Failing to Find Comedy in the Muslim World

A roadside bomb attack on a joint Danish-Iraqi patrol near Basra; Danish flags burned in West Bank protests; masked gunmen in Gaza take over a European Union office; Libya shuts down its Danish embassy; Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa are reported to have warned all Scandanavians to get the hell out of Palestinian territory, posthaste; what ties together all these developments of the past few days is...a series of cartoons in a Danish publication, Jyllands-Posten, thought to be insulting to the Prophet Mohammad, including one showing his turban in the shape of a bomb with a lit fuse.

Tom Spurgeon's Comics Reporter site has a great link roundup on details of this simultaneously absurd and horrifying story, still unfolding.

Reason has been on top of this story for a while; see this Bruce Bawer article from November on how Europeans have failed to stand up to radical Islam (although the Jyllands-Posten is singled out for their heroic refusal to buckle under to threats).

Comments

R C Dean | January 30, 2006, 4:06pm | #

Sure, peaceful coexistence is possible with these people. We just need to, you know, sit down and talk through our issues.

Jaybird | January 30, 2006, 4:07pm | #

"We masked gunmen have taken these hostages as a response to the ugly stereotyping of Muslims that happen in your racist societies, inshalla!"

fyodor | January 30, 2006, 4:20pm | #

A reminder to the rest of us not to take perceived insults too seriously.

Eric II | January 30, 2006, 4:29pm | #

While it's probably true that only a minority of them genuinely support Islamist totalitarianism and terrorism, the Jyllands-Posten flare-up and the uproar over The Satanic Verses make it clear that a notably larger percentage of Muslims, perhaps a solid majority, have as much respect for the concept of intellectual freedom as Medieval Christians.

Tim Cavanaugh | January 30, 2006, 4:35pm | #

A reminder to the rest of us not to take perceived insults too seriously.

Well taken, but I'm going out on a limb here and saying that our flag-burnin', office-takin', embassy-closin', roadside-bombin' Muslim buddies are in a little more serious need of that reminder.

Tim Cavanaugh | January 30, 2006, 4:37pm | #

While it's probably true that only a minority of them genuinely support Islamist totalitarianism and terrorism

Yeah, I mean just look how Islamists have been getting clobbered at the polls in Iraq, and Palestine, and Iran, and Lebanon, and...

jkp | January 30, 2006, 4:40pm | #

Islam: it works.

jkp | January 30, 2006, 4:41pm | #

Does anyone have a link to these cartoons? I think I want to make them the background on my desktop....

Ranka | January 30, 2006, 4:41pm | #

I saw these comics the other day, two of them seemed to be making fun of the newspaper itself, one had a kid writing on a chalkboard '(the newspaper) is a bunch of right wing reactionaries' or something to that effect (now I wasn't sure if the comic was serious, or mocking the expected Muslim reaction to the cartoons) but another had a picture of what looked like Bill Gates in a turban with a something that was calling the newspaper a provocateur. Blowing stuff up over a bunch of drawings is pretty crazy.

SPD | January 30, 2006, 4:43pm | #

A reminder to the rest of us not to take perceived insults too seriously.

Tell that to Salman Rushdie's critics. Then run like hell.

As uptight as fundamentalists Christians can be -- and I'm no fan --, their reactions to things like evolution, "Piss Christ," Like of Brian and The Last Temptation of Christ, were refreshingly subdued, not to mention explosives-free.

It must suck to be a Christian Arab these days.

Eric the .5b | January 30, 2006, 4:44pm | #

I'm just waiting for someone to piously wade in and explain how the people posting in this thread are no different.

Jennifer | January 30, 2006, 4:50pm | #

As uptight as fundamentalists Christians can be -- and I'm no fan --, their reactions to things like evolution, "Piss Christ," Like of Brian and The Last Temptation of Christ, were refreshingly subdued, not to mention explosives-free.

I think that has less to do with them than with the culture they are in. If you went to an alternate universe exactly like this one except that the Arab countries were all Christian and Europe was Muslim, the World Trade Center would have been knocked down by nineteen fanatics who screamed "Jesus loves you!" just before they died. And Ann al-Coulter would write that "we should invade them, kill their leaders and convert them all to Islam."

wellfellow | January 30, 2006, 4:56pm | #

"the World Trade Center would have been knocked down by nineteen fanatics who screamed "Jesus loves you!"

...or not.

Isn't the culture they are in, in part, created by the religions themselves? In other words, I don't think you can interchange them like that with any expectation of accuracy.

thoreau | January 30, 2006, 4:57pm | #

Jennifer-

Maybe it would be more accurate to say that the initial conditions from which the religions sprung are less important than the circumstances in which those religions have evolved.

Eric II | January 30, 2006, 5:00pm | #

Yeah, I mean just look how Islamists have been getting clobbered at the polls in Iraq, and Palestine, and Iran, and Lebanon, and...

This feels awkward, considering that I've been harping for a while on the risks of introducing democracy to places that might vote religious nutjobs into power, Iraq included. In my defense, I'll just say that "minority" doesn't have to mean "inconsequential number," and that parties that aren't fond of totalitarian Islamism have fared better in places like Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Turkey, among others. Though I suspect majorities in most, if not all, of these places, wouldn't be too distraught over banning The Satanic Verses and cartoon depictions of Mohammed.

Pro Libertate | January 30, 2006, 5:01pm | #

A word of wisdom to radical Arabs--don't mess with the Danes. Sure, they seem all wimpy these days, and didn't put up much of a fight against the Nazis, but they still have Nordic Terror in their genes. Foolin' with people who conquered everything within ten miles of the shore everywhere (including big chunks of what we now call Russia (after the Viking "Rus", incidentally)) is a good way to learn first hand about Saxon violence.

In related news, Robert Zubrin (of Mars fame) wrote an article for The American Enterprise Online suggesting that Congress sudsidize alcohol as an alternative to oil (ala Brazil). A big Martian F.U. to the OPEC nations, I think. Of course, the market might do it by itself if oil were treated differently. I'm too ignorant about the topic to really know.

tollpuppy | January 30, 2006, 5:01pm | #

Interesting point about religions maintaining the status quo (or worse) in the regions in question. Especially in light of Hamas winning the majority and planning right out of the gate to implement a form of Shar'ia. At what point do these cultures earn to have the lousy government and living conditions that they ask for? How do you think the spin will be put when we start to hear how downtrodden and joyless the Palestinian masses are?

And of course I realize that all electoral masses routinely soak up political pandering.

But still.

wellfellow | January 30, 2006, 5:03pm | #

Thoreau,

I think you nailed it. Christianity was able to evolve away from a rather barbaric past. Not all religions can say that. That's partly due to the design of the church. It may be slow at incorporating changes, but there is an internal forum for debate and the church continually evolves, as evidenced by the influence of Aquinas, for example.

io1029 | January 30, 2006, 5:04pm | #

It is indeed scary that it is considered an appropriate response by some to kill people and blow stuff up when you don't like a cartoon. Where do you even begin to address those issues? How do you try to talk to somebody who reacts in such a manner?

R C Dean | January 30, 2006, 5:05pm | #

It must suck to be a Christian Arab these days.

Are there any left?

I think that has less to do with [fundamentalist Christians] than with the culture they are in.

I honestly don't know what to make of this. Jennifer, are you trying to say that, if you were to kidnap babies from fundamentalist Christian families in Alabama and have them raised by Islamists in "Palestine", they will be just as likely to grow up to be suicide bombers as anyone else raised that way?

I would say, sure, but that's a pretty weak point.

wellfellow | January 30, 2006, 5:05pm | #

Nordic Terror, I love them, at least their earlier stuff.

thoreau | January 30, 2006, 5:06pm | #

it is considered an appropriate response by some to kill people and blow stuff up when you don't like a cartoon

I wonder how many Cartoon Network fans would take up arms over episodes that they don't like if they weren't so busy watching cartoons...

thoreau | January 30, 2006, 5:07pm | #

R C Dean-

I think Jennifer's saying that it doesn't matter which religious text you claim to believe in. What matters is how you're taught to interpret it and who does the teaching.

fyodor | January 30, 2006, 5:09pm | #

but I'm going out on a limb here and saying that our flag-burnin', office-takin', embassy-closin', roadside-bombin' Muslim buddies are in a little more serious need of that reminder.

Um, yeah, but aside from that limb looking more like a thousand square mile prairie located across a continent from the near fault line, it's probably downright useless to tell them that. In fact, that's why it wouldn't be a "reminder," it would be NEWS to them! It's a "reminder" to US not to end up like that! Cause, well y'know, we could, if we didn't watch out.

wellfellow | January 30, 2006, 5:10pm | #

Thoreau,

Except how you are taught, your 'culture' as Jennifer uses it, is impossible to seperate from the religion. The method of interpretation is even part of it. We're not talking about eye-color, the religion is a huge part of the culture. Much more than semantics, what you call God and such.

Jennifer | January 30, 2006, 5:10pm | #

Thoreau nailed it; both the Bible and the Koran are chock-full of truly loathsome ideas, but the countries which are predominantly Christian nowadays tend not to take the Bible literally, whereas predominantly Muslin countries still tend to take the Koran word-for-word.

Jennifer | January 30, 2006, 5:12pm | #

Imagine how many more crimes Christianity would have to its credit had electricity and explosives been around during the days of the Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition. Mainstream Christianity evolved into something more humane before any of that happened; Islam still needs to evolve.

Pro Libertate | January 30, 2006, 5:12pm | #

wellfellow,

And their hit single, "Too Much Saxon Violence".

io1029 | January 30, 2006, 5:15pm | #

Part of the outrage is because it is a sin or somesuch to visually depict Mohammed, right?

I guess in that respect there isn't a parrellel to Christianity, because there isn't any Bible scripture saying don't draw Jesus. Which could be why we can get away with more Jesus cartoons/jokes.

SPD | January 30, 2006, 5:15pm | #

Jennifer,

Don't forget the predominantly Silk countries, too!

(I'm sorry, I just hopped all over an innocent typo. I'm a petty, petty man.)

thoreau | January 30, 2006, 5:16pm | #

whereas predominantly Muslin countries still tend to take the Koran word-for-word

Except they don't. Both books have some bad ideas, but both groups also have some bad ideas that are only weakly rooted in the literal text. I've read the Koran, and while I'm sure I didn't grasp a lot of important issues, the gist I got bears only a very faint resemblance to Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Randolph Carter | January 30, 2006, 5:16pm | #

Pro Libertate,
I thought that song was by The Exploited

Pro Libertate | January 30, 2006, 5:18pm | #

What the Arab world needs is a guy in a blue turban to claim he's the guy Nostradamus predicted, take over everything, build up a strong industrial base with the oil revenues, liberalize the economic and political systems, then say, "I was just kidding about that jihad against the West". Of course, the liberalized Arabs will then say, "That's okay. We're over all of that anger, anyway. Thanks."

R C Dean | January 30, 2006, 5:20pm | #

Imagine how many more crimes Christianity would have to its credit had electricity and explosives been around during the days of the Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition.

I dunno. The essentials of torture have been pretty much the same since pre-Roman times. The Spanish managed to do a fine job of committing genocide in the New World without industrial technology, as did the English and Americans.

Mainstream Christianity evolved into something more humane before any of that happened; Islam still needs to evolve.

Agree on this point.

fyodor | January 30, 2006, 5:20pm | #

Tell that to Salman Rushdie's critics. Then run like hell.

Well since Tim wasn't the only one who seemed to interpret me wrong, allow me to explain that I was treating the idea (which I took as implicit in the title of the blog post) that the Muslim world is a little lacking in humor as a given and therefore not in need of being made explicit. And while I wasn't trying to draw any "moral equivalence" (though I'm not always sure what that's supposed to mean; suffice to say I wasn't trying to point a finger at the West per se), we are all of the same species and not necessarily that far apart, and even people in the West do sometimes take perceived insults too hard, and I think what that attitude's done to the Muslim world is a worthy cautionary tale of how NOT to be. That's it, nothing more, nothing less.

Eric the .5b | January 30, 2006, 5:24pm | #

The Spanish managed to do a fine job of committing genocide in the New World without industrial technology, as did the English and Americans.

Actually, the germs Europeans were carrying killed far more Native Americans than those they killed by any deliberate effort.

guy in the last row | January 30, 2006, 5:28pm | #

We are not slaves to culture, it can be changed. The US's culture for hundreds of years was that blacks were inferior, it's only in the past 25 or 30 years that it's considered a stupid opinion. The cultural view of gays in the US has changed more recently.

We all have free will to ignore what is "cultural" and do what is right.

Pro Libertate | January 30, 2006, 5:30pm | #

Randolph Carter, I'm just makin' up as I go.

As an irrelevant aside, I always thought that "Learned Hand" would be a good name for a rock group. Not because I'm a lawyer--I think lawyer-related, self-referential names are worse than stupid--but because I'm amused by the various meanings one could derive from such a name.

Back to the Arabs: On the visual depiction issue, there are certain Christian groups that don't go for that, either. I can't remember which ones--maybe the Seven-Day Adventists (still waiting!) or the Mennonites. Also, the Iranians are a little looser in this regard, due to their not-entirely-purged Zoroastrian roots. If I were Iranian, I'd throw off the conquest-imposed religion and go back to Zarathustra. Then I could walk around and tell the Jews, Christians, and Muslims that they stole all of their best stuff from my religion and that Ahura Mazda damns them all.

Randolph Carter | January 30, 2006, 5:38pm | #

aah, thought you were making a pun. Saxon Violence sounds an awful lot like "sex and violence." Kind of like saying "Sofa king we Todd Ed."

Pro Libertate | January 30, 2006, 5:41pm | #

Right, it was a pun. I think it's a hoot, too. Thanks for noticing :)

methodman | January 30, 2006, 5:41pm | #

whereas predominantly Muslin countries still tend to take the Koran word-for-word

And it's damn near impossible to take any religious text "word for word." Hell, we wrote up a Constitution with the intent that it be as close as possible to a document we could take word-for-word and look where that's gotten us.

Yeah, I mean just look how Islamists have been getting clobbered at the polls in Iraq, and Palestine, and Iran, and Lebanon, and...

Clinton: "Building a Bridge to the 21st Century"
GOP Congress & GWBush: "Building a Bridge to Nowhere"
Crazy-ass Islamists: "Building a Bridge to the 7th Century"

(Incidentally, I just happened to look up the alleged "prophet" Mohammed's birthday...April 20, 570..another 4/20 for the record books, along with Hitler's birthday, the Columbine massacre, and the coincidentally and ironically celebratory date of marijuana afficianados who are into that sort of thing.)

Eric the .5b | January 30, 2006, 5:46pm | #

But is that April 20 in the Gregorian calendar? Otherwise it wouldn't be the same day.

ChrisO | January 30, 2006, 5:51pm | #

Being an atheist myself I don't have a horse in the race, so to speak. But I think even in medieval times many Christians understood that burning 'heretics' and slaughtering the infidel wasn't exactly an ideally Christian way of living. The pacifist roots of the religion are deep and go all the way back to the beginning. Obviously the Old Testament contains a lot of carnage, but taht is mostly a history lesson, while the 'life instructions' of the New Testament take a different tack.

Islam, to my relatively uninformed thinking, appears to be all over the map regarding whether it explicitly sanctions violence against the infidel. From what I've read, some Koranic passages do, others do not.

Most importantly, the Bible itself explicitly recognizes the concept of a secular realm (rendering unto Caesar), while Islam most certainly does not. This has broad implications for the notion of trying to introduce western liberalism into the Islamic world.

Eric the .5b | January 30, 2006, 5:58pm | #

I am pendantic man in this thread, aren't I?

John | January 30, 2006, 6:02pm | #

Chris O,

You are right. The violence of medieval Europe has as much to do with the fact that the conteninent was populated by the decendents of some very violent societies than it did with religion. Yes, the slaughtered the Jews in the name of religion, but its not exactly like the Franks, Goths, Huns and Lombards were peace loving folks who were corrupted and made violent by Christianity. These would have been doing something nasty to someone, Christianity just gave them some direction.

The same can be said in defense of Islam. The bedoins of the Arabian penisular were backward, violent and incredibly misogonistic long before Islam came along or Wahab added his special version of it.

Don't forget of course that good old 20th Century Western cult of vicimization has been added to the toxic stew already brewing in the middle-east.

B.P. | January 30, 2006, 6:08pm | #

"Imagine how many more crimes Christianity would have to its credit had electricity and explosives been around."

Well, Semtex wasn't around during the Spanish Inquisition, but gunpowder certainly was, which can explode fairly well.

Phil | January 30, 2006, 6:08pm | #

"the Arabian penisular"

Couldn't make 'em any funnier if I tried.

a | January 30, 2006, 6:25pm | #

The response to Theo Van Gogh was inexecsable and frightening. Violent responses are not acceptable. But, the Danish cartoon incident is in no way similar. The repsonses I have seen are mostly economic boycotts and diplomatic ties. In both cases, muslims are expressing their dismay using their check books. What is wrong with that?

The cartoons were very offensive to Muslims, some consider them hateful or might incide hate against muslims. The Danish government refused to meet with representative of muslims in Denmark and representative of muslim countries citing freedom of the press.

But, freedom of the press isn't absolute, especially in European countries. You have laws against inciting hate, violence and such. Why is it against freedom of the press to censor cartoons that show Mohammed as a suicide bomber or as a pedophile, but it just fine when banning a TV series that is partially based on protocols of elder zion?

There is a double standard here. Anyone who denies or questions the holocaust is prosecuted in Europe (hint: Roger Garoudy). Some TV stations were banned (e.g., Al-Manar TV). But, mocking Mohammed and showing him as a terrorist or as a pedophile is fair game?

ChrisO | January 30, 2006, 6:28pm | #

John, I'm referring to what, if any, effect the religions in question had on the primitive tribal violence to which you refer, which is no doubt endemic to the human animal. Killing has been done in the name of all sorts of otherwise noble enterprises--that is not the point.

In other words, Christianity was able to be reformed into a relatively pacifistic religion from the 18th Century onward. Could the same sort of reform occur within Islam, or is such reform doctrinally incompatible with it? Regardless of what various pollyannas or warhawks might say, I don't believe this question can be definitely answered at present. Muslims themselves seem to disagree vigorously on this issue.

Rover Random | January 30, 2006, 6:31pm | #

Although Sri Lanka is an exception, overall I feel Buddhism is a far better religion than either Christianity or Islam. They at least haven't had a jihad or a crusade -- conversion by the sword never sat well with me.

You may claim it's evolved, but that only scares me more. I mean, if it's evolved then they're smarter, and that means they get tricky. Just look at the U.S.

Between the Drug War and the War on Terrorism, our government is keeping us in a perpetual state of conflict. This has the sole purpose of slowly leading us back to a Puritanical Theocracy by stealing away our freedoms and destroying the Constitution by selective reading and even outright fabrication.

At least when they blow themselves up there's one less.

Shem | January 30, 2006, 6:47pm | #

I guess in that respect there isn't a parrellel to Christianity, because there isn't any Bible scripture saying don't draw Jesus.

Actually there is; the Levitical law. It expressly forbids religious iconography of any sort. The early Christians and present day Muslim laws forbidding it find their basis in this, not any statements made in the NT or Qu'ran. (Although the Hadith does favorably reference the Levitial laws, which is why it's still followed) The reason it's OK for Christians was because the early Church fathers thought that it was more important to have a method of education for illiterates than to follow the laws about graven images, which led them to give conditional permission for some images. Although many of them would probably be horrified to see the crucifixes that are found in Catholic churches today.

richard | January 30, 2006, 6:49pm | #

Contrary to our short time-span-tv-news memory, Muslims have been rioting in European countries for about 60 years. Or shortly after the French decided to give Algerians French citizenship (not blaming Algerians, but that act led to the first huge wave of Muslim immigration). The post-war anti-Nazi laws regarding speech have hindered the true intellectuals of Europe, and have stifled intelligent expression regarding the misguided policies of appeasing Muslim statists/extremists. I hate to say it, but the act of foregoing these freedoms of expression (see Pakistan Foreign Ministry Response) is exactly what European GOVERNMENTS deserve. That may sound harsh, but the distinctly European policy of appeasement is how we lost about 100 million lives over a half century ago.

Religious clashes seldom end in mutual peace. The Muslim war against western ideals has been going on for centuries. Only recently have the battles touched our lives directly. The Hindus of Kashmir; the Christians of Lebanon; the Jews of Iraq, Eqypt, Jordan...etc.; the Catholics of the Philipines; the Catholics and Protestants of Nigeria, Somalia, Sierra Leone, all understand all to well that the liberal Muslims make up a minority of the Muslim community. It may be true that most Muslims privately condemn the murder of innocents because of religious differences, but how often have we seen any Muslim clerics publicy decry these acts?

Shem | January 30, 2006, 6:55pm | #

In other words, Christianity was able to be reformed into a relatively pacifistic religion from the 18th Century onward. Could the same sort of reform occur within Islam, or is such reform doctrinally incompatible with it?

Islam could absolutly be reformed in such a manner, in fact, most of the world already adheres to a form of Islam influenced heavily by Sufism, which has historically proven very good at conversion, mostly because it stresses inclusion and tolerance and, well, liberalism as some of it's most important values. The problem is that Muslim areas tend to lack employment, secular schools and all the other trappings of modernism, which makes fundamentalist Islam as represented by the Wahhabi sect very popular. Young men and poor people are naturally attracted to this sort of values system because it provides a system in which downtrodden or otherwise displaced people can feel powerful. It's a lot like how poor people in America are more attracted to fundamentalist Christian sects. It's a terrible catch-22, because until conditions improve, Islam isn't likely to loosen up again, but until they do their way of life will be hostile to liberalizing influences.

Captain Holly | January 30, 2006, 7:03pm | #

Between the Drug War and the War on Terrorism, our government is keeping us in a perpetual state of conflict. This has the sole purpose of slowly leading us back to a Puritanical Theocracy by stealing away our freedoms and destroying the Constitution by selective reading and even outright fabrication.

I find that genuine Reynolds Wrap is the best for resisting those pesky Christer TelEvangelist Satellite Mind Rays.

You must be using some sort of generic brand.

Captain Holly | January 30, 2006, 7:05pm | #

It's a lot like how poor people in America are more attracted to fundamentalist Christian sects.

Except for the inconvenient fact that most conservative Evangelicals are middle class...

Shem | January 30, 2006, 7:27pm | #

There's a difference between Fundamental and Evangelical. A pretty big one, actually. Just how many Fundamentalists have you met? They're actually somewhat rare...

Shawn Smith | January 30, 2006, 7:39pm | #

Shem beat me to it. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Exodus 20:4, KJV.

mediageek | January 30, 2006, 8:14pm | #

"Between the Drug War and the War on Terrorism, our government is keeping us in a perpetual state of conflict. This has the sole purpose of slowly leading us back to a Puritanical Theocracy by stealing away our freedoms and destroying the Constitution by selective reading and even outright fabrication."

But ultimately, the state is what gets set up in place of God.

Bonar Law | January 30, 2006, 8:15pm | #

I followed one of the links and found this:

President Clinton has denounced the cartoons at a speech in Qatar.

"'So now what are we going to do? ... Replace the anti-Semitic prejudice with anti-Islamic prejudice?' he said at an economic conference in the Qatari capital of Doha. . . .

"'None of us are totally free of stereotypes about people of different races, different ethnic groups, and different religions ... there was this appalling example in northern Europe, in Denmark ... these totally outrageous cartoons against Islam,' he said. . . .

"Clinton criticised the tendency to generalise negative news of Islamic militancy.

"'Because people see headlines that they don't like (they will) apply that to a whole religion, a whole faith, a whole region and a whole people?' he asked.

"Thinking the microphone was off, Clinton then turned to his Qatari hosts and asked, 'when are those girls going to do that Lap Dance of the Seven Veils, like you promised?"

Oh, wait, that part wasn't in the story.

Rick Barton | January 30, 2006, 9:20pm | #

Sure, peaceful coexistence is possible with these people. We just need to, you know, sit down and talk through our issues.

Our peaceful coexistence would be natural and certainly alot easier if our government would quit aggressing against them, both directly and by funding the Israeli regime's occupation of Palestinian land. It's this idiocy that motivated the 9/11 attacks against us. Thru its hyper interventionist policies our government draws targets on our backs.

MJ | January 30, 2006, 9:21pm | #

Wow, I thought that had to be a joke. Never underestimate Bill Clinton's almost supernatural ability to pander to any audience.

What a tool.

dhex | January 30, 2006, 9:49pm | #

http://www.jp.dk/meninger/ncartikel:aid=3527646

Cartoons | January 30, 2006, 11:00pm | #

The riot-inspiring cartoons can be found here:
http://www.democracyfrontline.org/blog/?p=133

Again | January 30, 2006, 11:10pm | #

"Our peaceful coexistence would be natural and certainly alot easier if our government would quit aggressing against them, both directly and by funding the Israeli regime's occupation of Palestinian land. It's this idiocy that motivated the 9/11 attacks against us."

You sure it wasn't one of the political cartoons in the New York Times? Apparently either would do...

B.P. | January 30, 2006, 11:50pm | #

"Our peaceful coexistence would be natural and certainly alot easier if our government would quit aggressing against them, both directly and by funding the Israeli regime's occupation of Palestinian land. It's this idiocy that motivated the 9/11 attacks against us. Thru its hyper interventionist policies our government draws targets on our backs."

Rick Barton-Raimondobot just jumped the shark.

Tim Cavanaugh | January 31, 2006, 12:18am | #

Actually there is; the Levitical law. It expressly forbids religious iconography of any sort.

In fact it forbids imagery of any sort, but God, always a stickler for consistency, follows that up with advice to sculpt a magical brass serpent with shamanic curing powers, detailed instructions on what size to carve the cherubs on the Ark of the Covenant, and a tutorial on what type of shittim wood to use in making the decorations for the mercy seat. (Personally, I'd use shittim wood in making on another kind of seat.)

As for depicting Jesus, it hasn't been forbidden, but it has frequently been frowned upon—even in the movies, where it was the custom for a long time to show Jesus and Franklin Roosevelt only from behind, or in shadow profile, or as a hand or something coming in from the side of the frame. There were always spectacular exceptions to that rule, such as Cecil B. DeMille's original silent version of King of Kings, but, for example, it wasn't until 1953's Day of Triumph that Jesus was depicted onscreen in a color film—and even after that the tradition of the faceless Jesus persisted until it was buried for good with the 1961 version of King of Kings.

And from there it was all downhill, for both Jeffrey Hunter and Jesus movies.

io1029 | January 31, 2006, 12:54am | #

Interesting. All that, I most certainly did not know.

Thanks.

Rick Barton | January 31, 2006, 2:28am | #

B.P.,

Thank you for associating me with that fine libertarian scholar; Justin Raimondo.

But "Raimondobot" is funny cuz there was a New Wave/synth pop group named Mondobot here in Denver in the early 80's. They were kind of evocative of Human League.

Kahn | January 31, 2006, 2:30am | #

Does anyone have a link to these cartoons? I think I want to make them the background on my desktop...

Does anyone have a small gas powered airplane? I want to fly it into jpk's monitor as soon as he gets his new wall paper up.

Kahn | January 31, 2006, 2:44am | #

wellfellow,

Christianity was able to evolve away from a rather barbaric past. Not all religions can say that. That's partly due to the design of the church.

Well, no. If you think the European Church willingly gave up its massive power at the end of the Middle Ages, you need to go back and read some more history. Christianity was made to "evolve" very much against its own will. It went kicking and screaming the whole way.

Many people actually don't like change. Especially the people who are currently in power. Popes have never been an exception.



ChrisO,

Could the same sort of reform occur within Islam, or is such reform doctrinally incompatible with it? Regardless of what various pollyannas or warhawks might say, I don't believe this question can be definitely answered at present.

Sure it can be answered. Islam can be "evolved", against its will, just like Christianity was. All you need is a Muslim Renessaince, Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Islam has no comperable events in its history.



The question isn't whether Islam could evolve into something more tolerant -- someday. The question is, what are we all going to have to live through in the meantime,and how exactly are we going to deal with it?

Joe Banner | January 31, 2006, 2:53am | #

What up with you, Reason?? You call this reporting? Post the damn cartoons!

Shem | January 31, 2006, 4:04am | #

There are links to the comics upthread. They're not that funny, nor even terribly trenchant. Of all the things to start a Jihad over, this is pretty pathetic, actually. Muslim Fundamentalists just have a massive inferiority complex that's making them blow this out of proportion.

Nick (South Africa) | January 31, 2006, 6:03am | #

Here is a bit of context for the current vein popping in the Muslim World over a few cartoons. A selection of pictorial representations of Mohamed throughout the ages.

Joe Banner | January 31, 2006, 6:06am | #

My comment isn't a request to find the cartoons in cyberspace - I know how to use a search engine.

wellfellow | January 31, 2006, 8:31am | #

Kahn,

That's why I said 'partly'.

That the some members of the church were resistant to change is kind of an obvious point, it is a conservative organisation. That there were outside factors involved, again, is a little obvious. These elements aren't distinct to the environment surrounding the church. The church's own infrastructure evolved with the changes, though.

Jennifer | January 31, 2006, 9:08am | #

The idea that "the problem with Islam is the religion itself, not the vile culture where it's currently found" overlooks the fact that during the Middle Ages, the Islamic nations were civilized centers of culture and learning, and in many ways more humane (by contemporary standards, anyway) than the Christian nations of Europe. And up until about a hundred years or so ago Jews in Muslim nations had a better time of it than Jews in most European nations; there's nothing inherent to Islam which makes it impossible to co-exist with other religions or cultures.

Look at someplace like modern Arabia--unemployment rates are sky-high, the sexes aren't allowed to talk to each other, movies and music are illegal--there's nothing for young men to do except get a degree in Islamic studies and then sit around brooding all the time. Get rid of the godawful governments in the Middle East (yeah, I know, easier said than done) and the religion will improve in tandem with the lives of the people there.

crimethink | January 31, 2006, 9:35am | #

It's also important to note that Christianity started out as an oppressed religion, and continued as such for centuries. Thus, Christianity has a much more effective toolbox for dealing with an indifferent or hostile secular govt than Islam, which has been accustomed to controlling the state almost from its inception.

(Yes, I know Mohammed was oppressed in Mecca, but that was only for a few years -- and Islam per se began with his move to Medina, anyhow.)

wellfellow | January 31, 2006, 9:37am | #

Jennifer,

"the problem with Islam is the religion itself, not the vile culture where it's currently found"

I don't believe anyone's said that. What was said was that the religion and the culture cannot be seperated so easily.

"Get rid of the godawful governments in the Middle East "

Here Here!

crimethink | January 31, 2006, 9:39am | #

Jennifer,

No, there's nothing inherent in Islam about not getting along with other religions...so long as Islam remains dominant. When its control of the state is threatened or non-existent, not so much.

Jennifer | January 31, 2006, 9:54am | #

No, there's nothing inherent in Islam about not getting along with other religions

If you're talking about a strict interpretation of the texts, Islam is actually more tolerant that Christianity. Islam will at least be willing to co-exist with "Peoples of the Book" (Jews and Christians), whereas the Bible calls for the outright slaughter of non-believers. That's why I say it's the culture, not the religion. Modern Christian nations are a lot nicer than the Bible demands (mainly because they are so secularized), whereas modern Islamic nations are actually more cruel than the Koran calls for.

joe | January 31, 2006, 10:01am | #

I dunno, crimethink, there are a few million Muslims in the United States who get along just fine without controlling our government. Ditto Canada.

The New Republic had a cover story recently, "Why Haven't American Muslims Turned to Terrorism?"

I think the answer is pretty obvious - because they're Americans! They're too busy going to work, coming home from work, grilling beef franks on weekends, and saying, "Honey? I think I like that other room deoderizer better."

joe | January 31, 2006, 10:04am | #

Jennifer, the Bible demands "When you are struck on one cheek, turn the other cheek, that they may strike you on that cheek as well."

There is also the story of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritans were a despised group of foreigners, and the purpose of the story was to teach people not to judge by nationality, but to look at all people as your brothers.

wellfellow | January 31, 2006, 10:17am | #

Jennifer,

Not all Christians believe in following the texts literally. Catholics, for one, certainly don't, or at least aren't advised to. I'm not trying to pick nits, I just think that you might be using a false dichotomy. Certainly there are important aspects of culture that are not religious, but religion is inextricable in the those cultures' composition.

Jennifer | January 31, 2006, 10:17am | #

Joe, whether or not the Bible is vile or humane depends upon whether you focus on the Old Testament or the New. The many nice statements in the New Testament didn't prevent a lot of Christian slaughter over the ages, just as the many exhortations for mercy in the Koran didn't stop the Taliban from being bastards.

Jennifer | January 31, 2006, 10:22am | #

I read a story the other day about Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps; he and his band of merry men have been protesting at the funerals of servicemen killed in Iraq, insisting that the reason God allows American soldiers to die is to punish our country for allowing homosexuals to stay alive in our midst. The only difference betweeh Phelps and these Muslim fanatics is that Phelps doesn't have any actual power. So is Phelps a vile human being because of his Christianity, or because of his cultural background? I blame his culture.

joe | January 31, 2006, 10:31am | #

Jennifer,

I agree with your point that it is the culture, not the religious texts, that is to blame. That was my point in citing those two passages.

Although I'd phrase it as "culture, politics, and economics."

mk | January 31, 2006, 11:00am | #

I'd like to give a shout-out to Nobody's Business. He has done a fine job of covering this and other situations in Europe that are of interest to reasonoids.

Bonar Law | January 31, 2006, 11:10am | #

Jennifer,

Many of the Fred Phelpses of the Muslim world are powerful figures. Phelps is an annoying dude who uses his free expression in the most provocative way he can.

The Muslim counterpart to Phelps, in terms of influence, would probably be the village atheist in Peshawar, Pakistan (and he's probably quieter than Phelps).

Rover Random | January 31, 2006, 11:28am | #

We're Civilized Now

I find the tendency of those people who have the least effect and influence upon the government to talk incessantly about it to be a most foolish undertaking. It is an exercise in delusion and wishful thinking, for the common people no longer control the government, for they are not the government.

The people no longer control the government, our society is no longer free, there are so many constrictions and limitations that half of them are hidden by the others. The average citizen trips over no more than he already does because he walks such a narrow and constrained path, he just doesn't want to admit it.

This results from a fear of freedom, and ultimately a phobia of people -- we just call it religion to round off the edges and make it look pretty.

The basis for a government is the governing of the people, by the people, and for the people. The Founding Fathers knew this, and knew it well, it is why they were saddened by the creation of political parties. In the history of this nation, we have progressively lost more and more control of the government, developing a ruling elite like so many ancient city-states. The government controls the ballots, the government controls who runs for its own offices, it dictates policy, and ignores the will of the people. The government elects istself, you have no say in your own life.

The United States was an amusing and interesting attempt by a few men to overcome human nature, but it has failed them and itself. It will never return to what made it great, and will simply become a bloated and twisted system like every other country in existence.

Humans do not progress, technology does, and we call that civilization.

Concentration Camps.

Induced Famine.

Stalin.

Hitler.

Atomic Bombs.

Napalm.

Mao.

Pol-pat.

The War on Drugs.

Predatory Government.

Racism.

The Crusades.

The Jihads.

The Inquisition.

The Dark Ages.

Torture.

Mutilation.

Opression of the poor.

Genocide.

Do you feel civilized?

Ed | January 31, 2006, 11:41am | #

Dang, my line of Fuck Mohammed! T-shirts is really going to piss 'em off.

Rick Barton | January 31, 2006, 12:01pm | #

Rover Random,

Yes, most of those are the exclusive purview of that most barbaric of institutions, government. When government is limited, these outrages disappear or are mitigated.

Jennifer | January 31, 2006, 12:10pm | #

Many of the Fred Phelpses of the Muslim world are powerful figures.

I agree, which is why I said earlier that the difference between Fred Phelps and the Muslim fanatics is that Phelps has no real power.

At least not now. But we can't get complacent--one of the most important lessons of the twentieth century is that even the most civilized culture can quickly descend into barbarity if the conditions are right. The collective moral suicide of Germany in the 1930s shows how easily that can happen.

ChrisO | January 31, 2006, 12:22pm | #

While religion and culture are intimately intertwined, I believe that the religion has to have the "raw materials" in order to change the culture around it.

And Jennifer, I have my doubts about Islam in that regard. You seek to equate it with Christianity (and that's understandable), but the two are simply not doctrinally equivalent. Perhaps it's a chicken/egg issue, but consider the idea that the Renaissance/Reformation/Enlightenment sequence was partly based on the nature of the Christian religion in which it occurred, and not some alien force that had no religious component. If so, one could question whether such societal evolutions could take place in non-Christian lands, as in fact they did not.

Christianity, by its very nature, is more of an 'internal' religion, almost Buddhist in nature (in fact, there are compelling reasons to think that Buddhism influenced the early Christians). Doctrinal Islam, by contrast, is more explicit as form of societal laws and regulations, and contains clear instructions that infidel lands shall not remain independent and that infidels living within the Ummah will be tolerated only as second-class citizens. No real ambiguity there.

It's a cop-out to say that the world is full of secular Muslims. True, and not the point. As long as there are millions of non-secular Muslims, there is going to be a problem unless the religion can evolve or disappear. People here make fun of Christian fundamentalists, but even among such hardcore believers, I see nothing of the sort of blood-and-guts zealotry that has become so apparent among Islamists. Relativism doesn't work on that score, sorry.

B.P. | January 31, 2006, 1:07pm | #

Hmmm... Mondobot was before my time here in Denver.

And is "Pol-pat" the androgynous sibling of a former Cambodian dictator?

mediageek | January 31, 2006, 1:35pm | #

"So is Phelps a vile human being because of his Christianity, or because of his cultural background? I blame his culture."

I blame his mother. Who obviously dropped him on his head at a young age.

Bonar Law | January 31, 2006, 7:11pm | #

"one of the most important lessons of the twentieth century is that even the most civilized culture can quickly descend into barbarity if the conditions are right. The collective moral suicide of Germany in the 1930s shows how easily that can happen."

This is true, of course. In the specific case of Germany, the descent into barbarity was assisted by certain massive traumas suffered by the Germans: WWI, the aftermath thereof, and of course the Great Depression.

Perhaps if terrorists nuke the US and turn us into some kind of post-apocalyptic wasteland, some Phelps type will be able to become powerful by capitalizing on popular discontents. In such a case, of course, we'll be pretty messed up with or without Phelps. And in any case, Phelps will be so much in shock because he wasn't raptured that he'll have lost the self-confidence to become a murderous dictator.

Rover Random | January 31, 2006, 7:57pm | #

And is "Pol-pat" the androgynous sibling of a former Cambodian dictator?

Oops, typo.

Shem | January 31, 2006, 8:17pm | #

Perhaps it's a chicken/egg issue, but consider the idea that the Renaissance/Reformation/Enlightenment sequence was partly based on the nature of the Christian religion in which it occurred, and not some alien force that had no religious component.

This is one of the big myths of the Renaissance and Enlightenment. The texts that provided the basis of the Renaissance, with a few exceptions, came out of the Islamic world, and the schools where most of the work was done on them were either student-run outright or controlled by individuals whose connection to the Church was extremely tenuous. At most, one can make the case that the church's provision of literate individuals aided the process in it's early stages, but even then it was more a matter of the middle class buying their services as educators than the clergy themselves trying to further education. As for the notion that the Church had anything to do with the Enlightenment, well the high percentage of Enlightenment thinkers who were Deists of some stripe, as well as the lengths which Catholic and Protestant sects went to in the attempt to subdue Enlightenment thought would suggest otherwise.

The whole process had more to do with the move from Feudalism to proto-Capitalism than the Church.

jkp | February 1, 2006, 8:14am | #

Thanks for the link with the cartoons....send it to all your friends!

http://www.democracyfrontline.org/blog/?p=133