Playing the organ donor - The Centre for Independent Studies
Donate today!
Your support will help build a better future.
Your Donation at WorkDonate Now

Playing the organ donor

Religion is often mocked these days for supposedly promoting hatred and bigotry. But Christianity is clearly still a strong symbol when advertisers want to promote the human ideals of selflessness and generosity.

“Of course I would; I’m Jesus,” says the crucified mock-Christ when asked if he would donate his organs. His thankful Roman executioners immediately beam with gratitude and appreciation.

The new TV commercial intended to promote organ donation has provoked controversy and divided religious leaders: some find it offensive while others say the humour might get people to think.

We’ve been here before. Monty Python’s classic film Life of Brian mocked plenty of Christian themes — at times, coming very near the bone.

Many of the film’s phrases have become cemented into popular culture, but at the time, opinion was sharply divided over whether or not the film was blasphemous.

Fortunately, in Australia blasphemy laws — still notionally in operation — are almost never invoked.

Indeed, one of the twenty recommendations in the leaked Ruddock report on religious freedom is that jurisdictions yet to abolish the offence of blasphemy should do so immediately.

Blasphemy (the act of insulting a god or something considered sacred, such as scripture) is an offence absorbed into Australian law from the English Common Law, and normally involves Christianity.

In the last 100 years, prosecutions for blasphemy in Australia have been very rare. But some religious leaders now call for a new blasphemy law for non-Christian religions to protect their followers from hurtful and insulting actions or words.

A law against blasphemy is not something we want to see back on Australian statute books. For one thing, it would require judges to be theologians; for another, it would seriously harm freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech allows critics of religion — especially Christianity — to denounce it, claiming it promotes hatred and intolerance. And when they don’t denounce it, freedom of speech allows them to mock it: take Jesus, dying on the cross, and have him donate his organs.

Naturally, some people will take offence at what they consider the crude exploitation of an image central to the Christian faith. Of course, no advertiser would dare the mock teachings of Islam or the Prophet in the same way.

Islamic states regularly execute apostates for blasphemy: might the intended victims be shown considering a request from ISIS militia to donate their organs once the blows of the sword or the stones have fallen?

You won’t see that anytime soon on your TV. Fearful of upsetting Muslim sensitivities, advertisers and entertainers steer well clear of any message, image, or joke that could be considered ‘Islamophobic’.

Fortunately, we don’t live in a theocratic state but in an open, liberal, and lively democracy where people hold very different — and often conflicting — opinions and beliefs. Long may that continue.

But if it is to continue, we need to understand the crucial role of the key freedoms in our society. Freedom of speech, association, conscience, and religion are foundational to our way of life.

But no single right to such freedom takes precedence over any other. The freedoms we value have to be held in balance so that freedom of religion is upheld at the same time as freedom of speech.

While fostering the virtue of respect for other’s beliefs, therefore, we also need to uphold the importance of free speech and free association in our communities and on our university campuses.

Offensive though it might be to some people — and others will see the funny side — the organ-donating Jesus ad should not be banned or withdrawn. But nor should it be immune from criticism.

After all, organ donation is an important topic. Far better to have such an ad shown, and then to have the freedom to openly criticise it without fear of condemnation or denunciation — or execution.

The 2016 census showed that nearly two thirds of Australians have a religious affiliation. Religious faith is a central part of their lives — something others ought to respect even though we might disagree with those beliefs.

The current debate about religious freedom has become wildly inflamed. During the gay marriage debate, the focus was on gay teenagers being driven to suicide by religious hatred and denunciation.

Now the debate is focused on the imagined expulsion of gay students from religious schools in the name of God. Of course, without seeing Ruddock’s report, it is difficult to have an informed debate about it.

Despite what religion’s foes keep telling us, freedom of religion is not about promoting the freedom to hate. It is a freedom to order one’s life and one’s community according to the precepts of one’s faith.

Religious freedom is one of the cornerstones of our society, and it goes hand-in-glove with the same freedoms enjoyed by religion’s critics and detractors. It is a freedom we must defend at all cost.

Peter Kurti is a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies