For What Reason Other Than to Offend?
The outrage over the cartoons that a Danish publication (followed by European publications) depicting the prophet Muhammad has reached immense proportions and it is hard to speak against violent reaction for a few different reasons. Firstly, if you do not know by now that Muslims are incredibly devoted to their faith and that any charicature of Muhammad is generally forbidden, especially one depicting him as a mass murderer, check your pulse. Not to say that Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Scientologists are not devoted to their faith/science fiction story turned Gospel, but it is certainly fair to say that Muslims are more thin-skinned and defensive of their faith than others. It does not help matters when Danes are already known for their "Islamophobia."
This was a senseless act of irresponsibility on the European media's part, especially the Danish. While they have the right to express what they wish, a commitment to responsibility and integrity should be maintained above all else. That we have the freedom to express ourselves and say what we please does not mean that we cannot be held accountable and reprimanded for irresponsible, hateful actions. Have some respect and some integrity. Have some cultural awareness. Let your thoughts preceed your actions.
While you may argue that Muslims are overreacting- and you can, a Muslim would tell you they are fulfilling their responsibility to their faith by condemning this depiction of their sacred prophet. And the depiction was so hateful and so bigoted and deserves to be met with scorn and outrage. What people fail to recognize is that the Muslim faith is one that has been abused by some of its followers for a long time- different 'spinoffs' of the Muslim faith have come to be, like Wahabiism for example, that misinterpret what their faith means by the term jihad. A true Muslim would tell you that a jihad is a spiritual, internal battle to better one's self, and NOT a philosophy that is oppressive and promotes death to all those who do not believe what you believe. The latter is what we are fighting against. When irresponsible European media permit such filth that equates good-natured, devout Muslims with radicals, it undermines everything we try to achieve in preventing the spread of radical Islam and promoting democracy. It puts us in a very awkward position, having to speak against this nefarious portrayal of Islam and concurrently defend freedom of speech.
Kofi Annan summarizes my perspective, "I am distressed and concerned by this whole affair," he said. "I share the distress of the Muslim friends, who feel that the cartoon offends their religion. I also respect the right of freedom of speech. But of course freedom of speech is never absolute. It entails responsibility and judgment."
This was a senseless act of irresponsibility on the European media's part, especially the Danish. While they have the right to express what they wish, a commitment to responsibility and integrity should be maintained above all else. That we have the freedom to express ourselves and say what we please does not mean that we cannot be held accountable and reprimanded for irresponsible, hateful actions. Have some respect and some integrity. Have some cultural awareness. Let your thoughts preceed your actions.
While you may argue that Muslims are overreacting- and you can, a Muslim would tell you they are fulfilling their responsibility to their faith by condemning this depiction of their sacred prophet. And the depiction was so hateful and so bigoted and deserves to be met with scorn and outrage. What people fail to recognize is that the Muslim faith is one that has been abused by some of its followers for a long time- different 'spinoffs' of the Muslim faith have come to be, like Wahabiism for example, that misinterpret what their faith means by the term jihad. A true Muslim would tell you that a jihad is a spiritual, internal battle to better one's self, and NOT a philosophy that is oppressive and promotes death to all those who do not believe what you believe. The latter is what we are fighting against. When irresponsible European media permit such filth that equates good-natured, devout Muslims with radicals, it undermines everything we try to achieve in preventing the spread of radical Islam and promoting democracy. It puts us in a very awkward position, having to speak against this nefarious portrayal of Islam and concurrently defend freedom of speech.
Kofi Annan summarizes my perspective, "I am distressed and concerned by this whole affair," he said. "I share the distress of the Muslim friends, who feel that the cartoon offends their religion. I also respect the right of freedom of speech. But of course freedom of speech is never absolute. It entails responsibility and judgment."
posted by DM at 1:33 PM
15 Comments:
CH,
I understand where you come from, but Christians did not take to the streets when a so-called artist (reputed to be funded by our own NEA) submerged a picture of Jesus in a vat of urine and called it "Piss Jesus". Neither did Christians burn buildings and cars when there was a picture of Jesus entwined with his homosexual lover draped in the American flag.
Christians come under serious criticism when the speak out for the sanctity of marriage, or prayer in school, or many of the other ideas they hold as being part of their religion, from the left, while they call others to be more "understanding" when Muslims react in bestial rage and kill and destroy over something like this. I also rarely see the left speaking out against the prolific sacrilege so prevelent in our society--no protest over "The Last Temptation of Christ", no protest from the left for "The Book of Daniel", etc., etc. As a matter of fact, CH, I never heard anyone on the left do anything but defend the above "artists" right of free expression.
I err on the side of freedom of speech, and can never condone the primitive and evil behavior exhibited by others simply because they are offended by what they say or do. One cannot excuse , condone, or even remotely justify the behavior of such anymore than one can explain the behavior of those who killed James Byrd, Jr. or that young homosexual boy.
http://newssnipet.blogspot.com/2005/05/newsweak_17.html
-Jack
P.S. I think I understand where you come from, CH, but I don't think that we can ever defend these people and their violence because they are simply offended. The world is full of offensive people. NL's has made offensive remarks against Christians, our media has demonized Jews--and no one in the world is more often disparaged and profaned than God or Jesus himself, but while we should caution others to be more sensitive toward others (should I say "more Christian"?:) we should condemn with much vigor the greater evil. (Just my opinion)
CH,
Here is a site with Arab cartoons of offensive nature also:
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm
Of course, the sad thing is that I think that many on the left will agree with them...
-Jack
I believe the cartoon issue is very much a free-speech issue. As I have stated before (and love to repeat), freedom of speech was cherished and nurtured by this nation's founders primarily because it offers protection to offensive statements. Freedom of speech is intended to protect those who say offensive things. People who say nice, agreeable things don't really need any special protections, do they? But if they say something that offends someone, they deserve the right to say it without being stifled, and other have the freedom to disagree with equal offensiveness, if that's what they want to do.
So, the cartoonist and their publisher have the right to publish the cartoon, the offended Muslims have the right to protest it, but if they demand censorship, then they're only demonstrating why the cartoon was drawn in the first place.
Jack, you're wrong that "Christians come under serious criticism when they speak out for the sanctity of marriage". If that's the way you've interpreted it, you're really missing the message.
Here is what has really happened:
Some christian sects, while piously claiming to "speak out for the sanctity of marriage" are actually just condemning the sanctity of marriage for homosexual relationships. They used to claim homosexuality was wrong because, among other things, it encouraged promiscuity. Yet, when a homosexual couple wants to form a legal, commited relationship through marriage, those same "Christians" comdemn that, too. Therefore, they are not "speak[ing] out for the sanctity of marriage", they are speaking out against the sanctity of marriage for homosexuals. They want to prevent people from getting married. They just twist the words around to sell their attempts to enforce their religious dogma on the rest of us through legislation.
Hi Jack,
Good to hear from you as always. Now I am always one to make a joke about anything and everything- including myself- when not inappropriate though (I love how I worded that, because its never actually appropriate to make). I think that if we were not bogged down in this global movement to suppress and end Islamic terrorism and hatred I would not be so offended. There are always combinations of factors that play in, the Danes relationship with the Muslim community for one. Also, I imagine that many Muslims feel oppressed by the war we are fighting, because it is often grossly misinterpreted. That and all of the mismanagement that may have gone into this- I feel that our country needed to better understand that region of the world beforehand and our country had the wrong strategy. My overall point: it really puts us in a very awkward position, as always, since we promote freedom in all aspects of life and then we have to pick and choose. Condemn the cartoon and speak out against it? Defend our 1st amendment at the same time? It is just a nuisance. I do not think it was meant to be funny, but to only insult. I can see a bunch of military officers sitting around the huge table at the Pentagon, with that huge digital map in the background with all crazy ass technology everywhere, like in the movies, just saying 'aw shiiiiiit' when this started to escalate. That is why I think it was irresponsible and unnecessary.
My point that I make has nothing to do with liberalism and I do not react like the left does to a lot of things. Or the right but whatever. I do not and never have understood the assault on Christianity or where it comes from, since an overwhelming majority of people are Christian. I do not understand why voluntary prayer is offensive in public schools for example. So long as people can do it in silence and without making a spectacle of it, I could care less. You have to admit though, and I know you aren’t, but there is a lot of bigotry on the right as well and it does work both ways. As for the sanctity of marriage, the whole outrage over gay marriage was just silly to me. Who cares- and its not going to make marriage any less sacred. I mean, the so-called Christian red states have higher divorce rates than the liberal godless blue states, that’s not sanctity to me. But anyway I do see where you are coming from, as always, and I tried to give some recognition of that perspective by (perhaps tersely) mentioning that Muslims are far more thin-skinned than any other religious group- especially Christians. But again, my point was not about assaulting a lack of compassion, as much as it was a lack of perspective. I have always had disdain for how horribly religion is abused in our world today.
I am not against freedom of speech. I am against obnoxiousness and stupidity. I mean, they are part of the coalition of the willing, all 600 of them or whatever, and Muslims do need to relax. But they always flip out because of stuff like this.
I do not think it was meant to be funny, but to only insult.
No, if you do a little reading, and look at the article that accompanies the drawings, you will see that they were meant to provide and example, and be an experiment. The article discusses the self-censorship that the West is imposing on itself because of Muslim "sensibilities". The point of the article was that Western journalists are censoring themselves out of fear of the Muslim reaction to anything perceived as an insult.
Looks like the experiment showed exactly what the article was talking about. There are many hardline Muslims that are overreacting to these photos. Are there people in this world that disagree with the teachings of Islam? Yes. I'm one of them. Does the expected Muslim reaction mean I cannot speak out against Islamic teachings? Apparently that is what you are saying.
And the depiction was so hateful and so bigoted and deserves to be met with scorn and outrage.
Have you seen the photos? I have to assume you have not, because they are essentially harmless. The worst one depicts Mohammed with a bomb for a turban. Given the method Mo used to "spread the faith" (i.e., conversion by the sword) and how an awful lot of his followers now turn to bombs to "defend" their faith, that's hardly an inaccurate depiction. Insulting? Yes, a little, but so is the fact that people justify their murderous rampages on the teachings of Mohammed.
Many brave people have fought and died to preserve our freedom of speech. To advocate sitting by and throwing it away because you are afraid of insulting radical Muslims stuck in a medievel mindset makes me sick.
Islam should be subject to the same biting criticism and parody that every other religious, political, and social institution faces. There is nothing special about Islam that makes it immune. Other than the willingness of an awful lot of its adherents to commit violence in its name. And the willingness of too many people to capitulate to that violence.
But they always flip out because of stuff like this.
So that means we have to give up our freedoms? I call bullshit. Its time Islam grew up and stopped being the spoiled little baby of world religions, throwing tantrums whenever it doesn't get its way.
Islamists print the most vile and disgusting stories and cartoons in their hometown papers, they just concern Jews and Christians. Fucking hypocrites.
Sorry for the language. But the utter hypocrisy of the Muslims is too much to take.
You dont have to apologize. Because it is. And youre right about every point you make. Youre not wrong at all, none of you are. And this is the type of reaction I expected from everyone when I posted. I just dont think it was necessary to have such an experiment. We have seen their reactions enough that there was no point to prove. I dont want anyone to think that there is no element of hypocrisy here or that they are the victims- although the tone of my writing did make it seem as such. Part of it was where it came from, a Danish publication, and the fact that you have to know that this would happen. And the whole fact that it will only further fuel their rage when we are supposed to liberating and all that stuff. I wouldnt have fired anyone or burned down a mosque, and had I sat down for a bit and thought it through my tone would have been different. But it was pointless because the point that muslims flip out about anything was proven quite a while ago. I still find it underming.
And I still love you all even if you swear at me and disagree.
When I say bigoted and hateful, hyperbolic as it sounds, Ive read enough about Danish and Muslim relations that I feel that to be true.
"Sloppy reporting is cause for concern and criticism. It is not cause for death and destruction."
That is from Jack's post via Ralph Bristol during the Newsweek debacle.
I did kind of promote the destruction part here, sorry. I really should have said, 'what do you expect?' instead of saying it should be met with scorn and outrage. Is this behavior excusable? No. Should it have been expected if something like that were printed? Yes. Does that mean stuff like that should not be printed? No. I would say to Christianity, dont be upset because they start chaos and mayhem and you do not get enough credit for being civil, take solace in the fact that Christianity does have the moral high ground. The problem is, civility and tranquility do not make a good news story for the garbage media.
But have I been ambivalent and flip-flopping on this topic? Yes and no.
Is that a paradoxical statement? Yes.
...and no.
Sorry so long in getting back, CH!
I kind of did my usual "Devils advocate" thing in my reply. Got stir the soup or it sticks to the pan :)
Shea, I agree with you also concerning a lot of people who call themselves Christian. But it is a belief system and a religious/moral one that activates them. Being for the sanctity of marriage for many would be to deny bestiality, polygamy, incest, etc., etc. So believing "in" something can include the exclusion of another.
-Jack
Post a Comment
<< Home