The Teddy Bear and Peyote

Posted on November 28, 2007 in Morals & Ethics Strange

I haven’t seen this report on other blogs that I frequent, so I am putting it forward as a cautionary tale for why we shouldn’t let government get involved in cases of religious blasphemy. It seems that the British teacher of a Sudanese classroom had this teddy bear which she put forth as a classroom mascot.

[Gillian] Gibbons, a teacher at the exclusive British-style Unity high school in Khartoum, had asked her pupils to name the bear as part of a project to teach them about animals and their habitats. “The teacher asked me what I wanted to call the teddy,” the boy told Reuters. “I said Muhammad. I named it after my name.”

His suggestion was put to a class vote and was the clear winner. The boy, who said he was not thinking about the prophet when he put forward his choice, described Gibbons as “very nice”.

The blasphemy patrol in Sudan went into overdrive, arresting Gibbons and charging her with “inciting hatred and insulting Islam.” According to The Guardian:

Lawyers say the teacher, who is from Liverpool, could face 40 lashes, a fine or six months in jail if convicted.

---

Meanwhile, here in the United States, New Yorkers are considering a Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This law is designed to allow religious bodies to claim exemptions from government regulations based on religious belief. The underpinnings of the law originated when Native Americans lost a Supreme Court battle with the state of Oregon over whether they could use peyote in religious ceremonies. Hemant at Friendly Atheist itemizes three cases (from another source) where the invocation of religious freedom proves problematic:

A church in New Mexico claimed that a licensing requirement for a child care center (i.e., rule prohibiting spanking) violated their free exercise rights. [The claim was denied.]
…

A married male paramedic sued alleging that his employer’s requiring him to stay overnight with a female paramedic at a station while on duty conflicted with his religious beliefs. The court rejected his free exercise claim…
…

The state medical examiner in Michigan ordered an autopsy performed on the plaintiff’s son after he was killed in an automobile accident. The plaintiff, who was Jewish, alleged that performance of the autopsy violated her free exercise rights. The court denied her claim…

One wonders if neo-Aztecs are outlining plans to build pyramids and accept applications from would-be victims?

As the Gibbons case shows, the Government should not be in the business of enforcing religious strictures. One can see the many people trying to drive gays and lesbians out of the office, for example, basing their claims on the fact that they are members of religions which do not allow contact with homosexuals. (See Hemant’s page, too, for examples of religious objections to the NRFA). The opportunity will exist for people to invent one religion after another as new conditions and new laws arise that annoy them. It’s only a matter of time before the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition are invoked as articles of genuine belief by someone trying to circumvent a tax or restriction on business.

Courts should not be in the business of deciding which beliefs are genuine and which are frauds. (The Mormons, for one, could be tied up in litigation for years based on allegations about the origins of their holy book.)

If lawmakers want to protect certain practices, they should be specific. I would not oppose a law legalizing peyote for religious purposes. This blanket absolution, on the other hand, strikes me as sheer folly and an invitation to corruption.

[tags]religious freedom, oppression, repression, Sudan, civil rights, spirituality, morality, morals, ethics, law, crime and punishment, Islam, Christianity, Star Trek, corruption, folly watch[/tags]