Way back at the start of this blog, in my very first post, I discussed why I was not supportive of the Dutch cartoonists who drew mocking images of Mohammed. I'm going to reprise that logic here, very briefly.
If it's OK to draw images of Mohammed with a bomb on his head, then it must be OK to stick a crucifix in urine and call it "art". It isn't. I have more in common with the Moslem world than I do with the nihilistic moral relativists that infest our popular culture. While I'm against many of the teachings of Islam, I respect their commitment to self-denial and rejection of the libertine lifestyle the West has embraced to it's own regret.
Mocking Moslems is a mistake.
Over at our Monastery of Miscellaneous Musings, Dean has other thoughts.
7 comments:
I came to the same conclusion. Drawing Muhammed myself isn't going to make Comedy Central any less cowardly. It's not a First Amendment issue if people choose not to taunt bullies. So, there really isn't any rationale for drawing Muhammed.
It occurs to me now to wonder if Comedy Central has life insurance policies on the writers of South Park. And perhaps those insurers leaned on Comedy Central threatening to cancel the policies due to the writers' "suicidal behavior". And being that South Park is easily their most watched show Comedy Central censored the second episode.
KT,
Please consider my post on this subject. In brief, the Muslims are wrong to be offended by the mere depiction of Mohammed. I agree with not portraying their prophet disrespectfully, but mere depiction is within the Muslim tradition.
Well, more explicitly, certain Muslims are wrong for *threatening to murder non-Muslims who make fun of Mohammed*.
I mean, I would agree that soaking a crucifix in urine was equivalent to drawing mocking pictures of Mohammed if Christians were then threatening to murder the people who did it, but they aren't, and so it isn't.
I mean, on the one hand the mocking of Mohammed that started all this was in poor taste, but on the other hand I really, truly, deeply despise bullies, and think that just rolling over and letting them have their own way is a huge mistake.
There is a fundamental asymmetry in the juxtaposition of "Piss Christ" and the "Mo-toons." Serrano's provocation was as incoherent as a schoolyard taunt (and is one reason it leaves me, a Christian, unmoved). A sketch of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban conveys truth and a valid rebuke. The two are simply not event in the same category.
Let me put it this way. I believe Islam's prophet was a thoroughly bad character. The bald statement of his many character flaws would be just as provoking as the 'toons, and for exactly the same reason. Am I to refrain on your grounds? I think not. Islam is a wicked and false religion and I can't refrain from saying so in order to avoid giving offense.
To question another of your points in this post: do you really think Hugh Heffner's attitude toward women is as far as away from the Islam's as you assert? Both dehumanize women, and often in precisely the same, sexual way. I hate what has happened to our culture. But the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.
I understand about the "don't give in to bullies" mentality, but like the charges of racism against the Tea Party, this seems like using crowd control weapons to target individuals. I would also suggest that this will drive more Moslems into the arms of the extremists. If there was a Catholic faction that was totally whacked, but the general populace starting drawing images of Mary doing horrible things (which already happens in some circles in the art world), I'd relate more to the Catholic whackos than the general populace.
I guess that in the end, the message you're giving the Moslems is not "come into the light," but instead is "STFU!"
I guess that in the end, the message you're giving the Moslems is not "come into the light," but instead is "STFU!"
Funny, I think that is just what Moslems are saying to me.
Thanks for the link!
Great comments, guys.
Post a Comment