Stupid People
These dolts do up t-shirts with the very same cartoons that resulted in riots and building burnings and expect us to believe them when they say they’ve “never seen anything like it” when the shit hits their fan?
…. come on, it’s a cheap [not to mention obvious] play at fame and fortune – if they actually thought that printing the images on t-shirts would somehow have less of an impact than printing them in a newspaper they are just plain stupid.
At this point there is no freedom of speech involved, and no point to be made, like the Western Standard printings this is all about the money, and nothing more.
There’s a large sector of the population that has convinced itself that Muslim-baiting is now not only forgiveable, but somehow patriotic and admirable.
If you don’t agree, it’s because you’re “afraid”. These louts are so far gone that they can’t even conceive of another reason.
On a somewhat related note, I heard an interesting discussion last night on Late Night Counsel (CFRA). In it, John Counsel was discussing the use of the f-word and its usage in mainstream print-media.
He said (and I paraphrase) “We have the freedom of speech, yes, but we have to use it responsibly or it can be as evil as censorship”.
I was surprised to say the least. I wonder what he had to say about the cartoons of late.
As balbulican says, people seem to think that it is “right” and “just” to protect those who would purposely offend an entire religious following.
This recent mentality is disturbing, and although there have always been Christian-Muslim tensions, somehow it has escalated to a state where dissing the others prophet is something to be proud of and display on one’s clothing.
It seems to me to be an attempt to stimulate and strengthen the “us versus them” mentality in the context of the Global “War on Terror”.
We should as a new Bunker iniative have T-shirts made up of the “I am with Stupid” variety. You know, the ones with the arrow pointing at the person beside you. Then, we could seek out those with the cartoon T-shirts and stand beside them.
Just a thought.
Now I know who writes the Deep Tho’ts. TH, you tricky devil, you.
Is it still OK to bait and offend Christians?
“Is it still OK to bait and offend Christians?”
More bar lowering, lrC? Find the stupidest behaviour you can on “their” side, then defend behaviours on “yours”?
The cartoons themselves, I haven’t seen them. What was their purpose? Any legitimate parody or satire?
Oh yes, for IrC. Of course it’s OK to bait and offend Christians (or anyone else for that matter) You just need to know what you’re talking about.
Nevermind the “bar lowering” comment. Baiting and offending is serious business. From King Lear’s fool to Michael Moore, we need our cultural offenders.
Is it okay to bait and offend Christians?
If you ask me, it’s in bad taste. It’s not okay to harrass someone simply because they’re Christian.
However, political commentary taking offence at Christians entering our mutual political sphere and attempting to create society in the image they’d like based on their religious beliefs is a different ball of wax.
In other words, laughing at the Emperor’s New Clothes is not the same as laughing at a naked peasant.
“The cartoons themselves, I haven’t seen them. What was their purpose? Any legitimate parody or satire?”
In my opinion, they range from pointedly funny to lame. Not one of them would have made me blink in the pages of the Globe or Citizen. But I can’t judge their impact on someone from a Muslim culture.
The point about the cultural critics in the guise of clowns (be they The Fool, Michael Moore, Coyote or Trickster) is a good one, but misses one point: the Clown is usually a member of YOUR group – an insider, and sometimes a sacred one.
Of course we’re “allowed” to deploy our sense of satire in the face of what seems absurd to us in other cultures. And “we” get the joke. The point is; don’t be surprised if “they” don’t. There’s nothing more culturally specific than humour, as I have learned through painful years of training and consulting in various cross-cultural milieux.
On Arwen’s point…I remember one Christmas while my mom was still alive, my sister went out to pick up videos for the evening. To my horror she came back with Monty Python’s “Life of Brian”. My mom was a very devout Catholic, and I thought for sure she’d be offended. Nope – she roared all the way through it. I told her afterward I thought she’d find it a bit too irreverent, and she was surprised. She said – correctly – that it was a film that mocked hypocrites, or the self-important, or people who follow blindly, without thought, or people who manipulate other people with religion as their weapon. “But there was nothing anti-Christian about it”, she said.
Smart woman, my mom.
The cartoons fiasco does reflect a slight cultural difference or cultural insecurity. Most devout Christians and even most non orthodox Jews are more than willing to make fun of themselves, their cultural nuances and sterotypes.
(It was the eve of the second comming and Jesus walks into a motel and hands the man at the desk a hand full of nails. When he looks up questioningly Jeusus says” Can you put me up for the night”) As told by an Anglican Bishop.
It may be insecurity, a feeling of over importance or just a hell of a big chip on the communal shoulders of Muslims but I don’t find them to be as light hearted and self depricating enough to embrace religious humour.
We have to remember the a large number of muslims come from poor coutries where religion is hope when there is no other. The only education they may have is learning all or part of the Quoran by rote. The religion itself is stagnant and has not allowed discourse or reinterpretation in generations. In a nutshell we are not dealing with ourselves and can’t expect them to behave like us.
Much oil comes from Muslim nations, if we expect to keep exploiting them and try to maintain our decadent lifestyles for one more decade we had better learn how to discourse with them without insulting them. Baiting only has one purpose and than is to incite and discredit someone. Are you sure neocons are not behind the whole thing, eventually icite someone to do a new 911 giving Bushites just cause. France has already said that a chemical or nuke attack would be met by equal force. Incite some more attacks then watch as the western powers line up behind Bush
A further question does pose itself, quite off the thread.
What saturation can western society take allowing people who will not abide by our moral code to settle here?
I’m not saying multi culturalism is wrong but there should be limits to who we welcome. We can welcome muslims but if they show up at the Canadian embassy with a burka clad wife and refuse to be served by a woman, or a man named Goldstien, perhaps they are not the right fit for Canada.
For example if we let in Rastas , can you honestly expect them to abstain from Pot. If a persons cultural or religious imperative is against our laws how can you expect them to get along in our society. A physical checkup should be mandatory for immigration applicants, If a man comes from north Africa and has a wife with genital mutalations you’d better make damm sure he understands it’s not allowed here.
Toronto suburbs have gang wars between Tamils and Sri Lankins. Who in their right mind takes people in to their country from both sides of a civil war? Pick one side or the other so they have no reason to be violent
We are very tolerent and it is causing us problems, What limits can we set and still be compasionate?
kubera: I think that you have some ideas which merit discussion, but they’re hard for me to focus on… because you’ve mistaken the fundamentalist Muslims, or Muslims you’ve met, for Muslims in general. I had several Muslim friends in high school who were quite happy to laugh at their religion; I’m sure with non-Muslims ’twere often to diffuse prejudice, (since self-deprecating humour is disarming), but they would poke at each other.
I didn’t get the jokes. Any more than someone with no contact with Catholicism would split a gut at “Every Sperm is Sacred”. Humour is subjective, just like balb said.
Every group of people are made up of individual people; the idea that “Muslims” somehow can’t have humour because of their religion is borne of a misunderstanding about difference in cultures. All people everywhere are people, and individuals of every people will laugh, cry, be joyous, bleed when cut, etc.
Of course my contacts are older workplace types who are less likely to be born here and don’t have quite the peer pressure to conform that a highschool kid might. I do find they have humour but not usually religious. When joking they can also take things more personally that mean nothing to us, calling a Muslim a dog or a pig like you might do with any European types is taken much more seriously than I would for example.
Likewise a European (especially male) type might take notice that you’ve just had a child but Muslims you don’t even know will come to your desk and make a fuss. They are culturally different and we must accept that when dealing with them.
They like us have different levels of difference, some can fit in and some will never. Should we screen to differenciate before we let in any group?
>More bar lowering, lrC?
No, I think the bar on that one was lowered a long time ago. Baiting fundamentalist Christians is an old sport; baiting fundamentalist Muslims has taken some time to come out. My interest is to see whether one set of rules of common sense and decency emerges for all, and what the new concensus for respectable behaviour will be. I have three questions:
1) Are we going to go with the Ted Rall standard, or something higher?
2) Regardless where we set the bar for common courtesy, how tolerant will we be of those who fail to rise to it?
3) Who will and who will not apply their standards of conduct consistently?
“However, political commentary taking offence at socialists entering our mutual political sphere and attempting to create society in the image they’d like based on their religious beliefs is a different ball of wax.”
Exactly.
IrC: Exactly what, exactly? I’ll give you that say, social liberalism/secular humanism/economic socialism is based on a faith-based moral value for the purposes of your substitution. I will acknowledge the validity of books being rude about Al Franken.
But pokin’ fun at Franken, Moore, Limbaugh, or Harper – or the CBC, or hockey, or beer prices, or David Suzuki – are all different than pokin’ fun at Islamic fundamentalism.
This still looks like apples and, um, hemmoroidal penguins to me. I’m not sure what one has to do with the other.
kubera – I agree that insults are different in different cultures. Our naughty words are scatological (or, increasingly, racial); the french can’t say “chalice” or “church” in public. I would note that the french still have religious mockery, just as we mock sex and poo. An interesting aside: a Romanian coworker says his favorite curse would translate loosely to “My mother’s cornmeal”. (?)
I imagine that it is the case that you weren’t in a great position to mock Islam. That doesn’t mean Muslims aren’t/can’t/won’t/ or don’t have humour around it themselves! And it may be that they’d be offended by ‘pig’ but not by ‘fucknose.’
But yes, cultures are different. I understand worrying about that. Culture shifts over time, and immigration can add to cultural shift. However, if I remember my cultural/linguistic/& anthro studies well, the greatest cultural drift happens each generation in the elite classes; then the middle class follows; then the lower classes. In some places, lower classes preserve culture for long periods of time. Immigrants only have certain features of their culture absorbed by the ruling classes.
But I’m all for entrenching rights in such a way that governments of the future can’t abuse them, though.