Would Jesus with an Uzi be amusing?
Saturday, February 11, 2006
By ROBERT L. JAMIESON Jr.
P-I COLUMNIST
They're just Muslim cartoons, for chrissakes.
Yet the images depicting the Prophet Muhammad in satirical light have touched off a violent war of words and deeds across the world.
The conflict pits Muslims, who consider the cartoons to be sacrilegious, against Western publishers, who point to freedom of speech.
The complex issue comes into sharper focus when seen through the eyes of one who has a foot in both worlds, someone like Lena Tuffaha of Seattle.
Tuffaha, 30, is a writer who comes from a family of Middle East writers. As a former board member of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, she champions free expression.
She also is Muslim. Her curiosity prompted her to surf the Web and look at the controversial depictions. It was as if someone had punched her.
"I feel like I'm being torn apart," she says.
Tuffaha's feelings are amplified when she sees how people are screaming at each other, talking over one another and obscuring any chance of mutual understanding in the ongoing debate.
A non-conversation of noise is taking place when a constructive dialogue is needed.
Muslims feel as if their religion is under attack.
A lot of Christians don't get the fuss because they see images of Jesus and priests and angels everywhere and few think twice about it -- so long as the images don't dis. (How many cartoons have you seen showing Jesus as a Level 3 sex offender? Or toting an Uzi?)
In the Muslim world, however, just printing an image of Muhammad -- no matter how witty or artsy -- is being interpreted as heresy.
"I had no idea that some Americans did not even know this," Tuffaha says. "One guy called in a local radio show. He didn't have a clue."
Ignorance may be to blame for why some people don't get why Muslims are mad about a cartoon attack that strikes at the spiritual core of their religion.
It doesn't help matters when the Danish paper that ignited the controversy by publishing the cartoons is guilty of what seems like a double standard.
A recent article in The Guardian in London points out that three years ago the Danish paper had turned down cartoons lampooning Christ on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.
"I think that they will provoke an outcry," one of the Danish newspaper's editors was quoted as saying. "Therefore, I will not use them."
So, Christ is off limits.
But Muhammad? Open season for insults, folks.
Tuffaha sees the media justifying anti-Muslim cartoons as freedom of the press. It sets her off.
"Freedom of the press is the defense when you want to do something inflammatory against Muslims," she believes.
The willful ignorance of the Danish paper has sparked a flood of reactions, some of them ironic.
The free expression some in the Muslim world now lambaste is a freedom many of them don't enjoy in the countries where journalists are muzzled.
I feel too many folks across the spectrum of debate keep forgetting something simple: basic respect for other people, their faith, their centuries-long traditions.
In 2002 an American syndicated cartoonist, Doug Marlette, drew an image that showed a man in Middle Eastern dress driving a nuclear bomb-laden truck. The cartoon, headlined "What Would Mohammed Drive?" touched off vehement protests, and justifiably so.
This picture was every bit in bad taste as another cartoon: Pat Oliphant's celebration of spring at St. Paedophilia's Catholic Church depicting the Running of the Altar Boys. It showed priests with grins rushing down church steps to chase horrified boys in robes.
Beyond being distasteful and disrespectful, the current anti-Muslim cartoons are also guilty of another cardinal sin -- being patently unfunny.
For these reasons, Tuffaha and I are on the same page.
"I, Lena, a Muslim do not want the cartoons," Tuffaha explains. "I do think the issue is something worth having a conversation about."
Freedom of the press is not just what you publish. It's also what you choose not to publish.
Kill these cartoons.
Don't kill the necessary dialogue, based on mutual respect, about religions in the world.
By ROBERT L. JAMIESON Jr.
P-I COLUMNIST
They're just Muslim cartoons, for chrissakes.
Yet the images depicting the Prophet Muhammad in satirical light have touched off a violent war of words and deeds across the world.
The conflict pits Muslims, who consider the cartoons to be sacrilegious, against Western publishers, who point to freedom of speech.
The complex issue comes into sharper focus when seen through the eyes of one who has a foot in both worlds, someone like Lena Tuffaha of Seattle.
Tuffaha, 30, is a writer who comes from a family of Middle East writers. As a former board member of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, she champions free expression.
She also is Muslim. Her curiosity prompted her to surf the Web and look at the controversial depictions. It was as if someone had punched her.
"I feel like I'm being torn apart," she says.
Tuffaha's feelings are amplified when she sees how people are screaming at each other, talking over one another and obscuring any chance of mutual understanding in the ongoing debate.
A non-conversation of noise is taking place when a constructive dialogue is needed.
Muslims feel as if their religion is under attack.
A lot of Christians don't get the fuss because they see images of Jesus and priests and angels everywhere and few think twice about it -- so long as the images don't dis. (How many cartoons have you seen showing Jesus as a Level 3 sex offender? Or toting an Uzi?)
In the Muslim world, however, just printing an image of Muhammad -- no matter how witty or artsy -- is being interpreted as heresy.
"I had no idea that some Americans did not even know this," Tuffaha says. "One guy called in a local radio show. He didn't have a clue."
Ignorance may be to blame for why some people don't get why Muslims are mad about a cartoon attack that strikes at the spiritual core of their religion.
It doesn't help matters when the Danish paper that ignited the controversy by publishing the cartoons is guilty of what seems like a double standard.
A recent article in The Guardian in London points out that three years ago the Danish paper had turned down cartoons lampooning Christ on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.
"I think that they will provoke an outcry," one of the Danish newspaper's editors was quoted as saying. "Therefore, I will not use them."
So, Christ is off limits.
But Muhammad? Open season for insults, folks.
Tuffaha sees the media justifying anti-Muslim cartoons as freedom of the press. It sets her off.
"Freedom of the press is the defense when you want to do something inflammatory against Muslims," she believes.
The willful ignorance of the Danish paper has sparked a flood of reactions, some of them ironic.
The free expression some in the Muslim world now lambaste is a freedom many of them don't enjoy in the countries where journalists are muzzled.
I feel too many folks across the spectrum of debate keep forgetting something simple: basic respect for other people, their faith, their centuries-long traditions.
In 2002 an American syndicated cartoonist, Doug Marlette, drew an image that showed a man in Middle Eastern dress driving a nuclear bomb-laden truck. The cartoon, headlined "What Would Mohammed Drive?" touched off vehement protests, and justifiably so.
This picture was every bit in bad taste as another cartoon: Pat Oliphant's celebration of spring at St. Paedophilia's Catholic Church depicting the Running of the Altar Boys. It showed priests with grins rushing down church steps to chase horrified boys in robes.
Beyond being distasteful and disrespectful, the current anti-Muslim cartoons are also guilty of another cardinal sin -- being patently unfunny.
For these reasons, Tuffaha and I are on the same page.
"I, Lena, a Muslim do not want the cartoons," Tuffaha explains. "I do think the issue is something worth having a conversation about."
Freedom of the press is not just what you publish. It's also what you choose not to publish.
Kill these cartoons.
Don't kill the necessary dialogue, based on mutual respect, about religions in the world.
posted by Traveller at
10:27 a.m.
1 Comments:
As you no doubt have found through personal experiment, the answer is yes. Jesus with an Uzi is funny. Raptor Jesus with an Uzi is even funnier.
http://bit.ly/v8Zoxj
By
datashaman, at 2:35 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home