Muhammad Cartoon Controversy

Now the Muhammed Cartoon Show (LIVE in a country near you! A Theo-Political Controversy Company production from the same folks who gave you such hits as “A Gay Wedding Affair”, “The Attack of the Killer Stem Cells!” and “The Great Satan We Want To Send Our Kids To”.) is not your typical cartoon. But the incendiary reaction that we see rippling and surging through the world does have at least one positive, it provides a serious backdrop for conversation on topics that would otherwise not be discussed, such as:

1. What does democracy MEAN, Basil?
2. Exactly how can we separate religion and state if the citizens of a country have strong
   religious backgrounds?
3. Are you telling me this is the ONE issue that Liberals and Conservatives agree on?
4. And last but not least: What does Ragerman's Hypocrisy Meter say?

Now before you read what I have to say, I would suggest trying to leave behind your need to categorize me and my comments. Just read it with as open a mind as you can manage and try to keep that knee from jerking.

Answer One: Democracy is Pig's Meat (Oh, I'm going somewhere!): Does democracy mean that everybody is free to say and do anything they want? Does it confer people with rights to own anything and have personal privacy? Can you marry anybody/thing that you want? Sadly the answer here is None Of the Above. Don't believe me? Look up a dictionary, I did and it says:

• Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
• A political or social unit that has such a government.
• The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
• Majority rule.
• The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

No mention of guaranteed, inalienable rights… So all that liberal rhetoric like "These enslaved Muslim nations need to know how we do things in a democracy", "If these Islamists only lived and enjoyed the Freedoms we are guaranteed by democracy they would not have made such a big deal" don't look so obvious anymore, do they? Those comments make as much sense as saying "If only the Jews tasted Pork Pie, they would know how sweet Pig's meat could be". Firstly, Pig's meat is only sweet in Pork Pie because it is flavored. Pig's meat can be flavored by any number of seasonings/sugars and it could taste like most anything if you wanted. Get the drift? Democracy is Pig's meat. YOU, the people, provide the flavor. E.g., the Nazi party could be argued to be democratic. (Yes, I know about the raid on the Reichstag. But that failed and they were ELECTED to power later.) Yes, but you and I know that we are conferred freedoms somewhere right? Well it’s in most constitutions, the American First Amendment, for example. There are lines which in effect say something like “We, your much balls-ier forefathers, with the foresight we know you will never have, re-invent and bequeath
to you the Freedom of Expression… etc. etc.”. (NOTE: Not the original text.) Now this is a little more specific in terms of what flavor of democracy a nation espouses. Here it is said clearly that in this democracy, you can have your say. But Democracy in Rome allowed Slavery, Democracy in the US banned Slavery but allowed Segregation implicitly continued for centuries till the 60s… And there are further levels of specificity, namely the courts of law. They interpret the constitution for the people. Laws that for example say “Rudy, I know what the forefather’s said but you can’t yell FIRE in a crowded theater. Take ten years in the pen.” Or “Sorry Mr. Dunlaw, I know you think Mr. Haberdasher is a liar and a cheat but you can’t say that in public unless you can prove it. You pay him three million dollars for the mental trauma and defamation”. See what I mean? Freedoms have limits. And who determines the limits? How much of a good thing is too much? How do you justify depriving a man of the right to say something/anything? Think it’s a stupid question? Well then let us try answering it unemotionally. Seems to me, you look at the cost of allowing that person to say something versus the benefit to society. If someone yelled “Oh Shit!” in a crowded theater it’s different from “Fire!” isn’t it? Why? Yelling “Fire!” could cause a stampede that could kill folks. The problem is not with people dying per se. The question is: for what benefit? People die all the time for wars, don’t they? But apparently society (Read: the majority, in a democracy) thinks it’s worth it. So is protecting the right of the yelling-fire-person to shout his favorite word worth the cost of a few lives? I didn’t think so.

So what is the learning here? Democracy means you do what the majority says. Nothing more, usually less.
Democracy, per se, has NO COMMENT ON THE MUHAMMED CARTOONS. If the majority says let’s make Hitler the head of the nation, that’s what you do. So democracy in Denmark says the cartoons are no big deal, but democracy in Indonesia says that it is the biggest attack on Islam since the Crusades. One should see democracy for what it is, the BEST (but still highly ineffective) means to prevent power from concentrating in the hands of a few. I personally think that true democracy can only be achieved if we are willing to accord democratic rights (the non-political ones of course) to non-citizens of our nation, but that’s just idealistic
ol’ me.

That part settled, there are many variations in the constitutions of nations. Many western nations (Read: advanced democracies) that have anti-blasphemy laws. Are they implemented in courts of law? Not often but they exist for specifically such situations as this but mostly in the Christian context. Also, be sure to read up on the Blasphemy laws section here. (In all fairness, western nations typically have a liberal counterbalance to religion that avowedly Islamic nations do not.) For further reading, let us look at another similarly blown out of all proportion deal, the Salman Rushdie affair.

This is a good segue into Answer Two: Very, very carefully. (For those with impaired attention spans, the question was “Exactly how can we separate religion and state if the citizens of a country have strong religious backgrounds?” Also for the attention impaired, please contact me for a class action law suit against Television. We’re not going to win, but you could be on TV! Woo hoo!) So as we know most religions say basically the same things in terms of how to live your life. However when it comes to the mystical portion of their messages there is a wide variety of mythologies. Now it is easy to be objective about somebody else’s beliefs but all of us have our own sets of things we hold sacred. So how can we talk about these things without stepping on each other? Also, if your belief is the majority belief how much effort should/can you put into protecting the little guy’s toes? As history has shown us, it is very, very challenging. Firstly because you want to move the little guy over to your side of the fence so it is a contradiction to try and protect his beliefs while trying to convert him. This is why minorities cannot be safe in any state that strongly espouses any set of beliefs. Does that mean they are safe in liberal states? Not exactly, as the Danish cartoons showed. They might still be assaulted by such blasphemies not because the Danes are Conservative Christians but because they are so liberal they allowed blasphemy! So while Christian minorities in Pakistan are under threat to convert to Islam, Islamic minorities in Denmark is under threat to convert to a form of liberalism they do not agree with.

Now there are two outcomes of the Cartoon Controversy, legislation is put into place to prevent such expressions in the future OR no action is taken and such expression is allowed. In the first case, extremist Islamists could be buoyed by their victory and continue to make it more and more difficult for open religious conversation. How could a historian then, for example, plumb any question with regards to Muhammad? Can a biography be written of him? Can portraits of him be published? What if evidence comes up of an alcohol dependency that later caused his revulsion for the same? What if that investigation goes on to show later
regressions? Are we never to examine too closely those we have glorified? Should not people be allowed access to this information, if it were being publicly debated, before they make a conversion to that religion? On the other hand, if no legislation is enacted and the blasphemy continues, the polarization will continue. Reaction will become more and more militant. Cartoonists and humorists will pen more and more incendiary items, religious minded folks will get more and more pissed off. Finally the shit will hit the fan and many more people will die from both sides. All in all, a lose-lose situation.

How can we reconcile that seeming contradiction? Seems to me, we (i.e. our courts of law) have to distinguish worthwhile religious dialogue from the attempts of cartoonists and comedians to jerk a quick laugh.

I must confess I laughed at the depiction of Jesus Christ in South Park being trash-talked and beat up by Satan in a boxing ring. But on further thought, while that didn’t affect me very much, it was very hurtful for Christians, and I have many Christian friends. Furthermore, I’m an agnostic but I don’t need to laugh so desperately that it causes pain to others, especially when there are less hurtful ways to get your joke fix. Also, can we ever be on friendly terms with those whose strongest-held values we ridicule? While we rabidly fight for the right to dialogue, we must equally strongly prevent the baseless vilification of things others among us hold sacred.

That does not mean we compromise on everything. That does not mean we cannot expect people to laugh at themselves but we cannot be expected to laugh at that which we hold sacred. To provide another illustration, it may be necessary to have a conversation with a good friend if his wife seems like she is being unfaithful, but it is not okay to make public jokes about her when it can’t be proved to be true in the first place. That is just a mean, selfish act done for a cheap laugh. It is funny when the person you are talking about is someone no one cares about, but how different would it be if that were your father or mother? Not so funny then? Why not? Can you afford to be so conflicted personally with such questions? I cannot. I am not being holier than thou, and I have many conflicts that I am unaware of. But as and when they surface, I try to reconcile them as best
I can. The flip side and added benefit of this is also to get the Muslims to afford other religions the same respect it demands.

Answer Three: YES! The one thing that liberals and conservatives agree on! How can that possibly be wrong? Hallelujah and Peace on Earth! Two viciously opposed sides agree that Muslims should forget about a stupid cartoon and just get back to work or whatever it is they do. Open and Shut? Crystal Clear? No-Brainer? I THINK SO! Both groups come to the same conclusion on this matter by being wholly self-centered and apathetic. The “No Brainer” there is that they are BOTH wrong and pursuing selfish interests.

To the liberals, there ARE many freedoms you cannot have. You cannot have the freedom to have sex with whoever you choose, when who you choose is a minor. You cannot have the right to slander someone and get away with it. You cannot have the right to drink alcohol if you are under age. You cannot walk around naked in public. Who is to say which freedoms can and cannot be had? Let us approach the issue logically and we can only arrive at the solution I outlined earlier.

To the conservatives, your opposition to the Muslim’s emotional display is much easier to see through. You just don’t like ‘em. There is a long history of hatred between Christians and Muslims so it’s obvious that anything that reflects negatively on them will not receive much opposition from you. But how easy it is to cry “Blasphemy!” when portrayals of JC are made in the media isn’t it?

So to Christian groups that think the Muslims should just get over the Muhammad cartoons but want the
Book of Daniel off the air and censorship for Will and Grace, I say: HEAL THYSELF. And to liberal groups that did nothing to support Matt Barber in his right of expression when he was fired for posting his opposition to gay marriage, I say: IT IS NOT FREEDOM IF IT IS NOT FOR EVERYONE.

And finally, Answer Four: Ragerman’s Hypocrisy Meter© says, “It doesn’t matter whether you want a Democracy, Autocracy or Theocracy, what you get is inevitably a Hypo-cracy.” (Yes, it’s a talking meter, do you mind???)

The Muslims who are so bent on getting this blasphemy rectified conveniently overlook their own blasphemous actions with respect to other religions. Pakistan uses their blasphemy laws to persecute its minority Christian and Hindu populace, Saudi Arabia routinely confiscates and destroys bibles, Islamic nations worldwide crack down on other religious expression as a matter of fact. There is no doubt that Islamic nations are much more hardcore in enforcing religious limitations on minorities, so what right do they have to get self-righteous? IMHO, they don’t have a right to be holier-than-thou, but they do have a right to keep their sacred myths sacred, as do the Christians, as do the Jews and Hindus. So perhaps this is a time for state-level talks on what they are doing to protect the rights of their minorities and the numerous blasphemous acts against other faiths that take place, so that the same rights can be respected universally? A give and take? A no-brainer, logical step to respect each other’s space and live like adult nations and adult religions? I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Peace out, y’all.