Follow Up: Anti-Muslim Cartoons are a No-No, but Anti-Christian? Have At It!

This is a follow up to this article (Anti-Muslim Cartoon Exposes Media Hypocrisy):

Depicting Muhammed in a manner that might be offensive is not only taboo, it’s not proper use of “freedom of speech.” But offending Christians by purposely depicting Jesus insultingly? Well if that’s not freedom of speech then I don’t know what is! Here’s exactly what I’m talking about: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003630.html.

In short, a Canadian newspaper, The Sheaf, decided to not run the “anti-muslim” cartooms out of “respect”, citing the moral high ground, then turned around and published what can be only described as pure filth and a slap in the face to every Christian: a caricature of Jesus giving felatio to a pig who tells him “it’s kosher if you don’t swallow.” (The cartoon was commenting on the relationship between corporations and Christians in politics.)

Got something to say about it? (I expect you should.) Just email The paper at editor@thesheaf.com. Again, that’s editor@thesheaf.com.

3 thoughts on “Follow Up: Anti-Muslim Cartoons are a No-No, but Anti-Christian? Have At It!

  1. Out of curiosity I saw the cartoon the depicted Muhammad, it had him with a bomb wrapped up in his turban, and a mean look on his face – I can see how a muslim might be offended by the cartoon. Particularily since Muhammad was peaceful, and taught non-violence. Also, muslims consider ANY depiction of Muhammad to be blasphemy. Which brings up an interesting point – if there are no depictions of Muhammad why is it assumed the cartoon was of Muhammad, and not a generic muslim cleric?

    You are right Norb, Christians have not reacted the same way to depictions of Jesus in recent history. I even remember an exhibit funded by the National Endowment for the Arts in New York which had a picture of Jesus with feces thrown on it. Certainly it caused an uproar because the artist was funded by grants from the U.S. government. But. there was no violence in the streets – and truthfully I don’t know how it would have been possible to get more blaspemious or disgusting. I most certainly was offended, would not care to see or support that exhibit with my tax dollars, but nonetheless – support freedom of expression which gives that guy the right to be disgusting, and me to right to call him an idiot without either of us having to go into hiding to avoid getting their head chopped off.

    The key to living on this planet, and the lesson we must all learn, is that there is always going to be other people who do things or say things that offend us no matter who you are, or what you believe in – we must tolerate them, non-violently. Every major religion has had it’s holy wars, and has their violent extremeists – Christianity included.

    Nate

  2. “I even remember an exhibit funded by the National Endowment for the Arts in New York which had a picture of Jesus with feces thrown on it.”

    Actually it was the Virgin Mary, and it was elephant dung. The artist was not doing something out of blasphemy in that case, though; elephant dung is considered holy in parts of Africa. The art exibit was displaying a different way of looking at her “holyness.” It failed miserably.

    “and truthfully I don’t know how it would have been possible to get more blaspemous or disgusting.”

    I can think of a few ways. The cartoon I liked to is case and point on that one. It serves no purpose OTHER than to insult. The artist’s depiction — regardless of how much I disagree with it — was not meant as an insult, per se.

    “would not care to see or support that exhibit with my tax dollars, but nonetheless – support freedom of expression which gives that guy the right to be disgusting, and me to right to call him an idiot without either of us having to go into hiding to avoid getting their head chopped off.”

    Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility. If he gets tax dollars and he makes something which reviles the people, he can’t get arrested for it, but he can certainly lose funding.
    “The key to living on this planet, and the lesson we must all learn, is that there is always going to be other people who do things or say things that offend us no matter who you are, or what you believe in – we must tolerate them, non-violently.”

    I don’t agree. What you’re saying is basically that it’s all about relativism — post-modernist thought at its best. In short, there’s no definite right or wrong. Again, I disagree. There is indeed a definite right and a definite wrong, and sometimes you have to take up arms and fight for what you believe.

    And that in itself is another conundrum (sp?).

  3. Ah yes, I had a feeling I wasn’t 100% on the National Endowment for the Arts story. I should have fact checked, then again – no one fact checks on blogs 😉 I was close as the Virgin Mary is an icon of Christian religion (maybe more so with Catholism), certainly elephant dung would seem to be offensive despite the artist’s interpretation. It difficult to believe that elephant dung is considered holy in any culture (without fact checking)- easier to believe that the Artist used that excuse.

    I don’t agree. What you’re saying is basically that it’s all about relativism — post-modernist thought at its best. In short, there’s no definite right or wrong. Again, I disagree. There is indeed a definite right and a definite wrong, and sometimes you have to take up arms and fight for what you believe.

    Not at all. There is a definate right and definate wrong. In the legal world the difference is wrongs are definated as “mala in se” (evil in of itself) and “mala prohibita” (evil because the law says so). I certainly don’t expect rape and murder to be tolerated. I would certainly expect and hope that most people would “take up arms” to defend against a person, persons, or a government that is responsible for murder, rape, and other most serious evils that most every person on Earth can agree is evil (mala in se). However, we must learn to tolerate differences in religion and matters of expression and speech (in some governments – “mala prohibita”). I believe that newspaper in Canada has the right to publish crude cartoons, and of the artist to create such a cartoon just as I believe the newspaper in the Netherlands and the artist who created the representation of Muhammad has a similar right. You and I and anyone else certainly has the right not to purchase those materials, or to peacefully protest. We don’t have the right to react with murder, mayhem, and violence.

    As far as my opinions of tolerence as being “post-modernist”, I assume you mean viewing the world as having many perspectives and religious doctorines, all of which are to be considered valid and appreciated. Yes, you could say so. But, like everything with limits. There are certain universal evils – like murder, and rape (mala in se), that shouldn’t be tolerated. For example some rare cultures in which cannibalism, human sacrifice, and mutilation is practiced – is certainly untolerable.

    I think you are thinking of tolerence as an athiest concept. That is the one can acknowledge the validity of another religion unless you don’t follow the belief of any religion.

    Nate

Share your thoughts