The usual line taken in these arguments is that Islam is existentially committed to overthrowing the West (just read what it says in the Koran!) and what's gone on in Iraq and Israel has little or nothing to do with attacks on Western targets. The Paris killings have also produced the usual spate of right-wing chaff that attempts to disassociate Islamic terrorism from recent political and military history in the Middle East. If a cartoon, an act of ephemeral humour, is too daunting for the sensitivities of some people, where do we draw the line in criticism and commentary? If a newspaper columnist does a piece in favour of atheism should there be a warning on the front of the paper about it lest a religious person come across the column? And why should religious sensitivities count for anything? Why should people of faith be protected from criticism or satire or a contrary opinion? We don't expect politicians, their parties, or their ideologies to be shielded from scorn or commentary (unless you're living in a totalitarian state), but somehow in the early 21st century it's not seemly to ridicule religion and its adherents. Those who argue that the cartoon images shouldn't be disseminated further because they might upset Muslims are falling into a dangerous logical trap. Like the people who used to rail against Playboy magazine, Hebdo's detractors don't read the magazine themselves, but they're mortally offended that other people do. Charlie Hebdo has a meage circulation of 60k in a nation of more than sixty million, and I doubt many French Muslims, or any one of a conservative bent, would be on their subscription list. In sum, any attempts by non-Muslims to lecture Muslims on religious tolerance ring hollow unless it's matched by equal fervour in putting all religions in their place, which, in my view, is out on the street with their brethren operating the three-card monte games.Īre the Hebdo cartoons offensive? If you're looking and hoping to be offended, yes. It seems monstrously hypocritical to ask Muslims to be chill about depictions of Mohammed when in the US creationism is being taught in schools no US president can get elected unless they loudly proclaim that they are a practicing Christian TV networks routinely bleep the use of "goddamn" or "Christ" when it's used as an expletive women's reproductive rights are being eroded in the name of Christian religion the military has become a hotbed of Christian fundamentalism and a wide variety of pressure groups and politicians are constantly attempting to erode or end the constitutional separation of church and state. Advising Muslims to dial down their religiosity is something I can get behind as long as it's part of broader theophobic movement. How this is to be done isn't usually defined, but one gets the sense that what people mean is that Muslims should do what most Christians do pay nominal attention to the tenets and ceremonies of their religion but ignore all the barbaric and nonsensical stuff. So here goes.Ī common theme voiced by many people is that Muslims need to be, well, less religious, or at least less fanatical. After reading far too many opinion pieces and analyses over the last few days, I can no longer resist adding my two cents to the glittering mountain of coins that's already out there. The first side effect of the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris has been an orgy of analysis and commentary by politicians and the press, many of whom are advancing agendas ( more power to the police and secret services) or grinding axes (all Muslims are crazy mofos).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |