No, I would cry foul because that’s not how I would take the cartoon.
I guess I have some advantage in that I’ve been familiar with Marlette for more than twenty years. He’s a liberal politically and historically has been harshest on the church and its leaders.
You’re taking his cartoon to mean, for no reason other than you want to, that he’s talking about all Muslims. For me, it’s your interpretation, and not the cartoon or its obvious intent, that’s offensive. But hey, I’ll get over it.
That depends on who’s looking at them, doesn’t it? I see no ambiguity in the What Would Mohammed Drive cartoon. There exist Muslim extremists who have misinterpreted Islam or who use it for their own political agenda. That is what the cartoon is about.
The question keeps coming up: “How would YOU have drawn it?” Well, a very simple convention is frequently employed in political cartoons: the artist simply places a word directly on the caricature itself, clarifying exactly what the caricature represents. I see it all the time in political cartoons.
So instead of just having a generic looking Arab driving the van, a single word could be added, such as “extremists”, “fanatics”, “Taliban”, or whatever. That would have instantly made it clear that the caricature represents certain factions that advocate violence, and not ALL Muslims.
That’s how I would have drawn it. Of course, I wouldn’t have drawn it at all, since I don’t think it’s a particularly clever cartoon.
Taking the name of the Prophet Mohammed in vain, in jest, in any context other than religious approbation, is considered a major sin in Islam. It is also a capital crime under Sharia’ law.
Since the majority of Muslims grew up with this understanding or belief, it’s pretty easy to understand why they might be offended by the cartoon. It’s not the guy “in Middle Eastern garb” that’s the problem. It’s the use of the name Mohammed in caption.
Muslims can’t really understand how Christians can make jokes about Jesus and Mary–or all the others who populate our dashboards. It’s purely and simply blasphemous. Blasphemy doesn’t really exist much as a concept among secular Christians, or Jews for that matter. It really and truly does with Muslims, whether they’re peaceful or not.
The cartoon is absolutely insulting to a Muslim viewer. Marlette’s problem is that he didn’t know he was doing a major trespass on religious beliefs.
Good for him, then he won’t mind when people complain and get upset. :rolleyes:
Thinking about it, he was pretty much damned from the start if he thought his “witty satire” was going to get anywhere with Muslims. You just don’t make images of the prophet, it’s blasphemy. Oh well… free speech right?
I took a look at the other cartoons of his provided by Libertarian and came to this conclusion:
If he had sent that WWMD 'toon to my desk, as the page editor I would have called him and asked what he was trying to do. If he gave me the weak reasoning that he wrote later on, I would NOT have run it. (I was the OP/ED editor for a 40,000 circulation daily. There are columnists and cartoonists who learned the hard way that no means NO when I have my editorial hat on.)
The whole thing was a parody of WWJD. You always have to walk a tightrope with religion. The man in the truck could be taken as Muhammed too easily. If Marlette had given some of the arguments other people have enumerated here, then I might have gone with it after consulting the editorial board.
But, he gave a lame excuse and I would have either used another of his weekly stack or perhaps gone shopping for a good one off the wire.
Right – that’s what I thought when I saw it. I did not think the driver was meant to be Mohammed at all. My impression of the meaning was this (and I haven’t read the “explanation” column yet, so I don’t know what the cartoonist claimed the intent to be):
The whole “What Would Jesus Drive” was an attempt by people promoting a certain cause (anti-SUV) to justify their own opinions and their own agendas by trying to claim that Jesus would have supported their position (by grabbing a variation of the catch-phrase “What would Jesus do”). It looked to me like the cartoonist was using a parody of this to show that terrorists (yes, the Islamic ones) were trying to justify THEMSELVES by claiming that Mohammed would have supported their position.
Neither one of these looks to me to be a condemnation of a religion, but rather to point out the way some groups of people try to put words in the mouth of their messiah/prophet/whatever and use (and perhaps twist) the messages of their religion to justify their own agendas.
An OP/ED editor who honestly didn’t understand what the cartoon was about is woefully unqualified. One who thought it might be taken the wrong way and therefore would refuse to run it is a danger to democracy.
Nah, just one who knows his publishing board. Having this type of argument over that particular cartoon isn’t worth it. It’s called choosing your fights.
My old editor-in-chief would have called me on it and made sure I had a good reason to run it. There would have been calls and he would have had to field some too (We had a small enough staff that if you called in before three, chance were you’d have an editor answer the phone). The pub board would have called us both in if the reaction was too pronounced(The town had really hot religious buttons).
The up shot, I wouldn’t have run it because I didn’t have days to debate it. I spent maybe 10 minutes a week deciding on cartoons so anything not blazingly obvious would join the unused/recycled collection. I knew the local market and the possible reactions. Unless Marlette gave me a good reason (which he didn’t in his response) my decision would stand. If he had came back, say, two days later with better reasoning…sure, I’d run it.
It isn’t a danger to democracy, it’s business. I’d have given my eyeteeth to have had a cartoonist as good as Marlette, but even he is a professional. He’d get over it, as I am sure he’s over the brief grief he got for this piece.
