Bravo, Daily Illini!
If you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic...
As I'm sure all my readers from Illinois are aware, The DI decided to published those cartoons of Mohammed that caused worldwide riots during the past week or so. Regardless of how ridiculous you may think it is to create deadly riots because of cartoons, it's pretty disrespectful to re-publish them. Every other paper in the United States understood that. Sam Donaldson made a pretty apt comparison... It's not illegal to publish the names of rape victims, but we don't do it out of respect and sympathy. It's about being sympathetic to another person's situation or culture.
In addition, it's difficult for the DI to claim less fault because they didn't print the cartoons initially. It's similar to slander or libel. It doesn't matter who said it first, everyone who repeats it is guilty.
The Daily Illini claimed they just re-printed the cartoons to aid in better understanding of the situation. That may be, but the situation can be clearly described in words, in my opinion. I hope that the Daily Illini uses some discretion in the future. I know that they will take a pretty big hit for this one, so I'm sure they will.
posted by Ben @ 4:23 PM
8 Comments:
Dear Ben,
I actually think Sam’s "apt comparison" sucks. We don't print the names of rape victims because it would be an entirely humiliating situation. The only reason not to republish these images would be so that you can sit in your ivory tower and complain about how bad these cartoons were without providing any visible evidence to a critical reader. I feel sorry for anyone who would blindly follow the words of a journalist without looking to see what things are really like.
Also, those who riot can shove it up their asses. Regular Muslims are pissed, but they don’t take to the streets. They do sensible things like write letters and boycott the media sources who published the pictures. You see, when level headed persons find their beliefs challenged they find strength in the fact that despite this they can continue to believe what they believe regardless of what others say. To riot, attack embassies, and call for the death of the Netherlands takes a Muslim extremist. You know, the kind of people who decapitate their victims and then broadcast it on public television. Fortunately for you, you have been media whipped into only hearing the extremist side of the argument.
Lastly, this is about more than the images. This is about a centuries old religion trying to make modern societies pass archaic laws to protect their beliefs. These protesters want the EU to put a ban about speaking against the prophet. Well, since there is a separation of church and state (I am not worldly, but I am fairly sure they have some equivalent over there), you would have to put a ban about speaking out against any prophet. Following this train of logic, it would seem that saying anything critical about any religion would also become illegal. I would have thought an advocate of free speech such as you would be more aware of these slippery slope issues at stake here.
If any of you want a more balanced approach to the issue I would suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
One last thing, media = entertainment. Just like the television, if you don’t like it, turn it off. If you think you can tell me what not to watch because you don’t like it, I think you can blow me.
<3 Brian
Dear Brian,
You have a long argument, and I want to be sure to address all points. However, a hangover limits my attention span, so we may need to do this in multiple sections.
Ok... First of all, I believe your first argument makes some sense. If you think the comparison sucks, to quote John Goodman from "The Big Lebowski", "Well, there's no literal connection." However, the similarity is that Muslims feel humiliated by the image of Mohammed, as it violates of the basic tenants of the religion. And you didn't address what was added by republishing the cartoons, my argument in the post. The fact is that the cartoon showed Mohammed with a bomb for a turban, as stated in the news. Crazy enough, it was true. There was no dispute of this from either side, no interpretation to worry about.
Let's think of a hypothetical example. Someone makes a cartoon of Jesus having sex with the Virgin Mary. One paper publishes it, people get pissed, then others publish it later. Everyone is in agreement that this is the subject of the cartoon. Does it need to be republished in entirety? Now, I can see if there was some disagreement as to the interpretation, i.e. "I'm sure Christ was way huger than that", maybe you've got something. Call in the experts.
To respond to the next paragraph, I agree. Deadly rioting doesn't solve anything. And you hit the nail on the head when you said sensible people write letters, etc. Also, I am confused about this statement: "Fortunately for you, you have been media whipped into only hearing the extremist side of the argument." I literally don't know what that means. Is this the "royal 'you'", or are you actually making a judgment as to how much I've read on the subject.
Next paragraph. To clarify, I do not want anyone to lose the right of free speech. Also, only some countries have any separation between church and state. Turkey is one. Iran, from my understanding, is very different. I don't think it should be illegal to say anything about any religion. Once again, I think freedom of speech is EXTREMELY important.
The issues are very complex and deep. I really wish Americans would pay attention to issues, read the papers, etc. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I didn't want people to get a full view of what's going on in the world.
I'm sorry my writing is disjointed, but I also wanted to mention another reason why I think it was a bad choice for the DI to print the cartoons. I would like to hear a response to my interpretation... I would say that the DI is meant to aid communication on campus, bring out the issues so they can be discussed. How can you get this communication if you're deeply offending the few people with whom you are hoping to converse. Insults usually don't help people to open up. (There are exceptions.) The Muslim community in C-U is small and already gets a lot of crap. Way to flaunt it in their face and show them that it's not that big of a deal! Printing it just says, "Fuck you guys. We'll offend you. And by the way, your counterparts in the Middle East are a bunch of nutcases for being this upset. I don't understand your religion, and I don't give a shit."
One final warning, Wikipedia can be updated by anyone, even me. It's not a true reference, so it may not only give facts. It's usually a good place to start, though, if you want to find out about something.
I welcome any and all comments or responses to this. Maybe we can learn something if we all talk.
Thank you, Brian. I hope your comment will spark some really good debate.
One problem I have with your comment is “the cartoon”. The scandal is not about a single cartoon; rather it is about 12 cartoons. Everyone seems to focus on the bomb in turban, which admittedly is a bit far. I see nothing wrong with the others (if you don’t know of the others, follow the wiki link and view the images/text translations). In fact, some of the images actually poke fun at the publishers.
On the issue of what to publish, I would always say publish. I don’t want to sound like I’m giving wiki a BJ today (I more or less am), but I think they publish the material in the perfect manor. At the top of the page they have a warning saying that the page contains controversial material. If you start to censor things, where do you draw the lines? This is another one of those slippery slope arguments where there is no real answer, and I can always claim that the man is going to keep taking until we are in 1984. I’d say it is a moo point.
You is like a royal you, and at the same time you. You didn’t know there were twelve pictures until I told you about them and a bit of the history about how the pictures were a protest by a Dutch author who couldn’t find an illustrator for his children’s book.
As far as image offensiveness, you can’t argue with the facts. Seeing how the radical Muslims reacted, it would appear that an image of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban would be quite accurate (why would they bomb if that is not what he would want them to do). Again I stress the word radical; none of this applies to the mainstreamers.
I (and many of my peers) think the DI is garbage. Anyone (it is always good to make sweeping generalizations) who is looking for real news can be seen with a copy of the Tribune (you can find free copies in the dorm atriums) or the Times. For news I like to stick with news.bbc.co.uk.
Last, your wiki comment, like so much DI, is garbage. Everything on wiki is peer reviewed. False information and vandalism (the wiki term for false, misleading, or sabotage) is quickly dealt with. Wiki is a free information aggregate. The only thing they censor is opinions, never facts (or so they say). Controversial topics (such as this one) are labeled as such. Each one has its own discussion thread where people discuss the validity of information before it is posted or removed.
Double last, it isn’t so much of a fuck you, more of a:
Dear Muslims,
Welcome to the 21st century. The rules have changed over the last 2000 some years. People can hear/say what they want, you can’t stop them. Deal with it. If people commit acts of terrorism in the name of your god, you shouldn’t get mad at us when we question your belief system. Help us help you, change comes from within, etc.
Thanks,
The Rest of the World
P.S
Don’t worry, we are a bit miffed the Catholics too; they are trying to push their conservative views into our laws.
Freedom of speech is different than attacking an ideal. The cartoons obvious published are not solely for a laugh. They convey ideas that are belligerent towards ideals held by Muslims. Also, CHRISTIANITY has separated church and state, but Muslims’ haven’t and you should not judge Islam or Muslim countries based on your belief set. You have to understand that Muslims place their religion at the center of their life and when you attack their religion; you are attacking not only their beliefs, but who they are.
“Dear Muslims,
Welcome to the 21st century. The rules have changed over the last 2000 some years. People can hear/say what they want, you can’t stop them. Deal with it.” --Porte
Come on! Who says advancement is freedom of speech? Porte you talk as though you are living the golden path in life. To let Muslims progress on their own is what the West needs to do instead of criticizing and making other countries conform to MODERN ideas.
Ironically enough Porte, you are criticizing us for expressing our opinions against the cartoons. We are exercising our freedom of speech and sometimes actions speak louder than words. Yes, I do agree though that some Muslims have become out of control, but they are not reacting because of the cartoons. They are reacting because they feel the cartoon is clear evidence that the West “hates” Muslim countries. After several state of the unions and interfaith action conferences, Islam not Arab countries are being attacked. So what is really being attacked? Is Islam against freedom of speech? But then why are some Muslims writing letters and clearly taking a negative stance against it?
We are not limiting or hindering freedom of speech, Muslims simply are asking for empathy and respect of our beliefs, but westerns see this as an attack on free speech. These cartoons are actually a regression in freedom of speech and the DI was stupid for publishing them because they didn’t realize that they are hindering the ideal they are fighting for. What has the cartoon accomplished except promote more protests and violence? If this is what freedom of speech brings then I question its importance? Is it really worth a regression in freedom of speech for peace?
P.S. - A 21 century Muslim talking...where is the secular mentality taking us?
To begin, I don't claim to be overly clever. I am just a person with an opinion. I didn't really expect a response to this, but I am glad it has happened. As a side note, any time I say we, I am referring to Westerners.
I think you hit the nail clearly on the head when you mention the issue of separation of church and state. Laws should not be religion based. As a Westerner with no clear religious philosophy I see a clear need for the separation. I grew up with Christian society values, so I would imagine there are many laws that I have no problems with that are clearly in violation of my philosophy. I have no idea what it would be like to have a life that is anything even remotely related to religion centered. I admittedly find it hard to come to terms with such a society. You say that the West needs to let this countries do their own thing, but the problem is we cannot. Both societies will need to find a way to deal with each other. The world cannot live with isolationist policies of “us” and “them”. This is about where my argument ends on this topic because I have no idea how we would go about building a common basis set of ideas.
In my opinion, organized religion is somewhat of an antiquated notion. I see it as a way ancient leaders controlled the masses. It also gave hope to those that lived a very different life than anything we could ever know. Though we have progressed past the days of feudal reins, emperors, and kings, we keep religion as a sort of tradition without much thought. I feel that religion can often blind people, and can make them act without thinking clearly.
Who says advancement is freedom of speech? I do, sort of. I think that anyone has the right to say anything they want to, but at the same time I have the right not to listen (this is not quite the same thing as ignore). People need to be able to stand up to criticism without going overboard. If everyone could learn to respond to things they don’t like with a well thought out argument, everyone would be happy. Unfortunately we don’t live in such a place (and probably never will). I guess the real epitome of advancement would be freedom of information. I have no problems with people living by non-Western ideals, but I would at least like them to have the option too. [This sounded much better before I thought about it. At the same time non-Westerners should be free to live in my free society without a problem, but this doesn’t quite seem to happen.]
One or our (Western) biggest flaws seems to be our tendency to want to “liberate” those trapped in countries without modern (Western) ways of thinking. Fortunately for them, they can also “liberate” the assets of these countries (be it land, resources, or influence).
What about those non-violent persons who choose to protest with the pen? They don’t make good news, so as a Westerner I never have to hear of them. All I will ever know is the guy who decided to blow up a bus full of people. This isn’t a good thing, just the way it is. [Then I thought back to the American Revolution where our hero George Washington did nothing more than write a letter to secure his right to live as freely as he wished. After that, he never had to worry about some guy thousands of miles away telling him how to live his life on his own land.]
You say I criticized you (Muslims) for expressing your ideas. I think that perhaps I wasn’t clear (this is not supposed to sound condescending. It is just late; I can’t think of a good way to rephrase it right now). I have a problem with extremists expressing their ideas in ways that hurt others. This includes extremists of all types. I find these people to be quite selfish as they don’t adhere to the idea that (to butcher/steal a quote) your right to swing your fist ends just before the tip of my nose.
Where is this secular mentality taking us? Depends. If people are inherently good, and want good things everything is fine. If we need that little something to keep us guided on the right path, then we are in for trouble.
Problems to solve:
Two societies need to act in one society while still remaining two societies.
People need to learn to hear what they don’t like and respond in an educated manor.
We need to separate media from entertainment.
We need to separate the actions of a few from the actions of many.
As a final note, the reason I thought the cartoons should be published was so that people could see what had been done. Overall, I agree that the guy who called for them to be drawn was a dick. His whole reason for calling for the work to be done was that no one would illustrate a children’s book because they were scared that extremists would murder them. I also agree that the author calling for illustrations of Muhammad in his book was a dick. One would think that if you were writing a book about someone, you would be sure not to greatly offend them in the process.
If none of this makes sense, let me know and I will be sure to write up a more clear response. I have been thinking about this for too long and need to sleep for now.
Thanks again for the comments. I think this debate is getting a bit disorderly, with a lot of different (related) topics and arguments being thrown around. I think it may be becoming a little confusing. I should probably start a number of new posts with the issues broken down.
To clarify, I wasn't ever implying that freedom of speech should be limited by the government (so 1984 references don't make any sense). There are exceptions in the case of slander. However, with every freedom comes a responsibility, in this case to refuse to publish something offensive. Whether or not you feel offended by it personally, that's not the issue. Muslims feel very offended (and attacked), and that's what matters.
On separate note, I also agree with Ismail's comment about the West trying to make the Muslim world conform to modernity. I happen to love the Constitution, but it's not my right to impose it on those who want to live in a theocracy. We live for our "fundamental secular freedoms" and Muslims choose to live for God. And guess what, the United States makes up less than 5% of the world population, but we are self-righteous enough to impose our way on everyone. We have the physical ability to blow up everything (and sometimes we do), so can you really blame people over there for being upset and rioting. Do you think anyone would really pay attention if they were not?
If you look at history, dramatic changes rarely occur by writing letters. And the radicals, who usually aren't the majority, make it happen. I know you were joking about George Washington, but the Declaration of Independence was little more than a middle finger to Great Britain. The war is what secured our country's right to cheap slave labor for the next 75 years.
I will close with these words...
The world contains over 1 billion Christians and over 1 billion Muslims. Assuming the world doesn't end soon, we're going to have to live together for a long, long time. There are some irreconcilable differences between the two societies. Mutual toleration is the first step.
1984 makes sense, as I was proposing why we need to fight for everything. Some things have more meaning than just the issue at hand If not we may fall down a slippery slope. You know, the whole first they came for the cartoonists, but I said nothing. Then they came for the journalists, and I said nothing. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to stand up for me.
Anything in [] is something I went back and commented on my own thing after I wrote it. As far as Washington goes, he is ok because he fought for what I believe in. By default, he is not an extremeist or a terrorist.
The first step to tolerence is knowledge.
Also, this is not a debate, more of a dialogue. Most of my points are irrelevant. They either center around extremists or the fact that in my mind I cannot put myself into a religion centered world. The rest is just opionion stuff. Had I know this issue would have actually been discussed, I would have opened a bit better than I did.
History is written by the victors. When does an act of criminal violence become an act of heroic rebellion? Violence begets violence. I think much in this comment thread actually serves as a microcosm of this point. I mean, in addition to disagreeing with Brian's opinion, I also felt personally attacked by him. And in my response, I attacked him back in a "politically correct" way, like so much colonial douchebag. Don't get me wrong, I believe in what I said, but I'm sure I believed in it much more strongly the second I felt like I needed to defend my pride. So, if you can see a parallel, take it. If you don't, just be aware that I'm an asshole. I apologize.
Post a Comment
<< Home