Leave a Comment below!
I can't BELIEVE the U.S. gov. is apparently "taking their side" in this. The story here is not the offensive cartoons (condemnable though they may be), but the propensity of these groups for violent outrage around the world. Ever heard of voting with your dollar feet, boycotts, counterspeech, patience ? guess not. Boy europe, you are in trouble.
I am very interested in people's thoughts on this issue.
On the one hand, fear of offending angry masses should not be criteria for determining whether a story, op-ed piece, or cartoon should be published. Freedom of speech (not the US legal term, but rather the concept) should be protected and supported worldwide. The inability to speak out against the religious and / or government institutions has led to such sad events in the history of mankind as the dark ages and the holocaust (not saying it is the cause of either, but rather a factor that facilitated).
On the other hand, actually, I am having troubles coming up with the other hand. Offending for the sake of offending is inappropriate, but is not what took place here or what the freedom is about. I have seen the cartoons, and they are (in my opinion) legitimate political statements. Even if they were just Mohammad bathing in a tub of feces, with no other point, it wouldn't be good journalism, but it wouldn't be wrong.
The state department has condemned the cartoons, and CNN among US media is declining to publish the offending materials. Political motivations, cowardice?
Although I guess I am taking a side, I am more interested in others thoughts on the matter, especially someone who thinks that it was wrong to publish the cartoons.
Yeah,
I think CNN's decision not to show the images is reasonable. Why? Because no one at CNN needs a death warrant put on his/her head. Respect for Islam? (Rolls eyes emphatically) Please...the decision was based on the explosive tendencies of fanatical Muslims.
Friends, speaking of death warrants, I hope to hijack this thread for just a moment for a public service announcement:
Last night, Mr. and Mrs. Jazz went on a short trip to the neighborhood grocery store to buy some groceries for lunches today.
On the way home -
- a local high school kid coming around a bend in the road swerved, lost control of the car, and struck us head on at a combined speed (both cars) of 60-70 miles an hour.
The cars are total losses, but fortunately no one was seriously injured - though Mrs. Jazz and I are dealing with much soreness today.
My point is: the reasons we were essentially uninjured are three -
1) The angle of impact was optimal for the car absorbing the damage.
2) Air bags deployed
and most importantly, by far most importantly,
3) We were both wearing our seat belts.
Its a safe bet that, without those seat belts, my blogging career here would have been significantly shortened.
My point is, friends: I know a lot of people who don't bother to buckle up on short trips to the local store.
Let me tell ya, I have made the trip in question last night probably 500 times or more.
Always always always ALWAYS buckle up.
It saves lives. Maybe ours last night.
(Back to the Islamic cartoons).
Jazz so glad you and your wife are OK!
I always buckle up.. I do it before I ever start my car.
In regards to the cartoon..
My reaction is that the Muslims who are freaking out need to take a chill pill.. I mean really, must they burn flags and promise death to the infidels every time somebody does something against their religious beliefs?
Imagine the world if everyone reacted this way every time some belief of their religion was breached... LOL total chaos
Matt Drudge had the cartoon on his web site yesterday... does that mean his life is in danger?
I think everyone should post the cartoon right next to the photos of the people muslims have beheaded
and see what is more offensive.
Devout Muslims don't believe in the depiction of people in art...
"Iconoclasm or the avoidance of pictures, icons and religious symbols was an important aspect of this classical age— the Koran forbids pictorial depiction of people, animals, or god."
...The State Department should take the side of the Muslims on this. It is highly offensive to the religion of Islam to depict Mohammad. I think Michelle Malkin, Tucker Carlson, etc., are talking out their asses if they don't recognize the problem here.
As for the Kanye West thing, if Christians were rioting in the streets the way the Muslims are, the mainstream media WOULD cover it. But they aren't.
Jazz -
Don't go anywhere without buckling up. GLAD to hear you and the misses are alright.
David -
Bless you for posting this, as this has been really frosting my muffin.
This is the most absurd bullshit situation I have ever seen, and would be outright fuming if it didn't so brilliantly highlighted the gross hypocrisy from the mass media.
So, a Danish newspaper prints some, in my educated opinion, fairly tame political cartoons. Why educated? I read Cagle's Cartoon roundup daily on MSNBC, and if you think the Danish ones are rude, try hitting some of the ones in his roundup.
Muslims freak out and demand revenge. Do they boycott, write letters to the editor, or attack the stereotype given? HELL NO! They make death and bomb threats, shoot at offices, and generally prove EVERY one of those cartoons accurate. Way to go.
Despite European newspapers reprinting the cartoons in solidarity, the only news organization to show them on TV in the US, as far as I know, is FOX News. Great stand for free speech there. The same people saying they should have a shield law and don't need to provide critical information to investigations have caved to fear.
And its nothing else but fear. NOBODY can make an argument otherwise. Because I didn't hear their quibbling when they broadcasted pictures of Kanye West as Jesus (BEST LINE EVER: Instapundit remarking that if Kayne had balls, he would have dressed as Mohammed). I didn't hear quibbling from NBC when they green-lighted Book of Daniel. I didn't hear quibbling from CNN when they showed images of the Virgin Mary with elephant crap on her.
Luckily, it sounds like the State Department has either been grossly misquoted or re-discovered their testicles -
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dp.../2006/
60394.htm
"Our response is to say that while we certainly don't agree with, support, or in some cases, we condemn the views that are aired in public that are published in media organizations around the world, we, at the same time, defend the right of those individuals to express their views. For us, freedom of expression is at the core of our democracy and it is something that we have shed blood and treasure around the world to defend and we will continue to do so. That said, there are other aspects to democracy, our democracy -- democracies around the world -- and that is to promote understanding, to promote respect for minority rights, to try to appreciate the differences that may exist among us."
H/T: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
I don't want to hear anymore sanctimony from the Press on religion. They really showed their ass on this one, caving even as their counterparts abroad (in far greater proximity and thus danger) showed their courage. I guess going to prison to protect your source is worthy for Free Speech, but getting angry muslims after you means Free Speech goes in the toilet with that Koran.
Max -
"Iconoclasm or the avoidance of pictures, icons and religious symbols was an important aspect of this classical age— the Koran forbids pictorial depiction of people, animals, or god."
Two words: Too bad.
Do you think Christians like seeing their icons disgraced? So what your saying here is to protect their images and iconography, Christians need to threaten violence? And say if that happened tomorrow, Max, would you be decrying the Christian Taliban??
If Muslims want to be protected from these images, they have their own countries with Islamic law they can head too. If they move to a country with FREE SPEECH, they have to deal with it.
Part of the problem seems to be that ANY picture of Mohammed is sacrilege. That's why you'll even see favorable representations of him with his face scratched out. (Christianity went through something similar once; hence the term iconoclast, one who smashes icons.)
I think I've made my thoughts on the absolute importance of free speech and the inherent absurdity of religion quite clear, so hopefully no need to expound.
LoJo you are 100% correct on this one.
And that's what happens when you take too long to proofread your note. Everybody already said what you wanted to say...
Lojo-
All I said is that the State Department took the right side on this. I also believe the State Department was on the right side when it criticized the Soviets for persecuting Jews, when it criticized the Taliban for blowing up the Buddhist statues and when it criticized Islamic extremists in the Philippines for taking Christian Missionaries captive.
As for Malkin, Carlson and you, I would think you would defend the right of all religions to protest these kinds of desecrations, not just their own. As far as I can tell, the media have covered "piss Christ," Kanye West as Christ and Osama bin Laden as Christ, so I'm not sure why the media should ignore Muslims being upset at this.
Finally, it is one thing for Christians to be outspoken about something, say, Terri Schiavo. It is another thing to get Congress to pass a special law at the 11th Hour that violates the sanctity of marriage. That's when we are talking "Christian Taliban."
Toni-
You are 100 percent as clueless as Lojo.
Max -
I have ZERO problems with protests.
"Early Friday, Palestinian militants threw a bomb at a French cultural center in Gaza City,"
"“Bin Laden our beloved, Denmark must be blown up,” protesters in Ramallah chanted."
"An imam at the Omari Mosque in Gaza City told 9,000 worshippers that those behind them should have their heads cut off.
“If they want a war of religions, we are ready,” Hassan Sharaf, an imam in Nablus, said in his sermon."
"In the Indonesian capital Jakarta, more than 150 hard-line Muslims stormed a high-rise building housing the Danish Embassy and tore down and burned the country’s white and red flag. The government ordered police to upgrade security at embassies across the capital."
"In London, hundreds of demonstrators converged on Denmark’s Embassy and burned the Danish flag. Women wearing headscarves chanted and held banners proclaiming: “Kill the one who insults the Prophet.”"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11097877/
Are THESE protests??
THAT is what the muslims are doing. And your saying I'M clueless? Have you READ they're placards? They're demanding beheadings, assassinations, and death. That is not a protest. Thats an incitement to violence.
The ones boycotting Danish goods? No problem, there are some doing it. The ones demanding apologies and a ban on reprints? Go for it! That's what free speech is about, the right to criticize. The ones denouncing the depictions and so forth? I have no problem with that at all.
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/0602...mJ2BHNlYwNzc3M-
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/0602...mJ2BHNlYwNzc3M-
THIS I have a problem with.
Ah Max: One more personal insult to ad to my list from you.
Current List:
Idiot, Stupid, Nimrod and now Clueless.
Max.. I do not think anyone hear gives a rats ass what you think of me.
A person who slings personal insults with anyone who does not think exactly like they do is just
so boring.
I wish you would save your key strokes for some activity that is more fitting of you amazing intellect.
Hey I have an idea why don't you run for president or start a cult?
Lojo-
Please re-read what I wrote. I said the State Department was right for coming out with its statement. I also understand why the Muslims are upset and that Malkin and Carlson are idiots for denying Muslims the right to be upset. Never, though, did I say it was okay for Muslims to riot or call for beheadings, etc.
I'm on to you, Max. No one could post such utterly moronic comments unless they were just trying to provoke a reaction, and didn't really believe them. You ARE a clever . . .
Jazz,
Good tip. I often do just what you warned of on short trips, but I'll be extra sure to buckle up EVERY time now.
first principals. The Newspaper was not wrong to publish political cartoons. The people are not wrong to protest the newspaper's actions. Be that as it may, I think there is a high likelihood that these people are taking themselves far too seriously.
Protesting is one thing, death threats, armed protesting, surrounding EU buildings and threatening to kidnap the people inside? That goes to far. But even if they have the right to protest, what really pisses me off is the fact that they think its ok to behave like this but also have no problem with Muslims flying into buildings and killing thousands of people they don't.
BTW, Max, you are absolutely and utterly WRONG. The state department couldn't have been more wrong in what they said, they shouldn't be criticizing the paper, they should be criticizing the terrorist/protestors.
Max, you are such a freakin idiot, it's unbelievable.
As far as I can tell, the media have covered "piss Christ," Kanye West as Christ and Osama bin Laden as Christ, so I'm not sure why the media should ignore Muslims being upset at this.
Of course they covered those things, and no one is asking them not to cover this story. No one is asking them to "ignore Muslims being upset at this." Where are you getting that from? Please, tell me, because it's completely unjustified by anything anyone has said here. What people here are saying is, the media shouldn't cowtow to fear (or political correctness or whatever) by refusing to even SHOW THE CARTOONS on their broadcasts or in their papers. When they repoted on Piss Christ, Kanye West, etc., the showed the offensive images, because they're NEWS!! That is what people here are complaining about -- the fact that the media is refusing to show us the images in question, and moreover, is saying that they're doing so "out of respect" when in reality, it's obviously they're doing it out of FEAR. If they were doing it out of RESPECT, presumably they wouldn't have shown us Piss Christ, Kanye West, etc.
Now, to respond to David...
what really pisses me off is the fact that they think its ok to behave like this but also have no problem with Muslims flying into buildings and killing thousands of people
David, I know you aren't intending to insult anyone here, but it's a gross and offensive generalization to say that Muslims as a group "have no problem" with terrorist attacks. You need to be more specific. Some Muslims have a problem with them, some don't. Are you saying that the particular Muslims who are protesting don't have a problem with terrorist attacks? If so, can you back that up with some evidence?
Michelle Malkin, like others, mischaracterizes what she calls the "dung-covered" image of the Blessed Mother. The painting was by Anglo-Nigerian artist Chris Ofili. He uses elephant dung in all of his art. Malkin and others made it seem like he painted a portrait of the Virgin and threw elephant dung at it; rather, he used the dung to create the painting. Weird to Americans; but to many Africans, elephant dung is a source of like. It's fuel, fertilizer, and a building material.
More controversial even than the dung was Ofili's use of photographs of female anatomy . . . but depictions of breasts and female sexual organs are very common in West African Yoruba art and connote fertility.
One of the many examples of art that challenges us to learn more about unfamiliar worlds and cultures -- and that has been hopelessly and ignorantly maligned.
Of course, Rudy Giuliani is perhaps not the first person I'd look to for art criticism. As Tina Fey joked in the middle of the scandal, "Giuliani said, 'This is not the kind of art I like to see when I go to the museum with my mistress.'"
Source of "life" that is. Saw-ree :).
I thought a major reason we went to war in Iraq was to spread freedom and democracy. I guess they don't want it.
The hispanic channel showed some of the cartoons. As biased as the hispanic channel is, I guess this is not something they feel they need to shield us from.
I like Hugh Hewitt's take best:
http://hughhewitt.com/archives/
2...dex.php#a001246
Basically, he says, "We should protect free expression, but face it: these cartoons were vulgar and stupid. We shouldn't be encouraging them to 'stick one to the Muslims'." We need to condemn the rioting Muslims, we should protect the cartoonists from violence, but we should also condemn their works as offensive. There is a medium here - we don't have to pick one because we condemn the other.
Toni-
You must have a lot of spare time on your hands to worry about what I said about you God knows when.
More on the cartoons:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article....aspx?
id=020306H
I hope Europe and the rest of the Western world wakes up and sees that Muslim extremism is a threat to the western way of life, to freedom and tolerance. No matter how offensive these cartoons are, it does not justify the violence and threats. When Muslim leaders not only decry the cartoons, but expect the government to do something, something meaning curtailing free speech, and the masses agree with them, you get a glimpse of what a Muslim majority can achieve in a democracy. Moderate Muslims cannot speak up out of fear, so the extremist voices are heard loud (I was going to say loud and clear but it is obvious many are not hearing clearly what they are saying, which is basically we dislike western freedoms and we do not plan to put it with them). Moreover, with the number of Muslims taking to the streets worldwide, and the knee jerk reaction to offer violence threats and not just peaceful boycotts, I am not convinced this is just limited to a few extremists, but indicative of how a large number (I do not have the numbers to say a majority, so I will only say a large number) of Muslims feel, worldwide. Oh and, this is not just because we invaded Iraq.
"I'm on to you, Max. No one could post such utterly moronic comments unless they were just trying to provoke a reaction, and didn't really believe them. You ARE a clever . . ."
I'm agreeing with the State Department, which is headed by Condi Rice who represents Bush. Are you saying Bush is moronic?
Brendan-
So it is okay for the media to show images that might incite further violence? Isn't the media trying to be responsible and prevent further bloodshed? Is that a bad thing?
The media is not trying to be responsible. The media is being irresponsible, because by not showing us what the actual images are, we are left to speculate how offensive they are this might stop some from decrying the violence and threats that have followed the cartoon's publications--not that not seeing the cartoons has stopped many Muslims from protesting and from violence and threats. Are you afraid that if they actually show the cartoon the protesters won't just threaten to bomb this or that, but will actually do it?
Brendan,
It is certainly true that some Muslims were upset with the events of 9/11, but the vocal minority/majority especially in many of he countries who are actually protesting this not only at a person to person level but at an official government level were either silent or cheering the terrorist on.
I'll have sympathy for Saudia Arabia et al's outrage once they stop supporting terrorism or at the very least actively ignoring it.
And i'll have sympathy for the protestors when they stop resorting to violence at the drop of a hat. As has been pointed out in the news and on the web they have no problem with wanting to wipe Israel off the map. Seems to me that genocide is a bit more of a religious outrage than violating their religious prohibition against drawing Mohammed.
And Max, no, the State Department made the absolute wrong decision. Whatever happend to standing up for freedom?
A slightly unconventional take from Tim Cavanaugh at Reason:
http://www.reason.com/links/
link...nks020306.shtml
Free expression advocates have made an effort to frame the Jyllands-Posten cartoons as a responsible attempt to broaden the conversation on religious freedom, when in fact (as several of the cartoonists themselves acknowledged) the stunt is unambiguously provocative, juvenile, offensive, and irresponsible. That's why it needs to be defended.
.
.
.
There isn't a single dictatorship in the Muslim world that isn't solicitous of the religious beliefs of its own population, that doesn't dish out harsh punishments for offenses against Islamic, and sometimes even Christian and Jewish, religious sensibilities. Religious respect, in other words, becomes another form of oppression. If that's the kind of respect freedom-minded Muslims can expect from the West, they're better off getting insulted.
Mr BS - if you believe that the US State Department is pro-Bush, have *I* got a bridge for *you* !
The State Department is a balkanized bunch of petty fiefdoms that has been a consistent embarrassment to the US for decades ...
When the State Department agrees with the Secretary of State, it's by coincidence usually, not often by intent ...
Think back to the State Department representative that told Saddam that the Kuwait border was not significant ... remember back then ?
So it is okay for the media to show images that might incite further violence? Isn't the media trying to be responsible and prevent further bloodshed? Is that a bad thing?
Interesting question, Max. Far more relevant and worthy of discussion that your previous comment, which I note you haven't retracted: "As far as I can tell, the media have covered 'piss Christ,' Kanye West as Christ and Osama bin Laden as Christ, so I'm not sure why the media should ignore Muslims being upset at this." Again -- NO ONE was saying the media should "ignore" this issue, merely that they should show the images, just like they did in those other cases you mentioned. You were completely misrepresenting the views of your opponents with what you said. Now, if you want to retract it, by all means go ahead. But until then, I can't see why anyone would want to engage you on this topic in a serious way, because even though your more recent comment is actually a reasonable question, it doesn't explain why you were previously making unreasonable comments that misrepresented people's views, and since you haven't acknowledged that, I see no reason to assume you won't engage in further misrepresentation as the conversation continues.
Max -
"So it is okay for the media to show images that might incite further violence? Isn't the media trying to be responsible and prevent further bloodshed? Is that a bad thing?"
Now that is a VERY reasonable argument. And a very realistic one. After the whole Koran debacle, its possible that they finally figured out that there are consequences for their actions in the media. That can people can die for a bad story and that, in this case, a good cause (i.e., Freedom of Speech).
But I see some problems with this. First, that this assumes responsibility on the part of the media, when their outright capitulation suggests fear more than anything else.
Second, that muslims are already infuriated by the initial run and then the reprints. Would they get much angrier if US media reprinted them? Maybe that is a bad question, but it goes to my third point.
Third, it is media capitulating to threats. Period. Whether their motives is not to cause violence or fear, it is still backing down in the face of threats to bomb and kill. Nothing less. And that is one DANGEROUS lesson to teach. It says the media has a glass jaw and if you give them one good sock, they'll be a nice obidient puppy.
And further on this point is that it makes a mockery of both their value on the Freedom of the Press and of the religions they had no problem criticizing and performing blasphemy on in time before. Christian groups protested and boycotted what they felt were earlier insults, yet the only way respect was shown from the media to a religion is when outright threats were made en masse.
So in short, Max (too late): Your position on that is certainly reasonable, but the media squandered that benefit of the doubt long ago on whether their motives were responsible.
And even if they are, it just illustrates to muslims that to get what they want from US media, they need to cry out for blood, bodies, and severed heads.
Are you saying that Muslim extremists tend to overreact?
http://comicspage.com/comicspage...dir=%
2Fsheneman
I think I'm with B. Minich awhile back - there's wrong on both sides of this issue.
Where the Muslims are wrong is clear and has been discussed at great length.
However, though the cartoonists have the 'right' to print whatever they want, I am not sure it is right for Western European newspapers to print them. (For comparison, David Duke and the KKK have the right to express harsh opinions against African-Americans and Jews, but I don't think that 'it's right' for the NYT to print such opinions on its Op Ed page).
As has been discussed at great length, the Muslim world is dying for a revolution, of ideas, opportunities, what have you. In many respects the Muslim culture is as rigid and narrow as the medieval Christian church.
If only Nixon can go to China, then only an Augustinian Monk named Martin Luther can shake up Western Christendom and drag it into modernity. In his time, Luther was 'one of them', which is to say a Catholic priest, so his provocations against the Pope and Cardinal Cajetan had the additional credibility, to the common folk, of an insider who was one of them.
As I understand it, Jyllands-Posten, and the other newspapers in question, primarily write to a Christian audience. I think its fine to condemn the manner of the Muslim response, but it feels weird to condemn them for being pissed off.
Imagine if the Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani went on Al-Jazeera, and said to the whole world that, not only was America evil (I am sure he has), but further that Christ was a clownish figure, some sort of used car salesman, a joke.
You think Pat Robertson and every other evangelical Christian wouldn't increase their cries for his head? I am very confident they would. In fact, while I wouldn't burn down an embassy, I would support harsh action against a religious outsider who so blasphemed Our Savior.
To Kanye West and Piss Christ - are Kanye West and the author of Piss Christ Muslims? I am guessing they are probably not, but I don't know. That seems to be a big factor.
In conclusion, I support the effort to bring freedom and new opportunity to the Middle East. I am not sure these cartoons are helping matters.
There's another dimension to this story that most people are missing. The Iman who distributed the cartoons to the M.E. added 3 more vile ones to the originals - in order to incite anger, I suppose?
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.co...ons-
linked.html
Hey Jazz,
I usually think your comments are thoughtful and interesting, but this latest one is definitely sub-par. You are making some of the same mistakes Max made earlier, which should give you pause.
For comparison, David Duke and the KKK have the right to express harsh opinions against African-Americans and Jews.
Holy bad analogies, Batman! Have you seen the cartoons? To compare their relatively mild flings at the "prophet" to virulent and violent racism is offensive.
I think its fine to condemn the manner of the Muslim response, but it feels weird to condemn them for being pissed off.
Fair enough, but most everyone is doing the former and not the later.
You think Pat Robertson and every other evangelical Christian wouldn't increase their cries for his head?
I expect they would, but I doubt even Robertson would be calling for the heads of Iraqis because of the comment of one prominent Iraqi.
In fact, while I wouldn't burn down an embassy, I would support harsh action against a religious outsider who so blasphemed Our Savior.
Really?! What "harsh action"? Based on previous posts of yours I have read, this sentence reflects a mindset I honestly didn't expect from you.
For what it's worth, I think your Nixon-to-China point has a lot of merit. You just buried it with too much silliness.
I think its great that the American media is choosing not to re-print the cartoons, and I think the State Department's statement was right-on, although I question why they felt compelled to say anything. (It doesn't seem terribly polite to scold the Danish newspaper when Danish soldiers are on patrol in Iraq)
What good would it do to re-print the cartoons, particularly when its easy to find them on the internet? And I understand that the media is usually giddy with delight over the prospect of printing images of "Piss-Christ" or the dung covered Virgin Mary, but they're probably wrong to do so. We shouldn't want them to do something that will piss people off just because that's what they usually do.
In fact, I think printing these cartoons would be even worse than printing images of Piss-Christ. These cartoons are not patently offensive--they're run-of-the-mill political cartoons. They're certainly not as offensive as Piss-Christ. But the wack-o's over in the Middle East are willing to kill innocent people over these cartoons. What possible good would reprinting the cartoons provide?
I certainly think this entire episode undermines an essential element of the Bush Doctrine...spreading democracy in the middle east will not result in political moderation. What the mid-east needs is liberalism--and I think this whole episode shows how far the Middle East is from achieving liberalism
Aaron,
I regret that the Nixon-to-China comment didn't stand out more in my prior post; I intended it as the centerpiece of my argument.
With regard to 'harsh action', I didn't mean military action...among other things, military action tends not to pay out financially. Harsh action might mean publicly saying "Damn you heretic!" which, depending on your reference point, isn't necessarily that harsh, I suppose.
I'm interested in your characterization of the cartoons as "relatively mild flings", and further that they are obviously less offensive than the racist vitriol of the KKK.
Consider this: my wife and I take our dog to various nursing homes on Saturday mornings. There's one particular fellow, he's 97, that our dog is quite fond of. As he hugs our dog, he tells us stories of his life.
He seems like a pretty nice guy, but when he has described interactions with African-Americans, he uses descriptors that in the 21st century are quite a bit more offensive than 'African-American'.
We chalk that up to his being from a different time, whatever, but since we're both white, its not really for us to say whether he's offensively racist.
Similarly, its not for me to say as a Christian whether a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb on his head is more offensive to a Muslim than the KKK rhetoric is to an African-American or Jew. I believe that it is problematic for me to make such a perception judgment for other folks.
I'll look to stay more on topic in future. No guarantees though :)
Jazz, your concept that since you are not a member of the group being targeted by a word idea means that you aren't in a position to say whether it's offensive is common, particularly among the more liberal elements of soceity. It's also, in my opinion, wrong. The fact that I grew up as a WASP (the fact that I'm actually agnostic means that the P no longer truly applies) doesn't mean that I don't find terms like "wetback" or "kike" or whatnot patently offensive--as terms, they're *designed* to be offensive, and they succeed admirably at it. It's very easy to go too far in trying not to pass judgment on others, to the point where you lose the ability to call a spade a spade (amusingly, that phrase itself is argued by some to be racially offensive). But, as Bea has often pointed out, being tolerant doesn't mean not taking a stand against those who are intolerant.
I too have elderly relatives I once spent a weekend with, who were very upset that the new neighbors were black, because somehow this was going to destroy their property value and lead to the destruction of the neighborhood. I did (and do) find this sentiment deeply offensive, and while I recognize that some of it can be chalked up to them being of a different era, I also had no problems telling the other relatives who asked why I didn't go back to their hourse for future Thanksgivings the actual reason.
Bottom line: even if you believe that morality isn't ordained by a higher being, there still are things which are right or wrong, good or bad, and yes, offensive or innocuous. If the only people who are allowed to state that something is offensive are those targeted by it, we're going to head even more into a culture of whining and victimhood than we already have. That's not a direction in which I'm willing to go.
Jazz,
Publicly saying "Damn you heretic!" is just fine by me. ;)
As for the rest, I'm having difficulty framing my reply. So I'm not sure this is going to make sense, but I'll give it a shot anyway.
I'm sure that it is true that many Muslims are just as offended by your "Mohammed with a bomb on his head" example as blacks are by the KKK or Jews by David Duke. And it may be that ultimitely there is no objective standard of offensiveness for us to measure these things against. But (and here's the part I'm having trouble expressing) I don't think there is anything wrong with us acting as if such an objective standard did exist. I might possibly be the most liberal regular (well, semi-regular) commenter here, but I am absolutely not a cultural relativist in this sense. I think it's perfectly rational for us to believe that "our culture is better than their's", to put it in overly simplistic terms. That our notions of what constitutes offensive rhetoric (and not just rhetoric, to be sure) are more reasonable. Now of course, "we" don't agree among ourselves. I don't happen to think that blasphemy is any sort of offense at all. You, I am sure, believe that it is. Possibly you even believe it is an offense on a par with racism (though I doubt it). I am sure, however, that you don't go to the extreme that fundamentalist Islam does: that blasphemy is an unpardonable offense, whereas racism is the natural order of things. On balance, modern western civilization takes a much dimmer view of racism than it does of blasphemy. In my view this is much the better position. And I see no problem with our society at least acting as if it were objectively better.
And Mike beats me to the punch. My only possible objection to his post would be a matter of abstract philosophy. Substantially, I agree with him 100%
And the fun continues. I would think that
D'oh, stupid slip of the fingers!!
I was TRYING to say....
I would think that this would constitute an act of war.
When someone feels the need to denegrate my faith, I simply ignore them and write them off as an ignorant asshole. Maybe I should start burning things to the ground instead. It looks like SO much more fun.
Mike,
I think I left out a critical detail in the nursing home story in my prior post:
Unlike your relatives, the man at the nursing home spoke affectionately of African-Americans. We wince when we hear *that* word, but we don't know him well enough to know the nuance of his affection, e.g. is he concealing substantial racism? and anyway a nursing home is a weird place to try to teach a stranger manners...
My point is this: I agree with you Aaron that we should act as if an objective standard exists. Racism is a societal evil, and if as a much younger person I used that type of language at work I should suffer negative consequences...
However, with Joe at the nursing home, there's a gray area. I wince, but I'm not sure if its actionable. On that point I would leave it to an African-American to decide, since their associations with those words are much more personal than mine, obviously.
Similarly, the photo of Mohammed with a bomb on his head makes me wince, and the comments of the KKK make me wince.
Both are clearly wrong. Which is worse, actually? Its not easy for this white Christian to say.
Ok, this is really really really simple.
Being offended by the cartoons : acceptable
Protesting bcecause of it: acceptable
Violent protests: unacceptable
Torching embassies: absolutely unacceptable
CNN/et al having a double standard: unacceptable
The State Departments response, siding with extremeists and not with free speech: unnacceptable
And then there is Alasdair, who is so predictable we should start calling him Old Faithful.
How did I know that you would somehow give the Bush administration a pass on this one? If it was Clinton's state department who said it you would be blaming the President left and right, but when Bush is President? You have got to be kidding me if you think that statement didn't get vetted by higher levels of leadership. Face it, they screwed up and you want to blame it on liberals. Bull.
CNN et al aren't necessarily acting with a double standard. By printing an image of "Piss Christ," no American embassies were going to be torched or innocent people murdered. This is different. The right-wing fundamentalist Christians don't have squat on these fundamentalist muslims. The later would probably cut your head off if you sneezed the wrong way
David - over the years I have dealings with the State Department and they are an arbitrary capricious bunch of bureaucrats who make *any* administration look bad ... I actually didn't blame Clinton for the idiocies of the State Department during his period, cuz he had no more real control over them than does our current Prez ...
Reno giving the orders that led to Brunch Davidian, yes, I blame Clinton's choice of Reno ... Shilala not allowing needle exchange - that's Clinton's again ... State Department being trous de cul, not Clinton's fault ...
CNN et al aren't necessarily acting with a double standard. By printing an image of "Piss Christ," no American embassies were going to be torched or innocent people murdered. This is different. The right-wing fundamentalist Christians don't have squat on these fundamentalist muslims. The later would probably cut your head off if you sneezed the wrong way
Ok i get it, so if I want CNN to stop printing offensive images of my religion the solution is to start torching embassies, makes perfect sense.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
