A Reply to Olufemi Olayinka Oluniyi
By Chris Barrigar on 27 October 2006
To the Editor:
I wish to offer some reflections on Olufemi Olayinka Oluniyi's response to my article "The Danish Cartoons and Free Speech." I am, in fact, surprised by the title of his response, which he calls a rejoinder, as if we are taking opposing positions, for I see his article not as a rejoinder at all, but rather as helpfully complementing my article.
The object of my critique was those Westerners who claim an absolute right to free speech, at the expense of civility towards others — for instance, in the case of the Danish Cartoons, those who claim that "in a democracy, the media must be free to offend, free to blaspheme, free to satirize as they see fit." In contrast, a Christian contribution to rights discourse supports the communitarian position, that, as I said, "freedom of speech is a strong right but not an absolute right," supporting the communitarian position by way of biblical examples of occasions when rights were not claimed in order to achieve a higher good.
Nothing in Dr. Oluniyi's response negates these points. Indeed, his response is missing two elements in my article. First, my article was directed to rights-intoxicated Westerners who do not see the harm they are doing to both Western and global society by their claims to absolute rights. (For instance, they constrict the concept of personal responsibility, they eliminate the practice of civility, and thus they create a needlessly adversarial society.) Second, I very clearly qualified my statements: that the right to free speech is "a strong right;" that self-limitation of one's own rights is "on occasion"; that a Christian account of freedom should avoid the "extremes of Islamic absolutism (too little freedom) and Western absolutism (excessive libertarian freedom);" and " that sometimes shalom will be best served by exercising one’s rights...".
Dr. Oluniyi states "Barrigar referred to 1 Cor 9:12-15 and Acts 25 11 as if rights-waiving is the all-round norm for Christians and rights-assertion is an exception to the norm, or something of poorer moral texture." There is nothing in my article that conveys this interpretation. I had the tremendous privilege of teaching Christian graduate students in South Asia for almost seven years, many of whom had suffered profoundly for their faith. I absolutely agree with Dr Oluniyi's view that Christians in situations of persecution should claim their rights. Indeed, during my years in Asia I too had a number of occasions in which I had to claim my legal rights. Nothing in my article denies this option or necessity. The point I made was that "sometimes shalom will be best served by exercising one’s rights, while at other times shalom will be best served by not exercising these rights" — and which of these two approaches is most appropriate will depend on context. Within the Western context of frequently-excessive rights-claims, there certainly are times when shalom (including civility) will be best served by not claiming certain rights, such as the right to unconstrained free speech; in contexts of persecution, shalom (including civility) will often be best served precisely by exercising one’s rights (ie., opposing attacks on themselves is one way that Christians can contribute to shalom!). So of course Nigerian Christians should point out to Muslims the need for civility and self-restraint — that was exactly my point about Libertarians in the West, pointing out their need for civility and self-restraint. And of course I would agree with Dr Oluniyi that "the libertarian ‘lighten up’ advice to Muslims is not an anathema but a conclusion that Christians can rightly share without necessarily espousing a thoroughgoing libertarian doctrine." My appeal was, in effect, that libertarians "lighten up!" So I am deeply puzzled by Dr Oluniyi "rejoinder" to my article, as if we are taking opposing positions. We are not, but we are critiquing very different positions in very different contexts from each other — Libertarians in the West in my case, Muslims in Nigeria in his case. Please do not think than an argument I am directing at Western Libertarians would be the same argument I would direct at Nigerian Muslims!
I need to point out further commonality of ground between Dr Oluniyi and myself, for part of my motivation for the article (which I did not make explicit) was to counteract the general lack of civility of libertarian Westerners — not only towards peacable Muslims but also towards Christians, who in the West are often a publically-mocked minority, attacked by secularist, free-speech absolutists. Whether the attacks on Christians are verbal, legal, or physical, in the West or in Africa, Christians may respond at two levels at least: at a legal level by claiming their rights when this serves a higher purpose such as shalom (I repeat that opposing attacks on themselves is one way that Christians can contribute to shalom); and at a social level by promoting societal values of civility towards others (thereby opposing both violent Muslims and Western libertarians, as I pointed out in the article). So Dr. Oluniyi and I share common ground in defending Christians from the assaults of others. Nonetheless, I believe that the exegesis of rights which each of us has offered from the New Testament belong together, including the possibility that at times people (Christian or otherwise) will need to not claim their rights in order to achieve a higher good — a principle my article was applying to Western libertarians, not to persecuted Christians.
Last updated 12 January 2009