While the New York Times and most other papers in the United States refuse to run the cartoons that have inflamed radical Muslims–and I say “radical” because I’d like to think that the majority of Muslims would actually, y’know, follow the Prophet’s teaching and react to criticism with patience rather than violence–the University of Illinois student newspaper, “The Daily Illini,” ran an assortment of them.
And why not? A dozen pictures that would have been here today, gone tomorrow if radicals hadn’t made them a cause celebre have become a major news item. So the newspaper ran some of them.
The result? Angry protests from students and the newspaper editor has been relieved of duty. World reaction in microcosm.
The most laughable reaction is the Iranian newspaper that wants to run cartoons lampooning the Holocaust. This despite the fact that the cartoons ran in Denmark and had nothing to do with Jews, Israel, or the Holocaust. Perhaps it’s because a contest for cartoons lampooning Danish pastries doesn’t seem ripe for humor. Or perhaps Muslims have yet to encounter a problem that they can’t blame on the Jews. Most likely they consider cartoons attacking Jews to be “payback.” As far as Jews are concerned, Muslims lambasting Jews isn’t called “payback.” It’s called “SOP.”
There is nothing–I repeat, nothing–that some Iranian newspaper can run that’s going to get the average Jew to do anything other than roll his eyes and say, “Yeah, whatever.” We’re sure not going to start burning down Iranian restaurants or embassies over it.
This entire business has been revelatory. It underscores the complete Muslim disconnect between their own actions and others. Anti-semitism, anti-Americanism, insults and lambasting of others based upon race, color and creed is completely ingrained into their culture. But at the same time they demand complete respect for their beliefs from others who DO NOT SHARE THEM. They demand from others what they would not even remotely consider dispensing themselves.
And it underscores the complete chickenshit nature of governments here and abroad who seem far more eager to condemn the publishers of the cartoons than the overreactions to them. “How can someone provoke the Muslims?” people wonder. I wonder how people can NOT provoke them, or at least provoke their extremist factions who are determined to sell the idea that the world is out to get them. (Then again, if Christians can try to claim that they’re under attack in the ninety-percent Christian United States, I suppose anything is possible.)
Governments are trying to sell the notion that we must all be careful to be sensitive to the religious beliefs of others. Which is nonsense. Cartoons trashing Jews are standard in newspapers throughout the Arab world and I don’t see the U.N. making a stink about it. No, the truth is that various governments want to show respect for Muslim beliefs in the same way that one shows respect for a test tube of nitro glycerin: You don’t REALLY give a dámņ about its preachings. You just want to make sure not to shake it up so it doesn’t go off.
If the answer to free speech is more free speech, then apparently the answer to intolerance is more intolerance. Don’t say to the Arab world, “It’s a dámņëd cartoon, get a grip. And if you don’t like it, then how about cleaning up your own house by eliminating the practices that cause the world to see you as a bunch of dangerous, violent psychos, drowning out the teachings of peace and tolerance that your Prophet puts forward.” Say instead to everyone else, “Don’t get the Muslims upset because they’ll blow you up.”
What the hëll is it with extremists anyway that they use historical figures who preached the ways of peace to justify the ways of war?
PAD
• 
What do I blame Clinton for? I love the guy. The Republicans could have never captured both houses in a million years without him (Not that they’ve proven to be much better than the Democrats vis a vis the corruption of power but change can be good).
Seriously, I think he’s a bit of a creep but if I’ve “blamed” him for many of today’s ills…well, I must have mellowed on the guy because I mostly see him as a forgettable figure at this point. I do have some high hopes for his wife.
If I haven’t been clear on this, I’ve found the current administration’s statements on the cartoon controversy as mealy mouthed at best. But I found Clinton’s to be actively unhelpful, even possibly dangerous. It’s one thing to try to placate the masses (though I think what is really needed is a cold slap of reality to the Muslim countries–this is how it is, deal with it, and watch out how far you try to take it) with the usual “we must try to understand each other” platitudes but what Clinton said seems to have given hope to those crazies who actually think that they might be able to change our freedoms if they kill enough people and issue enough threats.
I’m willing to agree that his purpose was probably not to do that–indeed, his statement that I would not be surprised if the person who drew those cartoons and the newspaper publisher who decided to print them did not even know that it was considered blasphemous to have any kind of personal depiction of the Prophet to Muslims. reveals that he is woefully ignorant of the history of how this happened and was probably winging it. Given the fact that he has no small amount of credibility with these countries I think he should be very very careful with winging it.
As for becoming a Democratic liberal–it takes more than disagreeing with Bush to be a Democratic liberal, though for too many that’s become the only requirement, which accounts for their having to associate with people that they would normally avoid in more rational times. My enthusiasm for Bush is much diminished, though it doesn’t follow that I now find his opponents any better (I could bring up Al Gore’s amazing speech to the Saudis where he seemed to suggest that Bush’s problem is that he hasn’t been deferential enough to Muslims but kicking Al Gore at this point is a bit like kicking Lyndon Larouch).
The danger in this kind of thinking (and I know your tongue was firmly implanted in your cheek but others take this very seriously) is that for some the opposite also holds true–if they ever agree with a policy favored by the administration they might well be on the way to becoming–wit for it–conservative Republicans! Ack! Get the crucifix and holy water! So you get knee jerk reactions based on a simple “If A proposes it, I oppose it” kind of thinking (if one wishes to be very generous with the definition of the word “thinking”).
It’s one thing to try to placate the masses
I think one thing that really needs to be taken into consideration here is: does our government have any other choice?
And I mean that in a serious manner.
Saudia Arabia is one of our top suppliers of oil. Countries & companies throughout the Middle East are holding tons of our debt (which Bush has been as rampant about as the USSR & USA were in the 80’s).
In a nutshell – they’ve got us by the balls.
Couple this with the fact that our economy is also hog-tied by Asian nations, and it’s no wonder that our motto is becoming “Speak loudly, but have no ability to back it up”.
We went after Iraq because, on the surface, going after they would have no impact. Obviously it’s not worked out that way, and for more than just economic (ie, oil) reasons.
I mean, when you look at the top five countries that supply us with oil, what do you see?
Saudi Arabia (there’s a real winner)
Venezuela (Chavez = total frigging nutter)
Nigeria (has anybody seen what’s going on in that country lately?)
Some of these countries could really make our lives miserable, and you know that with China being the up and comer, a Saudia Arabia probably wouldn’t have many qualms about following Iran’s lead in dealing with the gorilla of the East.
So, again, with the kinds of things that other countries can hold over our heads, is it any surprise our government is so unwilling to show that we really do respect our freedoms?
(Note, this doesn’t even go into the issue of whether our government itself finds ways of disrespecting those same freedoms on their own.)
It seems to me that refraining from criticizing your own side (in this case the West) when criticism is appropriate, because you fear weakening your own side or seeming to appease the other side (the Muslim world in this case), is a mistake, and usually ends up strengthening the people you were trying not to strengthen, and weakening the people you wanted strong. This has been my experience.
In this case, criticizing the cartoons only highlights several critical points:
1) defending someone’s freedom of speech does not mean endorsing the message.
2) The west as a whole is not looking for ways to gratuitously offend Islam.
3) The west is pluralistic.
4) There are proper ways to speak against an opinion you disagree with.
5) People in the west are not ignorant or insensitive to the importance of the prophet for muslims.
Having made these points the second part of the message, i.e. the unqualified insistence on freedom of speech, is only strengthened.
The second question is, do the cartoons deserve criticism by us? I believe yes. The insensitivity towards the Islamic Taboo against drawing the prophet seems gratuitous. It does not seem to serve any artistic or political purpose worthwhile.
Christians are quite entitled to criticize the Da Vinci Code if they find the message not to their liking. The way Jews did with Mel Gibson’s movie (Braveheart — Jews don’t like men in skirts), or Munich. However, since the Da Vinci Code seems to be more an entertainment piece than a real political or theological message, criticizing it may make them look silly. But that is also part of the risk of having free speech. Sometimes you’ll get criticized, at others you’d look silly.
// Pornography is another interesting freedom of speech issue. On the one hand you have the ideal of freedom of speech, which I very much support. At the other there is feminism, which I also ordinarily support. I the middle there is also the question of whether society is better off when sexuality is more or less repressed? //
In reguards to Feminism and pørņ, it should be noted that many of the early Playboy models considered themselves Feminist. By posing in the 50’s they saw themselves as striking back against the sexually represive sociaty that repressed woman at the same time it repressed sexuality.
People seem to forget that the woman’s lib movement and the sexual revolution went hand in hand for a while before the pendulum started to swing the other way.
Many of those early centerfolds were quite taken back in the 70’s when they suddenly became the enemy.
So to answer your question, yes pørņ and feminism can co-exist, it’s just that they currently don’t want to.
The second question is, do the cartoons deserve criticism by us? I believe yes. The insensitivity towards the Islamic Taboo against drawing the prophet seems gratuitous. It does not seem to serve any artistic or political purpose worthwhile.
I guess part of my issue is that I fundamentally disagree with that. Only two of the cartoons seemed to me to be critical of Mohammad in any way. The only “crime” the others had was that they portrayed Mohammad at all and I’m sorry, that’s THEIR taboo, not mine. Historically it’s not even terribly accurate. I don’t think it’s in the Koran. But then, neither is murdering school kids in the name of Allah, which seems to be a lot less objectionable to the Arab Street.
I believe that saying “Jehovah” is explicitly forbidden by several groups. Should newspapers respect this tradition? If not, why not? Other than the fact that I’m not aware of any organized campaign to kill people who break the taboo.
I’m more than willing to consider the sensitivities of Muslims. But not at the point of a gun.
I believe that saying “Jehovah”
Stone him! Stone him!
TWL
(man, talk about a fat pitch…)
I knew I got that from a legit source.
“The second question is, do the cartoons deserve criticism by us? I believe yes. The insensitivity towards the Islamic Taboo against drawing the prophet seems gratuitous. It does not seem to serve any artistic or political purpose worthwhile.”
I think all satire–especially cartoon satire–requires insensitivity to its subject. It’s not gratuitous: It’s just the nature of the beast. The subject of such satire rarely thinks it serves any artistic or worthwhile political purpose. Just ask Tom Cruise who’s busy suing Parker and Stone for the “South Park” episode that depicts John Travolta begging him to come out of the closet.
In the Muslim instance, the thrust of the cartoons seemed to be that people are using the name of Mohammed to engage in barbaric and destructive behavior. The response? Engaging in barbaric and destructive behavior in the name of Mohammed. Apparently extremists make up in explosives and torches what they lack in sense of irony.
PAD
What’s interesting, Bill, is that I see things from the opposite side. I’ve always considered myself a political moderate. In fact, until last year, I had no intention of ever joining either party. Operation Fix Daddy’s Mistake was the last straw for me, and it’s proven to be every bit the quagmire that I thought it would be.
But the more I see of the Bush administration, the more I’m astonded that fewer people don’t see how both corrupt and incompetent they are. At the same time, I’m becoming less enchanted with Democratic side of the aisle because of their inability to capitalize on the situation. Bush hands them fûçkûp after fûçkûp, and they continue to prove that they don’t deserve to run the country either.
So now, instead of feeling more supportive of them, I’m being pushed back to my previous position of total neutrality.
The only “crime” the others had was that they portrayed Mohammad at all…
Which leads back to a question I’d asked earlier, and which I haven’t seen addressed anywhere, online or in print – HOW DO THEY KNOW? If the Qu’ran prohibits making an image of the Prophet, and he wrote or dictated it, then logically, there can have been no contemporary images made of him – at least, none that survived. They have no idea what Mohammed looked like. How do they know that the cartoons in question depict Mohammed, and not, say, his nephew Hussein? (And as far as I know, there’s nothing in the Qu’ran forbidding depictions of Hussein…)
Are they going to arrive at the gates of Paradise after death, only to be greeted by a Prophet who bears a striking resemblance to the love child of Ariel Sharon and Mikhail Gorbachev?
And would their faith survive such a revelation? 🙂
I assume they know it is Mohammad the same way you can recognize Jesus in a cartoon although there are no actual pictures of Jesus.
I think most of us agree that there are some cases in which we consider satire or other expression of freedom of speech to be too much or in bad taste or racist etc. The fact that we live in a world which respects freedom of speech enables us to have such discussions in a sane way. The Muslims undermined their own case both by their insensitivity to others and by their violent reaction. Still, like I said, we shouldn’t refrain from having this discussion because of the reaction by some Muslims.
Another question is, assuming we respect freedom of speech, when is being offended justified and when it does not? When would it be better if people censored themselves? Are feminists right in being offended by Playboy (feminists in Israel worked hard to stop the playboy channel froo airing, but lost)? Are they right that the fashion industry encourages anorexia? Were Jews right to be offended by Mel Gibson’s movie (the one where he can read women’s minds. That was stuoid)? Or are they just being annoying?
Recently there has been a commercial in Israel that I felt was extremely insensitive. It had American POW’s in Vietnam singing and dancing. I think Israelis would have been offended if you had Israli soldiers singing and dancing in one of our major wars. On the other hand, the producers opened in Israeli theaters (on stage, not the movie) without any problem.
I’ve read that there are feminists who are not against pørņ. But it is hard for me to judge. find some of the arguments by anti-pørņ feminists to be wrong. But I don’t fully understand what women see when they see pørņ. I’m not sure what “being sexually objectified” means. I’m a little concerned that that glamorous image of people like Pamela Anderson or Brittany Spears might make young women think that being sexually explicit is the easy path to glory and success. However, my biggest problem with Brittany is that she is considered a musician.
Micha, it’s not that people who are upset or offended by art or whatever are WRONG. There’s lots of truly offensive stuff out there. Not just offensive but obvious and boring as well. In fact, I’d say most of the art I’ve seen that was trying to be offensive was doing so, in my opinion, to make up for the lack of ability in the artist.
I have no problem at all with someone pointing this out. the problem with the Taliban, Anti-pørņ feminists, politically correct leftists and Jesse Helms right wingers is not that they are offended its that they are trying to keep anyone else from being offended. A laudable goal, I’m sure, but no thanks.
Personally, I rather enjoy when people I oppose resort to offensiveness. It supports my belief that they don’t have much else to work with. When some idiot burns a flag or marches with a sign that has Bush and Sharon with swastika and Hitler mustaches I’m tempted to see that they get a discount on gasoline and magic markers. They look stupid, they hurt their own cause. Bless ’em.
Den,
I don’t think the Democrats are beyond hope, though the negative view of the party among Democrats is one reason I doubt I’ll be signing up soon. At least you can find some Republicans who actually have some love for the party (though more and more are beginning to grumble that maybe a big loss in November might be a needed slap to the face of a party that has grown complacent in the majority).
The danger that the party is in right now is that it may go in one of two disastrous directions–a full on embrace of the Dailykos wackos which will result in a massive turn off of the sane left and moderate voters or an acceptance of their permanent minority party status as the party Powers That Be just do what is needed to keep their own seats safe. They will then have success only when the Republicans hand it to them, which will not inspire much in the way of loyalty or enthusiasm.
The hunger with which untried talents like Obama are embraced is evidence of the longing among the party faithful for an inspiring leader. The way the party leaders killed Paul Hackett’s campaign tells you that they won’t be passing the torch easily.
Either the Democrats will win in 2008 (following up on an almost certain win in 2006) or they will lose and in the bloodbath that follows (and it will be UGLY) there will be a purging, after which they will be well poised for a huge victory over a Republican Party that, it would seem, is no better at handling power than they are. Eventually we’ll get back to the split reigns of power that are probably for the best.
Call me Nostrodumbass but if anything REMOTELY like these predictions comes true I’m gonna print these out and get a job at the National Enquirer.
The spambots aren’t very creative these days.