Something’s rotten in the state of Denmark.
It’s a hot issue right now. A touchy issue. And often, a misinterpreted issue. What we have going on is a gigantic clash of cultures manifesting into violent protest.
One of the perspectives I’m sick of hearing is “They’re just cartoons. You don’t see people bombing embassies because someone draws Jesus.”
There’s a lot wrong with that outlook. Because as the person already knows, the two religions of Christianity and Islam are quite different. I’m not about to make myself out to be some sort of expert on Islam. In fact, when it came to that unit in Intellectual Heritage class, I don’t remember a damned thing. But one thing that the holders of the perspective above don’t understand is that in Islam tradition and practice, the depiction of their prophet Muhammad is a sin. Not poor taste, not “frowned upon.” A sin.
In Christianity, the depiction of Christ, God, and other heavenly figures is not a sin. The wide majority of faithful Christian believers have a portrait of Christ in their household somewhere. There are paintings that are considered great works of art beyond being religious (like the Last Supper and the Sistine Chapel). The Christian culture and tradition has encouraged the creation of such works and others as not just good a thing, but a good tool to spread the love of their lord and savior.
But in Islamic tradition, it is a sin. And Freedom of the Press or not, we oughtta respect that. We don’t need to be uber PC and hyper sensitive to their religion, but we oughtta respect it. The same way we expect them to respect any religion we might practice.
That’s the major thing the Danish Editor did not do. He knew full and goddamned well that these cartoons would be a major offense in their society, which is plenty volatile as it stands. He had them reprint those cartoons and hid behind the good ol’ Freedom of the Press clause.
That’s a common misunderstanding with Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech. They mean you are free to say and print what you choose. They do not, however, protect you from any consequences that might arise from the recipients. Sure, your government will keep their fingers out (for the most part anyway), but the other 99% of your readers are not the government. So you will have to deal with them if you piss them off. That’s life. What the fuck did the Danish Editor expect?
But don’t get me wrong. I’m not condoning the riots. Not in anyway. Violence is never the answer. And in protest, violence is not even an option. There are fundamental flaws in the Middle-Eastern societies and cultures (mostly the extremists) that see violence and murder as a perfectly acceptable method. That’s fucked in the head. And yes, totally: Way to disprove your enemies’ allegations that you are a recklessly violent people by participating in reckless violence. That’ll teach ‘em.
So fuck no, I’m not condoning their actions. And I ain’t making excuses on their behalf. But we, as intelligent people owe it to ourselves to at least make sure we understand what they’re thinking, and not chalk it off as “Just Cartoons.” This simply reaffirms that the medium that we use is a powerful one. And with great power comes great responsibility, dammit.
February 8th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
Taking the Lord’s name in vain is a SIN. Yet no one is even going to blink an eye at all your “goddamn”s. That’s because Christianity already did this kind of hissy fit and then learned to get over it and just condemn heathens and tend to their own flock, without trying to use force or government to change them. Wait, they still try to use government to tell nonbelievers what to do. But peacefully. Except for those anti-abortion fanatics. Umm…
But yes, I agree it’s naive to think that printing those cartoons wouldn’t get any muslim knickers twisted and I even wrote a comixpedia article on the power of cartoons in regards to politics (simplify the message, control the perception - they’re powerful and sometimes evilly so).
But at the same time - Jesus! (sorry, God, or if I and the press want to show respect for Jewish tradition, G-d, but who cares about the Jews?) There are muslim pictures of Mohammed. The cartoons didn’t cause an uproar until some clerics bandied them about months later, plus even more heinous ones no one knows where they got. The riots were pretty obvious set up and the cartoons were an excuse. Some people here just want some attention and sympathy from the world. But you’re not supposed to pay attention to the kid who hurts himself then comes to his parents blaming it on his sister.
Sorry, had to rant even though I totally agree with your main premise. I think I’m jsut sick of so much concern over the comics when they’re only a scrapegoat.
February 8th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
Heh. In my rant, I failed to even stop and recal the “Lord’s name in Vain” commandment. Color me a goddamned hipocrite.
And I’ve just today started finding articles that point out the idea that the cartoons are being used as a tool by Al-Qaida and all them. That’s even scarier, really.
February 9th, 2006 at 5:28 am
Within the secular culture that the danes enjoy, the comics are allowable.
Currently we have one culture trying to force it’s beliefs on another. The argument cannot be made that the cartoonists were doing the same since reading them is a voluntary experience.
Fundamentalists do not have any intent to play nice in order to get their agenda completed. And inflaming passions on both sides plays into their hands.
February 10th, 2006 at 12:43 am
The problem with the cartoons is not that they are against Islam… because cartoons poke fun of religion all the time in a satirical manner. The real problem is that a few of them were completely and un-apologetically racist (especially the turban with the bomb cartoon).
Would we show a black guy with a watermelon in a newspaper? These cartoons were simply tasteless.
February 10th, 2006 at 12:49 am
“But in Islamic tradition, it is a sin. And Freedom of the Press or not, we oughtta respect that. We don’t need to be uber PC and hyper sensitive to their religion, but we oughtta respect it. The same way we expect them to respect any religion we might practice.”
Then you blatantly disrespect Christianity by writing “Color me a goddamned hipocrite” by way of a joke. Where’s the respect?
Frankly I don’t think we are under any obligation to respect anyone else’s religion. Of course if you live in a predominantly Muslim, Hindu, or Christian society and choose to do something outrageously inflammatory you sadly stand a good chance of getting your ass kicked by the oh-so-peaceful practitioners of these religions.
But Danish (and/or Western) cartoonists/pundits/ comedians/entertainers/ commentators etc. have every right to say whatever they feel about a given religion and not expect embassies to be burned and fatwas to be issued. By virtue of branding all the non-Islamic world “infidels” clearly Muslims do not share your view of mutual respect. By not condemning routine beheadings of hostages in Iraq, and or rioting in the streets in protest over the savage slaying of Theo Van Gogh in Holland, clearly Muslims are beset by a heinous double-standard. Many religions suffer similarly, but none seem so dominated by fundamentalists as Islam.
Frankly the whole furor over this completely validates the Danish newspaper’s original experiment: which was to see how many cartoonists when called upon, would exercise self-censorship because of abject fear of crtiticizing or even commenting on Islam. Many cartoonists didn’t participate and among those who did most of the cartoons were rather tame.
Now not only cartoonists in a small Scandinavian country are being repressed, but indeed whole continents.
February 10th, 2006 at 12:56 am
“The real problem is that a few of them were completely and un-apologetically racist (especially the turban with the bomb cartoon).
Would we show a black guy with a watermelon in a newspaper? These cartoons were simply tasteless.”
That cartoon seemed to making the very valid point that the Islamic religion has largely been hijacked by extremists and violent elements that clearly contradict the prophet’s teachings.
Additionally explain where the racism is? Do most Arabic muslims not wear turbans? To suggest that drawing someone with a turban is “racist” is to suggest that there’s something wrong with wearing a turban. That kind of simple patronization seems far more racist, if inadvertantly so.
February 10th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
I didn’t suggest that drawing someone with a turban was racist.
I suggested that EQUATING the wearing of turbans WITH being a terrorist is racist.
Drawing the turban as a bomb suggests that all folks who are wearing turbans are also carrying around bombs. Sorry if I think that’s racist.
Also, thanks for accusing me of being a racist patronizing lout before asking for a clarification, Rob!
February 10th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
“Drawing the turban as a bomb suggests that all folks who are wearing turbans are also carrying around bombs. Sorry if I think that’s racist.”
I’ll repeat: That cartoon seemed to be making the very valid point that the Islamic religion has largely been hijacked by extremists and violent elements that clearly contradict the prophet’s teachings.
Additionally I think it was merely a cartoonist seeking a clever juxtaposition of imagery.
“Also, thanks for accusing me of being a racist patronizing lout before asking for a clarification, Rob!”
I didn’t call you a “racist patronizing lout”. You realize that, so enough with the melodrama.
I was referring basically to anyone whose apologism for violent zealotry under the “it’s a different culture, it’s a different religion, any criticism of its practices and followers stems from racism” defense.
The fact that we in Western culture are so terrified of criticizing widespread abominable behavior in the Islamic world says one of two things (or both). 1) either we are scared shitless of what their response will be (which suggests their reputation for violence is preceding them)
or
2) we are treating them like children not deserving or capable of the same adult dialogue we engage in with our Western friends (and foes)
Which is it?
February 11th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
I think it is (2)
February 11th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
I think the answer is both 1 and 2. The EU is now proposing “self-regulation” (ie. self-censorship) relating to the European press as a result of their fear of continued widespread Muslim violence. Wasn’t it just last month that thousands of cars were burned in France?
And 2 is also correct because legitimate criticism of fanaticism and zealotry is frequently met with baseless charges of “racism” and “cultural insensitivity.”
While I personally am not offended by flag-burning, most US citizens are, and yet not a day goes by when a US flag isn’t burned in the Middle East. Where’s the cultural sensitivity on the part of muslims? Where’s the concern for our feelings? Oh, I forgot the entire non-Islamic world is comprised of “infidels”. Our culture and our religious beliefs are not only undeserving of respect but should be destroyed.
I anxiously await the complaint of cultural insensitivity the next time another Islamic government blows the face off an ancient Buddha.
February 13th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Actually, the Talibahn destroying those Buddha statues caused an international outcry. Even in Islamic societies.
However, Buddhism doesnt follow idoltry like the three Abrahamic religions do. They dont even believe Buddha is divine. At least, they’re not supposed to, but we all know how poorly the religious follow their faiths.
February 14th, 2006 at 5:35 am
I’m afraid I must disagree with you, sir. As a matter of fact, depiction of Mohammed is distinctly not a sin, any more than a Jew taking off his hat is. There is a tradition in Islam against depictions of Allah or Mohammed, but these traditions sprang up after Islam was codified. Thus, drawing a picture of Mohammed would be extremely small beans compared to, say, sneaking some ham into a Moslem’s sandwich.
Further, the reason for this tradition is specifically to prevent idolatry. This is extremely similar to, and perhaps derived from, the Jewish Commandment against graven images. The fear is that if an image is made, then people will worship the image instead of worshipping God. Now, of the cartoons posted, there are a couple that could be considered insulting. But as for the rest–does anyone *really* believe that some impressionable Islamic youth is going to start idol-worshipping a newspaper cartoon of Mohammed? Obviously not.
You make snippy noises about how the Danes really should have known better than to print inflammatory material. But to a mind thinking clearly, the worst of these cartoons was little more than an annoyance. The reaction should have been perhaps some ruffled feathers and a brief swell of debate, not widespread violence aimed at anything European.
I’d like to take this opportunity to point out that in the Islamic world, using violence to control the media isn’t exactly a new phenomenon. In Palestinian-Authority-controlled territories, for example, all journalists who don’t toe the PA line are threatened and hindered until they leave. That’s how you get ridiculous situations like the illusory massacre in Jenin. In most Islamic countries, the media is state-run, and the penalty for straying from lockstep can get a bit worse than just losing your job. So, accepting that rational thought really isn’t a factor, is it any surprise that the Islamic world is trying to control the European media through violence? It would be a shame, and a frightening one, if this led to self-censorship.
February 18th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
One thing that I think people fail to notice is that Islam is about 1400 years old. Try taking the Lord’s name in vain and being generally disrespectful of Jesus or the Church back in the fifteenth century, and see how lightly it gets shrugged off.
February 20th, 2006 at 12:15 am
This article from the Yale Daily News said it well:
” True, in one cartoon of the 12, Muhammad’s turban is a bomb, and, who would have guessed it, that one cartoon is better known and more widely discussed than any of the others. (The way to prove the cartoonist who drew it wrong, however, is not to kill him.) In another “total outrage against Islam,” Muhammad is depicted in heaven before a queue of apparent martyrs, shouting, “Stop! We’ve run out of virgins.” Exposing the hypocrisy of slaughter in the name of God’s justice is not an offense; it is an editorial point eminently worth making. Another of the cartoons is not of Muhammad at all, but of a nervous cartoonist attempting to draw Muhammad and at the same time keep all unwelcome eyes away from his composition. Would anyone like to argue that this cartoon denigrates Muslims?
But of course, the reason for the embassy burnings, the promises of murder, the blackmail of civil institutions, is not the light in which a group of Danish cartoonists portrayed Muhammad, but the fact that Danish cartoonists portrayed Muhammad at all. And while Muslims have every right to abhor visual representations of their prophets, they have no right — none whatsoever — to prevent non-Muslims from drawing whatever pictures they want to. This is not a matter of tolerance of Muslim beliefs, but of whether or not we non-believers are prepared to submit ourselves, out of fear, to Islamic law. Capitulation to the bullies is not a sign of an abundance of intellectual sophistication, but a severe lack of self-respect.”
February 27th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
Well, it’s a sin for muslims, but not for Christians. So is drinking alcohol and eating pork meat, but not for Christians, let alone atheists. If we couldn’t do what’s a sin in other religions we wouldn’t be allowed to do ANYthing anymore…
May 19th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
“But in Islamic tradition, it is a sin. And Freedom of the Press or not, we oughtta respect that. We don’t need to be uber PC and hyper sensitive to their religion, but we oughtta respect it.”
I agree completely.
The more I heard about these cartoons the more I realised how messed up it was. For me, it went in the discovery order 1.) Mohammad as a terrorist - 2.) It’s offensive to depict Mohammad - 3.) Bomb for a turban. - 4.) Reprinted - 5.) Reprinted internationaly
At each point, I got more disgusted.
Of course, I do NOT support the illegal protesting or violence. However, the first few rounds of protesting in Denmark were completely ignored {or spured the editor to print then again}.
It all comes down to respect. A Belief may be questioned openly, but should not be insulted. Heck, far too many people just believe science, rather than reading the fine print and finding out how much isn’t proven… yet {but scientist still have a pretty good idea of what goes on}.