Goals

Laudation for the award of the blasphemy prize `Der freche Mario´ 2008

Dr. Michael Schmidt-Salomon, Munich, 10:10:08 [Translation from German]

Ladies and gentlemen, I have been asked to speak a few words here and I hope you will forgive me if I do this very clearly - even at the risk of offending. This event, ladies and gentlemen, is an expression of  shameless disrespect for the religious feelings of religious people! - And that is a good thing!

Respect is nothing which one would want to give as blank check. The word "respect" (from the Latin "respectus": looking back, showing consideration) means a form of respect and deference to another person, his actions or beliefs. As humanists, fighting for the universality of human rights, of course we have no difficulties with  respect to even very religious people. But many of their actions and beliefs are simply not deserving of our respect! Anyone who respects the fact that Muslim parents sign out their daughters of swimming lessons because of religious-based sexual neuroses, anyone who respects the fact that Christian fundamentalist parents boycott biology classes because of delusional Creationist ideas, anyone who can even respect that gays are hanged and adulterous women are stoned, supports Counter-Enlightenment and thus becomes a supporter of the delusion.

Sorry that I have used the evil W-word (German word "Wahn" - "Delusion"). Believers often react very offended when religion is brought in connection with delusion. But unfortunately, I really cannot think of any better term to describe this grandiose absurdity that expresses itself in almost every profession of faith.

Just let us compare the professions of fait with the real cosmological truths: The sun we circle around is, as is well-known, only an inconspicuous star in an obscure spiral arm on the edge of the Milky Way. Our home galaxy alone contains over 100 billion other stars and next to the Milky Way there are hundreds of billions of other galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of other suns. Being conscious of those facts and dimensions, earth is in fact nothing more than a speck of dust in the universe. What are we to think now, facing those facts, when an ape-like life form that has evolved by chance on said speck of dust, a species that didn't exist petty two billion years ago and which will long have ceased to exist  two billion years ago from now, makes up stories telling that the entire universe was ultimately created just for this species alone?

Isn't it an expression of megalomania that can hardly be topped that this "dry-nosed" primate species, which owes its existence to the fortuitous survival of primeval rats after the impact of a ten-kilometer asteroid 65 million years ago, believes in the existence of an imaginary creator of the universe (God) who has nothing better to do than to just incarnate in the form of this monkey (Christianity) or to watch with Argus eyes over this temporary life form on its insignificant planet eats pork knuckles or not (Judaism, Islam)?

Richard Dawkins has harshly been criticized for having used the expression 'God Delusion'. But please: Is there any term that could describe this mind-blowing hubris more accurately? In fact, the term "delusion" is almost too innocuous to describe this breathtaking nonsense! And please do not argue that millions, even billions of people cannot be subject to a delusion. Just take a look at our history, this horrific orgy of violence, hatred, revenge, and vile! Please recall to your mind, which vanities were sufficient to get people to humiliate, torture, and slaughter other in front of their loved ones! If there was a cosmic psychiatrist, he would without doubt attest the patient 'mankind', given his clinical history, an extremely high vulnerability to sociopathic delusions.

The only antidote to delusion is the confrontation with reality in the form of criticism. In particular with statements claiming absolute truth for themselves (and just this is usually the case for religious statements!), criticism is essential! If someone just puts a modest claim to truth (like this: "Currently, I assume that excessive masturbation leads to sweaty feet, but I may be wrong of course. Maybe I hear better arguments already tomorrow and realize that masturbation and sweaty feet have no connection to each other"), a critical response is sensible, but not necessary to the same extent as in the case that someone appears with a very comprehensive truth claim (like this:"It was revealed from God, the creator of heaven and earth, that masturbation leads to sweaty feet. In the name of the sacred foot hygiene masturbation is therefore strictly forbidden - not only now, but also tomorrow and forever! If one only slightly questions God’s revealed sweaty-foot-truth, he shall be cursed forever!").

Criticism is of utmost importance in particular for religion-based statements. Tragically, the situation today is that those who needed critique most pressingly, are the least able to tolerate criticism. This fact was also made very clear by the cartoon controversy: men who watch with a placid smile woman being buried in the ground and stoned  to death directly in front of their eyes break down in pain when they see a harmless drawing caricaturing their oh so beloved Prophet. The question is: are we allowed to cause  people of faith (not just the hardcore believers who find pleasure in stoning!) that form of pain which is inevitable connected with critically questioning their "truths"? Is it legitimate to hurt religious feelings by means of criticism (be it formulated satirically or not)?

There can be only one answer for this question: of course it is legitimate to hurt religious feelings, if this is necessary in order to enforce a more enlightened and humane view of things! It would be false thoughtfulness if one would cancel the project of Enlightenment  only because a group of people could feel offended by a disenchantment of their illusions. After all, it is in fact the function of Enlightenment to break established mental blocks, which necessarily questions comforting prejudices.

But why is the enlightening breaking down of prejudices so quickly perceived by the religious side as an "offence"? This cannot be attributed to men of Enlightenment performing their criticism with particular harshness. Rather, this perception results from the fact  that many believers react particularly sensitively in regard to their religious feelings. Above-average religious people suffer, one could put aptly, from an "emotional brittle bone syndrome”: a small, pointed remark is usually sufficient - and the religious bone fracture is bound to happen.

On reflection, however, it is quite clear that open-minded, non-religious Enlightenists actually have far stronger reasons for feeling offended by countess religiously-motivated attacks on their way of life in respect to their “philosophical feelings”. For what are the harmless jokes with which Enlightenment satirist mock religious beliefs compared with the threatens promised to them in Bible and Quran? Then what, pray, expresses a greater disregard for a person: the enlightening scorn on obscure beliefs ("You can’t really take this nonsense seriously!") or the threat of eternal torments of hell being constantly repeated in the "sacred texts" ("Therefore you will burn forever!")? Although the objective stimuli, which unbelievers (by word and by deed!) are exposed to are far more serious as those with which believers have to bother, they do not go into angry protests, they also do not call after the censor, let alone threatening life and limb o religious preachers. The difference in the sensitivity for criticism of non-religious and very religious people is highly significant, obviously because of the fact that religious people think their beliefs are sacred, i.e. untouchable, and must therefore protected like a historical monument.

Should one, then, be considerate of the emotional brittle bone disease of the faithful? No, absolutely not! That would even aggravate the disease! Basically, it is like with spider phobia:  the one who suffers from the delusional fear to die at the sight of a spider, can only overcome his fear by being confronted with the trigger of his anxiety. It is similar with the criticism phobia of religious people: here again, systematic desensitization is the only effective help. We need to provide the faithful with as much criticism and satire that they at some point recognize on their own how absurd it is to burst in excitement for an innocent drawing like the famous HB-manikin or even worse: blow up others in the air as it was done by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida last summer with regard to the Muhammad cartoons.

Because the systematic desensitization of believers is an important task, is the awarding of the "cheeky Mario" for blasphemous art is also an important signal of cultural policy! And we should emphasize in this context very clearly, so that it finally penetrates the social consciousness of our society: the violation of religious feelings – since the times of Socrates a popular means of criticism of philosophers of the Enlightenment - is certainly no outrage anyone should feel ashamed of, but (normally at least) a very honorable matter, yes, I would even say an act of true charity. Whoever violates religious feelings, enhances the ability to think! After all, criticism is a gift that can help the criticized to liberate themselves from falsities. And if this is true, it would be downright unethical to exclude religious people and not wanting to present them the gift of criticism. I therefore repeat the urgent appeal I formulated already two years ago on the event of the “religion-free zone/religionsfreie Zone”: please do not let your fellow man die stupid, but hurt religious feelings, wherever and whenever you can!

Of course, hurting religious feelings should be done with sense and meaning - especially if one is making use of the highly effective therapeutic  agent “satire”. For even though in satire – according to Tucholsky -  "anything goes", not everything is satire which describes itself as such. A satire is different from a dumb joke, from the silly fun of bad taste, from anti-Enlightenment scorn  and mere propaganda by the fact that satire discovers existentially important truths in a humorous way which were until then nebulous and hidden. Here we see the enlightening impetus of satire, its subversive force. Therefore we cannot and must not give up the instrument of satire, even if the "International Union of primadonnas"  would like to squeeze us to do so.

Therefore, there can only be one enlightening answer to the frequently expressed suggestion of “no more fun and games”: “no more stupidity! If something is genuinely ridiculous, it must be possible to laugh about it without fear! Basta!" Every even so little concession to the religious obscurantists address would be a fatal mistake, because it would be perceived by them as encouragement to further promote their "counter-Enlightenment " projects.

Against this background, the timid reaction of Western politicians to the so-called "cartoon crisis" was highly problematic. Since this event, every newspaper, every radio or television stations even more fearfully wonders of how far she / he may go in respect to criticism of religion. The censorship within the heads was strengthened again by the cartoon controversy, which is a dangerous threat for any open society. Because the degree of freedom of a society is particularly evident in how far satire is allowed. In any dictatorship, the satirists are the first to be muzzled. Why? Because they expose the gap between demand and reality in those bigwigs who consider themselves as a particular authorities in an irresistible way.

Even today we are dependent on the authority-undermining function of satire. Therefore I very much hope that the award of the “cheeky Mario” can help the satirical spirit having come under pressure. The fact that in response to the announcement of the price more than 600 submissions arrived is an encouraging sign at least.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank all who have made this event possible. First and foremost this applies to Assunta Tammelleo and Wolf Steinberger from the bfg München. It really is fantastic, what you have organized and accomplished over and over again!

I wish to thank also our hosts Dietmar Holzapfel and Sepp Sattler for providing this beautiful event  location. Many thanks also to the members of the jury who had to fight through hundreds of submissions, an activity associated with some stress, but certainly also with some fun. A special thanks to the many respondents of the “cheeky Mario” announcement themselves. As I heard, many other contributions actually would also have deserved a prize.

Last but not least, I have the honor to congradulate the winners of the "cheeky Mario" 2008: Salvatore Pertutti, Leo Lukas + Team, Til Mette, Dieter Wessinger, and Della Croce. Please, carry on like this! And do not let yourself be intimidated by those who simply do not understand to accept the gift of your criticism with the appropriate gratitude.

Well, as my good friend, the Viennese evolutionary biologist Francis M. Wuketits says so accurately if once again it becomes evident how little enlightenment in the end can achieve: "Well. The situation is hopeless but not serious! "

It is not worth singing a funeral lament over the dark conditions in the world. Rather, we should strive to actively change the situation for the better. Hereby applies that this fight should never be fought doggedly, but always with a good portion of humor. For what Karl Heinz Deschner wrote about Christianity also applies to any other irrational belief system: "When does it fall, this religion of love - not through anger, not by revenge, by torture or the stake, no, in a storm of laughter that shakes the world ... "

Thank you for your attention.