…and this is a 
Pox-ridden houses
Category: Godlessness • Politics
Posted on: February 4, 2006 2:25 PM, by PZ Myers
I haven't commented on those Muslim cartoons so far. I'm conflicted.
Why, you might ask? It's a clear-cut case of religious insanity, exactly the sort of thing I ought to relish wagging an arrogantly atheistical finger at. And of course I will, in just a moment…but the difficult part is that there are actually at least two issues here, and religion is only one of them.
There are some things a cartoonist would be rightly excoriated for publishing: imagine that one had drawn an African-American figure as thick-lipped, low-browed, smirking clown with a watermelon in one hand and a fried chicken drumstick in the other. Feeding bigotry and flaunting racist stereotypes would be something that would drive me to protest any newspaper that endorsed it—of course, my protests would involve writing letters and canceling subscriptions, not rioting and burning down buildings. There is a genuine social concern here, I think. Muslims represent a poor and oppressed underclass, and those cartoons represent a ruling establishment intentionally taunting them and basically flipping them off. They have cause to be furious!
I've seen the cartoons, and they are crude and uninteresting—they are more about perpetuating stereotypes of Muslims as bomb-throwing terrorists than seriously illuminating a problem. They lack artistic or social or even comedic merit, and are only presented as an insult to inflame a poor minority. I don't have any sympathy for a newspaper carrying out an exercise in pointless provocation.
So on the one hand I see a social problem being mocked, but on the other—and here comes the smug godless finger-wagging—I see a foolish superstition used as a prod to mock people, and a people so muddled by the phony blandishments of religion that they scream "Blasphemy!" and falsely pin the problem on a ridiculous insult to a non-existent god, rather than on the affront to their dignity as human beings and citizens. Religion in this case has accomplished two things, neither one productive: it's distracted people away from the real problems, which have nothing at all to do with the camera-shy nature of their imaginary deity, and it's also amplified the hatred.
It also doesn't help that their riots are confirming the caricatures rather than opposing them. Once again, religiosity turns people into mindless frenzied zombies, and once again it interferes with progress.
Somehow, people are assuming from this that I'm "sympathetic to Islam". How, I don't know; I thought I'd always been quite clear in my contempt for all religion, and I thought the last two paragraphs above were plain enough. I am sympathetic to the problem of being a minority immigrant; that's one issue that is being ignored too much. As I said, the real problem is being exacerbated by bad religion that amplifies the hate.
I really don't think a Muslim would find me to be a friend to their religion.
Comments
I'd agree that most of the cartoons are crap. However, consider the context. The newspaper published them specifically as a test of whether moslem fundamentalists had an improper lockdown on free speech in Denmark. On that front, I'd say that they've done their job of determining the true state of affairs magnificently...
Posted by: Corkscrew | February 4, 2006 2:33 PM
What struk me first when I saw the cartoons, was the racist, ugly depiction, and like Prof Myers says, they are not really funny or clever. These cartoons show poor taste, and no wit.
As (European) Muslims already feel they are under attack, this was sure to anger them. Of course the religious aspect only exacerbates the offense in their eyes, and the violence that has been unleashed scares me.
Posted by: Akufu | February 4, 2006 2:48 PM
"Muslims represent a poor and oppressed underclass, and those cartoons represent a ruling establishment intentionally taunting them and basically flipping them off. They have cause to be furious!"
No. Arabs might, in some cases, represent a poor and oppressed underclass. Being or not being Muslim is a totally seperate issue.
Religions are not ethnic groups. There are plenty of non-Arab muslims including non-Arab muslim fundamentalists. Some of the people in the background of the 9/11 attacks were European, not Arab, for example.
This equivocation between race and culture is one of the stupidest things that modern liberals do. Race is not culture, and culture is not race.
It is vicious and stupid to insult a race; it is something that someone cannot help and it does not in any way determine their ideas, personality traits, etc. Human behaviors are the result of ideas and conditioned habits. Even if there is any basis to the notion that certain races might on average have a *predisposition* toward certain behaviors, all human beings still have the cognitive ability to alter their behaviors through practice and will.
A culture on the other hand, and particularly a religion, is nothing more than a collection of ideas and habits and can be held or practiced by anyone. It is perfectly legitimate to criticize culture and religion. To make culture and religion off-limits to criticism is to place certain types of ideas outside the realm of debate.
Posted by: Adam Ierymenko | February 4, 2006 2:56 PM
Some UK papers have aready highlighted the issue that Muslim papers also print stereotyped racist cartoons (mainly aimed at USA & Israel) without any sense of hypocrisy involved in their being upset at these cartoons. It is also interesting in the UK that where someone is arrested for reading a list of names of Iraq war dead as an illegal protest an angry crowd of people suggesting we should be bombed for not condemning these cartoons is left alone. There is an issue @ free speech whether you like the content or not.
Posted by: Malky | February 4, 2006 2:57 PM
That's actually my point: that there is a social issue independent of religion (in a group that self-identifies as muslim), and they are wasting their time fighting over the religious issue of blasphemy.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 4, 2006 3:08 PM
It is possible to think the cartoons are bad and criticise the newspaper that published them, whilst at the same time defending the right of the newspaper to publish them and criticise the violent protesters. The cartoons simply should not be an issue on either side - if everything was okay then they would have been ignored. That instead we have the escalating situation we find ourselves in now speaks volumes about the state of free speech.
Posted by: Ian B Gibson | February 4, 2006 3:22 PM
Boy, if you wonder what's wrong with the Democrats, look no further. When liberals are conflicted about burning down embassies in respose to free speech, it's no wonder our party can't find its ass with both hands.
Posted by: fritz | February 4, 2006 3:29 PM
PZ:
You are wrong to compare the cartoons to depictions of African Americans. People are Muslims, not because of their physicalities, but because they subscribe, volitionally, to a certain set of ideas. A Muslims can renounce Islam today - a black person cannot renounce his lips or the tone of his skin (even with surgery, you gotta shell out dough).
In short, comparing caricatures of believers, who subscribe to certain propositions - with people who are the way they are because they came into the world that way is just tasteless.
Believers can and should be caricatured. They must take responsibility for their beliefs by facing critiques of them. But why caricature biology? You are being overly sensistive here PZ: And *that* is the problem.
Posted by: Chuckles | February 4, 2006 3:32 PM
The riots do not represent the actions of all or even most Moslems. A number of Islamic leaders have comdemned both the violence and the threatening protests. As far as the cartoons and the protests that followed, both were tasteless, idiotic, and inflammatory. So is any statement by Phelps. We don't usually condemn all Christians because of Phelps' behavior or all anti-choice advocates because a few of them use bombs or arson to carry out their goals. Why aren't we able to differentiate between a few idiots, whether they be secular/Christian Danes or Moslems of various nationalities?
Posted by: Dianne | February 4, 2006 3:35 PM
I'm not at all conflicted about the burning down of embassies: those rioters are idiots. That they've turned around and echoed the inflammatory stupidity of the newspapers 10,000 fold does not mean that original stupidity is nullified.
And moi, too sensitive? That's a first. I agree that caricaturing Mohammed is fine, not a problem, fire away. The problem here, though, is that that likeness is associated with the fact that the Muslim minority are treated like dirt, and becomes a proxy for other ills.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 4, 2006 3:47 PM
"There are some things a cartoonist would be rightly excoriated for publishing"
I agree that it would be societies right to verbally denounce (critique) or financially punish (stop buying) a cartoonist who's work was found to be offensive, but it is equally within the cartoonists right to create such images. This of course, is not true everywhere, and that is a shame. But, when we here in the US, are deciding how we feel about this topic, the question of censorship vs. free speech should be considered the primary issue. The motivations of the cartoonists and the paper that published them was probably inappropriate, but their right to publish those cartoons should be defended. If the US really believes that true democracy and "inalienable rights" belong to all people, we need to support those rights even for people we find reprehensible, and not just here but abroad.
Our State Dept has denounced the cartoons and the paper that printed them. To me that creates a double standard. That says we will tolerate some references to religion but not others, that says that free speech is OK, but only some of the time, and it says that we will force our democracy on the Middle East, but renege on true freedom as soon as it becomes inconvenient.
Posted by: LBBP | February 4, 2006 3:50 PM
the thing that struck me about this uproar is how the muslim protesters are shouting things like "death to denmark" in their anger. of course the danish government had nothing to do with these cartoons--only danish newspapers. this tends to confirm a stereotype (i don't know whether it's true or not) that the islamic world sees no separation between a government and other institutions of society (the press, the church, etc.). if true, maybe they have been at the mercy of dictatorships for so long that they can't appreciate how, in a free society, the government has little power over the press. which makes me worry that they don't see why, in their society, the church should have little power over the government.
Posted by: polymath | February 4, 2006 3:56 PM
In the U.S., I have never seen a political cartoon in which Jesus himself is mocked, with the implication that Christianity as a whole is stupid or dangerous. That's out of bounds. You may see cartoons mocking liberal Christians, consistent with a fundamentalist viewpoint, or cartoons mocking fundamentalist buffoons like Pat Robertson, consistent with a liberal Christian view. Or maybe making fun of the Pope's more flagrantly silly pronouncements.
But never, ever an attack on Jesus himself, or on Christianity as a whole.
That bugs me. I wanna see a cartoon of Jesus himself cornholing an altar boy---or Jesus himself being very nice but destroying capitalism, by preaching about giving away all your possessions and not sowing or spinning.
I'd guess that such cartoons are not exactly common in major European newspapers, either.
And I can certainly understand why Muslims---even atheists of Muslim descent---would be disturbed by a double standard. To them, it's likely indicative of a general contempt for Muslims, which doesn't discriminate between theologies---if you can criticise their favorite guy, why not Jesus or Abraham?
And that is scary, because much of the support for U.S. foreign policy comes from fundamentalist Christians who demand respect for Christianity, and are quite contemptuous of even moderate Islam.
Of course, it is also true that people in Muslim countries tend to have double standards the other way, and they should grasp the concept of freedom of speech, and clean up their act, or just get over it.
Posted by: Paul W. | February 4, 2006 3:58 PM
These cartoons were meant to offend. It's the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater. In that regard, I have very little respect for the publisher. Doesn't mean I don't deplore the overreaction to this by Muslim protesters, however (though we've certainly seen similar behavior by Christians angered by depictions of Jesus in movies such as "The Last Temptation").
But thanks to our good friends in the White House, we're really not in a very good position to talk about freedom of information and the press now, are we?
Posted by: shinypenny | February 4, 2006 4:07 PM
Agreed, those things are broad, ugly, hardly deserving of being called 'comment'. As his editor, I'd have sent the cartoonist back to his desk with most of those.
(Well, with one exception. I think I'd have gone with the 'outta virgins' one. Kinda grimly amusing, I guess. Worth a low chuckle, if hardly a belly laugh. Too many 'martyrs'. What are ya gonna do. But I digress...)
Anyway. That's about taste. As PZ says, from outside the paper, that's worth a letter to the editor, not a bomb. I commented elsewhere: I'd happily run an actually funny cartoon about Mohammed. Folks got problem with blasphemy, they can tell me so by such avenues as the letters page.
And there's a third house I'd place a pox upon, following from what's coming up in the press now: the commenters predictably jumping up in response to the fracas to say oh, we must respect religion.
Nope. We mustn't. The fact that criticizing religious stupidity can and does get muddled up in classism and racism notwithstanding. Religions are ideas (and so far as I've seen very bad ones). Open to debate, open to critique. We still need to be able to call 'em the names they so utterly deserve.
Posted by: AJ Milne | February 4, 2006 4:11 PM
PZ I have to disagree with you on this one for exactly the reasons that Chuckles provides. Ethnicity was not the target here.
Posted by: Buridan | February 4, 2006 4:14 PM
Paul W.
I guess you don't watch South Park, then...
Posted by: Squeaky | February 4, 2006 4:23 PM
It's the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater.
How is it like shouting fire in a crowded theater, except that censors like to use shouting fire as an excuse to silence everything they don't like, and this is something they don't like?
Posted by: Alon Levy | February 4, 2006 4:30 PM
I'd be more inclined to believe it was about religion and not ethnicity if there'd been a little equal opportunity belittlement -- let's see cartoons about Jesus and Buddha and the Hindu gods.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 4, 2006 4:38 PM
How is it like shouting fire in a crowded theater
Sort of obvious, no? Just because I -can- say something, doesn't mean I -should-, or that, more importantly, my reasons are "pure" for saying it. These cartoons were commissioned to offend. Their value as a symbol of a free speech ranks right next to the KKK marching through Evanston. I'll support their right to march, but it won't stop me from finding their behavior vile and hateful. Likewise in this case.
Posted by: shinypenny | February 4, 2006 4:47 PM
And I can certainly understand why Muslims---even atheists of Muslim descent---would be disturbed by a double standard.
i'm not disturbed. islam as a religion sanctions via its shariat that apostates should have 3 months to repent before i am killed. why would i care about double standards when the one religion that poses and existential threat to me is islam? as one poster noted, religion = not blood. just because i am descended from muslisms doesn't imply i have a mystical attachment to muslim values.
yes, the double standard does exist perhahps, but i suspect that one reason you don't hear about hindu or christian caricatures is that they don't react so badly. for god's sake, the existence of jesus christ is being put on trial in italy. a friend of mine of arab origin told me about a cartoon in the arab world that was banned becauase a caveman was hit by lighting and he declared, "so there is a god." the banning was of the idea that someone could conceive of a world without a god.
racism is bad, but i sympathize with people like ayaan hirsi ali more than the majority of muslims in europe who, frankly, live reactionary lives. many of the bible thumping crackers are also the objects of contempt and economically deprived, but their snake-handling superstitions don't get a pass, the social issues are a separate consideration.
Posted by: razib![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 4, 2006 4:56 PM
I,ve seen lots of scurrilous cartoons portraying Jews and Judaism from Arab/Muslim/Iranian websites and newspapers. It seems to be a matter of whose ox is being gored. Once again it is unprincipalled hypocritical whining licensed by delusional religious mental processes.
Posted by: wswilso | February 4, 2006 5:00 PM
It was a matter of freedom of press and freedom of speech right from the beginning.
They were published as an answer to a concrete attempt by the minority of lunatic Muslim radicals here to curtail those freedoms. Those were the same people who later toured the Middle East with not just those 12 drawings but a bunch of other (worse) drawings in order to incite hatred against Denmark. One of the other Danish newspapers got hold of the material they used on their tour and got it translated. Pretty bad stuff. Very little of it true.
Hindus and buddhists (or Jews) have not tried to curtail the freedom of press in Denmark. Some Christians used to try that but they have lost more and more ground. And Jesus does get ridiculed and depicted in a non-respectful way.
The director of this film did that a lot, for example:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104551/combined
And no, Muslims are not treated as dirt here.
Offensive religionists are not treated with respect (but that goes for Christians, too).
Sure, immigrants are poorer with lower employment -- not surprising giving how our immigration politicies used to favour immigration through (arranged and often forced) marriage with no view as to the skills of the people involved.
It was not about ethnicity, it was about religion and freedom of press. In that conflict, religion must never be allowed to win.
Posted by: Peter Lund | February 4, 2006 5:05 PM
What's this abour racism? As I understand it, the cartoons do not depict John Q. Muslim, they depict Mohammed. Mohammed was an Arab. You can look it up. As for any exaggeration of physical features, hey, it's a cartoon.
I heard a US State department spokesperson on public radio half an hour ago say that anti-Muslim images are unacceptable, as are anti-Christian images, etc. Funny how no one ever points out the horrendously inaccurate depiction of atheism by idiots like Pat Boone
(be sure to catch the bit about the Bible saying that slavery is evil)
and
Dale Reich
and Aso Rock and Femi Fani-Kayode
Where is the outrage?
I would like to note that I support the right of muslims to burn the Danish flag, so long as they buy their own rather than burn somebody else's (possibly attached to an embassy)
Posted by: Bayesian Bouffant, FCD | February 4, 2006 5:14 PM
Nobody should be surprised, really. Kevin Drum was also equivocal about the situation. Kos hasn't said anything about it.
Anybody know where I can find a pro-Enlightenment political party?
Posted by: steve s![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 4, 2006 5:16 PM
Squeaky squoke: Paul W. I guess you don't watch South Park, then...
Actually, I'm very fond of South Park, especially a few utterly wonderful episodes. The "Cartmanland" episode has about 10 minutes of absolutely exquisite exploration of the Problem of Evil; that's the most important philosophical point that most people Just Don't Get, and I've never seen it addressed so clearly on TV before. And "Starvin' Marvin in Space" was fabulous. Every American ought to watch those two episodes.
But I haven't been keeping up---no cable and almost no broadcast TV for the last few years. Have I missed something particularly good?
Unfortunately, last I checked, South Park wasn't a mainstream newspaper :-) Or general broadcast TV, or even basic cable, which is why I've been missing it... thanks to the "family values" people (read: anti-sex fundies) who insist on their inalienable right not to turn on their v-chips and still be offended by what they could watch on their TV's.
Anyway, what I was really saying was that I want to see is reasonable viewpoints (like Christianity is Dumb) expressed on the editorial page, along with the "acceptable" range of "serious" memes they do print, like Irreligious People have No Moral Compass, Islam Is Too a Terrorist Religion, and Environmentalists are Just Deluded Left-Wing Airheads.
Posted by: Paul W. | February 4, 2006 5:20 PM
There are editorials against Dark Age Christians in Danish newspapers. Indre Mission ("Inner (or Internal) Mission") is a common target.
Religious people are not seen as particularly moral people in Denmark. They are seen as people who ought to be moral because they themselves claim to be so -- which makes them great targets when they are not.
Posted by: Peter Lund | February 4, 2006 5:25 PM
This whole thing is too ridiculous for words, so I'm off to the pub to down a pint of Calsberg. PZ, if you want some cartoons you can laugh at, try these.
Posted by: Tony Jackson | February 4, 2006 5:28 PM
PZ wrote:
That's actually my point: that there is a social issue independent of religion (in a group that self-identifies as muslim), and they are wasting their time fighting over the religious issue of blasphemy.
Of course, the imams WANT their followers to waste their time that way; it burns off energy that should be directed at examining how strong religion's hold on their lives IS and what it might be doing to actually impede their political and intellectual freedom. Or, more accurately, not religion per se, but one version of religion spouted by a relative handful of the human population.
While many people participated in those riots (and some, including the leaders, should be rounded up as criminals for the arson attacks), the VAST majority of the Muslim world did not. Like most of us, they saw the "controversy" for what it is -- a dispute of IDEAS, however childishly expressed.
I've seen numerous references to this issue online over the last few days and you're the only place that has actually linked to the cartoons themselves (even the BBC & other news sources didn't). I'd bet many of the other blogs never even saw them. Thanks, PZ
Posted by: jay denari | February 4, 2006 5:29 PM
Among the center-to-left blogs I watch, so far, Ed Brayton's the only person who's unambiguously standing up for the Enlightenment values here.
Posted by: steve s![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 4, 2006 5:34 PM
Summary:
* Papers have right to free press.
* But the cartoons were lame.
* Muslims shouldn't have gotten so mad, but some did.
* Even so, they have a right to protest.
* They don't have right to burn other people's stuff.
* Saying Muslims are only a culture and not a race so
therefore can be criticized is naive (talk to the
AntiDefamation League about marginalizing a religious
people)
* U.S. gov has a right to condemn toons for being
meanspirited.
* This is not the same as condoning a ban on free speech.
Posted by: cm | February 4, 2006 5:34 PM
Sort of obvious, no? Just because I -can- say something, doesn't mean I -should-, or that, more importantly, my reasons are "pure" for saying it. These cartoons were commissioned to offend. Their value as a symbol of a free speech ranks right next to the KKK marching through Evanston. I'll support their right to march, but it won't stop me from finding their behavior vile and hateful. Likewise in this case.
The theater fire analogy is brought for exactly one reason: to support restrictions on free speech. You don't suppot people's right to shout fire in crowded theaters, do you?
Posted by: Alon Levy | February 4, 2006 5:39 PM
Not that I'm a big fan of Mohammed, or even convinced that there was such a historical person, but -
Isn't the point of a ban on depicting gods, prophets, et al, to ensure that the believers focus on the concept and not the portrayal (much as with that "no graven images" commandment)? The prohibition on pictures of Mohammed was intended to emphasize the message above the messenger.
Yet here we have the believers waxing wroth over a few crude lines of ink on paper, howling with rage as if Indiana Jones had stolen the jewels from the brow of the great idol in the Temple of Doom. Allowing some caricaturist to dominate their thoughts and acts from a thousand miles away is succumbing to crude idolatry, a major leap backward in understanding on multiple levels.
However, any mullahs and imams (or political leaders) who might be expressing such thoughts are clearly being drowned out by their more simplistic and opportunistic brethren, who gain all sorts of social advantage by good old-fashioned us-vs-them rabble-rousing - rather like US politicians distracting the public from real problems by crusading against the meaningless menace of flag-burners.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | February 4, 2006 5:39 PM
Posted by: Bayesian Bouffant, FCD | February 4, 2006 5:43 PM
Just to be clear, the protests are not related to the content of the cartoons but to the simple fact that Mohammed has been represented in any kind of visual way. Whether you find the images ugly, controversial, or dull is irrelevant, they could show Mohammed simply watering the lawn and they would have the same effect.
The protest is not against the ideas represented in the cartoons but against anyone, anywhere, at any time, trying to produce a representation of the prophet no matter what they might be saying.
The entire thing started because the author of a children's book about Islam couldn't get any artists to do the illustrations involving Mohammed. So the paper wanted to explore the topic of artistic self-censorship, which is really what the cartoons are "about" if that's what you want to get into. It's an absolutely stark case of freedom of speech versus forces that want to squelch that freedom (and who are succeeding, cheered on by virtually every Western government out there, sadly).
Posted by: Jeff Hebert![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 4, 2006 5:45 PM
Posted by: Adam Ierymenko | February 4, 2006 02:56 PM
This equivocation between race and culture is one of the stupidest things that modern liberals do. Race is not culture, and culture is not race."
Someone seems to be a bit unaware of even American history and the religous riots of the Catholics over the direct discrimination by Protestents from Philadelphia to St. Louis in the 19th Century. And let's not forget the persecution of the Mormons and difficulties that some others Christian sects have found as well. And, of couse, we have the shabby treatment of Jews (as both a religion and a "race") through-out much of the 20th Century.
Posted by: Moses | February 4, 2006 5:50 PM
Steve S,
Since when is tolerance not an enlightenment value?
All PZ is doing is objecting to the use of free speech to drive a wedge between the Danish Muslim and white Danish population, much to the satisfaction of the reactionaries at Jyllands-Posten and in the Dansk Folkeparti. It's hardly excusing the violence which has followed to analyze the social and political context in which these cartoons were penned.
If we refuse to condemn xenophobes when they wrap themselves in "freedom of speech" then we'll Enlightenment ourselves into another dark age.
Posted by: Nullifidian | February 4, 2006 5:56 PM
Saying Muslims are only a culture and not a race so
therefore can be criticized is naive
Bullshit. Islam is a religion (with many variants), practiced by many races and people of many cultures.
Even so, they have a right to protest.
Peaceful demonstrations in the streets of Denmark? Sure.
Not so peaceful demonstrations elsewhere? Not up to me, I don't have much of an opinion on that.
Organizing a delegation that incites to riots in the Middle East with lies and propaganda? No, clearly not.
Attacking EU offices in Palestine over this, mostly because you just lost an election with a landslide, as Fatah and the Brigade of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs did? Not acceptable, either.
Burning embassies? Putting the lives of Danish Red Cross workers in danger so they have to be moved out? No, I don't think so.
This is not the same as condoning a ban on free speech.
It certainly looks a lot like that seen from this appartment, about 800 meters away from two of the most radical mosques in Denmark.
I am happy to note, however, that most Muslims are not that silly. The streets here are peaceful and I live on the fringe of one the areas in Copenhagen with the most Muslims and immigrants. The general consensus among Danes does not seem to be "look at those evil Muslims" but rather "look at those few radical Muslims, they are not good for us, we don't like those". Some of the previously silent Muslims are organizing now because they don't want to be represented in the media by the imams; they want sensible people to be the voice of Islam in Denmark, not half-crazed science illiterates who aren't allowed to enter some Middle East countries due to their radicalism. I find that one of the very good outcomes of this.
Denmark has been extraordinarily tolerant of radical imams but I guess that time is over now.
Posted by: Peter Lund | February 4, 2006 5:57 PM
As opposed to, say, Judaism?
Posted by: Skemono | February 4, 2006 6:05 PM
The cartoons were originally published Sept 30, 2005 - why were they republished now? There seems to be a long history of growing tensions behind this.
E.g., these old articles:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/450
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/15/wqueen15.xml
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,398624,00.html
Anyway, I'd like to point out that the practice of any religion but Islam is illegal in Saudi Arabia for instance; why is that less offensive than cartoons?
Posted by: Arun | February 4, 2006 6:06 PM
To steve s, fritz, and anyone else trying to score cheap shots through willful misrepresentation:
I suspect I speak for the vast majority of left-liberals when I say:
We strongly support very broad free speech rights that expressly include the Danish cartoons as protected from any sort of state censorship.
But we're not shouting at the tops of our lungs on this one because we can recognize cheap political theater and manipulation pretty well, after 5 years of Bush. These cartoons were published simply to piss off Muslims and "prove" that many Muslims are intolerant of free speech regarding Muhammad. (Duh.) That's manipulation number 1.
In return, a bunch of religious and political leaders in the Middle East exploit this opportunity to fan the flames of hatred and distract from their own failure to provide for their people. That's manipulation number 2.
Who's "right" here? Well, the Danish publishers of these cartoons are clearly exercising their moral right to free speech. And the protestors calling for violence against them or burning down embassies are clearly very wrong.
You'll get no disagreement from us on those points. We're just not excited about it because the whole thing is engineered political theater. I know you all love that in the Rush Limbaugh/Fox News/Free Republic culture, but we're just a bit more tuned in to reality over here. Stop being a tool, and start thinking for yourself, if you really *are* children of the Enlightenment.
Sheesh.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 4, 2006 6:10 PM
Peter: They were published as an answer to a concrete attempt by the minority of lunatic Muslim radicals here to curtail those freedoms.
Ahh... that's some context I'd been missing; maybe I'm a victim of crummy reporting. Wouldn't be the first time.
Got an informative link handy?
The movie you cite sounds interesting, but movies and editorial pages are rather different; an editorial page has a narrower "approved range" of "acceptable" opinion.
And cartoons do tend to provoke more outrage than ideas in a column.
(And here, we do get organized protests against such movies---even "The Last Temptation of Christ", for suggesting that Jesus might have had an unchaste thought or two when he came to Earth and experienced being a man. Apparently, he was supposed to be tempted, but not by anything very tempting. An antisemitic gore-fest like "The Passion of the Christ" is great, though. BTW, I'm not equating picketing a movie with storming and burning embassies, or calls for beheadings.)
There are editorials against Dark Age Christians in Danish newspapers. Indre Mission ("Inner (or Internal) Mission") is a common target.
Do you get editorials critizing Jesus and anybody who'd follow him---and especially, cartoons ridiculing Jesus himself? (That's a serious question, not a rhetorical one. Maybe not all that relevant now, though, in light of your remarks to the effect that they were asking for it.)
Religious people are not seen as particularly moral people in Denmark. They are seen as people who ought to be moral because they themselves claim to be so -- which makes them great targets when they are not.
Yeah, I know. When I was on the job market, I was tempted to go to the U. of Copenhagen, instead of coming to Texas. The (ir-)religion issue was not a small factor. (If I'd known GWB would become President of the United States, I might well have gone to Europe.)
One subtlety there, though. In the U.S. at least, there's a moderate amount of criticism of hypocritical Christians, of the Christians-vs.-Christians sort that doesn't challenge Christianity itself. There is essentially no criticism of Jesus or of Christianity as a whole. That's what bugs me.
I think liberal Christianity is an intellecually corrupt attempt to make a silk purse out of a morally corrupt sow's ear. Christianity is so messed up that you can't be a Christian and not be some kind of hypocrite.
Posted by: Paul W. | February 4, 2006 6:12 PM
The entire thing started because the author of a children's book about Islam couldn't get any artists to do the illustrations involving Mohammed. So the paper wanted to explore the topic of artistic self-censorship, which is really what the cartoons are "about" if that's what you want to get into. It's an absolutely stark case of freedom of speech versus forces that want to squelch that freedom (and who are succeeding, cheered on by virtually every Western government out there, sadly).
If you believe that, then I have the Christiansborg Palace to sell you--cheap!
If they had wanted to test the waters of freedom of speech, then Muhammad with a bomb on his head wasn't necessary. It certainly wouldn't be a part of any conceivable illustration of a history of early Islam. They could have simply reprinted some of the Muslim works of art which do depict Muhammad (primarily from the Turkish, Persian, or Indian Islamic traditions) and written an article wondering if these works would have be censored, and a discussion of the illustrators who are afraid to work on books on Islam because they fear controversy.
The cartoons are difficult to construe in any other way than being deliberately offensive, and I believe that was their intent. If they could sow a Muslim backlash, then they could portray all Muslims as unreasonable and have them turned out of the country. Unfortunately, the Muslims took the bait and some, living in countries which have found this a heaven-sent excuse to distract their populations from their own appalling records (ex. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria), have even turned to extreme violence.
Both Jyllands-Posten and the fanatics who burned down the embassies are both responsible for making the a less safe and civil place today.
Posted by: Nullifidian | February 4, 2006 6:13 PM
Tsk, tsk. I'm all for enlightenment values. I also think Mohammed should be mocked and reviled.
My objection is that the newspaper claims the cartoons were run as a matter of principle. That's a good thing; so why not demonstrate the principle by running cartoons mocking many religions and ideas, from atheism to zoroastrianism, with a few random pokes at popular Danish figures? I suspect there would still have been protests and riots, but I'd feel that the paper had been behaving responsibly...as it is, by focusing on just one religion instead of all of them, they look like they singled out one despised group for abuse, rather than a broader idea.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 4, 2006 6:13 PM
Nullifidian, take a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons#Debate_about_self-censorship
Posted by: Arun | February 4, 2006 6:20 PM
The cartoons were NOT lame. They were NOT ridiculous. They were CARTOONS. Odin Above - have we all lost our minds here?
Its not as if the cartoons depicted something historically false. Muhammed, was in fact, a roving aggressor against certain peoples. But that aside; it is certainly illogical to suggest, that simply because we dont see broadsides against Judaism and Xtianity, then somehow, we get to inveigh against a private institution in the way it chooses to exercise its right to free speech, in, get this:a conflict between murderous demonstrators calling for the destruction of entire societies and the entirety of Europe, singing praises to Bin Laden and torching embassies and a bunch of cartoonists!
To equate whatever supposed evil these cartoonists have committed with the response of these loons is to carry even handedness into paralysis.
We should not even be speaking of the supposed \"ill deeds\" of these cartoonists and the murderous response of these loons in the same breath!
Yet, what evil have these cartoonists done? Depicted a historical figure according to certain caricatures: A treatment that has been meted out to Xtianity and Judaism despite what some opine to the contrary. Jesus has been lampooned, lambasted, dipped in elephant shit, spit and pissed on, turned into a homosexual, Jeebusized: Churches have been burned - hundreds of churches are burned in the USA every freaking year - yet, some are still looking for \"even treatment\"? Synagogues are burned and desecrated by Europeans and many of them Muslims - yet, some are still looking for an even treatment between these caricatures and Xtianity/Judaism before expressing proper outrage at the reaction of these murderers?
Give me a freaking break!
The problem here is you all have ideological blinkers on: And your opposition to Xtianity/Judaism, or at least your skepticism of it vis-a-vis the current climate of science and enlightenment in the West is making you more sympathetic to Islam. The enemy of enemy etc.
The simple truth is that there is no case here. Cartoonists did their job - and you know what? There is this little thing called \"boycotting\" that people in Western societies have found to tackle this kind of thing: And yeah - lets bring up blacks. But guess what? Blacks sang \"We shall overcome\" - they made speeches. MLK did not call for anyones death, neither did he celebrate the death of whites in Vietnam. There was this little thing called nonviolent change - remember?
Stop apologizing for these barbarians and start thinking of how we can salvage what is left of the West\'s moral sanity from the clutches of a dark age that is already most certainly upon us.
PS: Bringing up persecuted mormons is hardly the point here. No one isnt saying they marginalized in the West: But how exactly does this translate into all the furor over CARTOONS? Muslims should be told:
1. This is the West, not the Middle East.
2. You dragged your asses up here into this place.
3. This is how we do it here.
4. You dont like how we play? Fine. Here\'s a one way ticket out - or better still, call a freaking congressman/MP.
This is the appropriate response, not moaning and groaning over some cartoons and saying \"well, ahem....but, , , what the cartoonists did was also wrong, ahem, ahem.\" It is highly inappropriate for a State official in the West to inveigh against free speech while addressing the riots of murderous loons. This is a sure sign of moral bankruptcy.
And really, I dont know what was so tasteless about those cartoons: I mean, even Muslims arent complaining about the bomb strapping - they are complaining about the very fact of depiction: It tends to tell you how certain people think and what they know about *their* religion\'s history.
Posted by: Chuckles | February 4, 2006 6:21 PM
BTW - I dont see whats wrong with a little political theater myself: This particularly has brought a poignant issue to the fore: And as for driving a wedge: Methinks it is the roving demonstrators and their burning of embassies that is doing just that.
Posted by: Chuckles | February 4, 2006 6:26 PM
PZ said:
But other religions don't have a prohibition against any depiction of their prophet. And the newspaper had a case of a children's book where they couldn't find anyone to do the illustrations of Mohammed, not of Christ or Buddha or any other religious figure.
It is an illustration of a very core idea held by a specific religious group directly at loggerheads with a core Western value. Since other religious groups don't hold that particular idea, then it would be rather pointless to bring them into it.
Nullifidian said:
Since any illustration of Mohammed is offensive regardless of what you might be drawing Mohammed doing, your statement is as accurate as it is trivial. That's the point they're trying to bring up!
You and I can have our opinion about the content of the cartoons and whether or not they're offensive for the ideas they attempt to convey, but it's utterly irrelevant. The core principle at issue is one segment of one religious group's stance that is completely antithical to even the most mundane Western understanding of freedom of expression.
Embassies were burned and death threats -- death threats! -- issued not because of the content of the cartoons but simply because someone made pictures -- any pictures -- of Mohammed.
That should be absolutely abhorrent to anyone who claims to hold freedom of expression dear.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 4, 2006 6:31 PM
Who has said they are less offensive? Who is making apologies for the rioters shouting for the death of cartoonists? Who is saying we should limit free speech?
I'm sure not.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 4, 2006 6:32 PM
so why not demonstrate the principle by running cartoons mocking many religions and ideas,
Because the only serious threat to the freedom of speech comes from Muslims. The fight against backwards forms of Christianity is pretty much won here.
Muslims are not singled out for ridicule, quite the contrary, they have been treated with kid gloves for a long time in the media and in politics.
from atheism to zoroastrianism
Nobody here knows anything about zoroastrianism -- there are about 10 parsees in the entire country, I'd guess (I used to date one of them).
with a few random pokes at popular Danish figures?
Take a look at cartoon number 8 on the Brussels Journal webpage, the one with the lineup. Number two from the left, the woman, is Pia Kj�rsg�rd, leader of Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People's Party), a somewhat xenophobic populist party. The man at the far right is K�re Bluitgen, the author who had trouble finding an illustrator for his book. The sign he is holding says "K�res PR - ring og f� et tilbud" (K�re's PR agency -- call for an offer).
The goofy guy on the last cartoon is as far as I can tell also K�re Bluitgen -- the orange falling into his turban labelled "PR Stunt" is a reference to a Danish play called "Alladin" by the Romantic Poet Adam Oehlenschl�ger. It basically means that he got lucky and got some free publicity.
(scienceblogs doesn't like æ, å, and ä -- it's a xenophobic plot! I'm being repressed and disrespected! We shall burn your embassies and not buy your awful beer!)
Posted by: Peter Lund | February 4, 2006 6:34 PM
"These cartoons were published simply to piss off Muslims and "prove" that many Muslims are intolerant of free speech regarding Muhammad."
Well then QED.
Anyway, don't let me stop you from taking on equivocal Kerryesque positions. Be for it before you're against it. Seems to be working well for you.
Posted by: steve s![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 4, 2006 6:36 PM
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | February 4, 2006 6:40 PM
Thanks for that Wikipedia link, Arun. I'd encourage everyone here to take a read, it's less than five minutes, and is very enlightening (ahem):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons#Debate_about_self-censorship
Posted by: Jeff Hebert![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 4, 2006 6:42 PM
Actually, one major cause of this latest escalation started was the murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. He had produced a short film about Islamic repression of women, and was gunned down in Amsterdam in 2004; two knives were left in his chest, one of which had a note calling for the destruction of the West attached. This had a polarizing effect on the whole issue of Islam in Western countries, with the Dutch government advocating tougher blasphemy laws, opposition parties advocating banning Muslim immigration, and the Muslim population becoming more insular. Obviously we have had many other developments since then, throughout Europe.
Posted by: Ian B Gibson | February 4, 2006 6:47 PM
Pity this poor European: I see what's insulting about depicting anyone as being a thick-lipped, low-browed smirker, but, um, what's insulting about watermelons and fried chicken drumsticks? It's a bit odd to eat them together, but I'm sure someone's done it (probably in a kebab or something). Neither strike me as being particularly associated with any racial grouping...
Posted by: Nix | February 4, 2006 6:49 PM
Geez, those folks have no sense of humor at all. Poor devils.
Posted by: california_reality_check | February 4, 2006 6:51 PM
Its not as if the cartoons depicted something historically false. Muhammed, was in fact, a roving aggressor against certain peoples.
So he should be represented as some cliched Disney villain? It's as simplistic and ignorant as drawing Jesus with blue eyes and chiseled abs. Perhaps cartoons are the appropriate medium in which to demonstrate the majority of the world's cartoonish view of reality, regardless of where they lie on the socio-political spectrum.
Were I a Danish cartoonist (and, god-willing, one day I will be), I would've drawn a stick figure with a smilie face and "Muhammad" pointing to it. It's easy to slip into obvious heavy-handedness, but it's another thing to use the opportunity to attempt some subtle irony which speaks far more about the silliness of ancient religious principles. Perhaps I'm expecting too much from the world's press these days.
Posted by: Ben | February 4, 2006 6:57 PM
Abiola Lapite has a way of putitng my teeth on edge whenever I read him, even when I agree with him. Unfortunately, I think he's pretty much right here. These violent acts aren't simply confirming a caricature; there really is a great deal to the notion that Islam is more violent, and more celebratory of violence, than other religions. You can know this without dispensing with sympathy for the poor and downtrodden in the Muslim world.
Posted by: C. Schuyler | February 4, 2006 7:15 PM
I agree in general, but for one thing. I don't think Islam is worse than Christianity. What has ameliorated the excesses of religion in the Western world is secularism. Islam is a Christianity that has executed or suppressed all of its sensible freethinkers.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 4, 2006 7:22 PM
PZ said:
the full story and history of where these cartoons came from is available.Jeff Herbert said:well, that's not true, as the Wikipedia article explains. there have been visual depictions, just not recent ones. there is a flip side to a prohibition on visual depictions of anything. as in the case of the Jewish Yahweh, it heightens the mystery and power of the figure. as i'm sure someone else here has or will note, Islam has prohibitions on three dimensional representations of animals and people. actually, Judaism has a similar theme in its history and synogogues are pretty stark in decorations, excepting the Ark for the Torah, the Torah's cover itself, and the Eternal Light. certainly no paintings and such. there was a struggle about whether or not it was proper for Jews to do art as in sculpture. that's been resolved.
personally, i can't see how anyone with a secular outlook can see the Danish publication of these cartoons and their syndication elsewhere as bad. i can understand religious folks, like Christians, Jews, even Buddhists considering this disrespectful and so not a good idea. but, then, of course so is the "Life of Brian". and there's a consensus that's okay. and it's not like this is a first-time-ever case of the Prophet being depicted with insult.
i also have seen much reporting on Islamisk Trossamfund which, after the cartoons were published in September of 2005 went on a tour of the Middle East to whip up opposition to Jyllands-Posten.
my further comments are posted here.
Posted by: ekzept | February 4, 2006 7:25 PM
Pierce Butler: "Evidence Please"
Google news "arson church" returns 975 hits with the first page all from 2006. Hardly a week goes by when there isn?t a mention on the news of some church burnt by an arsonist. Used to be just rural black churches but now it seems that it is any rural church.
LM Wanderer
Posted by: LM Wanderer | February 4, 2006 7:37 PM
Do you get editorials critizing Jesus and anybody who'd follow him
Sometimes -- but not in that particular paper.
---and especially, cartoons ridiculing Jesus himself?
Yes.
Posted by: Peter Lund | February 4, 2006 7:45 PM
Five churches in Alabama were torched Friday night. That's less than a dozen, but the year is young.
Posted by: bad Jim | February 4, 2006 7:54 PM
PZ, not only are these people enemies of freedom, they are also Creationists!
I spoke to some of them at an open house thingy at Islamisk Trossamfund (Society for Islamic Faith) two or three years ago. Their imam, Abu Laban, who is one of the current trouble makers, came across as a person who was personally likeable, deeply ignorant (despite an education as an engineer), very demagogic, and very us