sideline narcissists is to ignore them. 

The two AI-generated images, one of Trump depicting himself as Jesus, the other of him in a weirdly homoerotic embrace with Jesus, were blasphemous to many.

In Ireland in 2018, 64.85% of us voted to remove the concept of criminal blasphemy from the constitution, a law introduced in January 2010. No prosecutions ever happened for blasphemy, although gardaí investigated comments made by Stephen Fry in a TV interview.

The repeal of blasphemy marked a symbolic shift in Irish post-theocracy thinking. Ireland became religiously diverse. Criminalising blasphemy felt anachronistic, running contrary to freedom of speech. 

You could also argue it was an international public service announcement, ‘Lads, we’re modern. We are as liberal as ye.’ Monty Python’s Life of Brian, a send-up of religious zealotry, was a hit in my house, but many people here found it grievously offensive. The film ends with a jovial, sing-along crucifixion. In fact, Brian was not Jesus, a point missed by some.

Most civilised people consider it wrong to grossly insult the religious opinions of others; humour and religion are often uneasy bedfellows. Yet humour typically involves pushing boundaries and questioning moral truths and social norms in an effort to make sense of the world.

A major free speech controversy in modern times was the murder in 2015 of journalists in the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, reportedly directed by Al-Qaeda. Charlie Hebdo, if you remember, was the French satirical magazine known for its depictions of the Prophet Mohammed, which many Muslims found profoundly offensive.

That violent response to blasphemy was abhorrent. But the event raised the question of whether we must protect speech even when that expression upsets others. What is socially permissible in France is not necessarily the case in Pakistan, where religious leaders openly called for Charlie Hebdo journalists to be hanged.

We tend to support free speech in principle until confronted with something we find personally offensive. A perennial thorny question is where the balance lies between free speech and the protection of shared values that sustain social harmony.

My first column for the Irish Examiner was on freedom of speech. It included the line: "To be reductive about a complicated topic, you have the right to freedom of speech in one corner, slugging it out with the right not to be offended in the other." I was lucky to have that column published. That was in April 2022, when I was at rock bottom in my life, personally and professionally.

Donald Trump shared an  AI-generated image of himself and Jesus. 

I was walking down Patrick Street, on a Friday afternoon, when I got a call saying the paper would run the article the next day. If you wrote in a novel (I have some experience with this) that a character punched the air, your editor would say it’s a cliche. But I did. The day was sunny. I’ve looked up the weather for that date, and my memory isn’t false.

Anyway, the limits of freedom of speech is a topic I have thought about a lot. I probably need to get out more. Do we have the right to say what we want, no matter what? A persistent dilemma, it seems to me, is how to defend free speech without seeming to endorse all speech?

I've been trying not to focus on Trump in this column. Many of us long for him to be gone, while others may feel differently, and that’s fine. Long live democracy, which has taken fairly seismic hits in recent years.

So, orange Jesus has become Jesus. I stole that line from The New Yorker because I love it. The hope is that Trump’s blasphemy is the last straw for his Catholic base, who were an important part of his constituency, helping him to get elected.

As they lick their wounds at this breach in public, if not theological, morality, they should reflect they have been a core part of the Maga movement. Their veneration of Trump has led them to this ugly pass.

They overlooked the small inconveniences of his flagrant immorality, his disdain for migrants, anyone who isn’t rich, people with disabilities, women he doesn’t consider "attractive" (not to put other women down, but from where I’m standing, that’s a serious compliment), or anyone he, as a bully, considers vulnerable and therefore a legitimate target.

To the American Catholics who voted for him, we could say you reap what you sow.

His latest lapse in civil discourse is unsurprising. Traditional religious views such as kindness, humility, grace, and doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, form no part of Trump’s world.

I have flip-flopped on freedom of speech, as readers of this column will know, when it came to hate crime legislation. But it exists to protect people's right to say the disagreeable, crossing lines of comfort, whether in terms of culture, creed, or belief.

In another column, I wrote about the current erosion of freedom of speech, noting people can’t get into America of today if their social media posts upset the current administration. I have warned the offspring not to like several of my columns because of going to America for work.

Monty Python's Life of Brian is a send-up of religious bigotry.

As I wrote, "America, no longer the land of the brave and the free, is where Irish J1 students will have their social media posts checked going back five years. There is something surreal about this. Big Brother is watching you, but not even bothering to hide it."

But you know what, it feels like maybe, Trump’s days are numbered. Let’s hope American Catholics do the right thing in the ballot box in the midterms in November, when voters potentially choose Congress people aligned with or positioned further from the president. 

As was written in the Old Testament, Leviticus 24:16: "One who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death; the whole congregation shall stone the blasphemer." We’d settle for them punishing him electorally.

One optimistic thing was Pope Leo’s unflappability in the face of Trump’s criticisms. He posted on X: "Woe to those who manipulate religion and the very name of God for their own military, economic, and political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth."

But maybe a condition of maintaining a robust democracy is tolerating characters like Trump expressing their ‘filth’ in the public realm. As we witness liberal democratic values such as the rule of law being eroded, perhaps we have to remind ourselves that public expression is worthy of protection.

Trump is the leader of the Free World, but sometimes when I listen to him I can’t help but hear echoes of the local lunatic mouthing off in the market square.

But to quote the Life of Brian, always look on the bright side of life. Several atheists I know were appalled at Trump’s blasphemy. I accept I may be clutching at straws here, but for the first time in years, I felt our core values would survive. We will get past this travesty.