Cartoons
By now, many Americans will have heard about the Islamic protests against cartoons that appeared in a Danish paper that depicted Mohammed. There were 12 cartoons, and two were mildly political, much like our standard political cartoons you'd find on the opinion page of the paper.
The Islamic world freaked, of course. Islam forbids pictorial depictions of all people and animals, and especially forbids pictures of the "Prophet". There are huge protests and riots. Danish embassies have been torched. People have died. Groups in Palestine have announced that the lives of all Danes in Palestine are at risk.
Everyone seems to have one of four opinions. One, that it was blasphemy and is thus plain wrong. Two, that the paper that published the cartoons did nothing wrong. Three, that, while freedom of the press is important, it was in bad taste or insensitive. Four, that the cartoons are an internal Danish matter.
My two cents is this.
I openly reject Islam.
I reject the perfection of the Prophet. I reject the teaching of the Quran.
I do so of my own free will.
Since I am not a Muslim, I also reject Sharia-based laws.
Since I am not beholden to Sharia, I find no fault in the publishing of the cartoons.
I know that my view is insensitive, biased, blasphemous, and apostate. However, in a multicultural democracy, one needs to be thick-skinned, to expect to have one's beliefs challenged and questioned.
I am ready to fight words with words.
If Islamists are always going to escalate, fight words with physical violence, then they are not prepared to live in a multicultural democracy.
Those that use violence to silence words are rarely noble.
posted by Mike @ 10:43 PM
6 Comments:
"Those that use violence to silence words are rarely noble." Nice summation.
"and two were mildly political, much like our standard political cartoons you'd find on the opinion page of the paper."
Interesting, one actually had a bomb attached to muhammed's head. Not what i would call "mildly political," especially in this climate. Justice Wendell Holmes is the one who made the comment about fire in a theatre as an abuse of free speech. While your last line is right on, and i have no justification for the violence that followed the cartoons, whether you follow the particular religion or not seems irrelevant. Do you believe in compasion and understanding?
I wonder what your tune would be had the papers of the predominately Christian "West" had protrayed Jesus as a lover of little boy's asses? Because this is the relation of the two. No, not all that mildly political. But very telling of how we respond to what we don't understand or dislike.
The violence is horrific, but so is the mindset that consideres this freedom of speech a true representation of multicultural democracy. I think if it was a true representation of variegated cultures, then the paper wouldn't have portrayed a religion's prophet, or its people, as terrorists. This was an egregious error in judgment, yet truly telling of how disparate our reponses might be, but even more emblematic of how gracious we are not.
You have pointed out, justly unfortunately, that there is a relationship between the church and the mistreatment of boys. By bringing this out into the open, it can be dealt with. Hiding the problem perpetuated the problem.
Likewise, Islam and terrorism. Islamic terrorists like to use Islam because its scriptures can be interpreted in a way perpetuates violence. If we silence the debate, that will never change.
While what you clearly (and using few words, i commend you for that) stated is right on, the cartoons were incendiary, not intended for discourse. They have the right, but let's not mistake a combative disposition with one of civil debate. If I am to quell an argument with someone, especially someone prone to violence, should i approach them with a stick; should i punch them to get them to realize how violent they are; should i publically slander them inorder to get them to the table; or should i approach a trepidatious situation with caution and grace? The question, i guess, isn't whether the Islamic community has problems, but what is the most beneficial manner in which to approach them?
I'm not exactly sure if the cartoon's intent was incendiary. If anything, we will never really know the true intent of the cartoon author despite the public statements he makes. But if you look at just the image and the portrayal itself.. it doesn't make much sense on all of the violence that followed.
In my opinion, and some other friends opinion, the cartoon was more of an outlet for those in Islam to express their discontent against the West. If you look at some of the news coverage stemming from the Danish cartoon, people started burning effigies of Bush. What does this have to do with the cartoon in the Danish newspaper? Nothing. It has to deal with the overall agression that has not been able to be expressed through much time.
This cartoon seems to be more of a funnel to vent anger if anything.
...please where can I buy a unicorn?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home