By now most of us has seen the cartoon that depicts the profit Mohammad with a lit bomb in his turban. I haven’t heard what the cartoonist actually meant by it, but I wish to speculate, and invite you to do the same.
Mohammad, when he was alive, lit the fuse, one that burned a very long time and is just now ready to explode, bringing destruction.
Opinions?
It’s just what it seems to be. It’s calling Mohammed a terrorist. There’s no reason to look for any deeper meaning (although your suggested interpretation would be just as offensive and bigoted).
a) Islamic religion is volatile and explosive?
b) They’re all hotheads?
There’s a difference between trying to make a statement about Muslims and making one about Mohammed himself. This cartoon is the equivalent of depicting Jesus shooting an abortion doctor.
Maybe it’s suggesting Mohammed isn’t technically savvy enough to set off his ordinance by more imaginative means like barometric pressure indicators or remotely via a cell phone.
It’s saying he ain’t just a terrorist… he’s a hick terrorist.
Yes I agree it would, unless that is if the Profit set into motion a movement, intentionally or not, that had brought about a radical movement bent on conquest of the world by force, in which case it is a depiction of reality.
Then again I guess some are offended by reality.
Funny you should use this example. Some time back The Onion had exactly that, except it was a photoshopped fake picture. Strange, I did not see any Christians of any kind rioting or burning down whatever building that parody publication eminates from. Make of that what you will.
The Onion never colonized much of the Christian world, nor does it threaten to crush Christian culture through continued cultural imperialism. Nations culturally connected to the Onion aren’t fighting an unprovoked war in a Christian country, nor do Christians within the Onion’s criculation face persecution and bigotry. Nor is the act of depicting Jesus at all, even in a complementary way, forbidden, making the picture especially insulting. Context, people, context.
The cartoons were a big “Fuck You” to Islam. That doesn’t excuse the actions of rioters, but they were “fighting words” if there’s ever been any.
Not just that, but he buys his bombs from the same crappy mail-order company as Wile E. Coyote.
Well, at least* somebody * still buys American goods.
Somehow I doubt that image was devoid of context or that the Onion was seriously claimung that Jesus blow up abortion clinics.
What was the context/punchline for the image?
I also doubt that many of them were made aware of it. If someone like Bill O’Reilly had decided to make a crusade out of it, you’d see the death threats and the rioting all right. Look what happened with the Schiavo case. Christians were threatening to murder entire families of judges, lawyers and doctors in order to teach them a lesson about the sanctity of life. Christian fanatics are just as risible as Muslim fanatics, they just have more political power. If they ever lose that power,watch out.
Was the Danish newspaper a parody publication? I thought it was a straight newspaper.
Golly! Hornet’s nest anyone? I was responding to this:
Whether it’s parody or not, or just tasteless humor, the person I qoted *said * it was equivalent. IIRC, the accompanying article describe Jesus as rampaging through the clinic shooting everyone in sight. Ah, yes. here it is.
Whether it’s truly equivalent is left as an exercise for the reader.
Thanks for the link. I see the article as an obvious lampoon of the manner in which Jesus is appropriated by pro-life extremists, not a literal attck on Christ. Also, the article is cearly meant to be read as absurd and ridiculous. I don’t believe very many Christians would actually read that article and think that Jesus was the real target of the joke. I don’t think that’s the case with the Mohammed cartoon.
I think that even if a newspaper had a big headline saying “Fuck You Islam” this should:
a) Not result in violence
b) Especially against a whole country when only one freakin newspaper said so, not the majority of the population of that country.
Of course, in the real world people do fight over words, so (a) may be unrealistic. But at least (b) should hold, if there was any shred of sanity left in those countries.
Which piece of idiocy is more ironic and deserving of teasing? One of these bolded ones, or the whole thing?
Of course, violence is inexcusable.
But, and the West has to understand that if we ever hope to reach detente with the Muslim world, these cartoons confirm the worst fears they have about the West and their intentions towards Islam and the Islamic world. They should not be tolerated. They shouldn’t be censored by law, either, but major European newspapers should know better to solict and print hate speech.
But the Onion’s famous (spoof) article about Harry Potter teaching children Satanism and witchcraft was picked up and circulated in the alarmist elements of the Christian community and presented as a fact we have to do something about.
So I’d say it had at least enough colonization to provoke religious outrage, and thus makes an analogy, if imperfect.
Sailboat
Well that depends on if you just want to take cheap shots or have a honest disagreement on what my intent was (spelling errors not withstanding)
Always bearing in mind, of course, that conflating Mohammad and Christ is offensive to Muslims.