It is one thing to make an error out of genuine ignorance. Ignorance is nothing more than an absence of knowledge; it makes a certain distinction between those who lack the capacity to acquire knowledge and/or experience and those who simply do not know because they’ve never heard of it. So to make an error because one did not know better should be, to the rational person, forgivable. To deliberately poke someone in the eye, however, is to incite that person to a less than favorable response because our own experience should inform us that getting a finger in the eye is physically painful and has the potential to cause further damage.
So in 2006 there were cartoons published in Dutch newspapers in which the prophet Muhammad was depicted wearing a bomb-shaped turban which created quite an uproar in the world-wide Islamic community. The crazies took to the streets and set fire to anything that would burn and actually threatened the life of the artist. The more moderate Muslims expressed their displeasure in less destructive ways, but they still voiced their anger and offense at the utter disrespect shown in these cartoons. In Islam, it is prohibited to draw pictures of the Prophet, favorable or not, lest this portrait become the object of worship (i.e., idolatry). It is the common objective that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all share that our object of worship is the Lord God alone.
Again in 2008 these same cartoons were published yet again. It is unclear as of this writing exactly what was expected to be accomplished by this deliberate “finger in the eye” of Islam, but it is equally clear that one cannot claim ignorance this time around. It was an informed decision to republish. It is reasonable to say that non-Muslims did not know of the Islamic prohibition against images of the Prophet, and that argument (or defense) was valid in 2006. In 2008 that same claim cannot be made. It was clearly a deliberate attempt to … what?
Pundits and columnists opined after the first round that they were protected by free speech and free press rights and that American newspaper publishers should “grow a pair” and publish these same cartoons in American papers “just to show them” that we will not be cowed nor bullied. For these, it was and is a matter of “rights”. For Islam, it is a matter of respect. And if the continued publication of these caricatures serves no genuine social purpose and if we know that others are offended by these cartoons, rational or not, and if we KNOW that publication will be inciteful and result in physical harm and destruction, it is then irresponsible to continue not out of any sense of fear but, rather, out of a sense of social responsibility which must necessarily accompany freedom. And I am not referring to the irrational “crazies” who seem only to be looking for a reason to destroy anything if it will get them press time.
It is the same reasoning in why the Confederate Battle Flag should be seriously considered before it is posted or flown. Of course there are some who only seek to manipulate public opinion and will use any excuse they need to invoke “offense”. There are others, however, who are as much a part of society as another and are genuinely offended by such displays that seem to serve no other purpose than that of the “finger in the eye”. Christian principles prohibit such lack of regard for the well-being of others and if we are the “Christian nation founded on Christian principles” that so many claim, then our principles must not be reduced to matters of public opinion or constitutional proclamation.
I will readily agree that no one should be reduced to walking on egg shells for fear of insulting or offending others because it is virtually impossible to know of the feelings or sensitivities of those with whom we live and work and I will agree that we need not be so sensitive, but the truth is that I am offended by what I consider to be disrespectful caricatures of Christ or the Virgin Mary or Moses or any other major biblical player whom I hold in high esteem especially when I am quite sure that the caricature was intended to express the disdain of the artist. I am just not willing to take to the streets and set property on fire or burn flags to express my displeasure. I truly am left with few options other than to get over it and move along.
The Confederate Battle Flag, like it or not, is very much a part of US history and southern culture. It cannot be ignored nor completely destroyed, but it must never be taken completely out of its useful context and purpose in American history. The caricatures of Muhammad, on the other hand, serve no useful purpose that I can see or appreciate. It can be said, and I think this is reasonable and likely, that the cartoons are directed at those who hide behind Islam and use very loose koranic interpretations as an excuse to be destructive. It cannot be said, however, that these drawings can ever be confused with anything useful. This is a sleeping dog that needs to be left to lie.
3 comments:
It would appear that Western civilization faces a long struggle with radical Islam. For this backward, regressive, misogynistic relic of Middle Eastern tribalism is fundamentally and violently at odds with the pluralistic and diverse assumptions of modernity. Given the outrageous demands of militant Islam, it would seem the only alternative to walking on eggshells is to sweep up the glass of broken windows. With such extremist any attempt at accommodation would be not unlike a willing victimization, allowing ourselves to be collared and caged waiting only a camera and knife. Islam is a dead end religion. As with Rushdie’s verses, Muslims find these crude cartoons objectionable because of the light they shed on the dark heart of Islam. This is no time for anyone to turn the lights off.
Do you believe that the artist was attempting something as profound as "shedding light on dark"? I tend to think, as I stated, that the artist's disdain was directed toward those with violent "faith". I also believe that those who offer disrespectful caricatures of Christ are expressing their disdain not for Christ Himself but for Christians who claim it but don't seem to get it.
I don't believe that these radicals should be given ANYTHING - and I think you agree. But I don't think it is victimization to let certain things alone when faced with the knowledge of violent repercussions in which innocents will almost certain get caught up, especially when such displays as these cartoons will serve no real purpose.
For instance, look at Israel's recent forays into Gaza. They've been warning and warning the Palestinians that it was going to come to this. Israel also knows that to attack will bring certain retaliation, but they cannot let these continued rocket attacks on Israeli civilian areas go unanswered. They are serving a legitimate purpose (national security) by going into Gaza in search of these rocket launchers. But no reasonable Jew is going to draw "funny" pictures of Muhammad because, to them, it is anything but funny.
I've not read Rushdie's verses so I cannot comment one way or the other. I will venture to say, however, that many Muslims did not read it, either. It was just one more excuse to burn and pillage.
Incidentally, I heartily agree with you and the West's long struggle with radical Islam. This is one fight that will not go away, no matter what we do. Or don't do.
Post a Comment