I've read several posts about the Danish caricatures, including at least one by someone who comments here, that says something to this effect: "I wouldn't post the Danish caricatures on my blog because I found them crude and based on stereotypes and I see no reason to make fun of these people." But I'd be willing to bet that at least some of those people found the movie Dogma hilarious. And I'd like someone to explain the difference to me.
Why do some people automatically have more sympathy for one group when their beliefs are mocked, but no sympathy for another group of the very same type when their beliefs are mocked? I would argue that the Muslim beliefs mocked (which means criticized) by the caricatures are no more silly or absurd than the Catholic beliefs mocked in Dogma. The only reason I can think of is that they have political sympathy for the plight of one group and not for the other.
For instance, PZ Myers, in writing about the caricatures a few weeks ago, called them "an insult to inflame a poor minority" and said that they were "pointless provocation". Yet Myers delights in making fun of Christianity and probably thought Dogma was a brilliant satire on Catholicism (and even if he didn't like Dogma in particular, that's not really the point, I'm just using it as an example. Pick South Park or an SNL parody of Jim and Tammy Bakker if you prefer). And the fact is that the majority of the world's catholics are not American suburbanites but poor minorites spread throughout Central and South America and much of Africa.
Others just seem to take the position that it's wrong to "hurt the feelings" of Muslims by displaying the caricatures, like this NYU student commenting on an article at Inside Higher Ed:
Since these cartoons have been widely circulated all over the world, I see no reason to reshow them at NYU, and to potentially hurt the feelings of Muslim studets who oppose the cartoons.
It's a matter of respect for our peers, not a matter of censorship. If you want to know what the cartoons look like, go on line and then attend the panel. There is no need to have the cartoons displayed *at* the panel.
It's like asking someone to recount a trauma for the sake of the rousing their emotions. The university is not a place for hurting people without reason.
But again, I would bet that this kid probably loves South Park. And if a student group held a panal discussion on Voltaire and his ruthless mockery of Catholicism and Catholic students objected that it was offensive, you wouldn't hear a peep from this guy or from virtually any of the people taking this position when it comes to these caricatures. There is clearly a double standard here. People who applaud in delight at the ridicule of Christianity, or at least some aspect of it, suddenly turn into scolds when the subject is Islam.
The other part of the argument is the notion that the caricatures amount to "stereotypes" of Muslims. But I don't see the validity of this criticism at all, especially in light of the fact that the reaction from much of the Muslim world to the caricatures was to prove those stereotypes absolutely correct. Like it or not, there is a large portion of Muslims around the world who fit that stereotype completely. Is it a majority? I doubt it, but I don't know. At the very least, it's a sizable minority and they comprise a major problem around the world.
It also needs to be said that almost all humor is based upon stereotypes. South Park is loaded with stereotypes of every group imaginable. Every ethnic group has their stereotypes that are the butt of jokes, from the drunken Irishman to the British with bad teeth to the effete Frenchman to the back bacon-eating Canadian (eh) to the Mexicans with 27 people in a Chrysler to Indians working at 7-11 to the ignorant, loudmouthed American in his cowboy boots.
Stereotypes are unavoidable and they are used even by the people who say they are opposed to stereotypes. Every sane person understands that not ever Irishman is a drunk, that not everyone from Texas has an 8 inch belt buckle and a 10 gallon hat, and that many Indians are PhD engineers rather than convenience store clerks or cab drivers. And I don't mind humor based on stereotypes even when it involves a group whose political goals I support.
I am an enthusiastic supporter of gay rights, but I don't get offended at jokes aimed at gay stereotypes. To paraphrase Dennis Miller from many years ago, I care so little about the variations in human sexuality that I'm happy to invite anyone in to play our reindeer games. Come, join us - you can be made fun of too. And the fact is that there's a kernel of truth to all stereotypes. Yes, the overly dramatic, swishy gay man really does exist, I've known many of them. I've also seen them lampooned hilariously by their fellow gay men (or women) and it never occured to me for a moment that this was out of line.
As I said, the important thing is understanding that just because a stereotype exists that doesn't mean every member of that group, or even most members, will fit that stereotype. Yes, it's a stereotype that Muslims are violent people who strap bombs to their body. But that stereotype is certainly based in reality, isn't it? We've had more than enough examples of it to justify it. Only those who are reflexively bigoted would think that this constitutes all Muslims, but by the same token, only those who are engaging in a double standard think that the stereotype is wholly inaccurate. There is room for a reasonable middle position here.
There can be no doubt that the ideology of madness that comprises that stereotype is a major force in the world at the moment, or that this force is squarely opposed to the enlightenment values that we should all support. And like the enlightenment, one of the most powerful tools we have against such ideologies is mockery and ridicule, used to such powerful effect by the likes of Voltaire. And in the days of Voltaire, attacking such doctrines carried the same kind of risk that attacking radical Islam carries today.
Given all of this, I just don't see any rational justification for why those who take such delight in mockery of Christianity suddenly become scolds when the subject turns to Islam. Perhaps someone who has such disparate reactions can explain it to me.
- Log in to post comments
Perhaps it is because Muslims are a minority in Denmark, England, and the United States. They are often hasseled for it, and poorly understood. They are blamed for the 9/11 attacks. When you make fun of Muslims generally for the behavior of Muslim terrorists, your mockery only actually reaches those Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism, but who suffer from the bad PR for it nonetheless.
Mocking the majority, those in power (i.e. Christians in this case), is a time-honored tradition. It's not judged to be harmful because those in power are not judged to be vulnerable in any way. Muslims, on the contrary, are not in power in any of the countries currently trumpeting freedom of speech as justification for mocking them.
What I think most people won't admit is that, on some level, they're scared. Probably not scared of actual physical violence, but rather some sort of zealous verbal or media attack from those who are offended by the cartoons. They're scared and they're just latching on to any seemingly valid excuse as to why they don't want to show the cartoons themselves.
I'm someone who, like PZ (whose site I love), gets a kick out of tweaking religion's nose. I'm an atheist. But I know I can lash out at Christianity and be safe, both physically and, for the most part, verbally safe. It's a pretty widely accepted form of discourse in the world. And as much as I dislike Christianity, I think Fundamentalist Islam is many times worse and more dangerous. And yet I too feel some sort of vague disquiet about lashing out at Islam. I don't know why. Maybe it's some sort of inner respect for the under dog. Maybe it's because I oppose the war in Itaq. I really have no idea and thus some measure of sympathy has passed over to Islam vicariously.
I can tell you this though - you're right, there's absolutely no logical reason for me to feel one way about Christinaity and another about Islam. If anything my positions should be reversed. So I can only conclude that on some deep, subconscious level I'm scared. And I'll bet a whole lot of other people are too.
And I don't say any of this by way of an excuse. It isn't one. I just think it might be an explanation.
Scientologists are also a minority. The only reason anyone who isn't themself a scientologist has any problems with mocking them is because they're litigious bastards. Jehovah's Witnesses are a minority in all countries, and yet people still feel perfectly happy to make jokes about hiding behind the sofa. Atheists such as myself are a minority all over, and a high proportion of Christians appear to have no problems with claiming that we're immoral, evil lunatics and/or idiots.
I'd also note that freedom of speech isn't the justification for mocking Muslims; it's the justification for being allowed to mock them. And a very good one it is too.
Ed, keep in mind that Kevin Smith is catholic, so he is "allowed" to make fun catholics. Yeah, it's shitty defense of why Dogma was ok but the cartoons were not, but it's a defense nonetheless. I think that a hindu should be allowed to make fun of priests sodomizing alterboys, and a jew should be able to caricature a muslim with a bomb strapped to his chest. But the best satire actually comes from knowing something about the group you're poking fun at. That's what made Dogma watchable. It wasn't funny (plus it had Ben Affleck), but Kevin Smith knows his doctrine and lampooned it.
I think a more important point, however, is that people just don't have a sense of humor. This is true of people on both sides of the aisle. And, no, Dubya giggling like a 12 year old girl when he's talking about war does not count as a sense of humor. It's one thing to laugh at South Park, Chris Rock, or Carlos Mencia, it's another to laugh when they're making fun of you.
Gretchen wrote:
I have no doubt that this is part of the distinction that is made, I just don't think it justifies such a distinction. Yes, they are a minority in the West. But in the Middle East they are in control of many countries and the ideology that is being mocked and criticized leads to abominable results like killing gay teenagers and honor killings for women who are raped. If the rule is that you can't criticize such a vile ideology because it makes people who might be a minority somewhere uncomfortable, that strikes me as absurd. And that same ideology did cause 9/11. As I keep saying, for those Muslims who reject that ideology and consider it a distortion of their religion - and believe me, I know many who take that position, I applaud them and I think we need to do everything we can to support them and strengthen their position against the radicals - they should be on our side. They should be mocking and attacking and criticizing that ideology as well. The blame for those Muslims being viewed in a bad light lies not with those of us who attack that evil ideology, it lies with those who hold that evil ideology.
Two points. First, freedom of speech is not a justification for mocking them, it's a justification for having the right to mock them. The justification for mocking them is the insanity of their belief system and their behavior. Second, there has to be a distinction made between mocking an idea and mocking a people. As I said, everyone but the most bigoted understands that not all Muslims are violent bombthrowers. And those Muslims who aren't violent bombthrowers should aim their anger at the Muslims who are, not at those of us who are critical of them.
In general, I would argue that this "in power vs out of power" distinction is totally irrelevant. A criticism is either valid or it is not, and the criteria for judging that is not determined by whether the ideology happens to be held by those in power in any given place. If a given criticism is valid in Saudi Arabia, where Muslims are in power, then it is just as valid in America, where they are not. This is essentially an argument from postmodern premises, that the truth of a claim varies depending on the political structure, and that's a position I reject completely. If a criticism is true and valid, it's true and valid regardless of the political structure in a given place; truth doesn't become untruth as it crosses a border on a map. And the truth of an argument is the only thing that should matter, not whether it's convenient for some group with protected status in someone's mind.
I'm with you 100%. I don't see what's so bad about the cartoons in the first place. But then again, I loved Dogma... and it was written by a Catholic.
Anyway, I think a closer analogy would probably be all those Far Side and Non-Sequitur cartoons about people standing at the pearly gates - less mockery than satire, and only offensive if you have absolutely no sense of humor. I think the hubbub over the danish cartoons is as ridiculous as if people started rioting and burning effigies of Gary Larson.
Hi Ed,
"Pick South Park or an SNL parody of Jim and Tammy Bakker if you prefer."
Or this post, linking to pictures of Jesus way more offensive than any of the drawings published by Jyllands-Posten.
I wonder if for some people the difference is that they see Christianity as a "real" religion (even if they don't believe in it), while seeing other religions as only aspects of a culture. And we seem to have a modern understanding that it isn't nice to make fun of someone's culture. Wasn't it in Florida last December that a town refused to allow on public property a nativity scene, which the town argued is a religious symbol, while permitting a menorah, which the town argued is a cultural symbol, not religious at all?
It may have an element of racism as well. I'm white, and I feel much more comfortable mocking white christians than I do black ones, even though there is plenty to mock in both. Like Rick wrote above, it is irrational and it isn't a justification but it might explain some of the squeamishness about it.
Making fun of the powerful is satire, making fun of the powerless is kicking someone when they're down.
The former is defence, the latter is attack.
Same action, different context, different meaning.
I agree, but I hardly think radical Islam counts as "powerless." Why else would the western world be so close to tossing aside free speech?
In any case, isn't there a difference between making fun of someone and using humor to point out their abuses? Perhaps: "mock the sin, not the sinner"?
Making fun of the powerful is satire, making fun of the powerless is kicking someone when they're down.
But the entire point of the cartoons was that Muslims were felt to have too much power to censor in Denmark. So that doesn't apply here.
Ken & Corkscrew
I too agree with Kapitano's observation. I think there's an easy way radical Islam counts as "powerless". It does in some peoples' minds.
Somehow, they are defining radical Islam in terms of the west/U.S. In contrast to Euro-U.S., Islamists appear weak. B52s vs. caves. This is a natural way people often percieve the world, unfortunately. Psychomarketing often makes use of this. The "War on Christianity" is using this technique, defining themselves in-relation-to, thereby "defining" into existance an opponent that doesn't exist. Very clever stuff. I'm impressed.
When you say "vile ideology," are you talking about Islamism, or Islam?
Are you sure about that? There are a lot of complicated factors that go into the construction of a terrorist. I am not actually convinced that matters would have been any different if the terrorists had been Christian.
If "our side" is the one that mocks Islam in general, why should they be? If you do not differentiate between the violent and peaceful elements of a religion, then why expect members of that religion to do so when deciding whom to support?
Imagine if we change the scenario and we're talking about atheists being blamed for Stalin's atrocities. If the denouncers of such atrocities blame atheists in general, should there be no sympathy spared for atheists who have done nothing wrong, and have nothing to do with communism?
If some members of group X do something wrong, and you choose to attack all members of that group rather than the specific members who acted wrongly, are you not also at fault, to some extent, for not bothering to differentiate? Isn't this, for that matter, a foundational lesson of prejudice?
Kapitano wrote:
Okay, so how do you determine whether Islam itself, or at least one major interpretation of it, is powerful or powerless? The mere fact that some of its adherents are poor and oppressed can't decide it, since that is true of a large portion of the adherents of any religion, including Christianity. This ideology is powerful enough to rule several entire nations, and to do so in the most brutal way imaginable. Even where it doesn't rule entire nations, it is powerful enough to spread fear not only within the Muslim community in otherwise non-Muslim nations but to make huge corporations bend to its will, a la the Border's decision, solely out of fear. It is powerful enough to put otherwise free nations on alert, to cause subway bombings in Spain and England and the WTC attack in the US. By any reasonable measure, this is not a powerless ideology.
Skookum Planet wrote:
I think you may have hit the real reason for this double standard in a lot of people's minds. I think for a lot of people, on the left in particular, they define virtually everything by a simple dichotomy of "America" vs "everyone America oppresses". To them, the US is inherently evil and therefore anyone or anything we attack must be inherently good. Thus, we saw many apologetics for the crimes of communism, since that was our enemy for so long. Now, it must be said that this myopia is at least equalled by the "America right or wrong" crowd on the right, who are so simpleminded and ignorant that they reflexively hate or fear anything their government tells them is this week's boogeyman. I'm certainly not arguing for that kind of uber-nationalistic idiocy, which I reject even more vociferously than I do the bias I perceive here. But the reality is that the left should be ahead of the right in terms of their opposition to Islamic radicalism, which represents everything we hate the most - anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-reason, anti-science, anti-everything good, essentially. Islamic radicalism is the most dangerous force for reactionary politics in the world today and I hate to see folks on the left put it in the category of protected from criticism when, if they had to live under it, they would be in revolution (and rightly so).
Gretchen wrote:
Islamism. I've made it as clear as one could possibly make it, multiple times including in this post directly, that the ideology is not synonymous with Islam itself, it is a subset of it. I doubt it's even a majority of Muslims around the world, but it is at least a substantial minority, more than enough to rule several nations and wreak havoc in others.
How do we go about making that distinction, other than saying, as I do often, that we are making such a distinction? Clearly, the caricatures themselves were aimed not at Muslims in general but at those Muslims that are violent. If you are a Muslim who does not view Muhammed as supporting violence, then I can see why you would be offended by seeing a cartoon of Muhammed with a bomb in his turban - but that combination of Muhammed and bombs did not begin with that cartoon, it began with followers of Muhammed making bombs and using their faith to justify it. That is where the blame belongs, not with the person who points it out.
There are two reasons why this is not analogous. First, because you would be hard pressed to find atheists anywhere in the world today who would endorse the crimes of Stalin; finding Muslims who endorse the crimes of Bin Laden is trivially easy - we see regular protest marches around the world with hundreds of thousands of people participating where they cheer these reactionary madmen. Second, Stalin did not justify his crimes with atheism. The fact that he was an atheist had nothing to do with his political decisions. The Islamic radicals, on the other hand, justify every single thing they do with their religious views. They cite volumes of holy scripture to support killing and maiming and destroying. They use their religion to justify killing gays, killing women who have been raped to spare their honor (how horrific is that?), keeping their women uneducated and permanently oppressed.
A better analogy would be what we see out of fundamentalist Christianity in the US. On that question, we all oppose its political agenda vociferously, we mock their beliefs mercilessly, and no one has the slightest pangs of guilt over it. Yet by any measure, fundamentalist Christianity is far less of a danger than fundamentalist Islam today (that certainly wasn't true in Calvin's Geneva). It's far less reactionary. So by that measure, our reaction to radical Islam should be much stronger, yet it's not - we suddenly get squeamish. No one worries that making fun of Jerry Falwell's idiocy might make non-fundamentalist Christians feel bad. No one worries that mocking the Catholic Church might be bad because the majority of its adherents are poor minorities around the world. It's only here that we suddenly change our perspective. Well, some of us do. I clearly don't.
But I don't do that. I'll certainly agree with that criticism when it's aimed at someone who actually does think that all Muslims are evil killers, but that's not my position and I've made that as clear as one could possibly make it. Nor is that the case with teh caricatures, which were aimed specifically at those Muslims who do threaten violence and thereby cause others to censor themselves out of fear. The criticism implicit in those caricatures was proven absolutely true. And truth, ultimately, is all that should matter. If a criticism is true, it's true regardless of whose feelings it might hurt.
"I'm someone who, like PZ (whose site I love), gets a kick out of tweaking religion's nose. I'm an atheist. But I know I can lash out at Christianity and be safe, both physically and, for the most part, verbally safe. It's a pretty widely accepted form of discourse in the world. And as much as I dislike Christianity, I think Fundamentalist Islam is many times worse and more dangerous. And yet I too feel some sort of vague disquiet about lashing out at Islam. I don't know why. Maybe it's some sort of inner respect for the under dog. Maybe it's because I oppose the war in Itaq. I really have no idea and thus some measure of sympathy has passed over to Islam vicariously."
I wonder if it's this. I suspect it's because many people on the left have the deeply illiberal value of treating people differently according to their group.
Ed Brayton wrote:
In Western Europe, are there mass political parties pushing a pro-islamic line? No. Do US politicians try to appeal to an islamic voting bloc? No.
Are islamic politics (of one stripe or another) dominant in most of the middle and far east? Yes. Is it spreading rapidly and gaining influence in the poorer parts of Africa and South America? Yes.
So Islam (of some kinds) is powerful in Iran, but Islam (of other kinds) is powerless in Denmark. The caricatures were published in Denmark, aimed at muslims of that country, so were attacking a defenceless opponant. Had they been published in Iran, they would constitute very brave satire, albeit crass.
Kapitano wrote:
Okay, so you're going to seriously take the position that it's okay to criticize this ideology in one country, but not okay to criticize it in another country?
No, they were not aimed at "attacking a defenseless opponent" in Denmark. They were aimed at a violent ideology that had resulted in self-censorship out of fear of violent reprisals in Denmark. That ideology is not acceptable, regardless of whether Muslims in Denmark are a weak minority or a powerful majority. The ideology is wrong, it's vile and it's dangerous, and that is all true irrespective of whether the people who adhere to it are rich or poor, weak or powerful. What you are engaging in is essentially postmodern relativism, where the truth of a proposition is irrelevant and only the question of power imbalances and whose interests an idea allegedly serves matters. But the reality is that this is a dangerous and insane ideology no matter where it exists and completely irrespective of the relative power or wealth of any group in any society.
Ed said
Absolutely. I considered noting that in my post, but given my tendency to throw in kitchen sinks . . . .
I seem to notice this particularly among "visible" college faculty, who can offer very elaborate rationales for positions, yet when analyzed reduce down to this. I agree with the entire post this quote appears in. I'd like to add one thing -- such thinking ain't smart!
Ah come one Krauze, Jesus hung out with 12 men. You know he was on his knees a lot ... :) (kudos Bill) But the beastiality is kinda kinky. Or is that perverted?
Kinky's when one uses a feather and perverted is when they use the whole chicken, but I'm not quite sure how thaat works with swine.
"Jesus hung out with 12 men. You know he was on his knees a lot"
Another happy insult apparently aimed at Christians. I wonder if adding to it a fantasy of yours about Muhammed's sex life would make it more clearly on topic. Or is it perhaps designed to illustrate Ed's comment that "There is clearly a double standard here. People who applaud in delight at the ridicule of Christianity, or at least some aspect of it, suddenly turn into scolds when the subject is Islam."
Nobody should kid themselves: Islam and its followers are powerful. Not only does strict Islamic doctrine rule several countries, BUT, many of those countries contain the bulk of the world's conventional oil reserves (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, UAE, and Iraq as a soon to be Islamic republic). Should we ever lose the west-friendly leaders in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE to Wahabii-style Islamic fanatics, the west will certainly become aware of how powerful Islam actually is.
Frankly, Muslims, both moderate and extreme, can bitch, moan, cry, whine, whimper, rage, rant, march, and whatever else they want to do all they want. That's their right to free expression. What they can't seem to understand, ironically, is that whatever non-violent means they use to express their discontent is protected under the same banner that protects my right to depict Mohammed in whatever style I choose.
I heard that a mob of 3 Pastafarians stomped their feet when they saw this posted.
Julia quipped:
Excuse me? Where have you seen me exercising a double standard and scolding anyone for making fun of Islam? The more the merrier I say. Sorry, I can't titillate you with any fantasies of Mohammed. He was a chicken hawk though (pedophile). Would you care to share?
"Where have you seen me exercising a double standard and scolding anyone for making fun of Islam?"
Nowhere. I didn't claim you had: I asked "is it perhaps designed to illustrate . . . ." I was inquiring into the point/relevance of your post. Your responding with only an insult to Christianity to the question of why some people feel free to ridicule fundamentalist Christianity but not radical Islam made me curious as to how your post relates to the question. I think I understand now.
I don't think this is quite an accurate summation of what you're seeing. I doubt very much that you'll find any more sympathy for followers of radical Islam than, say, fundamentalist Christianity (and I've been reading Pharyngula long enough to know that you're definitely not going to get any more sympathy about Islamic beliefs from PZ). Rather, I suspect the source of the ambivalence you're seeing has more to do with the context of the excersize than the principle.
There's not always a bright line between satire and bigotry, and I think context does matter. For example, I might find a satire of gangsta rap amusing, but I doubt I would feel the same if I found out it was produced by the KKK (no, I'm not comparing the editors of the Jyllands Posten to the KKK, it's just an example of where context makes a difference).
Similarly, I do enjoy South Park and Dogma, but if a respectable news show decided to show clips from them in the name of "free speech solidarity", I don't know that I would be comfortable with that. I'm all for free speech, but I don't think people have to have their noses rubbed in it.
There is a perception that Jyllands Posten took no great moral or financial risk in printing Muhammad cartoons in a country that respects free speech in a newspaper that circulates largely to allfuent, white Protestants. If they wanted to prove the superiority of western culture's tolerance of free speech, they could have printed caricatures of Jesus and then said, "see we can dish it out and take it!". But they already rejected that path.
In other words, I think it is possible to support free speech, support religious tolerance, condemn Islamic violence and Islamist ideology, all without recognizing the publication of these cartoons as some kind of noble excersize. They were served up with a side of self-righteousnous that turns a lot of people off. The fact that they were reprinted by every wingnut around the globe (along with more respectable outlets) and flaunted like a flag lapel-pin didn't really help liberals get behind the cause either.
Ed Brayton wrote:
The caricatures are not criticism, they're a deliberate, calculated insult. Taking the trouble to understand a religion before pointing out it's authoritarian basis, inconsistancies and disproven claims is one thing. Pushing it's buttons specifically to create anger is another.
You continue to speak of Islam as though it were a single denomination, or of Radical Islamism as though it were a single ideology. It isn't.
Are the forms of Islam (the religion) and Islamism (the political ideology) in Denmark violent? No. There are a few mad types there who preach violence in the name is Islam, and a few who do the same in the name of Christianity, Hunduism or any other religion you care to name. That is a matter of a few isolated individuals with no following, not of the language or religion they use to justify themselves.
Some (most) forms of Islam are religions of peace, some are not (the mujahideen and taliban). Some are pro-reason (where do you think algebra and astronomy came from?), and others are pretty much defined by their hatred (Iranian antisemitism).
The cartoons were not aimed at the whole of the islamic world, they were targeted at a small minority of marginalised muslims in one country. When talking about their intent you need to remember that.
In politics, power imbalances are what matter, not the truth or falsity of any given belief system. And this issue is political, not theological.
The Islamic faith is a collection of meaningless or falsified propositions and unworkable contradictory morals. Just like every other religion, and pretty much every atheistic system of thought. This is obvious and irrelevant.
If truth mattered in politics, religion would have no part - but it does.
I see. Compare and contrast these sentences:
(1) Judaism is dangerous and unreasoning wherever it exists - just look at Palastine (but not Brooklyn).
(2) Catholicism is violent and insane whoever practices it - just look at Northern Ireland (but not the rest of Ireland).
(3) Islam is vile and murderous in all circumstances - just look at Afganistan (but not Holland).
My response was originally to Krauze, who inserted Christianity into the mix by whining about the Jesus cartoon. It wasn't out of the blue.
Some people, like myself feel free to joke about both, and or, all religions.
I think the problem some, like PZ, see with the Danish cartoons, is not that they poked fun at religion, but that they were aimed at an ethnic minority.
Like if the New York Times ran a cartoon of a black man with exaggeratedly large lips eating watermelon and chicken and preaching from the bible in front of a Southern Baptist church.
Religion is just the vehicle by which the racism was promoted.
Eric Wallace wrote:
Okay, then please explain the difference in context between PZ's posting of these cartoons about Christianity, which are infinitely more crude and insulting than the Danish caricatures, and the Danish situation, which he calls "pointless provocation". I would argue that the context clearly favors the latter being justified and the former being a pointless provocation (though in fact, I have no problem with either one of them). In the Danish situation, you had a clear and compelling context that justifies the publishing of the caricatures that everyone seems to want to ignore. Let me spell it out for what seems like the 100th time.
There has been a problem with Muslim violence against those who criticize Islam in Europe (just ask Theo Van Gogh, who was killed for making a movie about the oppression of women under Islam). In Denmark, the author of a book about Muhammed could not find anyone to illustrate his book because artists were afraid of a backlash from radical Muslims and he told the newspaper that. They decided to take a look at how serious this situation was by commissioning from every artist in the country some depictions of Muhammed. They got 12 responses, only 3 of which could conceivably be construed as insulting to Islam (and an equal number insulting to the newspaper, which they published anyway). By any sane criteria, this was a legitimate public issue in Denmark and yes, that context makes a hell of a difference. But you make it sound as they the newspaper randomly declared it "Insult a Muslim Day". There was a legitimate public issue in Denmark that the newspaper was commenting on with what they did, and that commentary - that the threat of violence was resulting in self-censorship - was justified a thousand fold by the ensuing reaction. By what possible measure is it not legitimate to criticize, through satire or any other means, an ideology (not mere Islam, but Islamism, or radical Islam, or Islamic fundamentalism, or whatever phrase you prefer) that promotes the murder not only of anyone who criticizes it, but anyone who leaves it as well?
That perception is clearly A) wrong, since the newspaper has had its offices firebombed, the editor has lost his job and everyone involved is living under a death threat; and B) irrelevant, because it's absurd to use "moral or financial risk" as a criteria for judging the legitimacy of a set of criticisms.
What is baffling to me is that you twice say that context matters, yet you completely ignore the context. There aren't Christian groups in Europe out there threatening to kill anyone who criticizes their religion publicly. There hasn't been for centuries. But there are Muslim groups there threatening to do that and sometimes making good on the promise. If context matters, clearly the latter makes this ia real issue worth commentary (through satire or any other type) about.
Please explain how the caricatures situation was served up with any more "self-righteousness" than similar criticisms of Christianity, like the ones PZ linked to above. I doubt you can make a good case for it.
Kapitano wrote:
Bullshit. They are criticism of the violent nature of radical Islam, just as caricatures of American TV evangelists are a criticism of that type of Christianity and the hucksters who get rich off of it, and just like caricatures of fatcat businessmen smoking cigars in a boardroom is a criticism of corporate practices. All satire is criticism.
Double bullshit. For crying out loud, how many times have I written, in this thread and in all of my previous threads, of the differences between moderate Islam and radical Islam? I've written over and over and over again that I don't think the radicals are even a majority in Islam (though they are at least a substantial minority group). I've written over and over again of our need to strengthen the position of moderate Muslims against the radicals, who are as much a threat to them, maybe more of one, than they are to us. You are doing nothing but beating up a straw man here, foisting on me a very different position than the one I actually hold because it's easier to attack. I have little patience for it.
Nonsense. This is not merely a few isolated individuals, it is a major ideology within Islam, not just in Denmark but around the world. The political ideology of Islamism is an inherently violent ideology because it asserts the authority to kill those who criticize Islam, who "blaspheme" (which means say anything the religious authorities don't like), who leave the religion or who break any of the religion's rules. If they want the imposition of Sharia law in a nation, they are inherently violent, just like Christian reconstructionists are inherently violent in America (though they at least are willing to wait until they get power to actually engage in that violence, while radical Muslims will do it here and now even without any political power - ask Theo Van Gogh or Salman Rushdie or any of the Danish cartoonists who now live under death threats). It is that ideology that must be attacked and it was that ideology that the caricatures were intended to attack. If reasonable, decent Muslims (which I agree with you are probably a majority) are upset by that, they should aim their anger not at the cartoonists or the newspaper, but at those radical Islamists who are committing violence in the name of their religion.
Why? No one has made those statements, least of all me. This is just your straw man rearing his ugly head again. Come back when you want to argue with what I say rather than what the "Ed in your head" says.
Ed, you're missing something.
Your post cites this statement: "I wouldn't post the Danish caricatures on my blog because I found them crude and based on stereotypes and I see no reason to make fun of these people."
This person is simply saying they don't think the cartoons are high enough quality to be on his blog. He doesn't say (as you repeatedly characterize him of saying) that other people shouldn't post them. he doesn't say it's bad to post them. He simply says he wouldn't post them. It's an editorial decision.
Ironically, you claim to defend free speech by criticizing someone's editorial choice of what to post on his own blog!
What's the difference from Dogma?: Most of these cartoons are just not clever enough to care about. I don't care who they're criticizing. If they had a picture of jesus or the spaghetti monster I'd say the same thing: they just add no intelligent commentary to the situation at all, and they're not funny. Maybe I just don't get them - but that's my choice: to decide what I think is interesting or funny. In contrast, yes, i thought Dogma was hilarious - maybe because I have more personal knowledge of catholicism.
So that's the difference you asked about - and that's what the blog poster you quoted is saying too.
Also, as to kapitano's point, I think his argument goes like this:
1. the cartoons satirize islam as a WHOLE - not just radical islam - because they refer directly to Mohammed, who is relevant to islam as a whole.
2. you defend the cartoons emphatically
3. therefore, you are treating islam as a monolithic creature, and claiming that it is intolerant and dangerous as a whole
4. Note: it doesn't matter how much you say that radical islam and islam as a whole are different, if you also say something that contradicts that view.
I think that his step #3 is an arguable interpretation of what the cartoons are doing - and he is right to criticize them for it.
I don't think that you intend to make that same mistake, so he's probably wrong to criticize you for it. However, because of #4, you need to be more clear about that. Here's how: stop your unqualified praise of the cartoons, and admit they have faults, including treating islam as a monlolithic dangerous whole.
And this is key: just because I say the cartoons have faults doesn't mean I don't defend the right to print them. I can defend your right to print them without being required to post them on my own blog ... right???
Changed my mind: actually if the cartoons had a picture of the spaghetti monster instead of mohammed, they probably would be funny.
dan7000 wrote:
You're taking that specific wording too literally. I merely used that as an example, among many, of the responses to the posting of the caricatures on my blog and in many other places. It isn't an exact wording or a quote from anyone specific, I was just trying to express that many people object to them because they're "crude" or "based on stereotypes" and because they "make fun" of Muslims when that same person would take delight in far cruder stereotypes that make fun of Christians.
There's nothing ironic about that at all, or the least bit contradictory. No one, least of all me, has ever suggested that a blog or a newspaper doesn't have full editorial control of what they publish or don't publish. That does not, however, make such decisions immune to criticism.
And if someone just stopped at "I don't think they're clever or funny", I'd have no problem with it. The fact that they then go on to make other arguments against the caricatures that they would not make in regard to any similar satire of Christianity is what I'm arguing against. Questions of taste are one thing; inconsistencies and special pleading are quite another thing.
I don't believe this is a reasonable interpretation of the caricatures because they ignore the context. They were commissioned specifically to bring attention to those violent elements within Islam whose threats have caused artists to self-censor. They show Muhammed because those violent elements point directly to Muhammed and the holy text he wrote as demanding that violent response. How is a non-radical Muslim to know the difference? Quite simply. If he or she does not advocate that Muhammed demands such violence, then the caricatures can't be aimed at them but at those who do advocate such a position.
The rational response to such caricatures, then, is not to say "how dare you defile the prophet by associating him with violence?" but to say to their fascist breathen "how dare you defile the prophet by committing such violence in his name?". I think the same thing of Christianity, that Christians who oppose totalitarian ideologies like reconstructionism should stand up against them and denounce them. Unfortunately, a lot of Christians today, particularly those in the religious right, work shoulder to shoulder with reconstructionists like Gary North, Gary DeMar, RJ Rushdoony, Howard Phillips, John Lofton and Roy Moore. And I think they should be condemned for that.
Ed, don't assume because I write this that I in any way think the cartoons are "bad" or "wrong", because I don't really care much about them at all. But I can't let this bit of illogic slide.
based on your above quote, you would have to defend a cartoon picturing a caricaturized gay man molesting children, because, following your logic, if ANY gay men molest children, such a cartoon would in no way be unfair to other gay men - after all:
"How is a non-child-molesting gay man to know the difference? Quite simply. If he or she does not advocate child molestation, then the caricatures can't be aimed at them but at those who do advocate such a position."
But, see - such a cartoon IS an unfair characterization of all gay men, and more importantly, it publicizes and promotes such an unfair characterization - leading the public to believe an untrue myth about gay men. What's the difference with the mohammed cartoons?
(If your answer is: because violent islamism is more prevalent than NAMBLA, then I think that contradicts your claim that you believe the "vast majority" of muslims are peaceful.)
dan7000 wrote:
No, I don't think I would have to defend such an assertion because I don't think the two situations are analogous, for several reasons. First, one group is ideological while the other is not. Pedophilia is not an intrinsic part of being gay; indeed, pedophiles is really its own unique pathology where sexual orientation rarely matters (most true pedophiles will go either way, the gender of their victim is irrelevant and it's the age that matters to them). But millions, probably into the hundreds of millions, of Muslims will defend the killing of infidels, blasphemers, gays and many other types of people as being an intrinsic part of Islam itself, commanded by the Prophet in their most sacred text. Thus, for a huge number of people, the behavior being criticized is an integral part of the ideology itself.
Indeed, the connection between a homosexual orientation and pedophilia is no stronger than the connection between a heterosexual orientation and pedophilia, so anyone who thinks that gays can be condemned for pedophilia also has to condemn straights for pedophilia, for all the same reasons, and that makes the whole argument absurd from the very start. There are obviously many rational reasons to reject your example without logically rejecting the situation under discussion.
As far as the numbers involved, I don't have anything solid to go on, If I had to venture a guess, I'd say that maybe 30% of Muslims around the world are of the radical variety, at least in ideology (which doesn't mean they would actually kill a gay person or an infidel, but they at least would give their tacit support for someone else to do it. If that figure is correct, with a billion Muslims in the world, that's about 300 million adherents to an extremely dangerous ideology that is an enormous threat to both our safety and our freedom. I think it's clearly far more reasonable to attack such an ideology than it is to attack gay people as pedophiles when a vanishingly small percentag of them are pedophiles, when well over 99% of gays would condemn pedophiles in no uncertain terms, and when that tiny group of pedophiles is rarely exclusively gay but cares more about the age of their victim than about their gender.
Oh, man. I was hoping you wouldn't say that. So basically, it's OK to paint Muslims in General (by using a picture of Mohammed) as radical because 30% of them are, but it's not OK if only 1% are.
Also, as you point out, "Pedophilia is not an intrinsic part of being gay". By reverse inference, you are saying there IS an inherent connection between Islam and Violence. So there you have it folks: Ed does say there is an inherent connection between islam and violence. Just what you've been accusing him of saying.
Really, Ed, these things are totally analogous. There is NO inherent connection between being Muslim and being violent - just as there is no inherent connection betweeen being gay and being a pedophile. You say that anyone who paints homosexuals as pedophiles would have to paint heterosexuals the same way. The EXACT same thing could be said for Islam and violence - Christians are just as violent (percentage-wise), so anybody who paints Muslims as violent should have to paint Christians as violent.
But most of your argument comes down to numbers: if there is a correlation of at least 30% (20%? 5%?) then it's legitimate to tar all members of a group based on the acts of the few. This is especially illegitimate when used to paint a member of a class which is immutable or impliates basic human rights - like race or religion. Imagine if in 1933 you publicized a characterization of all jews as usurers because some small % of them engaged in usury. Or if you publicized a characterization of all blacks as crack addicts because some small % of them are crack addicts. I guess you would defend that too... oh, but only if the % is high enough - what's the requirement again?
Before engaging in this conversation, I didn't see why Muslims were upset - thanks to your clarification on the legitimacy of painting with a broad brush, I now perfetly understand why they're upset.
dan7000 wrote:
*eyeroll* I didn't say that. I said that a sizable percentage of Muslims believe that Islam commands them to kill for such "crimes" as blasphemy, homosexuality and apostasy. And it is that ideology that I attack, along with a very specific disclaimer that I don't think most Muslims hold to that ideology. But how on earth does one criticize that ideology without making any reference to Muhammed? It can't be done. But by your reasoning, any reference to Muhammed at all means one is calling all Muslims radicals. And again, you just insist on ignoring the context. When the issue under discussion is whether violent, radical Muslims are causing self-censorship, the caricatures must be aimed at violent, radical Muslims. So again, I just don't think it's a reasonable interpretation of the caricatures that they are an insult to all Muslims. They are a criticism aimed at a specific ideology within Islam. That is the most reasonable interpretation. And it's certainly the only interpretation I have ever defended. So to continue to claim that I am denigrating all Muslims by defending these caricatures, in light of my very specific disclaimers and clear statement of how and why I am interpreting them as I do, is absurd and unjustified.
The problem for you is those 300 million or so Muslims in the world who disagree with you. For them, there is absolutely an inherent connection. Criticizing that connection, and their behavior, is absolutely justified.
This is ridiculous. When was the last time you saw a mob of Christians spilling into the streets demanding the extermination of an entire nation because of a cartoon? When was the last time a Christian killed a filmmaker for making a movie that was critical of Christianity? As offended as many Christians were by the Last Temptation of Christ, Martin Scorsese's life was never in any danger. No theaters were blown up in retaliation for the offense. Even Andres Serrano, the artist behind the Piss Christ sculpture, didn't have to live under police protection. It is patently absurd to claim that Christians are just as dangerous as Muslims as a percentage. 500 years ago, you might have had a case; today, you don't, not by a longshot.
Are there things to criticize about Christianity? Absolutely. Are their dangerous ideologies within Christianity? No question. And I routinely criticize those. And not one person who is now condemning me for unfair stereotyping has ever bothered to make the same arguments they're making in regard to my statements here. But in reality, they should be even more critical of me in regard to my criticisms of Christianity, because I rarely if ever bother to make clear that I do not believe all Christians adhere to those ideologies I'm criticizing, while in the case of Muslims I always make clear that I do not aim my criticisms at the majority of decent, peaceful Muslims in the world. So if anything, the outrage should cut the other way and it doesn't. Why? Because you have a double standard, which you are frantically searching for a way to excuse.
The Jesus cartoons were posted on FARK, a parody site devoted to being rude. You know what you're going to get when you go there. The Danish cartoons were posted in a serious newspaper. Clearly there is a contextual difference regardless of how you feel about the issue.
Well, that's really the question here, isn't it? Obviously you believe it was justified; fine. Not everyone does. As you mention later, many of the cartoons themselves targeted the newspaper, including one with the words "Jyllands-Posten's journalists are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs." It seems that not everyone was behind JP's mission...including those involved!
It is more self-righteous because it was cast as a high-minded test of principles. I sincerely doubt the readers of FARK were on any such mission while Photoshopping Jesus. Inside a legitimate newspaper, it carries an imprimatur: this is IMPORTANT. It might offend you, but it's FOR YOUR OWN GOOD. That may not fit your definition of self-righteous, but it does mine.
Ultimately, I think reasonable people can disagree about whether this "free speech test" was justified, and if JP went about it in an appropriate way. There are certainly other tacks they could have taken; for example, they could have printed the substance of the accompanying article (the story of the author who couldn't get his children's book illustrated, etc.), without commissioning any cartoons. Make up your own mind as to whether what they did crossed the line from journalism to stunt; I don't really care. What surprises me is your apparent bafflement at anything less than full-throated support of their enterprise.
That someone is lukewarm about the cartoons doesn't mean that they're not for free speech, or wishy-washy about radical Islamism, or into splitting hairs about minority vs. majority insults (though apparently some do think this way).
Eric Wallace wrote:
And this distinction actually cuts against your argument, not for it. The Danish cartoons were clearly far more legitimate than the Fark cartoons, by any measure. They addressed a serious issue facing Danish society, the issue of self-censorship caused by fear of violence. They weren't just isolated as cartoons, they were published as part of a larger discussion of that extremely important issue. The Fark cartoons were solely for shock value. By any sane measure, satire is far easier to justify as part of the response to a serious issue than it is, to quote PZ, "pointless provocation". That's my point, the disparity in the reactions simply are not justified by the facts. If anything, the facts would support a disparate reaction in the other direction.
And I would argue that the fact that the newspaper went ahead and published even those cartoons that were critical of them shows that they were trying to do something more than "pointless provocation", they were trying to get the public in Denmark to engage that issue, even if they disagreed with their position. Given that, it's even more absurd to me that some of the very same people who react to that serious discussion by claiming that they were engaging in nothing more than an attempt to insult a religious group, then turn around and link to far worse insults, devoid of any sort of context that would justify this inconsistency, to another religious group - and refuse to admit that they've got a double standard here.
This amounts to nothing more than "they claimed this issue was more important." Well I've got news for you, it is more important. Engaging the issue of radical Islam and the effect it is having on our freedoms is infinitely more important and worthwhile a subject than putting Jesus' face on a box of tampons. Yet you and many others are fine with the latter and outraged at the former.
I do too. I've never said otherwise. What I have said is that it's not reasonable for someone to condemn JP for "stereotyping" or "religion-bashing" or "pointlessly insulting" someone when that someone sees nothing wrong with far cruder, far more insulting, and far more pointless insults aimed at a different religion. Those arguments are inconsistent and it's the inconsistency that I am attacking.
2 things:
1.
I totally agree. So put Bin Laden. But don't put charicatures of "generic-looking muslims" (equivalent to a Sambo cartoon) or mohammed (who is relevant to all muslims).
If you deny that these cartoons gave the message: "muslims tend to be violent and shouldn't be trusted" then you are being intellectually dishonest. Europeans published the same types of cartoons in the 1930s, they just switched races this time.
2. I am not proposing any double standard. Show me one political cartoon that caricatures Jesus or Sambo or anything else that's meant to denigrate an entire race or religion, and I'll criticize it, just as I would have in 1933. (and I'll also defend the right to print it, as I would have then).
South Park doesn't count, because it's obvious lowbrow comedy, as opposed to political cartoons which are always trying to make a serious point. Dogma made no point at all about Catholics (that I could tell) - it was more of a fantasy/fiction movie using Catholicism as a backdrop. And it wasn't on the editorial page. So: show me such a cartoon. Or an editorial making the same point, but not about muslims.
I bet you can't - THATS the double standard - but if you can, I'll give it the same criticism.
Talk about "ignoring the context". These are on the editorial page - that's the context. You can't compare them to South Park.
dan-
Your argument continues to be ridiculous. If you don't think Dogma or South Park are serious criticisms of religion, you're simply not paying attention. The fact that they're also very funny doesn't mean there isn't a point to the satire. The distinction between highbrow and lowbrow is arbitrary and irrelevant - satire, regardless of what brow you put it in, is criticism. As for the comparison between the JP cartoons and cartoons of the Jews under the Nazis, I think I'll just invoke Godwin's law and move on. That's a ridiculous comparison and the difference should be staggeringly obvious to anyone with an IQ over room temperature. The Jews were scapegoated by Hitler as being to blame for every bad thing that happened in the world and they did not legitimately bear the blame for any of it. Radical Muslims, on the other hand, are a real and genuine threat to both life and liberty. If your argument is going to collapse into "you say bad things about Muslims and Hitler said bad things about Jews, so you're just like Hitler", you're going to make yourself look exceedingly foolsh. And all of the comparisons to races is just as absurd. Islam is a religion, not a race. There are Muslims all over the world who aren't the least bit Arab.
For me "the difference" is difficult to describe in a manner that will make logical sense to others. As someone who was raised in the Bible Belt (but who now thankfully resides in California), I have seen more than my share of bigotry and ignorance in the name of Christianity. To this very day, whenever I hear/read the word "Christian" I inevitably envision a right-wing, narrow-minded prick. I am fully aware that many (and perhaps even the majority) of Christians do not fit such a description, yet because of my personal experiences and biases, it is what comes to my mind most readily.
Islam, on the other hand, is a far more exotic and unfamiliar territory as far as I am concerned. I am someone who has an intense fascination with different cultures/religions, etc. Despite the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the many other acts of deplorable violence orchestrated by Islamic radicals, I have not known many Muslims personally who have angered me on a basic level the way that many Christians have.
It is easier for me in many ways to become incensed by the antics of right-wing Christians in the United States than it is for me to immediately vilify Muslims for the protests over the Danish cartoons (though I doubtless find their behavior appalling, immature, and entirely out of proportion to the "wrong" done to them).
Note that I am not sharing this in order to justify my reasons for feeling this way; I am simply sharing this in order to elucidate WHY I feel this way. I don't expect you to agree or consider my rationale valid.
No, I never said I was outraged. Maybe this is why we seem to be talking past each other. I'll try one more time and then we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
You seem to have suggested, in your various posts, that there are these classes of people:
(1) Those who are fine with both sets of cartoons.
(2) Those who are outraged at both sets of cartoons.
(3) Those who are fine with one set, but outraged at the other.
You claim to be attacking (3) for its inconsistencies. Great! I agree; it's inconsistent. I just don't think that everyone you're putting in category (3) necessarily belongs there.
I suggest to you that there is at least one other category:
(4) Those who are fine with both sets of cartoons, but aren't particularly impressed with either as a rallying point for the cause of free-speech.
This is the category I'm in. I think it may be the category that PZ is in, but you know, I'm not in his head, so maybe I'm wrong. I do recall him using the word "ambivalent" in his original post, I don't remember "outraged".
I'm certainly not outraged by the content of the Muhammad cartoons. Personally I find them rather bland. I did think the commissioning of the cartoons was a somewhat juvenile way to make the point; a stunt. I'm not arguing that the issue isn't important. As you say, it is. It's the presentation I'm quibbling with.
It just seems to me, having read your series on this issue, that you're very quick to put anyone who displays the slightest misgivings at fully backing JP into the hypocrite camp. I don't feel like I belong there, and I bet there are others who feel the same.