MAIN MENU
MOHAMMED CLIPART PARODY
ARTICLES
CONTACT
Links Relevant to Article:
Reader Response by Eric Purnell
Mikhaela B. Reid
Matt Bors
Humanist Network News
MOHAMMED, YA NEED A FACELIFT
by Jeff Swenson
As regular readers of the Humanist Network News may know, Duncan Crary invited 3 cartoonists on the most recent podcast for February 28, 2006 who are known to have freethinking views and were willing to discuss the controversy surrounding the Danish editorial cartoons that depicted the Prophet Mohammed and the resulting violent protests across the Middle East.
The guests were Mikhaela B. Reid who draws Boiling Point, Matt Bors who draws The Idiot Box, and myself Jeff Swenson who draws Freethunk which appears on HNN among other sites. Everyone agreed that the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten had the right to publish whatever they wanted. The question being debated was more along ethical lines. Were these cartoons necessary or were they there to provoke and possibly justify anti-immigration biases? The same holds true for the reprinting of the cartoons in other European papers such as France Soir which led to the firing of the managing editor.
Matt and Mikhaela started out by taking different positions which you can hear on the Podcast. I don't want to speak for these artists, but generally speaking Mikhaela was not for publishing the cartoons and Matt was. I found myself listening to them so intently that I forgot that I was going to be asked to speak next (of course I had a cold and the Dayquil didn't help) so when I was asked my opinion I was still weighing both of their arguments, which I think were both legitimate. I'm not even sure I gave a definite opinion or answered the question.
After the Podcast was over, being that it is hard to put my mind at rest, I kept thinking about the issue. For the most part, I am on the Lenny-Bruce-Howard-Stern-Let-It-All-Hang-Out side of things when it comes to humor and more importantly cartooning. Because frankly, I'm not always sure if I should be posting some of my cartoons. But then art is about exposing yourself (your inner self, ya pervs) and the inner thought process is not always complete or on stable ground. If I started worrying about whether such and such cartoon would offend or should offend I'd probably would post very little work. I am also extremely busy, hardly breathing inbetween drawing a panel cartoon and the next art project. There is little time to reflect until of course someone sends you an email on why you're going to hell.
If I were the cartoonist who drew the most offensive of the Mohammed cartoons, the one with the bomb in the turban, would I have submitted it for publication? Even knowing that it might erupt into a firestorm of protests across the Muslim World? ...Yeah, I probably would have. So help me, I would have. Yes, it's ambiguous; yes, it's a blanket generalization of all Muslims being nuke-happy--but knowing that primarily what I would be doing is offending a near-deity, that is the Great Prophet himself, I would probably still do it. It's the same reason why I draw cartoons about Jesus doing all kinds of things where blanket generalizations could be made about Christians. The tearing down of the Supernatural, regardless of race or culture, is what I do much of the time--even for a chuckle. Because it is the Supernatural that clouds thinking, comforts prejudices, and perpetuates humankind's reliance on nonexistent imaginary beings. Most importantly it feeds on the poor and uneducated who should not be protesting a bunch of smartass cartoonists but their governments and their often tyrannical devices to stifle democratic voices and economic solutions that will benefit the people as a whole.
And that brings us to the overreaction of the Muslims in the Middle East who have engaged in destructive protests, some even resulting in deaths. Reality is far more complex than a cartoon. Cartoons find it necessary to use stereotypes and generalizations because frankly there isn't room to put an essay inside of a 6" by 6" border (the size I draw my cartoons at). Most readers, at least in the west, have some concept that this is the case. They read an editorial cartoon to see a generalization that might make them chuckle or provoke thought or provoke an angry letter. They know that the real situation depicted in the cartoon is far more complex and that to give too much importance to the cartoon as the final word on the subject is a sign of immature thinking. Otherwise the OP-ED page would be filled with just cartoons and do away with commentaries by authors of different political persuasions. The Muslims who are outraged and want to kill and cause destruction over a cartoon are showing their culture shock and quite honestly, immature thinking abilities. Throwing rocks, storming embassies, and burning flags isn't really going to convince anyone of anything except that you've gone off the deep end for a doodle. Of course, maybe they aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. Maybe they are putting on a good show to favor Allah which is an even scarier thought.
The appropriate response, the mature response, is more speech. I don't know why we have to keep repeating ourselves on this. We need open and honest speech without fear of reprisals because someone's feelings were hurt or someone's God was offended or someone's race may have been stereotyped. Censorshop only drives offensive speech underground where it can't be debated and perpetuates itself in a vacuum without other viewpoints to filter the truth out. Maybe the cartoons bashed religion--debate it. Maybe the cartoons are racist--debate it. Let's get everything out in the open.
And this brings me to what most appalled me about these toons: the western media refused to show them! The only station that I know of that did show them was Fox News and even they were timid. Bill O' Reilly wouldn't even show them. This kind of reaction literally helps justify the protests. That these cartoons are so pernicious and blasphemous and dangerous that even the secular media won't display them, not for shock value, but to cover the damn story. I watched MSNBC's Tucker Carlson, who disagreed with his network's policy, trying to have an intelligent debate about the cartoons but not being able to fully describe what the fuss was about. Describing a cartoon is not the same as actually seeing the cartoon. Cartoons have a visual impact. Describing them can make them either sound worse or harmless. And as far as the issue of depicting the Great Prophet, why are we all being treated as if we are Muslims? Why do we all have to cater to Muslim religious sentiments? I don't think even Christians are treated with such care here in the west.
Then there are the quotes by the west, redefining free speech (quotes from Reuters news service):
"I condemn all obvious provacations which could dangerously fuel passions. Anything that can hurt the convictions of someone else, in particular religious convictions, should be avoided. Freedom of expression should be exercised in a spirit of responsibility, " said French President Jacques Chirac.
"The right to freedom of thought and expression ... cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers, " the Vatican said in a statement.
Freedom of speech is being redefined as including a responsiblity not to offend or to provoke, and in particular not to offend religion. I even heard Helen Thomas, an aging member of the press corp., on the Real Time With Bill Maher show say that publishing those cartoons was similar to shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. As if we could compare the two acts and conclude they are both as irresponsible.
To extend this argument that freedom of speech means not offending religion or cultural beliefs basically means the public debate is over. If a cartoon can offend religion, why not a commentary? Why not an act that is in defiance of Sharia or Islamic law or a perceived interpretation of Islamic law such has a woman teaching or a man eating porkchops? Why should offense be limited to cartoons? The problem with offending religious sentiment is that it is subjective and beliefs are constantly changing. And the bigger problem for freethinkers is that most of what constitutes religion is mythological nonsense. Why should I be sensitive to people who believe if they blow themselves up that they'll get 70 virgins? Okay, maybe that's a minority opinion among Muslim men, so let's take it further. Why should I believe that Mohammed, who perpetuated the myth of a sky-being in order to rule, is worthy of reverence? So worthy in fact that I can't even draw a picture of him? No way in hell am I as an atheist going to give a man who lived around 570 A.D. that kind of near God-like status. I certainly don't give that kind of prestige to Jesus who is going to roast me in hell if I reject him, what makes Mohammed any better? According to many Muslim clerics I can expect some sort of damnation anyway just for being American.
We keep appeasing and placating religion. Not just in the Middle East but here in the West also. The more I think about it the more I see reason to offend for the sake of offending because people are so comfortable in their irrational beliefs. Those who engage in groupthink and cannot react to offense with more speech cannot be appeased. Give 'em an inch, they'll want a mile. These Muslims needed to be offended. Those cartoons weren't dangerous fuel for passions, the passions themselves are dangerous. I even wonder if there is such a thing as offending for the sake of offending because in order to offend there has to be some context or point being made, no matter how weak, in order for someone to react. In this situation the context was twofold: Depicting Mohammed, and how Mohammed was depicted.
With that out of my system, I would like to point out that most of what I saw in those Muslim cartoons was fairly weak as far as a critique of either Mohammed or the followers of Mohammed. A couple of the toons went for the quick laugh--something I am admittedly guilty of. To me, it would have been better to have had the Muslim population react to a biting commentary on some of the tenets of their faith or their prejudices but that wasn't the case. We'll have to be satisfied with bad taste being the instigator and hopefully the discussion--the speech about the violent reaction and not the violence itself--that results will be good for all of us.