Probably, yes. And again: It’s a parody of “What Would Jesus Drive”. The “Mohammed” in the caption only makes sense if it is the Prophet.
I remember Doug Marlette from his Charlotte Observer days. He was a brilliant cartoonist who also got a lot of flack for his many, many cartoons of Jim and Tammy Faye, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, and other Christian “leaders” in the area. He is an equal opportunity lampoonist.
Right. As he says, he can say what he wants. And believe what he wants, and express it in public and private as he deems appropriate.
So can Trent Lott. And if people feel strongly enough about what he says, he can get in a heap of trouble for saying it.
To me, the guy seems to be dissing a whole religion. He has somehow come to believe that Islam is evil, and that this is an acceptable view to promulgate in our society.
I disagree. All you get from hate is hate. Not peace and not security either. And I think intolerance (while clearly well-pedigreed) is antithetical to the American ideal.
I don’t see how one could possibly make the case that the cartoon is NOT offensive. And the cartoonists “explanation” just makes things worse.
I’m not really sure what he’s trying to say here, but it sounds like he’s saying that since HE associates all of Islam with radical militants, ignoring the millions who are NOT radical militants, that it’s somehow all right. The word for that is “stereotype”.
I don’t see that the question of who is driving the truck is really the issue. The issue is that the author associates the central figure of a religion with actions carried out by extremists, and makes no apology for it. It’s kind of like trying to lampoon the Catholic Church by drawing a cartoon of Jesus molesting children.
Did you read my post after the one you quoted? And I agree with the poster who just said that there is no way that cartoon could not be interpreted as bigoted.
NoClueBoy: I think that the cartoon was meant less to be funny than pointed.
Generally: I also belive it was less an indictment of Isalm generally than of those Muslims who feel that bombs are better tools of communication than other methods.
The “What Would Jesus Do/Say” is a powerful indictment to Christians who truly grasp the [Christian] concepts of Love, Peace, and Tolerance. Bigots readily adapt the same message to justify their hatred of others who, in their view, “violate the message of Christ.”
For Muslims who claim to feel the same way, the cartoon should have slid right off of their back, as they weren’t its intended target; just the bomb makers of that religion. Just as cartoons lampooning the Bakers, Falwells and McVeighs of Christianity slide off of the backs of most Christians.
Comparisons to McVeigh are not really comparisons at all, since we caught him, tried him, and executed him; showing we have no more tolerance for radical, violent Christian fundamentalists than we do for any other type of radical, violent religious fundamentalist.
Count me as one who finds the cartoon witless and offensive. The defense by the cartoonist is weak and unconvincing. Of course he doesn’t have to apologize. Nobody has to apologize, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t call him an asshole.
BTW, McVeigh was a Christian was he not?
Seems to me he was stretching pretty far to cover the obvious racism. I mean this:
See most people, without some sort of propaganda filter in our heads, think of not an ultra-orthodox jew or an Islamic militant but yes, a ex-military white guy. Know why? Cause that’s what McVeigh was.
The last line was kinda surreal:
I assume he wasn’t talking about the guys at Guantanomo?
D the C: yes he was. And most true, peaceful Christians didn’t take any more offense at pundits skewering him and other violent Christians than should true, peaceful Muslims take offense at this cartoon.
In both cases, the cartoons were not aimed at or representative of the majority of either.
Tank, whether the attempt was to be funny or pointed, the cartoonist was (IMHO) trying to use humor to make a point.
Just talking to whom ever, The point he was making is offensive to me. We all have suffered through the actions of terrorists in this past decade. And to any who were involved, even in the smallest of ways, in a terrorist attack in their own community, such parodies fall well short of any humor or valid point.
I imagine the gut reaction of any New Yorker to this “cartoon” is very similar to this Oklahoman’s reaction.
Terrorism is a disturbing subject. So is racism. So is radical religionism. (I made up a word)
Does the cartoonist have a right to print this? Sure. Do I have a right to express disgust and disapproval? Damn right I do.
Tank (again), And if you were in the US military, I think I have you and people like you to thank for these rights. It can be a sad and dark world at times.
FTR, one reason why this cartoon got a reaction from me was because I was there, on the scene, as soon as I could get there, when that Ryder truck exploded. I helped as best I could, until it got organized and I was urged to leave it to the medicos and the guys with the proper training.
I even went back the next day. I had press credentials at that time (can’t always count on building houses) and thought I would get some photos. I didn’t take a single picture. It just struck me that I shouldn’t. And others were there documenting it in a manner that was way more professional than I could’ve done anyways.
But, I do have to ask myself, Is this cartoon harming me? Well, no. Other than bringing up unpleasant memories. And getting a knee-jerk reaction of anger. This cartoon and his replies seems to take shots at everybody. Oh, well… His right.
I’ll shut up now.
A mere quibble; Timothy Mcveigh was not a Christian fundamentalist. He was not very religious. Certainly not a fundamentalist.
Then I think I misunderstood you, sorry about that!
People here are ignoring the obvious – if he makes a political cartoon where it’s unclear exactly who’s being targeted and exactly what the joke is, then he’s too incompetent to do his job properly and should be fired.
And reading his “but I have the 1st amendment”-defense just proves that he doesn’t understand an iota of the American system of goverment (and doesn’t appear to be able to put sentences together to form coherent thoughts, either) which makes him an even worse political cartoonist.
I’ll stand corrected on a point of fact; nonetheless, the perception remains prevalent, and will continue to do so until it becomes relevant enough for the general public to sit up and take notice, and amend their view.
Are Islamic terrorists essentially Islamic fundamentalists too?
I agree with Diogenes et al. in that I cannot see how it is possible to miss the offensive implications of the cartoon.
The cartoonist is obviously an educated man and would be in little doubt of the importance of Mohammed in Islam as a whole. Attacking him is disrespectful to all Muslims in the same way as it would be offensive to all Catholics for me to poblish a cartoon of the Pope molesting a 12 year old.
Yes, but at least your cartoon might be funny!!!
It seems to me that the cartoonist is defending Mohammed. There’s a fanatical Muslim terrorist driving the truck, and the cartoonist is asking that terrorist “What would Mohammed drive?”, or in other words “Mohammed wouldn’t be driving this truck”.
Good point.
After reading his explanation though he doesn’t seem to be saying that or at least not too clearly.
He seems to be saying here that is what Mohammed would drive (at least in some people’s minds).
I want to think your interpretation is correct, but I think Doug Marlette could have explained that interpretation in a lot fewer words and a lot more clearly than he did in his response.
I took the same interpretation of the cartoon as Max Harvey.
As far as his written explanation: well, maybe writing stuff in plain english isn’t really his strong suit.
Maybe if he just drew another cartoon, explaining his position…