Blasphemous cartoons

[adambyte]

Ooh. That's bad. If you're going to offend, you have to be an equal-opportunity offender. If they don't have the balls to criticize Christianity, they shouldn't be doing it with Muslims. It's all or nothing.

 

[Perseus]

I am just wondering though: If cartoons were published mocking Christianity, I cant imagine the christians running around burning building and flags.

I agree what was done was in incredible poor taste, and can see what is happening. But that thought I had can't escape me.

 

[ksv]

I am just wondering though: If cartoons were published mocking Christianity, I cant imagine the christians running around burning building and flags.

I agree what was done was in incredible poor taste, and can see what is happening. But that thought I had can't escape me.

I've seen flag burning in Western countries over less. Id est, reactionary far-right republicans in the U.S. burning French flags after France opposed the invasion of Iraq.

Recently, a Norwegian-Palestinian was stabbed in Oslo because he was among the demonstrators burning Norwegian and Danish flags in Gaza.

It's mutual extremism, no way to escape that fact.

 

[dmetzcher]

Having a freedom is one thing, but exercising it responsibly is another. I don't think the cartoons offered anything valuable

I completely agree with this statement. Journalism requires restraint, at times. Also, if they were going to publish the cartoons and mock a faith, perhaps a few written words backing up what the cartoons had to say would have been a good decision. I guess this is my whole point: Say what you want to say about a subject (religion, politics, social issues), but be prepared to defend yourself.

The thing that amazes me most is the utter hypocrisy of Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper in question. Some three years ago, they were offered a set of satirical cartoons of Christ on the cross, but refused to publish them on the grounds that it would be too offensive!

I find that most people who have one view about a particular religion tend to be hypocrites, so this is par for the couse. It's always the other guy's religion that is "crazy" or "backward", but never one's own. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone who followed one of the world's major religions actually subscribed to the good teachings found within it? Perhaps we wouldn't have war, famine, disease, and sheer lunacy.

 

[Mikuro]

I am just wondering though: If cartoons were published mocking Christianity, I cant imagine the christians running around burning building and flags.

Probably not, but there would be a cultural equivalent. In America, at least, the crazy Christians have three things that stop them from going to such extremes that the crazy Muslims don't: Luxury, a lack of any real persecution, and a far more well-established and powerful legal system. Take these three things away, and I wouldn't put any of this stuff past the radical Christians in America.

With such differences in economy, politics, society and culture, you can't compare actions on a tit-for-tat basis. The main reason Americans act so much more "enlightened" is because we have the luxury to be, and it's in our best interest. It's certainly not because we're any less evil than anyone else.

 

[Ynought]

I don't have a lot of time but I will say this, we haven't seen the *prophets* of other religions mocked in a way that I think Muhammad was mocked. You don't see Jesus or Moses dipicted as a killer. It's one thing to mock how people have corrupted a religion, I think quite another to insuate that another's religion is inherantly evil.

Also, it is really not our place to try to qualify the level of anger that muslims should feel. That, to me, is kind of the point. When you do that, you cease to respect the other. A normal person, having unintentionally offended someone would say, 'I'm sorry. I didn't think that would offend you.' If you don't care you say, 'oh well, get over it.'

Also, if Americans (i speak about us because i'm one) we *will* retailate. It may be something like a boycott or an economic riot but we will do what it takes to get the message across. Powerless people are going to exercise the little power that they do have in ways that may not make sense to us.

Also, the freedom of speech argument is a joke. Like Oliver Wendel Holmes said, 'The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.' I think it's safe to say that the Danes have done at least that.

 

[CaptainQuark]

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone who followed one of the world's major religions actually subscribed to the good teachings found within it? Perhaps we wouldn't have war, famine, disease, and sheer lunacy.

A beautiful thought. "Love thy neighbour…" etc. But in reality, religion is little more than another form of the sort of tribalism that leads to genocide in Rwanda.

 

[bbloke]

A beautiful thought. "Love thy neighbour…" etc. But in reality, religion is little more than another form of the sort of tribalism that leads to genocide in Rwanda.

Mmm, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree there. It can lead to those things when hijacked and abused, but the same goes for all sorts of philosophies. The core messages of the faiths are usually very different from what some extremists preach... Both believers and non-believers (of any religion) are human and susceptible to a whole range of flaws, one group or another is not immune. Also, we're very likely to hear of the negative sides to religious groups, rather than the positive sides, as that is what makes for more interesting news. For instance, I see a lot of inter-faith dialog and joint work on charitable causes, instead of faiths being dividing issues.

On a different note, however, things could get a lot murkier now. An Iranian newspaper has decided to have a contest for the best cartoons on the Holocaust...

From News.com.au:

IRAN'S largest selling newspaper announced today it was holding a contest on cartoons of the Holocaust in response to the publishing in European papers of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.

"It will be an international cartoon contest about the Holocaust," said Farid Mortazavi, the graphics editor for Hamshahri newspaper - which is published by Teheran's conservative municipality.
He said the plan was to turn the tables on the assertion that newspapers can print offensive material in the name of freedom of expression.

"The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons," he said.

Ah.

(As much as I find the idea sickening and think this tit-for-tat is just going to make things worse, they do have a perverse point.)

 

[fryke]

It's not even that perverse, actually. I think it's the _best_ way to show the rest of the world how exactly they _feel_ about it. It may come across as aggressive, but hey: That's the point. Better than blowing up a church or anything else, anyway.

 

[Rhisiart]

I meant that as more of a joke. I forgot to add the little smilie man.

Forget the smilie. You've got an opinion and I respect that. I may disagree with you, but I like the fact that you are prepared to stick to your guns (if you get my drift), without being hysterical/fanatical/nuts.

Let’s also forget about the Euro trash journalists for a moment.

What really scares the shit out of me is the fact that so many people today are so empowered by cult thinking that they seem to have forgotten how to think for themselves. The irony is that this brainless activity seems to be the reserve of two polarised communities: those with too little wealth/education/opportunities and those with abundant wealth/education/opportunities.

You're poor and you live in a slum in Bradford, Great Britain and all of a sudden some charismatic loser with a distorted, corrupt version of the Koran suddenly makes you feel wanted. You begin to hate anybody who does not follow your beliefs. So you put on an explosive backpack and board a London Undergound train full of children and woman, thinking that if you kill them all you’ll go straight to heaven and spend an eternity with 74 virgins.

Conversely, you’re wealthy, educated and privileged, but so bored and lacking in personality that you become besotted with some charismatic loser, who persuades you to become a born-again Christian evangelist, making you believe that you've already made it to heaven with no effort required. And what’s more, you think you have a God given right to bomb the crap out of any country you think is backward (except if they already have nuclear weapons).

Christ said the meek shall inherit the earth. I am sure He is right. But as it stands now those without imaginaton are in the ascendancy.

 

[bbloke]

It's not even that perverse, actually. I think it's the _best_ way to show the rest of the world how exactly they _feel_ about it. It may come across as aggressive, but hey: That's the point. Better than blowing up a church or anything else, anyway.

Ah, perhaps I should clarify. It does indeed make the point. It does show how something that seems acceptable to one group might be absolutely reprehensible to another. It is just that, to me, this drags in others (i.e. those who have directly or indirectly suffered as a result of the Holocaust), rather than targetting Danes alone. It is also deliberately touching on a very painful event in history for many, in order to get a response. I guess I felt it does make the point, but that, for me, it was quite an indiscriminate and "unkind" way of doing it. I agree that it is arguably better than violent methods, but sometimes the effects of words can be underestimated too.

 

[CaptainQuark]

But in reality, religion is little more than another form of the sort of tribalism that leads to genocide in Rwanda.

Clarification
Of course what I actually meant was "But in reality, religion has been corrupted to suit the political ends of those with fewer scruples than those religions espouse, until it has become little more than another form of the sort of tribalism that leads to genocide in Rwanda."

… rather than targetting Danes alone.

But it's now gone beyond just the Danes. The French have published it and it's even had its first airing in a British publication… There has been a backlash against anyone "blond-haired and blue-eyed", with even Swedes, who to my knowledge haven't published said images in any publications.

Doodoo –> fan!

According to the Qu'ran, Muslims should respect what they call the "book religions" – Judaism and Christianity – which are of the same Abrahamic root.

Pity that Christians and Jews – or at least the prominent "believers" – don't have the same ideals!

 

[Viro]

I can't recall ever seeing Christianity parodied in such an "outsider's" way. If these were cartoons of Jesus torturing prisoners, you can bet there'd be a huge outcry.

I'm not sure what to make of this statement. Perhaps it means that Christians just aren't violent enough when making their point.

The biggest and most offensive event for Christians in the recent past here in the UK has been the airing of the Jerry Springer Opera, on national TV by the BBC. Despite receiving thousands (approx 47,000) of letters of protests, the directors of the BBC decided to go ahead with the broadcast. Perhaps if Christians around the globe went on a rampage burning the British Embassies, we might have gotten the TV show pulled.

The Jerry Springer Opera is just one extreme example of how offensive material against Christianity gets published in the West, under the guise of freedom of speech. Even more common examples of blasphemy include how the name of Jesus Christ is turned into a swear word. Try doing that with the name of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or Buddha and see the kind of reaction you will get. Now, the most common excuse for allowing such language on TV is the fact that the West consider themselves 'insiders' to Christianity, and thus using such language is a tongue-in-cheek cricitism of themselves, or that due to the 'Christian' culture of the West, no one should be offended when the name of Jesus Christ is used in such a way. Yet, how many of the people who use such language are Christian (i.e. active church goers, regular Bible readers, etc)? It is like saying that I can insult the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) because I grew up in Malaysia, a Muslim country and thus am an 'insider' to Islam. This is nonsense, for though I am intimately familiar with Islam, I do not subscribe to its beliefs and thus can hardly be considered an 'insider'.

The biggest impact this cartoon fracas has had on the UK, has been to demonstrate the sheer bigotry, inconsistency and hypocrisy in the actions of the BBC and the local London police. The BBC, for refusing to broadcast the cartoons despite their vehement stance on defending 'artistic merit' in broadcasting the Jerry Springer Opera just a year earlier in the face of countless letters of protest. The London police, for failing to arrest the protesters who carried placards calling for more July 7th bombings (!!), and dressing up as suicide bombers, clearly inciting others to violence. If these were white Christians, you can bet they'd be locked up in a heart beat.

Now on to the cartoons themselves. The cartoons weren't expressed in a vacuum. They accompanied a editorial piece about how the media in the West performs 'self-censorship' on issues it fears are offensive to Muslims. The reason the cartoons were drawn is because the editor of the newspaper wanted to get the opinions of 12 different cartoonists, on how they interpreted Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Sure, they can be construed as offensive, especially the drawings that associate Islam with terrorists. Nevertheless, these are the impressions that the artists have of Islam, and the actions of Muslims around the globe in response of the cartoons have done _NOTHING_ to change their opinions. If anything, the way the Muslim world responds has only served to highlight the 'truth' in those cartoons. Which is a bloody shame, if I do say so myself.

There are many moderate Muslims in the world. It is a shame that they have let the extremists run riot and tarnished the image of Islam.

 

[Viro]

Probably not, but there would be a cultural equivalent. In America, at least, the crazy Christians have three things that stop them from going to such extremes that the crazy Muslims don't: Luxury, a lack of any real persecution, and a far more well-established and powerful legal system. Take these three things away, and I wouldn't put any of this stuff past the radical Christians in America.

With such differences in economy, politics, society and culture, you can't compare actions on a tit-for-tat basis. The main reason Americans act so much more "enlightened" is because we have the luxury to be, and it's in our best interest. It's certainly not because we're any less evil than anyone else.

Mikuro, I disagree with you assessment. You're assuming that there are only Christians in America, which is demonstrably false. If anything, there is a higher number of Christians in poor, '3rd world' countries like Kenya and other parts of Africa, many of whom do not have the 3 luxuries the American Christians have. Yet, we rarely have any such violent protests. Perhaps it has to do with the fundamental teaching of Jesus:
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. --Mathew 5:43 - 47

 

[Mikuro]

Mikuro, I disagree with you assessment. You're assuming that there are only Christians in America, which is demonstrably false.

Eh? I don't think my statements assumed that. I was comparing radical American Christians to radical Muslims. (I don't feel I'm fit to comment on Christians in other parts of the world, as my knowledge of their habits is just too low.) The fact that there are not radical Christians in every single place that Christianity thrives doesn't prove an inherent difference between the two religions. If anything, it proves the opposite, since the same as true of Islam. The fact that there are radical Christians — whose behavior, I feel, is fundamentally very similar to the radical Muslims, given the different contexts — does prove (IMHO) that two religions are not so different as many Americans (and Westerners at large, I think) like to pretend.

People are all too willing to project the acts of the Muslim radicals onto all of Islam, apparently without realizing there are Christian equivalents right in their midst (and certainly in history), and they know darn well that their acts shouldn't be projected to all Christians.

If you grew up in a Muslim community, then surely your knowledge of Islam and its culture would be much higher than that of a true 'outsider', so I think you would be perfectly fit to comment on it in an honest way. If you thought it was all bull@#$%, I'd like to hear why. It doesn't matter if you don't personally believe in the religion. If only believers criticized, then we wouldn't get any real criticism! Even if I'm not a Christian, I grew up in a Christian culture and I've seen both the good and the bad of it up close and personal. I have an honest knowledge, so I feel my criticisms are legit. But criticizing something you have no honest knowledge of isn't legit, IMHO. (Although sometimes it's a good way to gain honest knowledge.)

 

[Viro]

Even if I'm not a Christian, I grew up in a Christian culture and I've seen both the good and the bad of it up close and personal. I have an honest knowledge, so I feel my criticisms are legit. But criticizing something you have no honest knowledge of isn't legit, IMHO. (Although sometimes it's a good way to gain honest knowledge.)

This is where the problem lies, if I may say so. I don't know you personally, so this isn't meant as a personal attack. However, the following is my observation from my time living in the UK.

While the West did have a Christian heritage at some point, it would be quite safe to say that this heritage has eroded. The West of the 20th century is only Christian in flags (here in Europe), and in songs and other obscure parts of society. Many in the West who aren't Christian, consider themselves to have been brought up in a 'Christian' environment, even though as a Christian, seeing the environment they grew up in, I would hesitate to label them anything remotely Christian. They may have been church going, but then attendance at church does not make one a Christian anymore than attending a temple ceremony makes on a Buddhist. Nevertheless, individuals like these consider themselves 'insiders' to something they have never really understood or been part of. Given this is the situation, can such individuals make informed comments about what it is to be 'Christian'?

The situation is slightly different with Islam. Islam isn't merely a religion to those who practice it. It is a belief and a set of convictions that shape the life of a believer. It isn't something they practice only when at the mosque (i.e. church on Sunday), it is something they practice everyday. Every morning, I woke up to the sound of the Azan being blasted out of the local mosque at 5 a.m. Given that I was surrounded in a very real way by Islam, can I be considered an 'insider'? I may be more of an insider to Islam than the average Westerner is to Christianity, but I would not be quick to make comments on Islam (and believe me, if you know non-Muslims in Malaysia, you know they have lots of comments to make).

The reason is this, I see the way the people live. And more often than not, I see their flaws and flaws tend to stick out much much more. I have seen countless bad stuff done in the guise of Islam, though it is usually politically/racially motivated. The problem is, unless you are intimately familiar with the 'faith' itself, judging the faith by the actions of its followers will give you quite a distorted picture. As such, even though I have lived in a Muslim country for most of my life, I would hesitate to comment on Islamic affairs based on that qualification alone.

 

[Viro]

Eh? I don't think my statements assumed that. I was comparing radical American Christians to radical Muslims.

Actually, having written my reply, it might be helpful to know what you mean by radical Christians .

 

[CaptainQuark]

I have seen countless bad stuff done in the guise of [religion], though it is usually politically/racially motivated.

"To make a good person commit evil takes religion", Richard Dawkins.

I have edited Viro's quote above, because practitioners of all of the faiths of the world are guilty of this. Having lived in Saudi Arabia, I am free of stupid prejudices about Islam.

Islam itself is inherently neither better nor worse than any other religion, but I am getting heartily sick of the way that it, and Muslims, are being demonised in the west.

 

[Mikuro]

Viro, it sounds like we agree more than we've let on.

Many in the West who aren't Christian, consider themselves to have been brought up in a 'Christian' environment, even though as a Christian, seeing the environment they grew up in, I would hesitate to label them anything remotely Christian. They may have been church going, but then attendance at church does not make one a Christian anymore than attending a temple ceremony makes on a Buddhist.

This is a big communication problem, because different people DO have different ideas of what it means to be <insert religion here>. As a result, these discussions often end up in word games, unfortunately.

As an American, I certainly agree that a very large number of 'Christians' know nothing about what it really means to be a Christian (this applies especially to politicians...but then I guess that's to be expected!). Nevertheless, they call themselves 'Christian'. Everyone calls them 'Christian'. Since words are given meaning by their use, that's what the word means at this point. Can I make a distinction between the 'real' Christians and the 'fake' Christians? Well, for the most part I try to — that's part of what I mean when I say "radical Christians". I also like to use the phrase "alleged Christians", although I refrain from using it in public forums because I can see it being taken very offensively. But there's no way to draw a definite line between these groups.

So as much as it may have been perverted, it's still 'Christianity' — that's just part of what the word means now. Is it the same thing 'Christianity' was a hundred years ago? Probably not, for better or for worse. But the two share the same name. The same way all these murderers and extremists are considered 'Muslim'.


As for exactly what I mean when I say "radical Christian"...it's hard to define it clearly. That's part of the problem. But I know them when I see them, and I can only hope that whoever I talk to on the matter knows them, too. Last December, there were a lot of 'Christians' who seemed to think that anyone using the phrase "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" was in league with the Devil (okay, that's an exaggeration, but there was an awfully big fuss about it). I think those people are radicals. That particular example seems minor even by American standards, but throw those people's mental makeup into a different context, like the ones the radical Muslims are in, and I really think you'd see exactly the same results.


Philisophically, I can define things like 'Christian' as neatly as I want. But if the rest of the world doesn't share my definition, then it's worthless. So I use the word as it is commonly used. (Of course, how it is commonly used varies from region to region. Doh!)


If I may ask, how do you define 'Christian' and 'Muslim'?

 

[Rhisiart]

"To make a good person commit evil takes religion", Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins is as bigoted as the (religious) people he seeks to mock. He is a fundamentalist scientist who is as just as blinkered as religous fanatics.

I think we should remember that there were very few demonstrations in the majority of Muslim countries and for once I believe Condoleeza Rice, that the Syrian and Iranian governments orchestrated the riots in their countries.

However I would really like to know how many Muslims worldwide actually privately support Al-Quada, even if they do not outwardly proclaim to support Islamic terrorists. Of course, I will never get an answer to this question.