"Holy ***storm": Vienna Festival's Faith Tribunal enters its Second Round. Open season on the Catholic Faith.
Discussing the limits of art and the protection of injured religious feelings with Femen Activist Shevchenko, Imam Demir, and Cartoonist Sourisseau
"Freedom for art, and the uninjured feelings of believers—how can these be reconciled without resorting to culture wars?" This question was the focus of the second day of the "Faith Tribunal" at the Vienna Festival's Odeon Theater. Under the title "Holy ***storm – Between Blasphemy and Artistic Freedom," lawyer Maria Sagmeister, Ukrainian Femen activist Inna Shevchenko, Jan Ledóchowski, head of the reporting center for anti-Christian sentiment, cartoonist and author Laurent Sourisseau ("Riss") from the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, imam and religious educator Ramazan Demir, and Günther Oberhollenzer, curator of the controversial exhibition "Thou Shalt Make Unto Thee an Image" at the Künstlerhaus in Vienna, discussed freedoms, religious feelings, and the dangers faced by critics of Islam.
Without risking the danger of fueling hatred against Muslims, it is necessary to address the fact that criticism of Islam has become dangerous, as Wolfgang Kaleck, human rights lawyer and head of the tribunal, pointed out, noting that several participants in the discussion were under personal protection. For example, Sourisseau, who narrowly survived the Islamist-motivated terrorist attack on his editorial office in 2015, and jury member Hamed Abdel-Samad, an Egyptian-German political scientist, publicist, and outspoken critic of political Islam.
On Saturday, Sourisseau described the worst minutes of his life and the painful loss of his editorial staff. He said he played dead, which saved his life. He and the surviving staff members decided to continue running the newspaper—as a response to the attack, as a sign of life: "When a newspaper disappears because of terrorism, it sends a terrible message. We had a duty—for ourselves and for all citizens—to fight for freedom."
Demir, who worked for many years as a prison chaplain with radicalized and neo-Salafist youths, reported receiving death threats from prison: "Demir has to go." He warned of the increasing radicalization within the prison system. "I have ministered to people who later went to IS-controlled territories and killed others." Demir lamented that there are currently over 2,500 Muslim prisoners in Austria, and the budget for their pastoral care is only €50,000 nationwide.
At the same time, he warned of online radicalization by preachers who have never studied the Quran. "If I weren't an imam, if I weren't a Muslim, and I were to learn about Islam through social media, I can assure you that I would not only be Islamophobic, but also hostile to Islam," Demir stated unequivocally.
Is the blasphemy law obsolete?
The following guiding questions structured the court-like theatrical performance: Does the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of art permit the use of any kind of religious imagery and symbols? Even if it is legally permissible, are there not ethical and moral concerns? Should art respect the religious feelings of believers and avoid offending them? Should the blasphemy law in Austrian criminal law be abolished?
The witnesses had 20 minutes to make statements. They were then questioned for 15 minutes by the jury, consisting of Sheri Avraham, a Jewish artist and member of the Vienna Chamber of Labor; Hamed Abdel-Samad, formerly active in the Muslim Brotherhood and now one of the most prominent critics of Islam; Christine Mayr-Lumetzberger, a former Benedictine nun who was excommunicated after her ordination as a priest; and Monika Mokre, a political scientist and democracy researcher at the Austrian Academy of Sciences.
Are religious feelings worthy of protection?
Legal expert Sagmeister provided information on the blasphemy law, which refers to the public "denigration of religious doctrines recognized in Austria." The very provision that the law is based on the sensibilities of an average religious person was considered a difficult issue to assess. The paragraph would apply, at least, if religious practice were endangered—for example, due to a demonstration in front of a mosque that prevents worshippers from entering, or if an atmosphere of fear prevails and people are prevented from freely and without fear expressing their religious opinions.
For Kaleck, also a lawyer, religious people are given preferential treatment under the blasphemy law. They are more "sensitive"—others have to accept insults directed at other worldviews, such as belief in leftist ideologies or feminist theories. But artistic freedom is also privileged, Sagmeister explained. "Recent legal rulings place artistic freedom much higher." Art is allowed more than is permitted under freedom of expression.
"Legalistic Jihad"
"Approximately 80 countries have a blasphemy law. These are not just historical relics, but new ones are also being created," Sagmeister explained. However, the penalties vary—in one-tenth of the countries, blasphemy carries the death penalty. Abdel-Samad referred to the "legalistic jihad" that Islamists use to silence critics of Islam and religion by bringing their statements to court. "They are not concerned with protecting the religious feelings of believers, but rather with their own power and deflecting criticism from them."
Freedom
Femen activist Shevchenko, who now lives in Austria and France, spoke as a political refugee. She, too, is a survivor of an attack in 2015, when an Islamist assailant attacked an event on art, blasphemy, and freedom of expression, killing one person. Many know Shevchenko for an action in 2012, when she sawed down a wooden cross in Kyiv as an act of solidarity with the Russian band Pussy Riot and as a protest against the Russian Orthodox Church. She argued that the Church was not acting as a religious institution, but rather providing a symbol for the political system.
"I didn't cut down a wooden cross. I cut through their lies. The wooden cross was, so to speak, in the way," Shevchenko explained. She had to flee not because of the priests, but because of the politicians. "In Western societies, we believe that freedom means 'comfort,' but that's not true. Dictatorships and regimes offer 'comfort' because they seem 'convenient'; they provide all the answers, and people can relinquish their responsibility." But for those who want to preserve their freedom, the advice is: "Please get comfortable with feeling uncomfortable."
Opponent: What is permissible in art?
"I also believe that the law should not protect feelings. We don't need that in our society," said Ledóchowski, an active member of the Austrian People's Party (ÖVP), who protested against the art exhibition "Thou Shalt Make Unto Thee an Image." The cross, however, is far more than a religious symbol. It stands for human dignity and the primacy of the weak over the strong, said the head of the Reporting Center for the Protection of Christians. Essential foundations of Western society have grown from this, from the welfare state to religious freedom. Therefore, Christian symbols cannot be deconstructed without consequences. Especially now, "when minority power dynamics are shifting" and Christian symbols are becoming particularly worthy of protection.
"It is legitimate to criticize, provoke, or even hurt someone in a free society. However, it is treated as if religious feelings are not legitimate in a post-religious society. "I don't want to play the victim card; I'm speaking as a citizen with a sense of justice," Ledóchowski continued, "but mockery of Christianity is condoned in the public perception. This is not the case with other religions." For him, flushing a Bible down a toilet is just as reprehensible as flushing the Quran.
The curator of the aforementioned art exhibition, Oberhollenzer, was able to directly address this point. His intention was not "to get back at the Church or to expose the Church and its believers," Oberhollenzer emphasized. Rather, his aim was to critically examine traditional images—especially conservative ones. More than 40 artists—from Valie Export to Martin Kippenberger—did just that, in a feminist, humorous, critical, and tongue-in-cheek manner.
He himself grew up in a Catholic environment – “I was an altar boy for six years” – and had discussed with theologians and priests beforehand how the exhibition could be reconciled with the faith. Among them were the art-loving Jesuit priest Gustav Schörghofer and the director of the Cathedral Museum, Johanna Schwanberg.
The exhibition was not publicly criticized by any Catholic or Christian dignitaries. Criticism came from those who hadn't seen the exhibition, as well as from right-wing conservative and right-leaning, ultra-Catholic groups. "We live in a time when we no longer accept that someone else has a different opinion. We live in our bubbles, and a discourse or debate on equal footing when opinions differ is no longer possible." The exhibition has become a "means to an end" for right-wing circles, used to cater to the tabloids and political parties. Islamophobia, misogyny, and homophobia were also present.
Jury member Mayr-Lumetzberger offered some concluding remarks: For her, questions about interpersonal respect arose: How do we treat each other? Do we seek peace or do we want to create divisions? It is important to reach out to one another, listen to each other, and seek compromise and consensus. A certain degree of suffering is unavoidable in this process. She, for one, chooses peace.
She thinks she is a Catholic bishop
In a second part, the tribunal on Saturday, under the title "Stolen Goddesses", addressed the cult of appropriation and stolen objects with religious, cultic or ritual significance in Western museums.
.jpeg)
Comments