The Cartoons: How Serious Is The Fallout?

[cali]

And What's this really all about? Some claim that it's simply about the cartoons, others that this is the culmination of the frustration Muslims feel regarding western actions and attitudes over the past years. In any case, the rage is real. Does this embody an essential clash of cultures? Can it be resolved without loss of life, property and further polarization? Should the papers that published the cartoons apologize? Should the governments apologize? Should Muslim leaders issue more, and clearer calls for calm?

I don't have any answers, but I do sense this is an important moment. And a dangerous one.

[Warpy]

1. The things that should happen won't happen

Cartoonists and papers won't apologize (although they certainly should). Muslim leaders won't call for cooling down, that's not how they got to be leaders.

I can imagine what the Talibaners here in the US would be doing if some paper ran a crucifixion scene with the caption "Hey fellas! I can see my house from here!" and that's milder than the cartoon those papers ran. Believers take these things very seriously, and that cartoon was in poor taste, at the very least.

[cali]

3. Ever watch "Life of Brian"?

Hear of Serrano's Christ in Piss? Seen the cover of the new Rolling Stone? You're just wrong. Christianity and Christ himself are now and have been for a long time, fodder for satire. In countries such as Egypt and Syria, anti-semitic themes, such as depictions of Rabbis eating babies are not at all uncommon, and in those countries, the government does control the media.

[Igel]

11. I've seen worse things in the US media.

Hell, I've read worse things on DU. And yet, when those given offense are called to apologize, freedom of speech and opinion is defended. And those complaining are condemned.

You don't have to imagine what the two sides would do, however fertile your imagination. Fundie Xians picket, they call for a suspension of government funding, and they write letters. They whine on the air. The scum!

Your turn. Show that calls for punishment, censorship, hostage taking, boycotts, and retribution by crowds burning flags on the street and calling for death to Denmark is worse than the occasional picket or letter-writing campaign (or--gasp!--whining on the air).

After all, progressives support censorship and government apologies for offending religious groups, and calls for death. Good, liberal values those, when done for the right purpose: After all, isn't the goal of progressivism da'wa and defending Allah?

[fujiyama]

2. The governments should NOT apologize

It seems like many in the Muslim world don't have a concept of freedom of speech. It was a cartoon. If you are offended, write letters to the paper. The paper can issue an apology if they see fit. The fanatics are using this non issue as a distraction to get people enraged. I find it idiotic that there are actually riots over this, but I'm not surprised considering similar things happened after Falwell's comments.

I find it absurd to believe that someone that doesn't believe Mohammad is their prophet should not be allowed to mock him. I can mock Mohammad, Jesus, Buddha, Vishnu, or whomever the hell else I want to mock.

People are way too sensitive over religion.

[Lasher]

4. I'm with you, fujiyama

I am offended by people who are too easily offended.

[DemExpat]

5. I agree here, and find this reaction to cartoons extremely disturbing.

DemEx

[Ohio Joe]

13. Agreed

The reaction seems way out of whack to me.

[bunkerbuster1]

6. We need a UN resolution

"Be it hereby resolved that religious fundie assholes need to get over themselves and understand that their sacred cows are going to be gored by non-believers. It's the nature of things. So grow the fuck up already."

[NC_Nurse]

10. BWAHAHAHAHA!

I love that. Too bad it'll never happen. :D

[Saphire]

7. there have been apologies, but that's apparently not enough....they

want those responsible to be punished. One editor has been fired, but they still want more. No one has mentioned what the "more" might be.

[tocqueville]

8. the fired editor...

was fired by an Egyptian Christian owner (copt) who wanted to go back home "clean"

[mdmc]

9. bomb

The cartoonist have the right to express themselves. They need to take responsibility for what they created.

If people end up dying, well, the cartoonist will have to deal with that.

Did they create this cartoon to help understand and to promote compassion? Or did they create it to cause conflict and violence? They have the right to free speech, but they need to take responsibility as well.

If you yell "nigger crack whore" at some black girls in Harlem, you may be protected under your first amendment rights. If a pimp pokes your eye out and takes your wallet, the pimp was wrong to do that. The pimp will have to face the consequences of his actions.

It is all Karma.

[cali]

14. Save me from thinking like yours.

"Did they create this cartoon to help understand and to promote compassion?" Surely you don't think that's the duty of cartoonists. Political and cultural cartoonists (they have a long hx) create primarily to be provocative. And I mean that in both the best and worst of ways.

As far as your comparison to yelling in Harlem, it's a poor one. Think Serrano's Christ in Piss. That's a far better comparison. Or Kanye West in what could be seen as a mockery of Christianity on the cover of RS.

Are the cartoons offensive to Muslims and others? Sure. Just like Serrano's work. Should Serrano's piece have been removed from a gallery? How about Mapplethorpe's? Should they apologize to those they offended? Please respond.

[mdmc]

19. thank you for a chance to respond.

I feel that they need to take responsibility for their actions. "Christ in piss" may have cost the art community funding. It pissed off fundies. Big deal, right? All that I am saying is that actions have consequences.

As far as Serrano's work being removed from the gallery, I think that is up to the gallery owner / director. If the art work is worth the heat, then display it. If it is crap, get rid of it.

Recently, an artist damaged a piece of pop art (some urinal, do you know what I'm talking about?) and claimed that his destruction was a work of art, and that the original pop art artist would have approved of the destruction to the original piece. This IS art, but the artist must take responsibility for his art.

Artist should never apologize for their creative endeavors - they should take responsibility for the consequences of their art.

Humans can do whatever they want. Everything that a human does, has consequences. You can yell "fire!" in a crowded American theater, just be prepared to be arrested. You will have broken the law.
Regarding my Harlem comment; saying "nigger" is legal, just like these cartoons. I am suggesting that the artist take responsibility for the results of their creation.

These cartoonist created something. This something that they have created has consequences. The cartoonist should deal with the consequences, and accept responsibly for their actions.

There is a world of possible actions to engage in. Some have positive benefits, some have negative benefits. Accept responsibility for your actions.

[CJCRANE]

23. If you consider

"shock and awe", Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, pissing on the Koran, "extraordinary renditions" etc etc it's just the latest in a long line of abuses so I'm not surprised some fundamentalists are pissed off.

They're wrong to turn to violence but it's clear there is an underlying RW agenda to demonize and attack Islam and muslim countries.

[ronnie624]

26. You are correct.

It is not the muslim nations that have been exploiting, plundering, bombing and invading western countries for many decades, but in fact the other way around. I suspect that many muslims feel as though they are under attack these days.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[esbelt]

17. Your right

Maby aim putting those words in a wrong way, but the fact is that 12 countries until now (officials governments) of the Islamic world, are demanding us to change our lows and to put the responsible of the news-paper in jail and much more, I believe they are representing allot of people, and in my world this is insane! shut we ;a free Democratic, change our lows be-course of a free independent newspaper is making offending stories ???

[mdmc]

20. never!

[CJCRANE]

24. Well, Jews are protected in most European countries

under laws banning anti-semitism. If you look at the anti-Mohamed cartoons they use semitic caricatures just like the Nazis did against the jews. It's not much of a leap to see the intention behind them.

[Stephanie]

12. It's outrageous - fundamentalists don't get to impede our free speech

Absolutely not. Line in the sand.

[Yupster]

25. Ae with you Stephanie

I don't see this issue as a close call at all and I can't for the life of me see where so many DU'ers are on the other side all of the sudden.

If you don't like offensive things in print, then don't write any.

If you don't like seeing offensive things written by others then don't look at them.

It's as simple as that.

And no Muslims don't get a special pass because they yell loud and have swords.

_______________________________________________________________

I will separate an issue though.

If these cartoons were printed with government money, or displayed in a government gallery, then I would be against them. It's the same opinion I had to "PissChrist".

If you want to make something that you know will insult a whole group of people, then go right ahead, but the government should keep their dollars out of that fight.

___________________________________________________________________

Of course I hope no one gets hurt, but honestly, I think controversies like this are going to have to happen. Eventually these people on the streets will realize that their lives and their religion will carry on just fine even with the prophet in a cartoon once in a while. That's if the world doesn't give in to their tantrums.

[gatorboy]

18. I must've missed the Bruhauhau here.

Anyone have a link to what's gotten them riled up?

[MiniMe]

21. Anybody remember Quayle criticizing Murphy Brown?

For an out of wedlock child? The media crucified him for taking on a fictional character from a television show. Where, oh where is that press now???

[cali]

22. I'll answer my own question

and kick this up: Pretty damn serious. The Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus have been set afire. This is escalating.

[genie_weenie]

27. Serves them right

I mean they Dared to insult the prohpet!

Ummm, what's that a newspaper, NOT THE GOVERNMENT, printed them, well too bad the Government of Danelaw should have clamped down and stifled free speech and BY ALLAH if they do not we will kill every Westerner regardless of nationality that we can find!

That will teach the west that Islam means peace!

[cali]

28. Step down from the soapbox and back

slowly away. I have NOT advocated censorship. I haven't seen anyone on DU advocate such measures. I do advocate responsible journalism. With privilege comes responsibility. I hold the NYT to a different standard than the Onion. I hold John Danforth to a higher standard than Pat Robertson. Last night the cartoon editor of the WP was on NPR explaining why the WP wouldn't print the cartoons. It had nothing to do with being silenced.