something to be said on a certain cartoon
I originally wrote this in reply to someone asking what was thought of the little cartoon that's enraged a certain religion of late. I like what a wrote, so I'm posting it here.
Enjoy the rant
Okay, so, someone drew a picture of Mohamed. To our lovely and jaded Western eyes (where freedom of the press means "You're free to print anything that the government doesn't find offensive, in bad taste, contrary to national safety, or against oil) this doesn't seem like that terrible a thing. BUT it is against Muslim dogma to portray Mohamed in any way - they see it as worshipping false gods/idols (the real Mohamed is not the painting therefore it's an idol). Interesting concept... it would have bankrupted the Catholic Church if it'd made it into Christianity.
Okay well, they do admit that there are pictures and paintings that have been produced of the Prophet, however the majority of them do not show his face and they are all done in a respectful fashion.
So, freedom of the press. Right. This means the press should be able to print whatever they feel is news-worthy. This includes any politically/religiously satirical cartoons, apparently. Okay. Great. Print what you want and hide behind that as the justification for pissing off the second largest religion on the planet. Fantastic.
At what point does common sense enter into this conversation? Just because The Press can print something doesn't necessarily mean it should. Consider the current global situation, consider the groups that are more or less pissed off at the way the global community is treating them, consider the resulting hot buttons. Does it sound all that intelligent to be printing this sort of thing? No. Really? How many Western newspapers ran Anti-Jewish editorial cartoons in the later 1940's (or since then)? None. Not because they couldn't, I mean the press is free, but it would piss off the great majority of white, middle-class subscribers and advertisers, and therefore not be in good taste.
And for those of you who think it's just the extremists who are pissed, look around, listen to the news. Almost every muslim is angry at it. Yes, some have chosen riots as their means of demonstration (a choice that is deplored by all Muslim Clerics) but others have chosen letter writing and peaceful marches to show their displeasure.
In my personal opinion, the Western Media jumped the shark on this one. They've fucked up huge, but instead of trying to admit that something should not have run, appologize for it, and move on they've stuck their collective feet further down their collective mouths by attempting to argue that they had the right.
Yeah. Well. Fantastic. Next time a newspaper gets handed a cartoon of Jesus getting buggered by Moses ontop of a burning bush they better fucking run that too... because the press is free and they can.
fin
Enjoy the rant
Okay, so, someone drew a picture of Mohamed. To our lovely and jaded Western eyes (where freedom of the press means "You're free to print anything that the government doesn't find offensive, in bad taste, contrary to national safety, or against oil) this doesn't seem like that terrible a thing. BUT it is against Muslim dogma to portray Mohamed in any way - they see it as worshipping false gods/idols (the real Mohamed is not the painting therefore it's an idol). Interesting concept... it would have bankrupted the Catholic Church if it'd made it into Christianity.
Okay well, they do admit that there are pictures and paintings that have been produced of the Prophet, however the majority of them do not show his face and they are all done in a respectful fashion.
So, freedom of the press. Right. This means the press should be able to print whatever they feel is news-worthy. This includes any politically/religiously satirical cartoons, apparently. Okay. Great. Print what you want and hide behind that as the justification for pissing off the second largest religion on the planet. Fantastic.
At what point does common sense enter into this conversation? Just because The Press can print something doesn't necessarily mean it should. Consider the current global situation, consider the groups that are more or less pissed off at the way the global community is treating them, consider the resulting hot buttons. Does it sound all that intelligent to be printing this sort of thing? No. Really? How many Western newspapers ran Anti-Jewish editorial cartoons in the later 1940's (or since then)? None. Not because they couldn't, I mean the press is free, but it would piss off the great majority of white, middle-class subscribers and advertisers, and therefore not be in good taste.
And for those of you who think it's just the extremists who are pissed, look around, listen to the news. Almost every muslim is angry at it. Yes, some have chosen riots as their means of demonstration (a choice that is deplored by all Muslim Clerics) but others have chosen letter writing and peaceful marches to show their displeasure.
In my personal opinion, the Western Media jumped the shark on this one. They've fucked up huge, but instead of trying to admit that something should not have run, appologize for it, and move on they've stuck their collective feet further down their collective mouths by attempting to argue that they had the right.
Yeah. Well. Fantastic. Next time a newspaper gets handed a cartoon of Jesus getting buggered by Moses ontop of a burning bush they better fucking run that too... because the press is free and they can.
fin