# Mohammed cartoons

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695>\
**Category:** In My Humble Opinion\
**Created:** [January 13, 2015, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695 "2015-01-13T08:11:39Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\
**Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695/101 "2015-01-15T23:01:51Z")

</div>

> [@Grotonian](#):
>
> Not the current cover; it’s not inflammatory at all–Muhammad is portrayed respectfully. But he IS portrayed. Do you object to that?

I was just speaking in general, and it’s not that I “object”-- I’m not “objecting” to anything so much as just asking “what is the creative aim of a cartoon that portrays Mohammed?” I just don’t see the point of aiming these cartoons at the religious figures _themselves_. I don’t get that from an editorial/journalistic pov.

Wouldn’t it be more cogent to show some of the leaders and the inherent contradictions in their behavior? To poke the bear WRT cruelty, hypocrisy, political irrelevance, dismissal of modern values, etc. I mean, a picture of Mohammed doing ANYTHING… so what? \<shrug\> If you’re going to do a controversial cartoon, then say something with it, kwim?

There was an excellent discussion tangential to this on _Fresh Air_ today. It illuminates the subject considerably. This literate, intelligent man who has straddled the line explains exactly why the cartoons are offensive to those whom they offend and talks about the goals of the radical Islamist movement in general. Worth a listen.

[“How Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ Led A Radical Muslim To Moderation”](http://www.npr.org/2015/01/15/377442344/how-orwells-animal-farm-led-a-radical-muslim-to-moderation)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\
**Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695/102 "2015-01-15T23:43:44Z")

</div>

> [@dangermom](#):
>
> That is the reason. Many Muslims are offended by depictions of Muhammad. No more reason needed; anybody may choose to be offended by anything.

Of course this is true. I suppose that anything that gives offense is, by definition, “offensive” (at least to whoever claims offense). What I was getting at, and probably lost the point through clumsy phrasing, is that most (all?) things that would lead a paper to self-censor are _objectively_ offensive. A drawing that is obscene, scatological, degrading, or patently false, would lead many papers to say no. (I understand all those terms are debatable.)

None of that is true of the current cover. I can’t stand the Voltairean response from some posters on this thread of, essentially, “I disagree with the cover, but defend the right of others to post it.” What the hell do they disagree with? WHY is it offensive? Because the neighbors said so? It’s a picture of Muhammad, fully clothed, engaged in no objectionable behavior. The ONLY reason people think posting it is a dickhead move, or inflammatory, or insulting, is because someone ELSE said so.

I haven’t seen so many lemmings since I stopped watching The Wonderful World of Disney!

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695.md?page=5)