posted
Surprised no one's commented on South Park latest two-part episodes, Cartoon Wars, based on the Muhammad cartoon issue, censorship due to Islam, Scientology, and Catholocism, and fair play. A Play within a play (with a touch of Family Guy jibing). Very nicely done.
Summary can be found at wikipedia. Part 1 andPart 2
posted
I was kinda expecting a discussion on this too.. I watched the episode eagerly to see if they would show Muhammad, but of course, Comedy Central "P***ed out" (as they put in their ads).
Back when the whole cartoon protest thing was going on, I thought we should all draw cartoons of Muhammed just like the one guy advised in South Park (the people chose to bury their heads in sand instead.)
I don't see why free speech isn't important to people in this case...
posted
I tihnk it's important to answer the question, "Why is it okay to show George Bush and Jesus flinging crap at the flag and each other, but not show Mohammed standing by a door?"
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both parts were on last night. The last one can be accessed by going here
MrSquicky- That's the point. But CC is, at least, honest in their admission that the decision was not based on anything like tolerance (which would be grossly hypocritical on their part) but was based on simple fear. (The link from the wikipedia article goes to a blog where Janene Garafino, a SP producer, appreciates CC's honesty.)
The whole thing is laughably ridiculous. Or would be, if all of us didn't know that there are people who would kill/die if CC did air the clip. Clearly, for Christians (or anyone else) who want CC to stop airing things they consider blasphemous, they need to start rioting and killing people before they'll be taken seriously.
Either that, or some people better learn that satire and lampooning the sacred are no reason to kill anyone. And that it is ludicrous to expect other's to follow the dictates of your conscience or beliefs.
Editorial Cartoons are designed to poke fun/expose every segment of society.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw the second half. I thought it was well done and was a perfect example of why I enjoy South Park. The satire is hilarious, poignant, and encourages thought.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
One of the lines we're supposed to swallow is that terrorism is stupid and ineffective and that terrorists are mindless animals. That just doesn't seem to be true. Given what they have to work with, terrorism seems to often net people employing it much higher results than if they used most other methods.
What this actually means in the long term is something I really don't know. However, I don't think that any of the peaceful methods of protest would have accomplished the goal of making it well-nigh impossible to portary Mohammed in mainstream media. I think that's something to keep in mind.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On Peter David's blog, there's a comment by a guy (not sure if it is Peter David) about his own publishing of a Mohammad caricature. As he thought about it, he decided not to. It was one thing to risk his own life. But not his family's. It's clearly a tough call for all involved.
"What a perfectly vicious little trap the terrorists have put us in. It's not easy for those with a conscience to fight those without one."
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I was kinda expecting a discussion on this too.. I watched the episode eagerly to see if they would show Muhammad, but of course, Comedy Central "P***ed out" (as they put in their ads).
Back when the whole cartoon protest thing was going on, I thought we should all draw cartoons of Muhammed just like the one guy advised in South Park (the people chose to bury their heads in sand instead.)
I don't see why free speech isn't important to people in this case...
Pix
We must draw a distinction between "free speech" and "bigotry."
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's bigoted to cheer the defilement of a major religion's central figure. I mean, if Christians are cool with images of Jesus pooping all over the place, then that's cool. But I think it's a bit misguided to hope that other religions should be as nonchalant in their reaction to outsiders bringing down the person they worship.
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
No one asked that anyone be non-chalant. People can be upset. They can boycott. They can protest. The whole point of the episode (and even the Danish cartoons, as far as I can tell) is that exact thing. There are methods and standards in a multicultural modern civil society to express ideas and/or disagreement (or even disgust). And those who refuse to play on the same field (while doing the same thing to others, as Middle Eastern papers routinely do with cartoons stereotyping Jews) are declaring that they want special exemption. They declare that they have the right to react in a violent way while playing the victim when others do it to them.
How is killing over images ever appropriate?
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:"What a perfectly vicious little trap the terrorists have put us in. It's not easy for those with a conscience to fight those without one."
but what remains is that there are plenty of muslims with varying levels of what we'd call conscience out there that really, really don't like dipictions of Mohammed. Prior to the violent protests, there were mild, non-violent ones done by more moderate Muslim groups. Had those groups been listened to and the newspaper and associated parties not gone ahead or been forth coming with an apology, I doubt the violent protests would have happened.
I'm not making a judgement here on what the right or wrong thing to do was. I'm just pointing out this and saying that this is another example of the Muslim world seeing that they don't get listened to/accomodated unless there is violence or the threat of violence.
Edit: And then of course, we turn around and tell the more moderate, civilized groups, who have already been shown that their methods don't achieve results, that they should marginalize themselves some more by being outspoken in condemning the methods that did get the desired results.
quote:We must draw a distinction between "free speech" and "bigotry."
last I checked, even bigotry was protected under the 1st ammendment.
I agree, but people don't necessarily have to tolerate that bigotry. So, beyond mild-hearted inveighing, christians went "meh" to south park repeatedly poking fun at Jesus. I mean, good heavens--their sheer economic might is enough to take "South Park" out of its miserable existence. Why doesn't that happen? Maybe Jesus isn't as holy to them as Mohammed is to Muslims?
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Somalian, I think you may find that Christians are not cool with it, but that they realize that it is really small potatoes. I think many of them realize that outsiders can't actually do any harm to the things they worship and that freedom of speech isn't just for things you approve of. To me, that's a more mature reaction.
Even if they were terribly inflamed by this, many Christians have gotten out of the habit of throwing violent protests to get what they want. Again, I think that is the more mature reaction.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So when people refuse to take into account our feelings about things (any thing) we have a right to escalate the reaction until we get the desired response?
Not tolerating means destruction and death?
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ian, I'm not sure, was that directed at me?
Somalian, At a certain point in a person's adulthood, you learn that it is generally not a good thing to try to kill or main people you think gave you a dirty look. On such realizations rests a significant portion of productive society.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IanO: How is it defilement, again?
No one asked that anyone be non-chalant. People can be upset. They can boycott. They can protest. The whole point of the episode (and even the Danish cartoons, as far as I can tell) is that exact thing. There are methods and standards in a multicultural modern civil society to express ideas and/or disagreement (or even disgust). And those who refuse to play on the same field (while doing the same thing to others, as Middle Eastern papers routinely do with cartoons stereotyping Jews) are declaring that they want special exemption. They declare that they have the right to react in a violent way while playing the victim when others do it to them.
But I don't think nasty stereotypes of Jews necessarily equal depictions of Mohammed. Now, if those muslims were deliberately trying to offend the religious sensibilities of Jews--you know, just because they could--then I'd agree with you about a double standard. But comparing something born out of geopolitical tensions and ignorance to something as deliberate as the willful degradation of a religion's central figure is a bit misguided.
To put it another way, it's okay (to me at least) when Gary Larson draws Mohammed in a cartoon (because it's doubtful he knew better, plus the cartoon was genuinely funny) but not funny when others deliberately do it for the sole purpose of giving offense.
quote: How is killing over images ever appropriate?
Your mistake--and that of "South Park" and the Danish cartoonists--is considerng those depictions "mere images."
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Somalian, I think you may find that Christians are not cool with it, but that they realize that it is really small potatoes. I think many of them realize that outsiders can't actually do any harm to the things they worship and that freedom of speech isn't just for things you approve of. To me, that's a more mature reaction.
Even if they were terribly inflamed by this, many Christians have gotten out of the habit of throwing violent protests to get what they want. Again, I think that is the more mature reaction.
It is a mature reaction at the expense of the religion--the idea of Jesus is less for it in the eyes of any future christian. How can you reconcile holiness with such images?
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The muslims were trying to foster and strengthen a culture of stereotypes that places Jews as subhuman and as always out to get Muslims, largely as a justification for violence against Jews. You're right they are not on the same level, but I think you may have your relative weighing wrong.
Another one of those realizations on which civilization is founded is that other people don't necessarily have to follow your rules. If it's a Muslim rule that you shouldn't have images of Mohammed, then fine, Mulsims don't have to make images of Mohammed. Saying that other people can't do this and having riots when they do...well, besides being childish, it retards the productive functioning and/or formation of a civilized society.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is a mature reaction at the expense of the religion--the idea of Jesus is less for it in the eyes of any future christian. How can you reconcile holiness with such images?
Like this. It takes a very immature view of religion to regard something like these pictures as seriously damaging it. Holiness is not at stake here. If you think it is, you've got a very warped idea of holiness. It is not about what you can force others to do.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The muslims were trying to foster and strengthen a culture of stereotypes that places Jews as subhuman and as always out to get Muslims, largely as a justification for violence against Jews. You're right they are not on the same level, but I think you may have your relative weighing wrong.
Another one of those realizations on which civilization is founded is that other people don't necessarily have to follow your rules. If it's a Muslim rule that you shouldn't have images of Mohammed, then fine, Mulsims don't have to make images of Mohammed. Saying that other people can't do this and having riots when they do...well, besides being childish, it retards the productive functioning and/or formation of a civilized society.
Then all bigotry is okay. Because--hey, what offends you doesn't offend me, right? Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Am I hearing an implicit defense? "Well, they kept pushing and pushing."
Sounds similar to the "she was asking for it" defense used of some spousal abusers and/or rapists.
Regardless of what was done, the reaction deserves and requires NO defense whatsoever.
If we can't agree that violence has no place in a discussion, dialog or even satire of people's beliefs (or rather, in this case, and, in South Park's usual case, of peoples interpretations of traditions), then there is a common ground that is completely missing.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not defending violent reactions over this, but if only you can begin to understand how holy Mohamed is to muslims, you'd understand why (some) would react violently.
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then all bigotry is okay. Because--hey, what offends you doesn't offend me, right?
I never said anything remotely close to that. You know, words like bigotry have actual meanings, and are not just there to try to score points with.
If I had to make a choice, I'd put "deliberately disparaging other people's sacred cows for no real purpose" in the not okay column. Of course, that's not actually what any and all depictions of Mohammed do.
Speaking of the not okay column, I'd put cutting people off in traffic, but that doesn't mean that I think that when someone does this, a mature response is to pull them from their car and beat them with a tire iron.
It's rude, so it's not okay in the grand scheme of things, but the disproportionality of the response betrays the immaturity of the respondent.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I If I had to make a choice, I'd put "deliberately disparaging other people's sacred cows for no real purpose" in the not okay column. Of course, that's not actually what any and all depictions of Mohammed do. [/QB]
Hence why you don't understand the situation.
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What authority are you to assert what depictions of Mohammed do and don't do? As if the poor devout muslim is supposed to take a pause and reflect on the civics lesson supposedly inherent in the defilement of his prophet.
posted
There is, I think, a fundamental idea that, in general, the western world has come to believe so intrinsically that we are speaking passed each other. It is, I believe, an outgrowth of the hundred years war, the crusades, and centuries of religious schisms. I believe it is this: any religious idea that requires that you kill the unbeliever for not agreeing with you is not a very strong belief. If it is not strong enough to handle argument or even satire and ridicule, then it never was strong enough to begin with.
It is the idea behind the statement, 'what are going to do? Kill me? How will that prove your point? How will that do anything other than raise me up as a martyr."
Islam does not have that as a belief. Or is, at least, intolerant when such ideas and challenges are made against it. And I say that in the face of the fact that my Grandmother, The_Somalian, is from the north of you, Eritrea, and is a devout Muslim. So I am not ignorant of what I speak.
But I disagree with it.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the key words in Squicky's post are "deliberately" and "for no real purpose." You said yourself that Gary Larson's depiction was okay to you, because it was unlikely that he knew better. Squicky is saying that not all depictions are deliberately disparaging. I think that's a fair assertation.
The "for no real purpose" part becomes a bit trickier. Someone can deliberately disparage other people's sacred cows and believe that they do it for a purpose. You can disagree if it's a valid purpose or a good purpose, but you cannot speak with anymore authority to the person's intent than I can to if someone should be offended by it or not.
I agree with Squicky's statement, by the way. I also would call deliberately disparaging other people's sacred cows for no real purpose a bad thing.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:if Christians are cool with images of Jesus pooping all over the place, then that's cool.
I would suspect that many/most Christians are very much NOT cool with images of Jesus pooping all over the place. I think that was part of their point. You can't make a distinction between what is ok to satire and what is not- either it's all ok or none of it is. Comedy Central's decision to cut the image of Mohammed while playing the sacreligious picture of Jesus was pure hypocrisy. Both are incredibly offensive to many people of those faiths. Either we have freedom of speech, even when others find it offensive, or we don't.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IanO: There is, I think, a fundamental idea that, in general, the western world has come to believe so intrinsically that we are speaking passed each other. It is, I believe, an outgrowth of the hundred years war, the crusades, and centuries of religious schisms. I believe it is this: any religious idea that requires that you kill the unbeliever for not agreeing with you is not a very strong belief. If it is not strong enough to handle argument or even satire and ridicule, then it never was strong enough to begin with.
Well this is nicely stated but it really gets us nowhere as the fanatic killer can always tell himself that he kills because of the strenght of his religion.
I will agree with the point about "speaking past each other." I don't intend to excuse violent reactions but mainly to question the wisdom of depicting Mohammed (something so offensive I don't think Westerners can even conceive of it) to raise the question.
The propoganda machine in most of these countries is informing the masses that the West is at War with Islam. Start depicting Mohammed now and those people may just come to thoroughly belief such lies.
Do I agree with violent reactions? No. Do I think that those people are entitled to a reaction at least on some level? Yes.
posted
It might be hypocritical, but as IanO quoted, it is safe. No one dies for treating Jesus with no respect. On the other hand, we can't say that about Mohammed.
Honestly, as a Christian, SP offends me greatly - but I'll defend their right to say what they want.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No one dies for treating Jesus with no respect. On the other hand, we can't say that about Mohammed.
I understand the fear but I think that giving into it is asking for a world of pain. How long until other groups use the same tactics to achieve the incredible success that Muslims have?
South Park is undoubtedly one of those most offensive shows on air. It treats nothing as sacred. Now, it is suddenly censored to be less offensive. Giving terror and violence this much power is flat out wrong.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's cute that it makes fun of Family Guy's brand of humor given its own insipid "anything that offends must be funny" routine. Neither of these shows could ever hope to come close to achieving the satirical quality of The Simpsons (1989--1998, RIP). Or heck, even Futurama! (true heir to The Simpsons tradition?) =D
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, Mohammed has already appeared in South Park. They did an episode several years where Jesus, Buddah, Moses, Mohammed and Joseph Smith teamed up to fight crime. Nothing happened then.
In fact, they mentioned it in one of their commentaries. They said when they first heard that Muslims were rioting because someone made a cartoon image of Mohammed, they panicked. Then they read the rest of the story and realized it wasn't about them.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh well, add another one to the list of people who will try to escape from the re-education camps.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian: Then all bigotry is okay. Because--hey, what offends you doesn't offend me, right?
Your problem is the inability to distinguish between something being "okay" and it being inadequate provocation to justify violence.
I believe that as a Christian, I respect Jesus as much as Muslims respect Mohammed -- moreso, if anything, since I regard Him as a perfect incarnation of God and not merely a prophet. Consequently, I am not amused by vulgar attempts to desecrate Him.
However, I also recognize that if I want other people to respect my right to hold and espouse those beliefs, then I must reciprocally respect the rights of those who believe differently, even if they act in ways that I consider blasphemous. I have no right to use violent force to silence the expression of opinions I don't like.
Those who do employ such coercion are savages, unfit to exist in a civilized world. I have no interest whatsoever is understanding their motivations or point of view, any more than I'd be interested in hearing a pedophile explain all the good reasons he has for molesting children.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it's cute that it makes fun of Family Guy's brand of humor given its own insipid "anything that offends must be funny" routine
I'd say there are differences. South Park's satire usually has a message. Although I think it took them a few seasons to realize that satire, not bathroom jokes, was their talent. Family Guy just goes for as many gags as they can get. The Simpsons is great, but they don't even try to tackle the more taboo issues that South Park is great at.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted by the_Somalian: As if the poor devout muslim is supposed to take a pause and reflect on the civics lesson supposedly inherent in the defilement of his prophet.
Yes, that's exactly what he/she is supposed to do.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I understand the fear but I think that giving into it is asking for a world of pain. How long until other groups use the same tactics to achieve the incredible success that Muslims have?
I agree completely, Amanecer. I just don't know if I could risk death to my family by doing the right thing. Me, sure - at least I think I could. My family, no. Not a chance. I guess it's kind of the "free rider" problem - it doesn't hurt me to give in to the terror. If I do, I live. If I don't, I have a chance of dying. But if everyone gives in, we're sunk.
I too worry about the day when enough people understand that we back down in the face of death that a critical mass is reached. I don't know if it will be very long at all, honestly.
What can we do about this? I wonder how many people have to die before we come to the understanding that these people (people of any creed/religion/ideology who will murder those who disagree with them) are valrese. I do think that Bush has made a (misguided?) attempt to show the world that we won't back down from terror.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what's called for here is bravery on a mass scale. Just like in that recent movie "V for Vendetta" all citizens should be given a costume of "Mohammed" and made to go out marching anonymously. This would really show the Muslim world how to respectfully handle opposition to one's core beliefs.
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I'm gonna go bomb the Comedy Central studios! How dare they depict Jesus in that way?! Maybe then society will learn to respect Christian fundamentalists the way they respect Muslim fundamentalists...um....wait....
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
