Non-reply noted.
And the idea that pictures of Muhammad are not "part of a campaign of hatred and oppression " is just laughable. Only if Europe was otherwise blissfully Islamophobia-free, would that be true.
Being offensive isn’t a crime (outside the fever dreams of people on the right who think free speech is being stifled - don’t make their dreams come true!).
Besides, that’s when you get counterarguments from the right, like “that gay couple could have gone to any cake shop! Why go to the one they know is owned by Christian fundamentalists?”
You don’t get to question my motivation for my abortion or my gay wedding party or my cartoons.
Why does it matter? I doubt the radical Islamists see a difference between caricatures intended to offend versus those which are purely representative or merely critical.
Imagine a Parisian director chose to make a film of Mohammed’s life and based it all on the work of the Koran. No caricature, no racism, no intent to do anything other than represent the (supposedly perfect) words of the book. You think that would meet with an Islamic thumbs-up and a cheery grin? I suspect not.
If one can justifiably caricature politicians, popes, public figures etc. then on what grounds do we deem Mohammed to be something different or special? Other than the fear of violence or death why should that figure be treated differently?
Which of the others have non-representation as a longstanding tradition? It’s called simple respect.
So are the racist caricatures of Jews in Charlie Hebdo part of a campaign of hatred and oppression against Jews? Is the idea that they are not laughable? If not, why? Is it because Europe is otherwise blissfully anti-semetism free, or are you gonna move the goalposts again?
And are the caricatures of the Pope in Charlie Hebdo part of a campaign of hatred and oppression against Catholics? Is the idea that they are not laughable? If not, why? Is it because Europe is otherwise blissfully anti-Papism free, or are you gonna move the goalposts again?
Umm, yes, why do you ask?
Just the papal hierarchy, I think, not Catholics in general. And they aren’t racist depictions, so I don’t know why you’re lumping them.
Respect isn’t legally mandated; especially not respect for a religious group. Or should we all “respect” Christians by abstaining from things that offend them, like gay marriage and abortions?
Jews don’t get to tell everyone to stop eating pork and stay home on Saturday. Christians don’t get to tell everyone how to go about every aspect of their lives (this is a recent change and in progress). And Muslims don’t get to tell anyone what they can and can’t draw. If your religion forbids drawing Muhammed, don’t do it; but the minute you tell anyone else what to so, you can fuck right off.
Again, a complete strawman. The question was simply what makes Muhammad different from popes and politicians, no legal- or rights-based justification required. There’s no long tradition of not showing the pope or politicians. One can legally shit all over the tradition all one likes. Just know that it means one’s arse is hanging out for everyone to see while one does so…
I don’t think Muslims care what someone posts in their private sketchbooks. But mass media has societal sanction.
I’m super confused by what point you think you are making. Is everyone who ever drives on Saturday or eats pork “hanging their arse out for all to see” by violating Jewish law all over the place? Is someone who is gay “hanging their arse out” by going against most mainstream religions in the western world? If not, why does this one rule of Islam apply to everyone in the whole world?
Look, if your point about CH was based on the racist caricatures that’s one thing. They aren’t any worse for Muslims than for jews and others and you seem to accept that, so great – CH is offensive, I’m fine with offensive speech, maybe you’re not and want it banned. Fine. Agree to disagree.
But unless I’m misunderstanding you, you take particular issue with the portrayal of Muhammed aspect. And to that bit I say, absolutely not! Again, if their religion says “though shall make no umage of Muhammed” or whatever, great, i would be against a law that violates your religious freedom by forcing you to draw your prophet.
If a new law was proposed that said “lets put people’s religion on their driver’s license but rather than write FAITH: X, we will just draw Jesus for Christians, Moses for Jews, Muhammed for Muslims -” I’d be like, “NO! That’s a terrible idea! It would violate religious freedoms!”.
But I just don’t understand why you believe they should get to apply that law to other people in any way, shape, or form.
For a great example – Jews don’t spell out or sound out the name of God. You say “Adonai”, you don’t actually spell it out unless its in a holy text.
Atheists having religious debates here routinely spell out the name of God, often to make a point, calling him by name and then saying something about how brutish or violent he is. There is no reason to do this other than shock value. When I was still a believer, I was even offended by this, at times.
It would never occur to me to call for this to be moderated.
If people want to do offensive things while spelling out the old testament name of God, I believe that should be entirely legal, despite how offensive it is to Jews.
Do you disagree with this? The Jewish tradition of not spelling out the name of God outside of holy text is very old too. We just don’t behead people over it. Should it be forbidden?
Eta: I realize that even though I don’t believe anymore, I still didn’t spell out the name I was referring to. You can see its a deep part of the culture.
Well, as an intellectually honest person, I would note that there are many reasons why non-Jews might eat pork or drive on Sunday, or gay people might simply exist, that don’t involve simply to offend Jews or homophobic religionists.
I struggle to come up with a similar rationale for making cartoons of Muhammad…
No, I don’t. I think the depictions of ordinary Muslims are way worse.
I do take issue with just dismissing it as just Muslims looking to be offended, though, as if it wasn’t their long tradition and more especially as though giving the offence wasn’t the entire fucking point of them.
I’ve said exactly fuck and all about applying any law in this regard. Only respect. Common respect says if some people have a long-standing religious and cultural tradition, it’s rude to go stamping all over it in a public forum just because you can.
JFC, how hard is it to get my point - The law lets one draw all the Muhammad cartoons one feels like, I have never said different - but don’t expect everyone to think it’s brave or clever or welcoming or respectful. It’s none of those things.
I don’t know what the word is for subservience to an idea on threat of death but “respect” certainly is not it.
The figures of Islam and the doctrines and ideas thereof are no more deserving of protection from criticism or ridicule than any other figure or idea.
My default is to give respect to individuals until they show they don’t deserve it. Part of that respect is the criticism of their ideas and beliefs where I think it is due and the bigger the idea and the greater the potential impact from it, the greater critical scrutiny is required.
Refraining from that criticism is not respect, it is infantilisation.
I don’t respect ideas themselves though, not by default. That has to be earned.
One way I’ll know that a person does not deserve that respect is when they threaten violence due to a lack of deference to a religion I don’t believe in.
If Jews started complaining, I would actually ask that they be taken seriously. Rather than a bunch of threads immediately started with the Name in the title…
The respect is independent of the threat of death. You know, for all the millions of moderate Muslims all over Europe…
Violating other peoples’ traditions, especially that of cultures you’ve historically oppressed, isn’t criticism, it’s just straight-up trolling and “putting them in their place” bullying.
- you could make a historical drama about the life of Muhammed akin to “passion of the christ” or “the ten commandments” but probably much more interesting because Muhammed was a conquering warlord so you’d get some war scenes
- you could make a million and one parodies of the story, like “Life of Brian” or “the gospels according to Jesus’ childhood friend Biff”.
- you could create art whose purpose is take people stop and think, perhaps by offending them, like piss christ
- you could make dumb stoner comedies about it
I agree that the cartoons are offensive and that their point is to be offensive. I think it is fine for there to be artists/publications whose goal is to offend. I don’t think very highly of them.
Then we probably agree – CH isn’t particularly brave or worthy of praise, they’re offensive, but that’s fine, they should be allowed to continue being offensive, if Muslims don’t like that they can use speech to say so, and murders should stop.
Cartoons of religious figures are commonplace for the purpose of criticism and satire and humour.
Religions make massive claims for themselves, Islam claims to represent to perfect word of god and be a template for how to live and be an explanation for all the problems we may have. Billions of people follow it, it is not a fringe or niche world belief. You make massive claims and claim massive authority then you automatically put yourself in the firing line for massive criticism.
Mohammed is the iconic representation of these claims, just as the pope is for Catholicism. Of course he is a deserved target of criticism, caricature, satire. As it happens he was much less of a target for ridicule by CH than the pope or politicians.
As a Jewish person, if Jews started complaining about non-Jews doing that, I would roll my eyes at them.