IS NOTHING SACRED?

There has been a great deal of noise, most of it generous, in the wake of the killings in France. It seemed useful to ponder a little on the deeper issues, some of which were raised by the Tunisian thinker and essayist Mezri Haddad in a recent article. Apart from immediate political arguments, his chief point was that Western civilisation in its post-Enlightenment form depends on “the de-sacralisation of the sacred”. So is this true, and if so, what does it mean and what does it imply?

The OED’s chief definition of sacred is: “Of things, places, of persons and their offices, etc.: Set apart for or dedicated to some religious purpose, and hence entitled to veneration or religious respect; made holy by association with a god or other object of worship; consecrated, hallowed.” For the related “holy” definitions are longer and multiple, but they all concur in the meaning of “set apart, set aside, dedicated to veneration or worship”, culminating in the moral and spiritual perfection of God (in Christianity, but, I believe, also in Judaism and Islam).

Haddad’s phrase, clearly, is not meant literally in this sense. His invoking the Enlightenment is a clue. What, I think, he means is that in a post-Enlightenment society no specific object or belief can be considered sacred to, and its veneration therefore binding on, everybody, except (a respectful) freedom.

In the last few days, the outpouring of solidarity with Charlie Hebdo and its murdered contributors has made this seem obvious; and yet it is not, nor should it be. It is obvious only to the superficial. Nothing – no thing – is sacred: yet I have the greatest sympathy for the outrage of ordinary Catholic Dutchmen in 1556 when gleeful bands of supposed Reformers profaned and destroyed their beloved statues of the Virgin and Child. I have no sympathy whatever for the Inquisition; yet if one believes that certain statements of faith represent objective truth, those who attempt to turn others to unbelief are worse than murderers – a murderer kills only your body, a heretic murders your immortal soul for eternity. Mezri Haddad says, rightly, that the Prophet himself would have disallowed considering him as sacred, for only God the Almighty is so. And yet millions of ordinary Muslims consider him “entitled to veneration or religious respect” as ordinary Catholics do a representation of the Blessed Virgin Mary; so that while to insult that respect may not be a crime, it is certainly a blunder.

Several issues intersect here, and should not be confused. In the first place there is the issue of respect. Again, it seems obvious that one should respect what another holds sacred; yet what to do when faced with those who in the name of what they claim to hold sacred maim, torture and slaughter others? As the caption beneath a recent drawing of a Kalashnikov read, “Ceci n’est pas une religion” – this is not a religion.

We might think that in such a case it is better to fight with reason and education (and an efficient secret service); but in every age and especially in France there are those for whom the best weapon against the barbarians claiming religion and/or authority is laughter. When faced with others whose culture knows no irony, these take a grave risk; but it is theirs to take.

What has the Enlightenment brought to Christianity? A conviction that our faith cannot be forced on unbelievers; that if (as we hope) it is one day to become universal, that shall happen by acceptance and not by conquest; that no persuasion, metaphysical, social, or political, shall be allowed to dominate the public sphere; that no thing is sacred; that all faith shall be considered private but as such inviolable. Moreover, a sense that when the ill-bred, the ill-intentioned, the ignorant and the busy mockers invade our religion and attempt to provoke us to retaliation, we are not touched in what is essential and we can say “Father, forgive them, they don’t know what they’re doing.”

We should, however, be aware that other religions, other cultures, have not necessarily gone through an Enlightenment, and that in a globalized world we increasingly live cheek by jowl with them. We may think that it would be good if some of what Kenneth Clark called “the smile of Reason” should rub off on them; but meanwhile a certain caution and a certain respect should perhaps rule our actions, our words (more about those later), and even our drawings.

( Test your tolerance. For those who have only seen the Mohammed drawings: this was Charlie Hebdo's cover on the gay marriage controversy. Mgr Vingt-Trois is the Cardinal Archbishop of France. "Mgr Vingt-Trois has 3 daddies". )