I’m surprised that there has been no report of the American media republishing the Danish pictures that has the Islamic world in an uproar. After all, the American media is a bastion of freedom of expression. Perhaps they don’t think supporting free speech is worth it in this case.
If that is so, why not amend the US constitution prohibiting freedom of expression in regards to pictures of the prophet? Such an action would do very little to compromise the rest of American freedoms yet would eliminate negative muslim reactions to American embassies and companies throughout the world. In fact it would raise respect for America in Islam.
Islam will not go away. It is clear that our cherished freedoms do not always meet with approval in the rest of the world. If our ultimate goal is world peace then perhaps we should proactively try to get along with them.
I started this thread seeking contrary opinions. As history moves forward and I see an increasing problem for the world in the requirements of the Islamic religion and the rest of us need answers in how to deal with it.
If we did this, other groups would seek “protection” as well.
What if some fundamentalist Christians ordered we stop making fun of Falwell and Jack Chick or they’ll blow up a couple of women’s health clinics? (Dear God, what would the world be like if we couldn’t make fun of those two? The living would envy the dead!)
Though the protests are getting nasty I think its a valid West vs Middle East clash. Free press and freedom of expression are very important to western democracy. Imagine if flag burning were forbidden in the US and the US demanded punishment of Arab protestors burning them in Gaza or Saudi Arabia ? It would be ridiculous. Obviously they don’t respect an American Symbol… why should the contrary necessarily be true ? (I’m against flag burning being a crime… just an examploe)
Naturally its in bad taste to provoke muslims so much with caricatures… but its their religious law not ours.
Because we don’t define our fundamental constitutional protections based on how a particular group of American journalists chooses to respond to a particular controversy-of-the-week?
I think it’s ridiculous to make reprinting these satirical cartoons (many of which I personally considered unfunny and offensive, if anybody cares) into some kind of litmus test for support of the principle of free speech or the free press in general.
Yes, such cartoons are definitely protected under the free expression clause. No, that doesn’t mean that deciding not to print a particular cartoon signifies opposition to the fundamental principle of free expression in general.
Still less does it mean that the entire country has signified its desire to modify the fundamental principle of free expression in order to forbid the printing of that particular cartoon.
(Og say this debate not sturdy enough. Straw content too high. Praise Og! :))
I firmly support the right to bear arms, but I own no firearms.
Supporting a principle does not require one to exercise the right borne in that principle.
As I understand it, the Danish paper that solicited the cartoons was trying to prove (or disprove) that there was already self-censorship occurring in the Danish media. Since Mohammed is not a current player in the Middle East, caricaturing him was an extreme way to make the point. Legitimate, perhaps, but extreme.
As for changing U.S. law, I see no reason to do so and cannot think of an argument to impose such a restriction that would not backfire almost immediately.
(I really do not want Donovan of the Catholic League to get his hands on a law that would prevent me from mocking the Catholic hierarchy when necessary.)
Unless the Danish government has punished the newspapers, then it’s not an issue of free speech. The paper is free to print, others are free to bitch about it. The two edges of the free speech sword.
[/quote]
Because free speech is a fundamental tenet of our society - including offensive images. However, just because you’re free to print something doesn’t mean you should, or that if you do, you aren’t a jerk.
I support the right for the Palestinians to choose their leaders, but I do not need to support their choice. I support the right of Nazis to march in America but I do not support what they have to say. I support the right of people to burn flags even though I find such behavior offensive. The newspaper is free to publish needlessly offrensive cartoons, but that does not mean that I support the offensiveness. US newspapers are free to not publish offensive images just as much as they are free to publish them.
Even Rummie in that link understands that cartoonists and newspapers are free to insult him and to publish images that he considers degrading to soldiers, and he is free to complain about it. It just makes him look the more foolish to do so is all.
The British right-wing, anti-immigrant paranoid tabloid (paraloid?), The Daily Mail surprised me with its editorial today, which said words to the effect “We will fight to the death the right of those newspapers to print the cartoons; however we will not do this, as we think it’s disrespectful”. Don’t know if they were being cowards or not…
The only remedy for bad free speech is MORE free speech. Everybody’s free to say or publish anything they want about religion, and the religious are free to tell us that we’re going to hell. Period. End of discussion. Or should I say, beginning of free discussion.
As to the issue at hand, I think it’s stupid for the muslims to get so goddamned up in arms about this. Look, you thought the Western Infidels were evil, here they are showing you they’re evil by mocking your prophet. Biases confirmed, let’s all move on. But hey, why turn down a good opportunity to get the sheep all riled up so they don’t notice that their governments and religious leaders are corrupt? I got no sympathy whatsoever. In fact, I see my bias confirmed: all religion is silly.
Among other things, this would grant Islam a special status that no other religion enjoys.
“Okay, you can publish a photo of a crucifix in a urine-filled toilet, you can display a painting of the Virgin Mary covered in dung, you can present a play featuring Jesus as a promiscuous, effeminate gay, but, hey! Hands off Islam! We’ll haul yer ass off to federal court, fella! 'Cuz Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance!”
Wow, an urban-legend hat trick! Nice one, LP! Seriously, I know that these were just used as rhetorical illustrations and it makes no difference to your substantive point if they’re inaccurate or exaggerated. But in the name of the Straight Dope let’s clean 'em up anyway:
Andres Serrano’s 1987 Piss Christ shows a plastic crucifix, not in a toilet, but blurred through an orangey light-filled substance that is actually the artist’s urine (possibly mixed with blood). There’s no way you could tell from the work itself that the medium is urine. Nor does the visual presentation suggest any degradation of or contempt for the figure of Christ, as would be suggested by a picture of a crucifix in a toilet.
Afro-British artist (and churchgoing Catholic) Chris Ofili’s 1996 Holy Virgin Mary is a collage/painting that uses a piece of elephant dung to represent the Virgin’s right breast, as a symbol of fertility. Ofili has been using elephant dung as a medium in his artworks since at least 1993, and describes it as inspired by Zimbabwean folk art. His Virgin Mary is certainly not “covered in” dung, nor does the visual presentation suggest any attempt to degrade or befoul her image.
Terrance McNally’s 1998 play Corpus Christi is about a homosexual modern-day healer and preacher of love from Texas, named Joshua. Like many other protagonists in drama and literature (including, some have suggested, Frodo in Lord of the Rings), Joshua is a Christ figure, meaning that his life and suffering intentionally display parallels with those of Jesus in the Bible. In particular, his homosexuality and other scandalous characteristics are deliberately meant to evoke comparisons with the historical Jesus’s transgressive and scandalous acts like hanging out with prostitutes and tax collectors and breaking laws about the Sabbath. But the play does not suggest that Joshua is the historical Jesus of the Gospels, nor that the historical Jesus actually was homosexual or promiscuous or born in Texas, or any other of the specific things that Joshua is.
Whew. We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.
Between Islamics bitching about a freaking cartoon, and Christian groups bitching about a “Will&Grace” episode, im just about ready to support a non-freedom of religon bill.
Do these people truly think God needs their help in defending Himself? I just dont get people…really.
Okay, I stand corrected on numbers two and three, but I stand my ground on number one. If yer gonna photograph a crucifix in a toilet and title it “Piss Christ,” you gotta expect yer gonna offend a lot of Christians. 'Nuff said.
