To the yahoos rioting in Europe and the Middle East over some cartoons being perceived as a blasphemous insult to yourselves and Islam:
- Grow up.
- The media in the West insult everyone. Religion is not protected from same. Look up US editorial cartoons on the Catholic Church and Televangelists, for example, some time. Hell, look up cartoons about George W. Bush in the Danish press some time. You’re not being singled out, and pitching a hissy-fit because your own ox was gored makes you look like a little kid having a tantrum.
- Speaking of little kids, in the US we have a saying for children: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.” It’s a difficult lesson to learn, to be sure, but a valuable one.
- Check out the editorial cartoons about Israel and Jews in Arab media some time. Do you really want to have the UN pass a resolution that would forbid giving offense to religion? Or are you just looking for special treatment for Islam?
- There are certainly real social issues with the treatment of immigrants and/or Moslems in Europe, and in the perceptions of Islam by Christians. On the other hand, issuing death threats and rioting in the face of provocative drawings doesn’t improve your cause any in getting those issues addressed.
- Adults settle their differences with words, preferably by persuasion, ultimately by social recourse — ostracizing those who who behave “badly.” If you choose to diplomatically, or even economically, isolate those responsible for this purported insult — boycotting Danish products, to take an overly-broad example — that is at least a civilized and mature response. Performing, threatening, and condoning threats and acts of violence is, even in the face of provocative insults (like having one’s flag burned or being called a Great Satan) is, well, childish.
- We have a legal maxim in the West, too: cui bono? Ever think that some of your leaders (social, political, religious) who are busy telling you that it’s a good idea to riot, burn cars, torch shops, and ransack embassies might have reasons of their own to do so? Either to direct your anger to their ends, or to direct it away from themselves? Just a thought.
- Oh, and, by the way … grow the hell up. Yeesh.
Sincerely,
Me
64 view(s)
I really don’t get fundamentalist extremism. My four-year-old has more maturity than the lot of these bastiches.
Well said.
While I agree…
That is not how things seem to work in this country.
A few reminders:
A crucifix in a cup of urine.
A picture of Mary covered in Elephant dung.
An episode of South Park in which Mary was show having a period.
The movie Dogma.
The movie The last temptation of Christ.
The TV show Book of Daniel.
A guy that attacks the Olypics, abortion clinics, and a gay bar because they were offensive to god.
All religious fundamentalist are the same really….just that the tactics differ.
Also…look at how the Isreali and the Pro-isreali press depicts the Arabs…pot/kettle.
The way I look at it is like this…Islam has been around 1200 years…what was Europe like in the 1200’s?
This is where theocracy really becomes a problem. If religion and state are one, then the state is obliged to follow religous precepts. If all images of the Prophet are blasphemous, then how does the state stand up to those who would injure another over a religous matter? (Islam prohibits the depiction of any people or animals in its art – only plants, geometric designs and Arabic charaters are sanctioned.) A heirarchy of importance of rules is born where religous precepts trump individual rights. Theocracy protects religion.
Now I know that much of the rioting is not government sanctioned, but this attitude is prevasive in countries that allow fundamentalist groups to exist. And riotious behavior is infectious. Individuals that would not be violent on their own are often brought to voilence by the mob. And I can’t think of anything worse than religous based violence.
While I agree that some folks here in the US express outrage at the drop of a hat, especially when religion is involved, I don’t recall rioters tearing up the studios (or offices thereof) of the makers of Dogma or The Last Temptation, I don’t recall Catholic Church reps calling for the stoning or execution of the artist behind “Piss Christ” or the makers of South Park, etc.
The occasional whacko? Sure. Some nuts will commit unconscionable violence (or offer death threats) on behalf of any ideology (including nontheistic ones). It’s said, it’s reprehensible, and it’s human nature.
But that’s different from what seems to be going on in Europe and in various Islamic countries in response to this. Most of the public debate for action over “Piss Christ” in the US was whether it should have received public funding through the NEA, not whether the artist should be burned to death in the museum that hosted the artwork. Most of the calls for action on the movies and TV shows mentioned foscused on boycotts (which I may disagree with in any of the cases mentioned, but which are a social and civilized response to offense — freedom of expression doesn’t mean freedom from consequences, except from the law), not on beheadings and looting.
Tactics do matter. The ends don’t justify the means, because the means influence the ends. People get offended for a variety of reasons. How they react to it means something.
(As to the age of Islam in the world vs. Christianity — I don’t necessarily buy the argument, nor does it speak to how I expect Moslems, and Islamic nations, to act today — unless the conclusion is that the West actually does need to take them over and treat them as as-yet-immature children with guns, a conclusion I reject as well).
Stan said, “The way I look at it is like this…Islam has been around 1200 years…what was Europe like in the 1200’s?”
Does that mean we can expect at least 700 years of this crap and worse.. in the nuclear age?
On the bright side, look at the track record of Muslims in the USA. They haven’t been torching Danish embassies here so I’d have to say that this isn’t intrinsic to Islam.
Hear hear, Dave.
On the one hand, I understand why they’re offended. If you’re raised that respect = not making fun of X, then making fun of X is disrepectful, and there’s no way for the Danish paper to talk its way out of that. The artist and the paper that published the cartoons were disrespectful.
However. Descending to the level (or lower) of the person making fun of X is not appropriate. You’ve lost even more respect for X than the people responsible for mocking it, both in the world and in your own eyes. If you truly respect something, you don’t need to lash out against mockery or questioning, because you know that what you respect is strong enough to defend itself against small and childish things.
Personally, I abhore and despise organized religion in general, which is one of many reasons why I am agnostic.
That said, I can see where they would be deeply offended by this.
The cartoons themselves violate one of the tenets of Islamic teaching, that you do not depict Muhammad. Regardless of the content, the cartoons themselves are an insult to their faith because of the implied idolatry of them. I can’t even come up with an appropriate Western religious comparison, the basic culture is so different.
To put it another way, how do you think Catholics would respond if an Islamic artist started distributing posters of people using crucifixs as sexual aids or to perform abortions? With death threats or riots, no. With media or military attacks, likely. How long ago was the ‘War on Christmas’ bandied about in the press and people attempting to stir up freakin’ stupid economic pressure against businesses with signs reading ‘Happy Holidays’?
We simply don’t understand their response, and it looks as childish to us as it does, because we trivialize religion in the west to something we practice a couple days of the week and treat very much as a social event or gathering. For them, it is one of the central components of their lifestyle.
With death threats or riots, no. With media or military attacks, likely.
With death threats? A few whackos, sure. With riots? Unlikely (did “Piss Christ” cause riots?). With media attacks? Certainly. With military attacks? Hell, if Dubya was going to attack anyone who published deeply offensive (to him at least) material, the entire world would be a glazed glass parking lot.
Certainly the pictures were offensive to Moslems. And the appropriate way to express that is with rhetorical outrage, and political, social, even economic pressure. Responding with bricks and petrol and death threats doesn’t win the argument — or it had better not.
DOF comments (and links back).
Offended Muslims, Catholics, Baptists, etc. need to realize: free speech is not a little appendage to be tacked onto society when it is convenient and comfortable. Free speech makes for a vibrant nation and world; it is the enemy of tyranny, of medievalism, of crime and corruption. While every offended idealism tries to carve out a little exception for itself, immune from the criticism that other idealisms must endure, in the end such exceptions are both self-serving and self-defeating. Your religion/interest-group/victim-group or whatever will only be weakened by such protection, because you’ll be less adapted to reality.
Bitterly ironic quote of the day:
Demonstrators shouted “death to Denmark” and “death to France”. They called for the expulsion of diplomats and soldiers, who were sent by both countries as part of international efforts in the US-led “war on terror”.
“They want to test our feelings,” protester Mawli Abdul Qahar Abu Israra told the BBC.
“They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and to their newspapers,” he said.