I feel like I ought to say something about the whole Danish cartoon mess, but really-- and this isn't something you'll hear me say often about issues touching on religion-- PZ has it about right. The paper in question has every right to print them, but when you get down to it, the cartoons themselves are pretty terrible. They're badly drawn in a manner that's weirdly typical of European political cartoons (I prefer this sort of thing), and they're gratuitously offensive. Pubishing them was a stupid thing to do.
(Let me note, though, that I find a certain delightful irony in the fact that PZ is taking heat for being insufficiently intolerant of Islam...)
As always when it comes to matters of religion, Fred Clark says sensible things, but the final word on the subject belongs to Fafblog!
- Log in to post comments
I'd tend to agree. Just as long as the distinction is clearly made between the not-at-all-dumb criticisms of the cartoons themselves, the mildly-dumb act of publishing said cartoons, and the raving-lunatic violent protest that's going on in fundamentalist Islam at the moment.
I don't know about "gratuitously offensive"...they look more like illustrations from a children's book to me. And the "no more virgins" one was even almost funny. Pretty tame.
JP, in Muslin religion (as in Luteran, now I think about) any picture of the saints and prophetes is blasphemy because it distracts people from focusing on God. Iconoclastas, they are called.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that I rather liked the one with the two burqa-clad women juxtaposed with the censor-barred Muhammed.
It stuck to the themes of censorship that brought the whole issue up very nicely, and wrapped it up with a pretty sharp piece of social commentary along the way.
They are bad and gratuitously offensive, and I have no objection to those who complain on those grounds. But since I am generally against hate-speech laws, I expect any civilized person to limit reaction to private speech to a verbal response. And I expect every person to be civilized. To expect less of a Muslim (regardless of their putative status as a repressed minority) than of a non-Muslim is bigotry.
My favourite was the one with the artist hunched over a drawing of Mohammed trying to hide it from sight. But I'll agree that the "no more virgins" one was pretty hilarious.
Now that vito-excalibur cartoon was effing hilarious!
Alejandro--
I've heard that too. But still, it's tough to imagine why non-muslims should feel obliged to follow that rule. I don't eat kosher and sometimes I say (or write) "god damn it", to use examples from other religions...
I at first thought the censor-barred muhammed and the artist hiding his drawing were done after this thing exploded on the scene...they're really apt and appropriate. just goes to show that denmark was dealing with this issue long before we all heard of it.
John: I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that I rather liked the one with the two burqa-clad women juxtaposed with the censor-barred Muhammed.
That was the best of the lot, I agree. If they'd all been that good, I might have more sympathy for the people posting them.
Craig: They are bad and gratuitously offensive, and I have no objection to those who complain on those grounds. But since I am generally against hate-speech laws, I expect any civilized person to limit reaction to private speech to a verbal response. And I expect every person to be civilized. To expect less of a Muslim (regardless of their putative status as a repressed minority) than of a non-Muslim is bigotry.
Absolutely.
Or, as Fred Clark put it in the post I linked:
Freedom of Speech: Good.
Bigotry/Deliberate Disrespect: Bad.
Wanton Rioting/Violence: Bad.
The first doesn't excuse the second, and the second doesn't excuse the third.
See also Chris Bertram's take on the whole kerfuffle.
Freedom of speech means nothing if one is not free to say offensive, and yes, even stupid things. Offensive and stupid speech has to be defended as vigorously as any other speech, without qualifications so that everyone knows how sensitive we, ourselves, are, or we risk descending to the point that only good or intelligent speech is permitted. And then where would I be?
Iconoclast = Breaker of icons. Example: the destruction of the Bamyan Buddhas by the Taliban.
They are coming for your icons next.
The problem with the good/bad/bad analysis is that it is pitched to an intellectual level so low I'm not even going to characterize it with a grade level. Are we so simplistic that, in having no better distinctions than "good" and "bad", we're implicitly putting disrespect of someone's religion at the same level as rioting and burning things?
Chad, some of the cartoons were to the point. Muslim suicide bombers deserve to be ridiculed. In fact, I think this is one of the best things to do: they blow themselves up partly to gain respect. Let them know that many people hold them for what they are: bloody idiots.
i have completely reserved judgement on the 'quality' of these cartoons because i have no idea what the context of their original publication is. By their content it seems that the artists themselves were aware of the issues we're discussing here (i.e. the one with the artist trying to hide the picture of Muhammed). Additionally, it seems to be a collection of cartoons from several different artists.
Because i really can't seem to find an article that explains the context i have no idea if it was 'gratuitously offensive'. For all i know they were published under the headline, "Terrible Cartoons". I am also troubled that they were published months ago and yet the 'row' started just last week.
I fear that we are all watching opportunistic mob-inciting and are missing the point. What if this is just the way to mobilize the base of someone's party? Like a bare tit during the superbowl or a made up war on christmas. What if it's a way to get your more extreme elements to solidify their anger and support your radical politics.
Doesn't anyone else appreciate the irony of "stop describing muslims as terrorists or we will rampage through your streets, burn your embassies, and bomb your people, and decapitate your cartoonists!"
It certainly doesn't seem very productive to respond with "well, you've got a good point there...."
It's terrible. I'm going to have to start being more disrespectful of religion, and I'm not sure how to do it -- I thought I'd reached a sort of limit.
Kyle, the original context is this: An author of a children's history of Muhammed's life found it vanishingly difficult to find anyone to illustrate his book, due to artists' fears of death threats and so forth. So the Danish journalists created these cartoons for an article on free speech.
So, I have to disagree with the idea that publishing them was in bad taste. And even suggest that they be reprinted by every press that values its freedoms.
Douglas, Thanks. Then i think that publishing them was in good taste. i would very much like to read the original article that surrounded them (translated into English for my raised in Kansas eyes).
i am still suspicious about the spontaneous nature of the anger about them.
John: The problem with the good/bad/bad analysis is that it is pitched to an intellectual level so low I'm not even going to characterize it with a grade level. Are we so simplistic that, in having no better distinctions than "good" and "bad", we're implicitly putting disrespect of someone's religion at the same level as rioting and burning things?
I'm not claiming that it's any sort of philosophically impregnable final statement on the matter. As a bumper-sticker-level summary of the situation, though, I like it.
Mark: Freedom of speech means nothing if one is not free to say offensive, and yes, even stupid things.
Sure. it's important to remember, though, that "tact" and "censorship" are different things.
Chad, I always favor being tactful myself (a rule I often honor in the breach), but I'm talking about defending a basic tenet of Western civilization (again, often honored in the breach). If a newspaper is a place for intellectual discourse (yes, I know, a dubious assumption), then offensive speech is a given. I can't remember the last time I saw the words "tact" and "newspaper" in the same paragraph.
I'm not claiming that it's any sort of philosophically impregnable final statement on the matter. As a bumper-sticker-level summary of the situation, though, I like it.
I revel in complexity, these days, and I am not so impoverished of moral discrimination that I'm limited to bumper sticker approaches.
Even as a summary, it ringeth not my bell.
Chad, I always favor being tactful myself (a rule I often honor in the breach), but I'm talking about defending a basic tenet of Western civilization (again, often honored in the breach). If a newspaper is a place for intellectual discourse (yes, I know, a dubious assumption), then offensive speech is a given.
Which, of course, explains the way the New York Times drops the word "fuck" into so many of their stories. (OBOnion: "Holy Shit! Man Walks on Fucking Moon!")
Look, freedom of the press is a great thing, and a core principle of a free society. I absolutely believe that the Danish paper in question has the right to publish whatever they want, just as Larry Flynt has the right to print just about anything he wants.
That doesn't mean I have to be enthusiatic about it when they choose to do something tacky and stupid with their freedom.
Also-- and this is a critical distinction that often seems to be lacking in blogdom-- the fact that I'm not wildly enthusiastic about the Danish cartoons does not mean that I'm in favor of rioting and burning embassies in response. In fact, I'm quite happy to state that burning an embassy over a bunch of poorly drawn cartoons is stupider than publishing offensive cartoons in the first place. By several orders of magnitude.
The fact that the Danes had a right to publish those cartoons doesn't mean that they were right to publish them. And the fact that the cartoons were offensive to many Muslims does not mean they have the right to go totally apeshit and burn stuff. There's plenty of room in the middle for me to stand and say that they're all a bunch of jackasses.
Chad, while the cartoons may have been jackass worthy, insert some "slippery slope" stuff here. You know what I'll say.
Also, I fully understand your point and in no way assumed you were defending the islamic reaction to the cartoons or equating them in "badness" terms with printing the cartoons.