Site Presented By
Wednesday, Nov 4, 2009
Published Letters: 348 Editor's Choice: 25
Dear Editor,
Many may recall a few years ago the conflagration over an art exhibit of a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine (the artist and venue elude me). There were condemnations, a lot of hand wringing by Christians and political threats (mostly over art funding). But not one person died, no fatwas were instigated and the museum was not burned to the ground.
This is obsessively the result of living in a secular society (though one that is quickly eroding under the aegis of the fundamentalist junta currently running it). Civil liberties-- in this case freedom of speak and expression-- take precedent over whatever violent impulses their fundamentalist detractors may have towards the artist. This is called civilization. It doesn’t always work this way in the U.S. or Europe but at least it’s the stated goal of our systems.
However this is not how it works in theocratic societies or societies dominated by religious factions; factions, I might add, whose scriptures state emphatically that the breaking of religious law warrants violence.
Therein lies the rub.
I’m surprised that the author would poo-poo the Danish government or the paper in question over their lack of judgment in publishing a series of political cartoons. Satire, no matter how puerile or stupid it may be must be protected by a free and vibrant society (Larry Flint is a good case in point). The laughable assertion that “Mohammad is so beautiful that no hand can adequately depict him” has no place in western democracy. Any kowtowing to Muslim sentiments in this arena is counterproductive to the furthering of secular civilization.
I am not a Muslim, Christian or Jew so I am not being biased in a religious sense. I am a secular humanist that believes that religious sentiments should be tolerated only insofar as they guarantee and actively support the liberties that all humans have a right to share. Mohamed, though over a billion people revere him is not a sacred cow to me and as a lover of liberty I reserve the right depict him in any way I wish—without violent reprisals. It’s embarrassing to see mea culpas coming from seemingly rational western apologists over this incident.
Chad Bagley
Shanghai, China
Dear Editor,
"You can insult me, my mother, my father, but not the Prophet," my friend Abdelghanni tells me, going on to explain the heart of the matter... so we don't draw him because we don't need to and because we don't want" -- he searches for the word -- to pollute our image."
But you see, Abdelghanni is wrong; I can insult the prophet! I’m not going to for the simple reason that I don’t feel any real animosity toward Mohammad and therefore don’t see the point in it. But if I want to draw a picture of Mohammad –let’s say something puerile and silly like with a bomb in his turban—then I can! And I expect to be able to do it without some wing nut getting all medieval on my ass.
I’m perfectly aware that this depiction of Mohammad does not represent Islam well or the majority of its adherents, but that isn’t the point at all. Religious sentiments should be tolerated only insofar as they guarantee and actively support the liberties that all people have a right to—in this case the freedom of expression. Screw cultural relativism! Just because a minority of people expects me to be sensitive to their religious or cultural superstitions does not mean that I have to be or should be. This is called an enlightened secular viewpoint and it’s something that I don’t feel inclined to apologize for.
I laud the stance by many Moroccans to abjure the violence but I reserve and wholeheartedly defend my right to insult or make fun of anything that I disagree with (read: “Western disrespect”), especially when it is done in the one of arts and letters greatest genres; satire. After all that’s what satire is all about; mocking violence, stupidity, demagoguery, hypocrisy, human folly, pretensions and superstition. All of which, I might add, are in abundance in this so-called controversy.
Chad Bagley
Shanghai, China
“Western attempts to cast the issue as one of freedom of expression display an ignorance of the local context of these conflicts, which are not mostly about religion so much as they are about religious nationalism and about power struggles within Muslim societies.”
Bullshit Juan! I think that anyone with an I.Q over ninety knows that there is more here than just the issue of freedom of expression. Of course there are power struggles and division within Muslim societies. We know that the cartoons that set off this firestorm were just a catalyst and that Denmark is really just a pawn in a much larger game of ‘we are a victim of western imperialism.
The problem is that most of us, even secular humanist like myself, just don’t give a shit (for proof of this there are 150 other editorials in response to Salon’s namby pamby coverage of this ‘crisis’ that will confirm this—most of it from left liberals like myself).
I’m sorry but when it comes to burning down diplomatic legations and killing people you don’t get extra points for having your religious feeling hurt. Denmark is a modern and progressive democracy that gives more in foreign aid per capita than any other country in the world. The fact that the fundamentalists of the Muslim world have singled out this country of five and a half million people-- who historically have not done much to harm anyone-- for censure just goes to show what fucking cowards and professional victims the fundamentalists are.
Chad Bagley
An Israeli columnist issues a scathing indictment of Israel and calls on the U.S. to apply pressure.
Even when government officials purposely subject an innocent person to brutal torture, they enjoy full immunity.
Hey, guys: Are adult films making you bad at sex?
What was once depicted as a grave act of lawlessness -- Bush's NSA program -- is now deemed a vital state secret.
The loony wing of the Republican Party prepares for a big day in Tuesday's elections
Salon headlines in your mailbox
