This document discusses Christian perspectives on freedom of expression. It provides several examples where Christians have protested or called for bans of certain artistic works or depictions that they found offensive. The document argues that from a biblical perspective, Christians should embrace freedom of expression and tolerate differing viewpoints. It encourages viewing Christianity as a religion that promotes tolerance and sees Christ in all people, regardless of how they are depicted. The document concludes by advocating for upholding fundamental rights and freedoms for all.

1. A Christian reflection on the freedom of expression
Anita Cheria and Edwin
A surfeit of injury
There has been a lot of injured feelings, not least within the church and the faithful in India, taking
offence at the perfectly legitimate freedom of expression that others (including fellow Christians) exercise.
The expose of a supposed ‘miracle’ at a catholic church in Mumbai as nothing more than ditch water and
the reaction of the church authorities—including the bishop, who is expected know better—is only one
such case. Christians have protested the depiction of Jesus with a cigarette in hand on the cover of the
official diocesan magazine Pavan Hruday Doot in Anand, Gujarat. The image was downloaded from the
internet and the cigarette was not noticeable in the black and white proof. After inadvertently publishing it,
they immediately put up an apology on their website, but to no avail. Some faithful insisted on being more
catholic than the pope—or in this case the Jesuits who print the magazine—and registered a police case. In
an earlier incident, the same picture resulted in curfew following riots in Batala, Punjab in 2010 and the
Catholic Church banning Skyline Publications from all its institutions in India. There have been misguided
protests against using ‘hosanna’ in a song in 2012. In Keralam there was protest against the depiction of the
Inquisition and Reformation in school text books in 2011. In the past, Christians have protested distribution
of Christian Brothers brandy, and the film ‘The last temptation of Christ’. The Global council of Indian
Christians (GCIC) filed a Public Interest Litigation requesting ban of the book and film titled Da Vinci
Code. The book and movie are banned in Nagaland and the film in Punjab.
Internationally too we seem to be getting hyper-sensitive. The
Harry Potter series is frowned upon by everyone from the
evangelicals to the Roman Catholic Church and others (but loved by
young Christians and Catholics across the world anyway), Madonna
(the singer not the saint) is considered blasphemous. We seem intent
on making Christianity a religion of old, humourless men (sourpuss
would be a better term) and coming to church a funereal experience.
Not too long ago, ‘Negro spirituals’ were banned, and ‘the devil had
all the good music’, because happy music was not ‘serious enough’
to be sung in the solemn (funereal) environs of the church. As a
bishop of indigenous origin exclaimed, how can singing my
traditional songs and dancing with joy in front of the lord be satanic?
That these misguided protests are done by otherwise reasonable
and well meaning persons makes it all the more distressing. We need
to be ever vigilant against the creeping re-talibanising of the church. In the case of Sanal Edamaruku, the
Roman Catholic faithful—egged on by the bishop—have actually abused the secular legal system to harass
him for ‘hurting religious sentiments’ rather than thanking him for saving the church the potentially major
embarrassment of causing an epidemic by distributing ditch water to the gullible as a miracle.
There can be many positions, depending on our sensitivity and ideological leanings, to respond to these
incidents. Depending on our position, these instances would be trivial, therefore below our dignity to
respond, our Christian duty to turn the other cheek. Or it could be a call to demonstrate the depth of our
conviction and somehow ‘defend our faith’ or even ‘come to the defence of Christ’. Not to do so would be
seen as a denial almost as shameful as that of Peter before the cock crows. Fortunately, there is ample
biblical text to guide Christian action. For the purpose of this note, we will not touch on ‘turn the other
cheek’ (Mathew 5:9) or ‘love thy enemy, do good to those who persecute you’ (Mathew 5:44) which,
though appropriate, would be a little trite given the circumstances. They are difficult responses, but it is
nobody’s case that being a Christian is easy—if so everybody would be, and there would be no need for
chosen people of a ‘new covenant’(Luke 22:20)—hence the saying ‘the last Christian died on the cross’.1
1 There was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The Antichrist (Der Antichrist, German,1895) Friedrich
Nietzsche.
A Christian reflection on the freedom of expression
anita cheria and edwin; May 2012; page [1]

2. Kippenberger’s testament
For clarity let us examine, as a ‘worst case’, a triptych considered blasphemous by the pope (just as art
portraying Christ as a black woman was about a couple of decades ago). The triptych itself is innocuous.
The work by the late German artist Martin Kippenberger (1953-1947) shows a green frog, bug-eyed, with
warts, nailed to a cross with its tongue hanging out, holding a mug of beer in one hand and an egg in the
other. For Kippenberger, the frog was an alter ego, and the triptych is part of a series depicting it in
different poses. Regardless of what Kippenberger thought or intended, and instead of trying to second guess
his intentions, let us look at different reactions to it. A local politician in northern Italy went on a hunger
strike (2008) demanding its removal. The directors of Bolzano’s Museum of modern art stood firm (6 to 3)
and allowed the exhibit to stay on, solely in the name of artistic freedom. If they were truly practicing
Christians of faith, they would have ensured that it stayed on as one of the most inspiring calls to Christian
action in the 20th century.
For a true Christian, this would be a powerful call to action, deeply resonating with Christ’s call to see
Christ in the ‘least of my brothers and sisters’(Mathew 25:45)—in the drunkard and the drug addict, those
of a different skin colour, and those who look different. We are indoctrinated into
picturing Jesus as a Hollywood actor with blue eyes, blond hair and white skin
without any infirmities. We have lost our capacity to see Jesus in the brown, the
yellow, and the black, the gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals, the
differently abled, those with HIV... It is in doing so that we actually become
Christians. Kippenberger’s triptych is a timely reminder for us to do so, a truly
Christian depiction of Christ, though far removed from the Hollywood spectacle.
When most devout, practicing, and pious Christians hear the above
explanation, they immediately agree unreservedly that the call for ban is
unjustified, and most of the others agree with reservations, and would support the
artists freedom of expression. Then they do not agree with the ban call. Till then most staunchly support the
ban. The point is that a priori banning would not permit a reasoned discussion—and leave Christianity that
much poorer, and farther from Christ. The same can be said about the ‘work of art’ photograph by artist and
photographer Andres Serrano that puts the crucifix into urine. It shocks us, it traumatises us, at the same
time makes us acutely aware of how we treat the Christ in our euphemistically called safaikaramchari
brothers and sisters. Every time we make one of the safaikaramchari women clean shit, isn’t it what we are
making Christ do? Can we not see Christ in that woman—or can we see Christ only in the white, effete
Hollywood blonde? To take the imagery further, would we not be able to see the crucifix when the
American soldiers similarly defiled the Afghans recently? and the Roman soldiers probably did on Christ as
well. That crucifix ‘work of art’ too is a Christian call to action, which in the present day high decibel
world of communication, rises above the cacophony to catch attention and spurs us to our Christian calling.
Just because the call comes from the Roman Catholic Pope (who, incidentally, is considered the anti-
Christ by some Christians2) does not give it any special sanctity, since the papacy has proved to be wrong
too often and on the wrong side of history for more. To succumb to the thought policing of the misguided
cleric is to accord the Bishop of Rome the status of the Furheur, something that is difficult to believe that
Benedict, nee Ratzinger, though a former member of the Nazi youth, is aspiring for.
The biblical position
The Bible tells us clearly that ‘to those who believe, he gave them power to be children of god’. (John
1:12) Right from the saviour’s mouth comes that ‘the kingdom of god belongs to them such as these’,
(Mathew 19:14) the children. And what do children do? They are quite irreverent. They sit on the father’s
stomach, pull the hair off his chest (ouch that hurt! Yes, papa but I wanted to see how much, and it is sooo
funny seeing your eyes become so round), sit on the lap and give sharp kicks to the shin.... God too loves
2 See for instance The Great Controversy, Ellen G. White, 1911. Ellen White is one of the founders of the Seventh-
day Adventist Church. She is held in high respect as a prophet and is by no means a ‘fringe’ or ‘radical’ element.
And who can forget the marginal (commentary) notes of the much revered Geneva Bible (1560).
A Christian reflection on the freedom of expression
anita cheria and edwin; May 2012; page [2]

3. naughty children, even children who abuse the familial bonds and stretch their demands. He loves these
naughty children even more than he loves the ‘obedient’ ones. Christ hints that he does not like subservient
children and that the rebellious, irreverent ones are more childlike than the obedient ones. Yes, all these are
lessons one gets directly from the saviour’s mouth in the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-16)—in
which, to the dismay of the elder, dutiful, sulking son, the rebellious, wasteful son is welcomed with a feast
of fattened calf, with no guarantee that he would not be a repeat offender.
Yes, but then, what about blasphemy against the holy spirit? Didn’t the saviour himself say that it is the
unforgivable crime? (Mathew 12:31) Of course he did. But the debate as to who would give the punishment
had been settled even in Old Testament times. God made it clear that ‘vengeance is mine’. (Deuteronomy
32:35) So it is clear from the Bible, from the words of the saviour himself that freedom of expression,
especially the irreverent kind, can at best be met with ‘father forgive them for they know not what they do’
(Luke 23:34)) or the more appropriate ‘do good to those who persecute you’ (Mathew 5:44) ... but if we
would like to do an imitation of Christ, it may be best to join in the healing celebration of ‘merry hearts’
(Proverbs 15:13) in the feast that our father has arranged.
Many pious Christians name their businesses after Jesus and the saints. Magdalenes are whorehouses. Is
that blasphemy? There are Jesus bars and restaurants. So is Jesus Bar blasphemy? After the abstinence of
Lent, the first drink was, and still is in many places, called the ‘holy spirit’. One evening, after sundown, a
bishop once asked me ‘do you want a Peter or a Jesus?’ in the early days of our friendship, not knowing
that I was a teetotaller. I asked him what the difference was. He told me that if I drank a Peter, I would fall
three times before the cock crowed, but if I had a Jesus I would rise up only on the third day. Is that
blasphemy... or behaving like a child of god? Do we really want to go back to the days of the puritans who,
in the words of Thomas B. Macaulay, banned bear baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because
it gave pleasure to the spectators?
A culture of tolerance
The creeping talibanisation is all the more surprising since liberal thought and ideology in the modern
age have their roots in the Reformation, and has arisen from an understanding gained at a steep cost—of
thousands killed just for minor doctrinal variance. The ‘loyal opposition’ of the British, where dissent was
not equated with sedition, the freedom to practice different forms of Christianity in the Americas despite
the internecine conflict in their European birthplaces, were all decisions of enlightened Christians who
drew on the tolerant traditions of Christianity rather than the imperial history. The eclectic practices within
the Roman Catholic church are mindboggling, despite the monolithic external facade. The priest coming in
to celebrate mass in the traditional chief’s regalia and traditional war cry in certain parts of Africa is a treat
to watch, apart from a demonstration of ritual richness of the Eucharistic celebration. The devil’s advocate
is explicitly tasked to find out flaws in the life of potential saints—in blunt terms, to dig up the dirt—but is
an honoured member of the Vatican. Early scriptures have Satan in a conversation with god and then
testing Job, without any malice or motive attached (Job 1:6-12). As late as February 2010, the Catholic
Bishops Conference of India, CBCI, opined that they do not want a blasphemy law in India, due to the high
likelihood of misuse. This rare maturity was shown when the Government of Meghalaya wanted to
introduce a blasphemy law in the wake of a similar downloaded-from-the-web mistake in the Std I cursive
writing book that showed Christ with a cigarette and a bottle of bear. The Indonesian Council of churches
are against the ban on Lady Gaga’s concert in Jakarta and explicitly support her freedom of expression.
The Christian members of the Indian constituent assembly were at the forefront of ensuring the
fundamental rights of all. In India, many Christian (Protestant) denominations came together to for the
Church of North India (CNI) and Church of South India (CNI). At the time of the fragmentation of the
church, and the creation of these denominations, the minor doctrinal differences seemed irreconcilable
enough to start a new form of worship and a new order. Just a couple of centuries and the differences
become irrelevant. Inter-marriage is the norm between many (Protestant) Christian denominations, with
common communion. But just a few centuries ago, the doctrinal differences were such that they led to war
and worse since each microscopic denomination held that they alone were the repository of all true doctrine
and all the others were blasphemers.
A Christian reflection on the freedom of expression
anita cheria and edwin; May 2012; page [3]

4. Tolerance can be taught. Christians do not riot now when the Muslim call for prayer five times a day
from a mosque declares that there is ‘no god but Allah’ or when Muslims celebrate id-ul-fitr (bakrid) as a
commemoration of Abraham’s aborted sacrifice of Ishmael at the altar (Qurân Surat-us Saffat 37:99-109)
though the Jewish and Christian texts that predate Islam by millennia clearly mention that Isaac was the
intended sacrifice as the only begotten son of Abraham (Genesis 22:2,9 Hebrews 11:17) rather than
Ishmael who was born of the slave Hagar (Genesis 16:1-16); or when Islam teaches that Mohamed was the
one sent by god whom Jesus was not worthy to tie the shoe lace of (though in Christian text, which predate
Islam by centuries, make that out to be John the Baptist and Christ (John 1:27)). These distortions of the
biblical texts on a daily basis is ignored now, as it rightly should be, though it was not so in the past. There
has been remarkable forbearance for the books Jesus the Man, The book that Jesus wrote and Jesus of the
Apocalypse by Barbara Thiering, The Second Messiah by Christopher Knight & Robert Lomas and several
others. Christian educational institutions routinely teach scientific truths, though many are at variance with
faith (and therefore blasphemous), though even that is under threat with some Christian majority areas in
the world insisting on teaching ‘creationism’ and ‘intelligent design’ since the theory of evolution is ‘only a
theory not scientific fact’.
The fundamental rights and freedoms are indivisible and inalienable. They cannot be cherry picked. The
Christians in the constitution drafting committee were at the forefront of eschewing all communal
representation and ensuring all human rights for all. We need to recall and practice the wisdom shown by
them. Fr Jerome D’Souza’s position on fundamental rights and special reservations and protection for
Christians in the constituent assembly was words to the effect that if the fundamental rights enshrined in the
constitution were safeguarded for all, then no special protection was necessary for Christians. If they were
violated, then no special provision, however strong or specific, would protect the Christians from the
violation of their rights. They are worth elaboration and reflection.
... Minority rights and Fundamental Rights are inextricably mingled together in this Part of the
Constitution... this is a right and necessary mingling. After all, what the minorities ask is that the right of
the individual may be safeguarded in an inescapable manner [...] If the individual's right to his religious
convictions, to his cultural preferences, to the rights which accrue to him as a man endowed with free will
and reason and charged with the obligation of personal salvation, if these are safeguarded, "minority
rights" as such need not find expression. [...] if these rights are really safeguarded in the manner in
which they are sought to be safeguarded in this Constitution, if the Fundamental Rights including as they
do minority rights, are assured in an absolutely indubitable manner, no kind of political safeguards will
be necessary for us and we shall not demand them, as long as, I say, this part of the Constitution is
enforced without any kind of "encroachment" or misinterpretation. And, as long as these, cultural and
personal rights are safeguarded, we do not need any other political safeguard. [...] the Christian
community is [...] giving up political safeguards and we are prepared to go further and give up the
reservations which have been made [...] in the spirit in which these fundamental rights have been
guaranteed, there is for us an assurance of safety and a confidence which does not need to be propped up
or further affirmed by political safeguards and privileges. 3
No matter how obnoxious the freedom of expression is used for, as Christians, as Indians, and as human
beings, we must protect and defend the right to freedom of expression for all. The freedom of expression is
always for the obnoxious, the revolting, and the offensive, just as the right to dissent is for the minority
since the majority view becomes the official line.4 If it were not obnoxious, revolting, or offensive then no
one would mind in the first place, and ‘defence’ would not be required. We need to get back to the idea of
‘loyal opposition’ and see the devil’s advocate (in its original sense) in those who test our faith. We need to
acknowledge that all are god’s children (god did create the atheists and is their parent too!) and that god
moves in mysterious ways. Let us not sulk like the elder brother in the parable. Let us, like the younger
‘true’ son, pull his leg, or his whiskers. God the Father might say ‘ouch!’ but there would surely be a
twinkle in his eye.
—oO(end of document)Oo—
3 Constituent Assembly Debate, 9 December, 1948 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - VOLUME VII.
4 Freiheit ist immer Freiheit der Andersdenkenden, Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters, Rosa Luxemburg.
A Christian reflection on the freedom of expression
anita cheria and edwin; May 2012; page [4]