I think you may be way off base in assuming the significance of this minority in the readership of the Tallahassee democrat. Which is one the reasons the cartoon seems misinformed to me.
I think he’s addressing the 99.999% of the readership of the Tallahasee Democrat who oppose terrorism. It might be believable that he was addressing terrorists in the New York Times or USA Today. Using a local US paper to address terrorists seems like a poor choice of forums to me, a choice I don’t think he was making.
I flipped through a few more of his cartoons and came to one w/a pic of bush shining a flashlight through his ears — the caption was something like, ‘the light at the beginning of the tunnel’.
I wonder if there was a firestorm over that cartoon being offensive and insulting?
He explained what he meant, and said he regretted that it had been misinterpreted: “My only regret is that the thousands who e-mailed me complaining felt that my drawing was an assault upon their religion or its founder. It was not. It was an assault on the distortion of their religion by murderous fanatics and zealots.”
Well yeah, if you take one word and don’t look at the rest of the cartoon it would appear to apply to all Muslims. But if you look at the picture, you can see that it only applies to terrorists.
Also, how would you have drawn it? The artist distinguished between terrorists and average Muslims in the best way I can think of. If terrorists all had mohawks and vampire fangs then it would have been easier, but unfortunately they tend to look like normal humans.
blowero:
Most Christians do not have WWJD bumper stickers, and most Muslims are not terrorists. I don’t know where you get your message from.
The WWJD Christians are easy to mock. They aren’t scary. They’re funny. Muslim terrorists, however, are scary. It is scary that there are people who believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife for killing you. The cartoon says that Muslim terrorists are ridiculous in the same way as WWJD, thus defusing the fear and making terrorists laughable.
That isn’t his explanation for the cartoon. That is his explanation for the specific imagery. And he is right on. That still tends to be the way we picture terrorists, even if it is not the way terrorists usually operate. If you watch 24, you know that it involved terrorists with a bomb in a truck.
His explanation for the cartoon itself is that “It was an assault on the distortion of their religion by murderous fanatics and zealots.” Seems pretty clear to me.
Michael Newdow received death threats from Christians after he won his suit removing “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. However, I think it would be unfair to make any generalizations about Christians being murderers based on a few wackos, just as it’s unfair to make any generalizations about Muslims based on a few wackos.
People have committed atrocities in the name of just about every religion. What offends people is when the implication is made that such actions are an inherent part of the religion.
However when you read his explanation it becomes obvious that wasn’t what he was trying to do.
Therefore why would addressing the terrorist in this manner elicit any reaction from them? Since at least in Doug’s words these people do believe that’s more or less what Mohammed would drive.
Apart from Libertarian’s point - you can address a problem on an editorial basis or in a political cartoon without the assumption that the local readership will necessarily rise up and Do The Right Thing. Non-U.S. papers that criticize American policies do this continually. And there are Moslem students and visitors in this Tallahassee paper’s circulation area who may have an offended and/or thoughtful response to this cartoon.
"Michael Newdow received death threats from Christians after he won his suit removing “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. However, I think it would be unfair to make any generalizations about Christians being murderers based on a few wackos, just as it’s unfair to make any generalizations about Muslims based on a few wackos.
I believe a diligent search would turn up more than a few editorial cartoons lambasting extreme acts in the name of Christianity committed, for example, against abortion providers. Undoubtedly some Christians consider such criticism an assault on their faith, just as some people on this board with dogmatic views consider criticism leveled against them as an attack on their faith.
My first thought when seeing the cartoon: I see someone depicted as a stereotypical Arab driving a truck with a bomb, with the caption “What Would Mohammad Do?” I interpreted it as meaning that the person represented in the truck was Mohammad, and the cartoonist implying that Mohammad is a terroritst. It is not inconceivable to me that an american cartoonist would present such a point of view - I remember Jerry Falwell making a similar comment in an interview.
In the same way, if, for example, I saw a drawing of someone depicted with long hair and a beard, and biblical robes, blowing up an abortion clinic (for example), with the caption “What Would Jesus Do”, I would assume that the person depicted in the cartoon is Jesus, and not one of Jesus’ followers.
If the cartoonist had a different meaning, then he should have expressed it more clearly.
Finally, using the First Amendment as a response to outrage always seems to me to be besides the point. If I start a Pit thread “Christians are homophobes” and then say “P.S. Remember the First Amendment”, does that mean everyone will just move along and not criticize my statement? (N.B. that’s a rhetorical question and the answer is, no, people will not refrain from criticizing me, despite the first amendment.)
I don’t think it’s a clever joke on the WWJD Christians… wouldn’t it be funnier to show cars as they relate to the actual premises of religions? As in, a Taoist driving a car with a computerized map in it showing “the way”?
As for a joke on Muslims being terrorists, the point would be… that all Muslims are terrorists? That might get a guffaw out of Bubba, but flat sterotypes just aren’t subtle enough to really be funny.
And I agree with what others are saying-- the First Amendment generally gives us the right to say what we want without fear of being arrested or criminally prosecuted.
If I say something that demonstrates to everyone who hears it that I am an idiot or a jerk, then I don’t get immunity from other people thinking/saying that I’m an idiot or a jerk. I earn my reputation by what I say-- the first amendment doesn’t protect me from making a fool of myself.
Especially since others have the freedom of speech to criticize me.
(Not quibbling about who this cartoon represents - IMO it is certainly supposed to be the prophet Mohammed, and even if not, enough people are going to recognise it as such that for all intents and purposes it is. Do a cartoon of Jesus with a beard and say it’s “Jesu” some Mexican guy, but come on…)
OK living here, I can understand how a devout Muslim would be extremely offended by this. Mohammed and his image are extremely sacred in Islam, possibly more than Jesus’s image is to many Christians today. For example, recently they had a cartoon feature film about the life of Mohammed. Mohammed was not even depicted in this film because of serious taboos about showing his actual image. Instead, they showed him via his perspective, or you heard his footsteps, or you saw the head of his horse as he was riding it.
Likewise, they are so reverent of Mohammed that whenever they mention his name, they put “PBUH” (Peace Be Upon Him) after his name, even in English newspapers, etc.
Another issue is that many Muslims are disgusted by the violence and killing done in the name of Islam, and believe their religion is - or should be - one of peace.
So yes, I can see how they would be horrified by this cartoon. That is not to say in the interests of free speech it should not be allowed/banned.
The equivalent I can think of would be some cartoon featuring Jesus as an abortion doctor murderer. Regardless of the intent of the cartoonist, many christians would find that enormously upsetting and offensive.
The key difference here is that virtually none of Jesus’ followers in this day and age dress like that.
Unfortunately, some present-day would-be followers of Islam who espouse violence do dress in a manner similar to that of the truck driver in the cartoon.
In sincere hope for peace,
Sure but most of these cartoons communicate successfully.
The first one shows someone dressed in Catholic regalia who is not molesting the boy but explaining why he isn’t being protected. It’s therefore obvious he isn’t portraying all preists as molesters or all Catholics as molesters, or even all Christians as molesters. I can see why Catholics would find this offensive, but at least it’s really for the reasons intended.
The p.34 one is really specific showing many monks writing “zero tolerance” with one monk in an obvious minority looking at “Altar Boy Lust” on the computer. The contrast between the well meaning monks and the perverted is obvious and in my mind that’s what makes this one actually somewhat funny. This is the only one of the series that got a chuckle from me. Imagine if he’d just shown the lone monk looking at the computer. It would have nowhere near the same comedic value.
The p.32 one “Canon Fodder” is flawed in the same way that the “What would Mohammed drive?” is. Altar boys are seen going into a church where evil looking eyes await. It’s not funny, it’s not insightful, it’s not specific, it’s not fair and an apology would be in order.
On top of that, the gravity of the situation of those practicing Islam is much more serious than that of Catholics. While I’m sure Catholics don’t want to be percieved as child molesters, Arab Americans face the very real and serious possibility of violence. Hence I think he should be aware of the consequences that could follow by the overall perception of Muslims propagated in the media.
Yes, and if a few extremist Christians made death threats against the author, it would be wrong to assume that says anything about ALL Christians, correct?
Usually I just sit back and read the threads, and see how people react, and more than not, laugh at the response’s this page gets from ignorant people that don’t understand what they’re seeing. In this case, I can’t possibly understand a grown adult that watches the news, not understanding the point of satire! For all those that took the short bus, He is making the point that renting a Ryder truck with a missile in the back to go kill innocent people, is NOT what Mohammed intended, despite what the misguided terrorists are saying, as far as it being the word of their God. And who’s comparing it to Catholosism?!?!?! I realize that Americans think that not much else happens outside our little country, but Muslims are a much bigger group than one realizes. I’m sure that Marlette is only making fun of the terrorist-Muslims that DON’T get it, meaning the ones that think they are living by the Koran by terrorizing, murdering, and using Allah as their justification. That’s the meaning of this cartoon, I don’t see how it could have been any more clear, but for those that need it spelled out for you, maybe you shouldn’t read (or look at) cartoons that require some common-sense, and intelligence. Anyway, how many of you actually read the journal Marlette writes in? Don’t start now, you wouldn’t get it. There is such irony in the reaction of this cartoon. Ignorance is dangerous when stupid people react to things they don’t understand. I mean, death threats, (in the name of Allah of coarse)??? Those are probably the only people who do get it.
OK, bad analogy. Let’s say that the person is drawn so that he could look like a present-day person, but also look like J.C.? Then with the legend “What Would Jesus Do?” I could reasonably conclude that the person represented is J.C.
The list of links provided by Libertarian show to me that this is a person who doesn’t mind poking fun at organized religion, but I fail to see how they indicate that this person would not make fun of the prophet Muhammad.
I am perfectly willing to accept that he was trying to say “Muhammad would not be doing what the terrorists are doing”, but if that’s what he was trying to say, then it’s not obvious from the cartoon, and I am not going to fault members of CAIR for writing letters of protest.
Would you have been offended if the caption had read “What Would Jesus Drive?”, and the driver had been depicted as a heavily-armed Crusader waving his bloodied sword? Would you not cry “foul!” at the implication that all of Christ’s followers were like the murderous soldiers that partook in the Crusades?
This cartoon is depicting all Muslims as terrorists. I fail to see the difference.
Doug Marlette is widely syndicated. His cartoons seldom play to a local crowd. They certainly didn’t when he was in Charlotte harpooning the PTL Club.