[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Thrift Store Scott

Well, if Romeo and Juliet had gotten away from their respective dividing elements together, they would have gotten to live happily ever after.

R & J were working on that, remember? The problem was that the postal service back then was utter shit as far as speed.

The California idea is sounding better and better.

Yes, it is. If I can survive long enough for it, especially tonight.

But then you were addressing that to Mira and squaresie...

[Sage]

Originally Posted by Scott

The California idea is sounding better and better.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Yes, it is. If I can survive long enough for it, especially tonight.

But then you were addressing that to Mira and Squaresie...

Either/or. California has charms to satiate appetites both gross and subtle.
Of course, since I prefer to remain a bit outside the mainstream, I think I'd do best just across the California border in...oh, I don't know...maybe Reno?

[mszv]

I've got a long post, here, thinking about what I want to say.

I take it that there are two issues
- depicting Muhammed at all, visually
- the nature of the images.

If you aren't supposed to depict Muhammed at all, then it's going to be hard to do any kind of visual satire that references Islamic religious themes.

I think the question to ask yourself is if it's OK to do satire on religious themes, and if OK, under what circumstances. Is sacriligious content OK?

I'm trying to think of something comparable with regards to satire/sacriligious content on Christianity. I don't think doing a charicature of the Pope would count. Although he's the religious leader of the Catholic Church, a sect of Christianity, I don't think it's exactly the same. Perhaps a satire depicting Brigham Young, founder of the Morman Church would count. While it might be a bit difficult to get such a comic published in Salt Lake City, Utah (though I'm sure there would be no problem if it was in an academic publication) - I'll have to check, but I'm sure there are plenty of images around, slamming Brigham Young, with not much in the way of a big protest. I realize it's a different situation.

Although not exactly comparable, I think a better comparison is to look at images where Jesus Christ is presented, in a satiric or sacriligious way. In the Christian tradition, Jesus is the "Son of God", and he is also a representation of the "One God" - what can I say, it's complicated. I think satires of Mary, the mother of Jesus, that might also count, if we are looking for something with a big emotional impact. Mary has a revered place in Christianity, particularly for Catholics, a sect of Christianity.

Offhand, I can't think of anything that appeared in a newspaper, though again, I'd have to do my research. US publications are a little conservative on that sort of thing - on satirizing Christian religious images. I suspect it's not unheard of - but I'd have to check.

In the contemporary art world, that's a different matter. I can think of several images - the ever so contraversial "P*ss Christ" (I put the star in myself, in case the software censor blocked me. You can figure out what the word is). It's a photograph of a crucifix (small sculpture with an image of Christ on the cross) submerged in a specific bodily fluid of the artist. When this was exhibited in New York City, in 1987, there was quite a bit of contraversy, though no rioting. One thing to note was that it wasn't published in a newspaper, as a cartoon, so, contraversial yes, but it also wasn't in a populist publication.

What I found much more interesting was an exhibit at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art ( http://www.sfmoma.org ) called "Ultrabaroque: Aspects of Post-Latin American Art, Saturday, August 18, 2001 - Wednesday, January 02, 2002".

Here's a quote from the SFMOMA site -
"Organized by the Museum of Contemporary Art, San Diego, Ultrabaroque focuses on a critical re-reading of the Baroque in Latin America and its use by contemporary artists as an important cultural metaphor. Containing approximately 75 works by 15 artists from South America, Mexico, the Caribbean, and the United States, the exhibition explores cultural differences and the impact of globalization on visual thought."

Now, I went to this exhibit, and it was great. Along with the more "normal" stuff, there were amazing images - one with an amazing combination of the crucifix with other things, and others combining some references to Mary (in Christianity, the mother of Jesus), with some body suggestive images. Personally, I think that no one can do unusual/disturbing Christian (in this case Catholic) imagery better than the Latin Americans, as they come from historically Catholic countries. It helps to be immersed in the culture before you can play with it. Sometimes it's called being a "cultural Catholic". Those images had a real bite to them, and some of them were funny! What's also interesting is that there is not even one little suggestive image on the SFMOMA site. I don't think that SFMOMA saw any reason to court contraversy. So yeah, you see that sort of thing being played around with, with regards to Christian imagery, and much more extreme stuff than what was in the comics. I think the difference is probably the setting. If there is very satiric Christian imagery in European newspapers, I'd be interested in reading about it and seeing them. I suspect you'd see more of that in Europe than in the US.

What I'd really be interested in seeing is if any, for want of a better word "cultural Islamists" who were artists - if they were starting to play around with any Islamic satiric themes, particularly visual ones. It does seem to me that you need a certain amount of secularism in a culture before you can start to do that, without worrying if you were going to get killed. After the publication of "The Satanic Verses", in 1989, Salmon Rushdie had to go into hiding, after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for his death. Incidentally, the Japanese translator was stabbed to death in 1991, the Italian translator was injured, also in 1991, and publisher in Noway survived an assasination attempt, also in 1991. This did not stop people from reading the book. I suspec that, if this sort of thing is happened, it's way underground.

I'll comment on Neil Gaimon in a subsequent post.

[mszv]

OK - since Neil Gaiman came up - here's my post on Neil Gaiman, the writer for the Sandman graphic novel series. He's also the author of the novel "American Gods", published in the US and Canada in 2001. I have the hardback publication. It's a great novel.

In "American Gods", Gaiman writes a story where we see, in an unusual way, mythic deities come to life. Gaiman romps through quite a bit of mythic culture. Naturally, I wanted to see if Gaiman said anything about Jesus Christ. Jesus is, for want of a better word, a deity, though there are many people who do not consider Christ to be "mythic", as in "made up".

So, here's the answer. Gaiman is very carefull. I think he doesn't want to court contraversy. He's a practical writer, and he wants to get published, without, you know, having to go into hiding or getting his book pulled from bookshelves. For all that - he doesn't stay completely away from the topic. There are a couple of paragraphs in the book (chapter eight, page 161 and 162 of my edition) where he talks about Jesus - it's not vulger, not at all, but it's not a traditional way of pulling Jesus into a story. That's it, in the entire 465 page book. Gaiman also doesn't mention Allah or Muhammed. I don't think he mentions Yaweh, though I'm not sure. I'm also not sure about other Jewish figures - don't think so, but I'd have to go check.

So, Gaiman is careful.

[Jelena]

I haven´t read all the posts so maybe I repeat someone elses thoughts.

I just must say I´m really upset about this burning of embassys.
Honestly, I´m having a hard time understanding how it can be justified to vandalize and burn embassys in the first place. Now the result is that Sweden and Chile (the Norweigan embassy too) also have been attacked by Syrian mobs.
Justified, yes, there had been demonstrations outside the embassys (they share the same building) so the authorities were well aware of the upset crowd but they didn´t take action until the building was attacked and burned and the mob went towards the french embassy.

The Syrian ambassadeur in Sweden apologized and emphasized that it wasn´t directed towards Sweden. Really lame and "diplomatic"! What did Syrian authorities do about that??

We´re living on the year of 2006 for gods sake (all the gods, any god you like). The understanding between religions/communities in this case islam and Europe does not gain from out of proportion reactions. Arson must be considered much worse than satiric cartoons.

EDIT: I do understand that the cartoons have offended millions of people who have Mohammed as the central part of their lives and that these people value their faith as much as I value my freedom. I just wonder where the regim/ the authorities stand in this. Did they stay passive deliberately?

[Fien]

A few years ago (long before Theo van Gogh was slaughtered) there was a lot of commotion over here in Holland about the opera Aisha. A Dutch/Maroccan production. The opera was NOT in any way an attack on the Islam or disrespectful. Except that Aisha is a kind of semi-saint and semi-saints should not be seen on stage. The Maroccan (!) actors and actresses received threats and were afraid, so they asked the director to remove the part about Aisha (the opera was about other women too). He refused to compromise the integrity of his work and the opera was cancelled. The fundamentalists won.

It IS about freedom of speech.

PS: Remember Rushdie?

[squarejawhero]

Same happened with a Sikh play in Birmingham early last year.

[After a brisk nap]

Trying to find a comparable insult to Christianity is a dead end. Most Europeans aren't all that religious (if they're even Christian at all), and those that are are used to blasphemy.

But if we accept that because of cultural differences, these cartoons are the most offensive thing you could show to a muslim, what would be the comparable thing, the most offensive thing you could show or say to a westerner? (Noting SJH's point, I would still argue that "the muslim world" and "the West" are distinct, although not disjoint.)

Are there ideas or opinions or other expressions that could cause this kind of unrest in Europe? Anything that expresses a threat to someone (say, calls for ethnic cleansing) or shows people being harmed (say, child pornography) doesn't count. It has to be the statement itself that is offensive. What's the worst thing you could say to Europeans?

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Snarky

What's the worst thing you could say to Europeans?

"We're out of real coffee. You want some Starbuck's decaff instead?"

[Ninth]

My muslim collegues are already shouting at each other because of this and one of them, when asked if he though that killing people for a drawing could possibly be justified, answered yes.

I'm now officially really scared.

[playing_games]

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.

I don't mean to offend religious people, but I will say that the above sentence reflects how I view organized religion of any kind. This view is one of the main things that convinced me to become a secular humanist.

[Erwin_Br]

Originally Posted by playing_games

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.

I don't mean to offend religious people, but I will say that the above sentence reflects how I view organized religion of any kind. This view is one of the main things that convinced me to become a secular humanist.

Although I'm, like you, not religious, I don't agree with the thing about good people doing evil as a result of religion. Good people doing evil is a result of ignorance or even plain stupidity.

--Erwin

[mszv]

Yes, it's also hard for me to understand how you could kill people over a drawing, no matter how offensive.

[Jelena]

Originally Posted by Snarky

Trying to find a comparable insult to Christianity is a dead end.

You´re right there probably isn´t anything that would cause riots like we now see in the middle east. But there still are things that insults fiercly.
There was a Swedish art exhibition (Ecce homo) some years ago where a female photographer exhibited pictures of a modern Jesus in homosexual situations of different kind. I´m not sure if the pictures actually showed Jesus having sex, but there were pictures of him and transvestites, gay men in leather among others.
This caused emotional debates about blasphemy and many christians felt insulted. Of course there weren´t any riots ( we´re cool in Sweden) but the debate was furious.
The reason she made this exhibition was that she as a lesbian often had felt opressed by the christian church, that her love wasn´t accepted and that the church want to put guilt on the homosexuals.

[mszv]

In my post above, I mention the "P*ss Christ" photograph. I think that's comparable. Although not published in a newspaper, it entered into the popular culture. Even people who don't follow contemporary art - they know about it. There were protests, books written about it, that sort of thing. No riots though.

On the theory that all cultures have people who act violently, for no good reason - I tried to think of something comparable in the US. Racism - that had done it, in the US. There's also lots of violence in the world, based on religion/ethnicity.

What seems to be different about this situation is that the "cause" (and I use that term loosely) is based on an image. I've having trouble thinking of any other 20/21st century parallels.

[Fien]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

Same happened with a Sikh play in Birmingham early last year.

Yes, I remember reading about that.

What I was trying to say, is that it's NOT about satire or about the limits of free speech, although in this particularly nasty instance it looks like it is. But it's about free speech. Period.

Imo, imo, imo.

[AFGNCAAP]

Personally, I think trying to find sensible analogies by looking for images/works of art/happenings potentially offensive to Christians that appeared in Europe/USA is completely misguided not just because the Western World on general is becoming less religious, but also because the controversial drawing didn't appear in a Muslim country. No, the symmetrical situation would be only if it were the Muslim media who presented "the West" in a bad light.

Oh, wait, that happens all the time.

[jjacob]

Let me just add a little thought I had yesterday to my previously made arguments/points/naked bunnies. Some people have very little in the sense of material riches. They work (or try to find anything they can) to feed their family, more often than not backbreaking physical labor just to make ends meet. To them, religion is VERY important, if not THE MOST IMPORTANT thing in their life. When life hasn't dealt them the best of cards, they have little more than their religion left, and they pray to their god(s) several times a day.

Try to put yourself in their position and imagine what it must feel like for someone like that to have their prophet dishonored in such a way! Even though it's hard to really put yourself in their place, I can imagine being really angry at the cartoonists. If some imam were to tell me that this reflected the opinion of the Danish people, I'd more likely than not believe him (him being an influencial person in my life). Would I go marching on the streets? Certainly. Would I go burning flags? Possibly, I certainly wouldn't try to extinguish one if it were being burned. Would I toss a molotov into an embassy? Perhaps, if enough people around me were doing it and someone handed me a lit one (consider how masses influence your actions).

Honestly, try to imagine and tell me you can't atleast have an ounce of sympathyunderstanding for these people.

Originally Posted by mszv

In my post above, I mention the "P*ss Christ" photograph. I think that's comparable. Although not published in a newspaper, it entered into the popular culture. Even people who don't follow contemporary art - they know about it. There were protests, books written about it, that sort of thing. No riots though.

I don't think that's comparable in any way. Nowhere in the bible is it said that such a thing can't be done. If I were a christian myself I'd probably envision Jesus looking at the piece and laughing his ass off. Ofcourse, if I were a baptist, that's a whole different story

In the west, everyone grew up with religious Icons like the baby Jesus and Jesus on the cross, so it's normal here. In muslim countries, it's a totally different story, there is no Muhammed icon hanging on every wall. So I honestly believe there is no sensible comparison to be found, as AFGNCAAP said.

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by jjacob

Honestly, try to imagine and tell me you can't atleast have an ounce of sympathyunderstanding for these people.

I can speak only for myself, but I'd imagine nobody here fails to understand it (ie. understand the psychological mechanism), it's just that there is a significant difference between understanding (the reasons) and excusing (the people). There is no excuse, in my book, for ignorance or blind following what your leaders/the crowd does. That's how the two daemons of the twentieth century, fascism and communism, came about.

[stuboy]

Not read the whole thread, so sorry if this is a repeat, but I'm fed up of Islam in general reaping the benefits of the western worlds policy of tolerance and acceptance, but refuses to reciprocate and tolerate other people (eg. free speech, women's rights etc.) And don't tell me these are "just extremists" because there were obviously enough people protesting outside that embassy to suggest this isn't just the sentiment of a few loonies.

Let's review the facts

1) Danish paper publishes cartoons. Let's assume for working purposes that this is wrong, even though it is quite clearly a valid expression of free speech.
2) Therefore thousands of people burn Danish embassies, despite the fact that neither the Danish government, nor any of the people working in those embassies, had anything to do with the cartoons.

WTF?

PS. As for "Islamic culture doesn't recognise the concept of free speech" or "Islam forbids the depiction of the prophet"; the key word is; Islam. If someone is not a Muslim, there is no reason why these values should be imposed on them. There has to come a point when you actually have the balls to admit that you actually believe aspects of another culture are not just "different" or "equally valid" but wrong. And restricting free speech or forbidding people to draw certain people is wrong, and no one should put up with attempts to impose these values on them, especially violent and intolerant ones. No wonder some people will depict Mohammed as a bomber if the reaction this causes is arson and riot.