As if this whole issue deserves any more print, but I had a flashback the other day that I thought was worth sharing. During a call-in show on the radio about the topic, I heard the oft repeated comment that similar cartoons about Christianity and its sacred figures are printed all the time.
During my second year of University, our student newspaper printed a cartoon of Jesus, wearing a straight-jacket, and being wheeled through the halls of an insane asyllum. The next issue of the paper printed an angry, poorly-written reply, penned by yours truly. I voiced my displeasure with the newspaper and its editor for printing it. I also challenged them to print a similar cartoon disparaging the prophet Muhammed. It angered me then that an obvious double standard existed, with one religion, mine, open for rebuke, and all others untouchable. My challenge was not meant to encourage intolerance of others, but to highlight that double-standard. The editors response was that it was to demonstrate how society has rejected the teachings of a man advocating love and forgiveness. I insisted that there were better ways of making that statement.
He never did respond to my challenge though. In a way I’m glad. I certainly wouldn’t want to have instigated this whole cartoon fiasco myself through a letter to the editor. It would weigh heavy on my conscience if Canadian embassies were attacked because a newspaper responded to my challenge.
Since then, I have seen many more unflattering artistic depictions of Christianity and its historic figures. Some I have appreciated as valid critiques, such as the “She of Little Faith” episode of the The Simpsons, and some I have despised as tasteless, such as the film “Dogma” even though it mocks the Catholic a lot more than it does me. In that same amount of time, I haven’t seen anything in the artistic world that critiques Islam, Judaism, etc. Perhaps we’re easy targets, but ours is not the only religion whose history is littered with illegitimate violence, hypocrisy and intollerance.
Various reasons are given each time a Western news outlet re-prints the cartoons such as exercising freedom of the press or just reporting the basis of such a newsworthy event. Nobody is printing them with the intention of offending Muslims, at least not overtly. Heck, they’re not even all that offensive (yes, I have seen them). Another interesting reason has been used lately to publish them, bravery. Certain news outlets have refused to cower in fear of Muslim extremists and ar re-printing the cartoons to demonstrate. Now it’s easy to be brave this far away from the middle east, but it’s a valid concern. We in the west as well as the Muslim world are not well served when this kind of violence dictates what gets printed and what doesn’t. Civilized discourse usually doesn’t sell a lot of newspapers, but it’s what is most needed in times like this, and it is what should decide what gets printed and what doesn’t.
Like most of you, I’m quite overwhelmed by the growing international violence in response to a series of cartoons. There are those who see it as a blatant attack on a particular religious group while others see it as a legitimate expression of freedom of the press. The rest of us fit somewhere in between and have trouble justifying either the series of seemingly insensitive reprints that we’ve seen or the series of senseless violent attacks that have followed.
I know that myself and others would love to hear Muslim leaders condemn the violence rather than condemn the printing of the cartoon (I’m sure there are leaders making public condemnations of the attacks, but those voices aren’t penetrating the media). I’m sure that many Muslims would love to see other religious groups stand with them and oppose the extent to which the freedom of the press has been abused here. There are a few things that are perhaps too sacred to be mocked in the press, but few if any of them exist within Christianity.
What strikes about the situation is the absolute hypocrisy of it. The offensive aspect of it according to some is that a fundamental teaching of Islam has been violated, that it’s forbidden to make images of Allah or The Prophet. Now, I didn’t grow up learning a lot about Islam, but ever since I started my education, mostly in a liberal arts university setting, I have been taught nothing about Islam so forcefully except that it is a religion of peace. I understand the effort to reassure the West/Christians that violence isn’t a fundamental part of the religion given the headlines coming out of the Arab world. I don’t understand however that offending such a peaceful religion has such violent repercussions.
The uproar began when a few non-Muslims broke Islamic law. In response to that, Muslims all over the world (once news got out and various more extreme elements highlighted it) responded with violence, breaking another Muslim law.
Now I’m no advocate of freedom of the press, and I think the various reprints are totally insensitive, and I’m no expert on Muslim law, but it seems extremely hypocritical to me. Shouldn’t a religious leader’s first response be to criticize hypocrisy within their own ranks before they expect non-adherents to follow their own religious law?
In response to the issue, and as a tribute to a friends’ new blog venture, I’ve compiled a few hypothetical newspaper headlines that would seem to be in keeping with the double-standard.
Amish Clicked Off
Local Amish, offended by tourists driving cars, respond by taking pictures of those driving by and emailing the digital files to the local civic authorities and television stations.
Pin the Needle on the JW
All over the area, Kingdom Hall’s that are usually used as places of worship for Jehovah’s Witnesses are being used as blood donor clinics. Parents in the community were upset that their neighbours have birthday parties for their children, and the blood drive was their way of showing solidarity.
Ste. Antoinette?
Oliver Burke, an outspoken community leader and the pastor has resigned his post at the local Gospel Truth Assembly church, a congregation of proud adherents to Biblical inerrancy and literal interpretation. He was upset that town council refused his petition to change the name of the town from St. Anthony to something else. “The old Catholic system of beatification is not Biblical and I refuse to live in a town that ignores that,” Rev. Burke was quoted as saying in his departure. The congregation will continue their outreach in the community said their head deacon. “We cannot let this political opposition stop us. In the mean time, we have hired and ordained a woman pastor.”