--She wants a head"Off with his head!" she said, without even looking round
"I'll fetch the executioner myself," said the King eagerly,
and he hurried off
--Alice's Adventures in Wonderland,
Lewis Carroll
_________________
"I'll fetch the executioner myself," said the King eagerly,
and he hurried off
--Alice's Adventures in Wonderland,
Lewis Carroll
_________________
Something is not quite right here.
The Comedy Central cartoon show South Park has caved to a threat from an online Muslim group and removed all references to Mohamed from their program (past and current). For those who don't know South Park, it is a show which reveres no sacred cows -- no religion, race, sex or creed is sacrosanct. Everyone gets a pie in the face. Except, not Mohamed.
There have been rows in the past. Isaac Hayes, a recurring character ("Chef"), left when Scientology was sent up. Writer Matt Stone said, "[We] never heard a peep out of Isaac in any way until we did Scientology. He wants a different standard for religions other than his own, and to me, that is where intolerance and bigotry begin."
Scientology jokes stayed; Mr. Hayes left.
NYT columnist Ross Douthat commented Sunday:
"[South Park's muzzling] is a reminder that Islam is just about the only place where we draw any lines at all.
"... Our culture has few taboos that can’t be violated, and our establishment has largely given up on setting standards in the first place.
"Except where Islam is concerned. There, the standards are established under threat of violence, and accepted out of a mix of self-preservation and self-loathing.
"This is what decadence looks like: a frantic coarseness that bravely trashes its own values and traditions, and then knuckles under swiftly to totalitarianism and brute force.
"Happily, today’s would-be totalitarians are probably too marginal to take full advantage. This isn’t Weimar Germany, and Islam’s radical fringe is still a fringe, rather than an existential enemy.
"For that, we should be grateful. Because if a violent fringe is capable of inspiring so much cowardice and self-censorship, it suggests that there’s enough rot in our institutions that a stronger foe might be able to bring them crashing down (Not Even in South Park.)"
So while our soldiers are fighting for Muslim countries to ostensibly gain a measure of freedom, we are self-censoring at the death threats emanating from some members of the Muslim community in our own country. This I don't understand.
Meanwhile, National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones (retd.) recently headed off a talk on the Mideast Peace Process with a joke about Jewish merchants (General Jones Makes a Jewish Joke.)
Yes, the joke is an old Catskills one, and in other contexts, might be funny. But this was told by a Christian General addressing a somber meeting -- a joke which disparages greedy Jewish merchants, one of the parties which he came to discuss.
For parity's sake, why were there no Hadji jokes? Off with his head, if he tried that one.
What's wrong with this picture?
[Cross-posted at RangerAgainstWar]
To misquote the last line of the Boy Scout Oath:
ReplyDeleteWe are physically strong, mentally asleep, and morally weak.
The only real questions now are:
1. How long it will take for us to create an existential threat through the power of awe-striking stupidity?
2. Will the threat will be internal or external?
3. What will we do when it occurs?
I'm having a hard time working up half a give-a-shit about this, but here goes:
ReplyDelete1. The South Park people are perfectly capable of standing up for what they believe in. If they give in to threats then that is their problem and not anything more or less. To somehow make this into the 14th Crusade is to give them and their Islamic blackmailers WAY more importance than they have.
2. Ross Douthat is a twat whose agenda is to whip up a "let's you and him fight" with Islam. He has carefully avoided picking teh same fight when Christian or Mormon groups act in similar ways to censor stuff they don't like.
3. Who the hell believes at this point that anyone is "fighting for freedom" anywhere in central Asia?
4. Jones was a dummy who made a dumb joke to try and break the ice with his audience (who seems to like it). It was a cornball joke but I don't see how it's racist, or how it matters one tenth of a picoshit.
This really is meaningless, jim. The kill-a-haji-for-jesus crowd (like Douthat) is trying to make it into something. But it's really not. Let's not help them, OK?
Let me add this:
ReplyDeleteThe Islamic world, most of it, is where the Western World was roughly pre-1700. For all the bluster coming from the Religious Right about "Christian nation" and "Judeo-Christian heritage" the huge difference between the Western world and much of the rest of the world is the Enlightenment. Before that we Westerners were all theocratic and sectarian, and something like "South Park" would have been impossible to even contemplate. It's weird to think of a line connecting Rosseau, Voltaire, Locke, Hobbes and Cartman but it's there; Ben Franklin and Tom Jefferson are the spiritual ancestors of Mister Hankey the Christmas Poop.
Islam isn't there yet, and it may never get there. That's something that the Islamic world needs to deal with. We need to send a clear message to the Islamic world that we have no interest in their sectarian problems. Our secular culture is what we make of it; if they don't like it they don't have to watch or listen to it. If they try and change our culture by force, we will respond with the force of law. The people who were responsible for the threats to the creators of "South Park" should have been hunted down, prosecuted and sentenced.
Unfortunately, instead we've been listening to dumb jackholes like Douthat, who want us to put on our crusader armor and fight the wrappies for Jesus - never mind that the God-pesterers Ross likes would act the same way as the Allah-pesterers he doesn't once they were in power.
When we make a deal out of the puny threats these assorted deity-wallopers make, or go to the trouble of making holy war against them, all we do is let them set the agenda. The humanists of the Enlightenment had the right idea; it's not about figuring out whose God is right or wrong - it's about ignoring the whole God business altogether. That was everyone gets to bugger around with their own little God stuff without interfering with other people's God stuff or the people who don't want to play at all.
It'd work if we could just all agree to accept it. Unfortinately that's not the way religions work, so we'll just have to agree to throw the fanatics in prison forever when they get out of line.
FDC,
ReplyDeleteI really think your response is too emotional in this case. When you say, "So we'll just have to agree to throw the fanatics in prison forever when they get out of line," you're implying something akin to stepping out of the luncheon line at school, and that's not what this is.
You say, "The South Park people are perfectly capable of standing up for what they believe in." Sure -- they're totally irreverent, but they were shut down by higher ups, who also removed all previous You Tube references to Allah. According to your recent piece @ GFT, you are opposed to such muzzling, and I am with you.
This country is based upon the right of free speech, offensive or otherwise, libel, slander and death threats excluded. Both the former and the latter (free speech and protected) are at issue here.
"The people who were responsible for the threats to the creators of "South Park" should have been hunted down, prosecuted and sentenced" -- I agree. That is not "meaningless". That is a significant point of fact in America: You can't threaten to abridge my right to free speech by threatening my life. The murder of Theo Van Gogh was not a "puny threat". These are not "Allah-pesterers," FDC. A pest is a mosquito.
Of course I'm not for war, but these "deity-wallopers" don't get to get away with murder, either. Just because one action is an overreaction doesn't mean you ameliorate it by non-action when called for. The fanatics cowed the Dutch, now they are cowing us. And our thoroughly p.c. culture seems willing to roll over.
As for NSA Gates, his telling of the joke to open a Mideast talk was amateur, flip, unprofessional and inappropriate. What might be funny in another venue set a hostile tone. If Jones were still AD, it would be appropriate to question that behavior on his efficiency report; since it was racial in nature, it shows he doesn't support EEO across the board.
Why should Jewish taxpayers pay taxes so a public servant can denigrate them? Even if the joke's funny, people used to laugh at lynchings. Just because it's funny doesn't mean it's appropriate. There is a time and a place.
That "his audience ... seems to like it" is irrelevant. Who are those people anyway to laugh at such a display? Was it nervous laughter or wholehearted enjoyment of the caricature of the greedy Jew merchant? Either way, just bad.
FDC says, "This really is meaningless"; I respectfully disagree.
Chief,
ReplyDeletejim and Lisa are distinct personages.
Pls note the author of this piece.
Since my name was invoked i'll pitch in and say that Jone's was a whip dick for telling any kind of perceived racial type joke. It is not professional conduct for one standing next to a President.
jim
Lisa,
ReplyDelete"The fanatics cowed the Dutch, now they are cowing us. And our thoroughly p.c. culture seems willing to roll over"
I disagree this is about a pc culture. I think it is really out of fear. That Dutch writer has not just had threats on his life, there have been actual attempts. If you were Parker or Stone, are you suggesting that you would stand tall, not back down and invite some lunatic to strike you down? I don't see a cartoon about Mohammed dressed in a bear suit being worth my life, or more realistically, living in fear for the rest of my life.
Or are you suggesting that living in fear and having a pc culture is the same thing?
bg,
ReplyDeleteThe Dutch filmmaker Van Gogh is dead. Killed.
Parker and Stone wanted it -- they drew it. They even backed off the bear suit depiction and just had "Mohamed's" voice coming otu of a truck. Comedy Central caved.
Today's Post reported 17 Pulitzer cartoonists signed a letter supporting Parker & Stone, they are:
Nick Anderson, Tony Auth, Clay Bennett, Steve Benson, Matt Davies, Fiore, Jack Higgins, David Horsey, Jim Morin, Mike Peters, Joel Pett, Michael Ramirez, Ben Sargent, Paul Szep, Ann Telnaes, Trudeau and Signe Wilkinson.
"Their letter goes on to say that 'freedom of expression is a universal right" and "we reject any group that seeks to silence people by violence or intimidation.' The letter cites the United States' 'proud tradition of political satire' and affirms belief in the right 'to speak or draw freely without censorship.'
Stone and Parker are not Herge in WW II, nor need they be.
Lisa,
ReplyDeleteafter rereading the post, I stand corrected. I thought it was Parker and Stone who pulled it, not the network. Your point is well taken. Thanks for your response.
b
The corporate mediums are not a god-given platform for their employees unregulated free speech.
ReplyDeleteLet's see any of these cartoonists draw Jesus sodomizing a kid and see if that makes it across the editorial desk.
Let's a TV remake of The Last Temptation of Christ and put on NBC.
Let's see Rachel Maddow burn a flag live on TV.
Today Mohamed, tomorrow all of our precious bodily fluids if some corporate orifice isn't willing to die on the hill principal of my choosing.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletesrv,
ReplyDeleteIt's not a "principal of my choosing" -- It's in the Constitution. I don't know why Madow would burn a flag, but if that speech is protected, she could. Gibson DID make his film; Kazantzakis wrote his book.
Jesus is raked over the coals on this show. I don't know why they'd have cause to make Him a pederast, but there's lots of priests who could fill that role handily.
No, I'm quite sure Jews, Christians, Bahi'ans and the lot might take offense by South Park, but there it is, one of the most popular programs on t.v. Our right of free speech is constructed very broadly.
If a criminal threat is made (remember, the distributor didn't nix the program -- they caved to an outside threat), then police action should be taken against the threat, as FDC mentions. That's the American way.
Lisa: You're right in that this isn't exactly "meaningless", and I stand corrected.
ReplyDeleteBut it certainly isn't the Clash of Civilizations, which is what the asshat Douthat (and Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh and all the usual suspects) want to make it.
It's a bunch of religious gomers who are unable to keep themselves from putting their fists where our noses are. It's blackmail, terroristic threats, assault, attempted murder and, as you point out, murder. This makes them criminals and nuts; it doesn't make the situation one of East versus West, Islam versus Christianity, or Fear versus Freedom. That's why it's "meaningless"; it has no greater implications beyond the fact that some idiots will kill for a fairy tale if you wrap it correctly and sell it as the "Word of God".
We need - we all need - to be clear to each other and to them; the essence of the Enlightenment is that I have no right, and that my government will prevent me, by force if necessary, to prevent you from doing, saying, seeing or believing something that is neither criminal nor physically dangerous to others. If you attempt to prevent others from speaking freely by force you will be hunted down, tried and imprisoned.
As far as throwing them in jail forever...I hope that the person who murders me to satisfy his God-fixation never sees the outside of a cell. Do I get time off for good behavior from death? To send a message to the God-pesterers that this intimidation is unacceptable in a secular society there needs to be a consequence for killing for Jesus, Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Life in prison? Works for me.
And I was unaware that the media providers did the censoring. Apologies to Parker and Stone for assuming that they were the ones to cry craven.
As far as Jones went, I still don't get it. From what I read, his joke was something along the lines of; the Talib tries to by water from the Jew who tries to sell him a tie. The Talib gets all pissy. The merchant tells the Talib that there's a restaurant over the hill where he can get water. The Talib goes, comes back saying that the place won't seat him without a tie and can he buy the damn tie.
It's a dumb joke (I don't get it - what's the point, that Talibs are stupid? That Jews sell you stuff? That you need a tie to get into a restaurant? That's a joke?) and it's a stereotype that the guy selling ties is Jewish. But I still don't see - where's the racism?
We seem to be straining at these little gnats of censorship and racism (and they ARE gnats, Lisa - is there any less T&A coming out of Hollywood, any less ribald humor? Sure, these fanatics succeeded in a couple of places, but the West owns them, really) and overlooking (I think) the huge camel of Islam, which is that it is where the Christian churches were 400 years ago - large and in charge throughout much of the Muslim world.
For people like me, who believe that a civil society means checking your religious prejudices at your door and that the only permissible behavior for a devout believer confronted with another's disbelief is to argue your case in a civil fashion, the only way to avoid sectarian wars is the way we Westerners did - by leaving the churches to the churchgoers, by making religion a hobby and not a law or a government. We should be working as much as we can to produce an Islamic Enlightenment. Until then these damn gnats - and their Christian mosquito brothers - will continue to bite us.
Lisa:
ReplyDeleteThis country is based upon the right of free speech, offensive or otherwise, libel, slander and death threats excluded. Both the former and the latter (free speech and protected) are at issue here.
The First Amendment does not address itself to any such thing, other than prohibiting legislation that might restrict freedom of speech
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
I have always viewed the rights afforded by the First Amendment to include the right NOT to be required to say anything you choose NOT to say, for whatever reason. We can't even be required to testify against ourselves, if we choose so. (Unless we are an alleged terrorist and a water board is nearby.) That includes PC, marketing concerns, or advertiser appeasement. I have held this view since junior high school, when the NY State Board of Regents established a generic "prayer" and required it to be recited at all assemblies in public schools. Our principal made it very clear from day one that no one was required to say the "Regents Prayer", and no one was to question anyone's decision, one way or the other. He told us this before we even had a chance to object ourselves. Many of us simply remained silent - until the courts put an end to the nasty practice. And most of us who remained silent were regular church goers.
jim: we are self-censoring at the death threats emanating from some members of the Muslim community in our own country.
Comedy Central is not "we" or even a close semblance to a "we". It is a non-governmental, private commercial venture that freely makes it's own decisions, and hopefully takes full responsibility for same. As others have stated, this is a non-starter.
Aviator,
ReplyDeletePls note that the cmt attributed to me is not correct.Not me.
I didn't say it.That's freedom of non speech.As you point out.
jim
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!
ReplyDeleteAl
FDC,
ReplyDeleteAs you know, I am certainly not a member of the Apocalyptico showdown school (save inasmuch as those members go by their Books, and wish to force such an eventuality), and am fully in agreement when you say:
"This makes them criminals and nuts; it doesn't make the situation one of East versus West, Islam versus Christianity, or Fear versus Freedom."
However, I am ambivalent re. the following statement, as I do not think we have any claim either to "enlighten" these people, or not:
"We should be working as much as we can to produce an Islamic Enlightenment. Until then these damn gnats - and their Christian mosquito brothers - will continue to bite us."
My position being, if large swathes of our own populace have forgotten The Enlightenment (the 33 percenters), it's unlikely we are the ones to convince anyone else to forsake their tenets.
Aviator,
Of course you're correct re. the Constitution; the limitations on speech are later judicial creations.
But I do not believe the issue of caving under threat of death is not a "non- starter." If nothing else, that such behavior exists is an interesting artifact of our times.
Lisa: I don't think we can or have to push or pull the Islamic world into the 18th Century. What we can do, however, is make clear by our behavior and our political, economic and social progress that things work better when you don't have mullahs (rabbis, priests, preachers or shamans) making your decisions for you in the name of their deity.
ReplyDeleteThat was the Big Picture lesson of the 18th Century shake-off of sectarianism that helped put the Western nations on the track to the Industrial and Green revolutions. We could also casually point out that back in the early days of Islam, before things had calicified it was the other way around, with the Islamic world leaping ahead and the Europeans mired in the Dark Ages of theocratic rule...
FDC,
ReplyDeleteYes, we can be an example, and "things work better when you don't have mullahs (rabbis, priests, preachers or shamans) making your decisions for you" -- agreed. Yet, for a large portion of our country, those so-ordained still make decisions for them on a personal level. That abdication of personal power / responsibility remains seductive.
You note, "We could also casually point out that back in the early days of Islam ... it was the other way around, with the Islamic world leaping ahead and the Europeans mired in the Dark Ages of theocratic rule..." One wonders if the world is doomed to do-si-do around such primevalism.
On a side note: The vaunted "Industrial and Green revolutions" to which you refer are reaping a very ill wind this week with the giant oil spill in the Gulf.
I believe we along the Gulf Coast will see the repercussions of this catastrophic industrial unpreparedness for many years to come. News is seeping out that a shortcut taken by Halliburton may be to blame.
"Although the cause of the explosion was under investigation, many of the more than two dozen lawsuits filed in the wake of the explosion claim it was caused when workers for oil services contractor Halliburton Inc. improperly capped the well — a process known as cementing. Halliburton denied it."
Cheney & cronies and their gifts that keep on giving ...
It wasn't the South Park crew, but the Comedy Central network that caved in and decided to censor.
ReplyDeleteThere are many ore taboos in Western societies, but the representatives of those other taboos don't seem to attract the kind of antipathy like radical Muslims did in the past ten years.
Taboos are especially effective when they are supported by a majority - Muslims are a minority and perceived as foreigners.
Self-censorship is also very common. The media works in a corset of self-censorship. Ask a reporter what a tough interview of a politicians would do to his chances to get more interviews from politicians.
@FDChief:
"That was the Big Picture lesson of the 18th Century shake-off of sectarianism that helped put the Western nations on the track to the Industrial and Green revolutions."
I am not aware of anything like that happening in the 18th century. 18xx's (19th century) - yes. 18th century (17xx) - no.
The only major secular movement of the 18th century was afaik the French Revolution - but that was a very confused revolution and its secular ideas had little lasting effect.
Germany had its secular state breakthrough in the 1850's to 1870's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulturkampf
Sven,
ReplyDeleteCorrect. I tried to makes this point clearer but was unable to re-enter my post to edit (It wasn't the South Park crew, but the Comedy Central network that caved in and decided to censor.)
This statement is unclear to me:
"There are many ore taboos in Western societies, but the representatives of those other taboos don't seem to attract the kind of antipathy like radical Muslims did in the past ten years.
"Taboos are especially effective when they are supported by a majority - Muslims are a minority and perceived as foreigners."
What do you mean by "representatives of other taboos don't attract antipathy like radical Muslims"?
Are you suggesting the U.S. feels "antipathy" to people who make death threats? Making a death threat is not "representing a taboo". More to the point, this is a criminal matter, and why we do not treat is as such I do not know.
Whether I feel antipathy towards someone who wants to abridge my constitutional rights is beside the point; whether I hate them or pity them, their attempted/impingement must be removed.
Sven,
ReplyDeleteAs I responded above:
"Parker and Stone [South Park creators] wanted it -- they drew it. They even backed off the bear suit depiction and just had "Mohamed's" voice coming out of a truck. Comedy Central caved."
This country is based upon the right of free speech and death threats excluded which seems to be a big issue.
ReplyDeleteIts really an excellent post. I really enjoyed a lot. Thanks for sharing this.
ReplyDelete