Piss Mohammed?
Yes, I was offended by Serrano’s “Piss Christ,” and I can understand why Muslims would be offended by provocative cartoons.
In the end, I fall in the Hugh Hewitt and Jim Geraghty camp.
Geraghty notes “The Intolerable and the Honorable”:
After noting that my reaction is one of a man for whom the Muslim world starts at his doorstep and extends for hundreds of miles in every direction… while I am appalled by the violence and threats of violence by those who claim to be so offended, I have a hard time mustering much vigor for a defense of the cartoonists. Yes, they have a right to say it, but must we defend these cartoons as if they were a good thing? I don’t like Kanye West comparing himself to Christ, or Serrano’s “Piss Christ” art, or that idiotic Jesus-was-gay play “Corpus Christi”, or other efforts to poke at Christians’ sensitivities; I’m not sure why I should be cheering when someone else makes an effort to poke at Muslims’ sensitivities.
When I see someone creating a piece of art that offends me, what are my options? Let’s agree that killing him or any violent acts should be off the table. But I can protest, I can picket, I can urge others not to see or sponsor the work, and I can denounce the creator. Muslims ought to have these rights as much as we do. . . .
The Syrian reaction is intolerable. But the Turkish reaction is honorable. I hope the world can see the difference.
Earlier thoughts from Hugh Hewitt asking “What Would Churchill Do?”:
So, did the cartoons and their aftermath make it easier or more diffcult for Musharraf of Pakistan to continue to guide his country away from the lure of the jihadists? Easier or more difficult for Turkey to remain a friend of the West’s? Easier or more difficult for the pro-Western people of Iran to summon the courage to change their government? Easier or more difficult for Jordan’s King Abdullah to continue his course, which has included support for the reconstruction of Iraq even in the face of Zarqawi’s murderers?
In a wired world, there aren’t any inconsequential actions, and everything is grist for the propagandists among the jihadists
That doesn’t mean censorship, or even self-censorship. Only a bit of reflection before rushing off to start new battles which divert attention from those already underway.
This seems to me the essential point: There are many who do not understand either that we are at war or the power of propaganda during wartime.
There are many punks who care not to have a clue.
I do not think the Danish cartoonists fall in this camp, but they have complicated matters unnecessarily.
The price of freedom? Yes, and it is inevitable that there are those who cannot discriminate the obvious, i.e. we are not at war with Islam, but with the jihadists.
Hugh asks:
Jordan is an ally; Syria is an enemy. Did the cartoons help Jordan or Syria?
. . . [T]he central issue is largely unaddressed: Does the press in the West owe the war effort against the jihadists nothing, or even anything at all? The jihadists are hungry for information and for propaganda. If the West’s media is eager to supply either or both, there isn’t much anyone can do to stop that supply –nor should there be– except via careful reminders to responsible journalists that there’s a war on, and everything that is printed is part of that war.
Some of my e-mail is full of the predictable “We are already at war with Islam” nonsense. We aren’t, and we should do everything in our power to prevent such a catastrophe. . . .
Many commentators want to define the debate as an either/or choice between the cartoonists and the jihadists. That’s not the debate at all, and suggests an inability to grasp the real complexity here. It is not only consistent but compelling to both demand that the jihadists who threaten the press or who burn embassies be defeated and to also conclude that the cartoon fiasco was an unnecessary and expensive diversion from the central confrontation with the jihadists.
A significant difference that, and one we cannot forget if we want to win this war.
UPDATE:
Michelle Malkin has an excellent roundup. Just keep scrolling to read about Fanning the Flames and Another Day, Another Embassy Torched and don’t miss First, They Came.
I’m with David Bernstein — it’s hard for me to get too exercised by the Danes’ selective and contradictory indignations.
I still remember that in 2002, in response to Israel (finally) taking decisive military action against a wave of terrorist suicide-murders, the Danish General Workers Union canceled an order from an Israeli company, and announced that “we call for the hundreds of thousands of members of the union to refrain from buying products manufactured in Israel.” So forgive me if my heart doesn’t bleed for the Danish workers whose jobs are at risk from another branch of Islamic extremism. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and I certainly don’t wish the Danes any harm; I just don’t feel any urgent need to go out of my way to help them.
But, if you want The List of Danish products — and we cannot forget LegoLand!
UPDATE II:
In this climate today, would the National Endowment for the Arts fund a “Piss Mohammed”?
Alexandra von Maltzan asks “Is Western Liberalism Modifying Its Core Beliefs” as a result of “The Cartoon War”?
What are the limits to tolerating the intolerant?
An interesting homework assignment for The Left.
UPDATE III:
Virginia Postrel and Christopher Hitchens on the right to satirize and the need to mock.
UPDATE IV:
Professor Bainbridge notes the “Double Standards” at play in all of this and highlights an excellent piece by Eugene Volokh taking the Antique Media to task for laughing at Christians and kissing the feet of Muslims.
Professor Bainbridge also nods to Irshad Manji, author of The Trouble with Islam Today, from yesterday’s Wall Street Journal:
At Davos last week, I observed something revealing. In a session about the U.S. religious right, a cartoonist satirized one of America’s most influential evangelical ministers, Pat Robertson. In the audience, chuckling with the rest of us, was a prominent British Muslim. But his smile disappeared the moment we were shown a cartoon that made fun of Muslim clerics. . . .
Muslims have little integrity demanding respect for our faith if we do not show it for others. When have we demonstrated against Saudi Arabia’s policy to prevent Christians and Jews from stepping on the soil of Mecca? They may come for business trips, but nothing more. As long as Rome welcomes non-Christians and Jerusalem embraces non-Jews, we Muslims have more to protest than cartoons. . . .
When Muslims put the prophet on a pedestal, we are engaging in idolatry of our own. The point of monotheism is to worship one God, not one of God’s emissaries. Which is why humility requires people of faith to mock themselves — and each other — every once in a while.
Mark Levin is also exasperated by double standards and simply asks, “Where Are the Cartoons?” and “Where Were the Riots?” (do ponder the latter post exhibiting cartoons that have not caused riots).
Hmmm, linking to articles discussing double standards will never end, but I’ll leave you with this update from London and the EU Referendum blog — with thanks to Andrew Stuttaford.
An Association of Chief Police Officers spokesman said that the protests did not yet represent a serious threat to public order. A Scotland Yard spokesman said: “Arrests, if necessary, will be made at the most appropriate time. This should not be taken as a sign of lack of action.”
Scotland Yard says a decision not to arrest protesters was taken because of public order fears. It confirmed that police had received more than 100 complaints from the public about the protesters’ behaviour.
Yesterday, more than 1,000 demonstrators staged a second protest outside the embassy. The only arrests made were of two men found carrying cartoons of Mohammed. Police said they had been detained “to prevent a breach of the peace”. A man dressed as a suicide bomber, however, was left unhindered, while the police sought to prevent photographers taking pictures.
Tim Blair reports from Down Under.
Australians have received their orders:
A senior Islamic cleric has called on Australia’s media not to publish the cartoons which have sparked riots across the Muslim world.
Sheik Fehmi El-Imam, the general secretary of the Board of Imams of Victoria, warned reprinting the cartoons here could “disturb people who can do things that we don’t want them to do”.
Oh, I doubt it. Cartoons mocking various religions have been previously published in Australia thousands of times, and nobody went nuts. Why would things be different now?
“In some parts of the world there is rioting against the Danish and the Dutch, we don’t want that in Australia,” the sheik said today.
No, we don’t. So behave yourselves.
UPDATE V:
Roger Kimball updates Hamlet’s question:
Once again, Mark Steyn hits the nail on the head, puts the arrow in the bullseye, gets it just right. When the Danish newspaper printed 12 cartoon’s of Mohammed, it not only meant to be provocative, but also to demonstrate the limits of tolerance. Their two misjudgments: 1) those limits turned out to be a lot narrower than they imagined and 2) support from the good guys, the devotees of tolerance and multicultural understanding, turned out to be exceeding thin on the ground.
And Mark Steyn brings us full circle:
One day the British foreign secretary will wake up and discover that, in practice, there’s very little difference between living under Exquisitely Refined Multicultural Sensitivity and Sharia. As a famously sensitive Dane once put it, “To be or not to be, that is the question.”