Cartoons cause bomb threats, armed raids
Article – France enters Muslim cartoon row
So… some private individual or organization in another country does something antithetical to your belief system, even sacreligious (like, say, eating pork while dancing on the torah) and that justifies bomb threats and burning the flag of the country of origin? Even when the country’s government itself makes an apology, despite the action being well within the law?
W – T – F?
When thousands of people take to the streets in muslim countries because of a cartoon in a different country that says, “Don’t complain, Muhammad, we’ve all been caricatured here” … there is something seriously wrong.
The idea that a large group of people expect and demand that everyone else in the entire world follow their belief system seriously stretches my sense of tolerance. Yes, that means our own country, too.
Random thoughts here
I think the problem is that, A) Muhammad is depicted in some of the cartoons as being a terrorist, and B) The religion of Islam specifically forbids graphic depictions of Muhammad.
Yes, it is very intolerant and narrowminded to expect others to follow your belief system. But what about expecting others to respect your belief system? Where is the basic human respect here? I think it’s understandable that people are upset, though they are taking it to EXTREMES. Just because it is within the law for the Danish paper to publish such things does not make it ethical to do so. They crossed a line in simple decency, knew they were crossing it, and did it anyway to try to prove a point. To a certain extent, I think they deserve what they got (negative publicity, bomb threats, etc…) and I feel no sympathy for them for the negative reaction they’re getting at this point. Obviously that would change if some offended Muslim extremist kidnapped the editor of the paper and tortured him over it.
But then again, I am one of those people that feels that nothing will ever be gained by flaunting things like freedom of expression and freedom of press by deliberately going to great lengths to publish material that will shock and offend, just for the shake of shocking and offending. What exactly is being accomplished here? Personally, I tend to be offended to some degree by any company that tries to make money by blatantly insulting religious beliefs that others hold sacred. I realize that can cover a lot of ground, and I’ll admit to not being as offended by the voodoo doll stocking stuffer you’ll find in most chain bookstores as I am by the Baby Jesus buttplug and the hot pink fuzzy Buddha piggy bank.
*shrug* I didn’t think that the “Piss Christ” was art, either.
On the flip side of the coin, some of the Arabic countries are pulling their diplomats out of Denmark. WTF? Over a cartoon??? If that’s their attitude, they have far far bigger problems than a measly offensive cartoon in some paper. They have some basic diplomatic dysfunction going on. Not to mention anger-management issues…
That is my point. Yes, it is disrespectful. I’m sorry, but I find bomb threats to be completely inappropriate in all circumstances and occasions.
The disrespectful action by one private company does not make it okay to blame the entire country by burning its flag and pictures of its leader simply because satire is allowed in that country.
I don’t hold anything that I’m aware of above irreverence. That said, I find certain forms of satire and humor to be more about the poor taste than actually having a valid statement, and I find those kinds of things to be less valuable and the cons of producing such things can often outweigh the value of causing people to question their own inability to laugh (and thus question) themselves or their own beliefs.
Of course, they won’t post the image of the cartoon depicting Muhammad as a terrorist, so I can’t judge for myself what I think about it, but certainly that is not simply pure satire, but plays into racism and broad stereotyping. Wellllll… that said, it may not -necessarily- be true either, except that you’re painting all followers of Muhammad with the same brush. Very complicated.
That said, I rather like the idea of the various deities sitting on a cloud discussing that they’re all being made fun of – I find it a pointed but pertinent and intelligent political and intellectual statement, and one that is essentially impossible to tell in comic format without a visual representation.
I should note that Ben and I wrote a script for a comedic movie that involves, essentially, every major god and goddess in recorded history.
It’s a sticky issue. You can’t make the point without the picture, yet the religious figure you’re featuring belongs to a religion that historically forbids picture representations of that figure. Personally, I think the point is valid, but it is guaranteed to offend more than it is to hold up a mirror to the reader. So if the odds are good that the people it’s intended for will miss the point, than what’s the point?
I totally agree with your point about not holding anything that you believe above irreverence. Under the right circumstances, you can find the humor in anything. The humanty’s gift, to be able to make a joke out of anything. I wonder, though, is that a good thing?
Isn’t it ironic?
Isn’t it ironic that a group of people who find it so offensive that a symbolic representation of something they hold dear is being demeaned will respond with not just threats of real life violence, but also in a way to demean something symbolic that others find dear? (A country’s flag as well as a representation of a leader’s face.)
This isn’t about religion, there are plenty of people who are Muslim in the nations mentioned. Why is it that there aren’t protestors in France mentioned, which has an amazingly high Muslim population?
There have been many cases where an article sparks “unrest in the streets” in the Arabic world. Not Muslim … Arabic. There’s a lot of the globe filled with people who are Muslim who are also not Arabic. The tie between culture and religion is stronger for Islam than for Christianity, but nontheless, there is a difference.
I veer dangerously close to sounding intolerant, but I’m not. There is a lot of general disaffectedness in that portion of the globe versus the European and American portions of the globe. If something specifically Muslim were mentioned in anything but extremely flattering terms, there will be an uproar in that portion of the world. We’ve already seen it with a newspaper story which (incorrectly) reported about a specific instance poor treatment of the Koran owned by a prisoner. There were riots and flag burnings, and then later the NY Times published a retraction, but … damage was done.
I’m sorry, but if there were a burning issue worth rioting about, then it deserves further investigation beforehand. I think there’s some predisposition towards enmity towards Europe at work here. The cartoons could merely have stated that Muslims like to eat honeyed deserts and that would have possibly been enough.
… I have no idea how this problem will be solved, I pray (as much as that term means when uttered by an agnostic) that it will be smoothed over some day. There’s just been a lot of bad blood between that region and Europe for thousands of years.
Re: Isn’t it ironic?
I do agree. I also tend to sound intolerant in that I do think that it seems as though the Arabic-Muslim world seems to be highly volatile and prone to violent rections to the slightest provocation. The truly alarming issue isn’t the protestors or the flag burning. There is protesting by stupid extreme people over trivial things all over the world at any given time. I imagine that the Arabic nations surely must have the same problem that we have with not being able to keep the stupidest and craziest of their number off of the evening news.
What is most alarming is the GOVERNMENT reaction to all of this. In general, those that rise to power are the modern world not supposed to be the stupidest and craziest of their population. (pauses to laugh to keep from crying) Yet the childish and irrational response here from those whose business it is to be able to deal with little flaps like this diplomatically is mindblowing.
Well, that depends on whether one can also put aside humor when it is necessary to do so.
I don’t consider the audience for the comic to be entirely muslim. In fact, considering it came from Denmark, I imagine the point being made was rather larger than that, and that’s part of what makes it acceptable, in my opinion.
There is a reason why Satire is protected speech in the United States.. Kings and Queens have killed for lesser offenses than this particular comic, including flyer and other representations making a mockery of the royalty. Satire is inherently poking fun at -something- or -someone-, and taste is relative.
I guess that’s the question: Who controls what statements are to be made? Consider the Mapplethorpe photos of such fame. He’s a gifted artist, one can easily see by viewing his less controversial works, yet his most provoking work was banned, even though as an artist, those feelings were exactly the ones he was interested in both examining and challenging.