Reprinted from the January 2015 Post Script of Church & Life.
The terrorists who on January 7, 2015 attacked the French newspaper and grocery store have been shot; the 12-16 people who died from the shootings are laid to rest; the mourners, while still in shock, are trying to go on with their lives. Once again we are handling the afterwards, responding to violence and shootings. What is it all about other than killing innocent people? Why?
At the center of the controversy, is freedom of speech vs respecting the Muslim religion by honoring the prophet Mohammed and in addition the on-going Israeli/Muslim/Jewish conflict. The fallout is immense. We will continue to see much more violence if we don’t better understand and respond to what is happening. Freedom of speech has a long history, and has been an important cause in France since the French Revolution—for patriots it is as worth dying for as it is for radical, militant Muslims to die honoring the Prophet Mohammed.
Political Cartoons have played an active role in journalism for a very long time, and are a valuable aspect of journalism. It is unfortunate there are now fewer positions in journalism for political cartoonists; the medium is unique and expressive. Political cartoons can express deep emotion and sometimes the quintessence of a complex situation instantly. The cartoonist’s drawing pen has been known to be as mighty as a sword, and it can be just as harmful. I have seen reprints of cartoons from the early part of the last century portraying black people in unflattering, racist, even subhuman ways.
“Je Suis Charlie” means “I am Charlie,” in support of the editor of Charlie Hebdo, one of 12 murdered in the newspaper massacre for his papers’ cartoons. Should the cartoons that Charlie died for be shown on television? The internet? Do they stand for freedom of speech or do they add to the incivility which has become so much a part of culture today and needs restraining? To not circulate the cartoons can be interpreted as blaming the victim for the violence. Freedom of speech is our most important means of preventing tyranny and is protected by the first amendment of the US constitution.
NBC was one of the networks who decided not to show the cartoons; the CEO who made the final determination said he didn’t want to distress the Muslims who watched their network. I see the wisdom in that. Others believe they should be distributed widely. My husband believes they should be available if someone wants to see them (i.e. the internet) but not shown via a general broadcast.
There are other reasons for limiting the exposure. Doing so is likely to be very dangerous. We have friends, journalists, and many soldiers living in places where we don’t want them to be hated or killed just because they are perceived as “the enemy” by radical, militant Muslims.
The best argument for not showing the cartoons widely and retaining civility, respect for our neighbors whatever ethnic and religious background, is that to do otherwise is playing directly into the hands of the murderers. We are in a crisis of extremism. The cartoons unfortunately often increased racism. Protecting our freedom of speech must not be used as a rationale for encouraging hatred or descending into racism.
The motive for the deadly killings was not nearly as much to protect Mohammed’s image as it was to strengthen radical causes.—first by increasing levels of animosity and anger which strengthens the right wing politics in France and throughout the world, and next leads to an increase of recruits for ISES in Syria and Iraq. More violence and death.
All of this is reminiscent of the Danish cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard, nearly 10 years ago, causing the death of at least 139 people. The cartoon depicting Mohammed in an unfavorable light unleashed a fury throughout the world. Masses of people in the Middle East burned Danish flags in “spontaneous” demonstrations. (Where did they get all those Danish flags? It isn’t that easy to purchase a Danish flag in the U.S.A., let alone in Beirut or Damascus. They aren’t usually available where people shop.) Demonstrators were encouraged and aided in their anger, which played into the hands of extremists.
While in Denmark, I was amazed how well Muslims are now accepted there, although there are surely exceptions. In two months, I witnessed only acceptance. I heard no denigrating of Muslims or remarks about Mohammed, etc. Although not fully integrated, Danish Muslims are learning Danish (not easy), passing the Danish drivers’ tests (really not easy) and contributing to society. I asked a Danish friend about the cartoons and how the Danes felt now. “Oh, he [the cartoonist] only wanted attention. Most Danes don’t feel that way!” was the response.
Intermarriage is on the rise in France and throughout the world, a good sign. But the efforts to increase enmity between religions and races continue unabated and are far too successful. Let’s not add to it. We should have learned that in our response to 9/11—war and more war—for what purpose?
ji
PS. A Muslim police officer, Amed Merabet, was killed in the “Charlie” massacre.
Political Cartoons have played an active role in journalism for a very long time, and are a valuable aspect of journalism. It is unfortunate there are now fewer positions in journalism for political cartoonists; the medium is unique and expressive. Political cartoons can express deep emotion and sometimes the quintessence of a complex situation instantly. The cartoonist’s drawing pen has been known to be as mighty as a sword, and it can be just as harmful. I have seen reprints of cartoons from the early part of the last century portraying black people in unflattering, racist, even subhuman ways.
“Je Suis Charlie” means “I am Charlie,” in support of the editor of Charlie Hebdo, one of 12 murdered in the newspaper massacre for his papers’ cartoons. Should the cartoons that Charlie died for be shown on television? The internet? Do they stand for freedom of speech or do they add to the incivility which has become so much a part of culture today and needs restraining? To not circulate the cartoons can be interpreted as blaming the victim for the violence. Freedom of speech is our most important means of preventing tyranny and is protected by the first amendment of the US constitution.
NBC was one of the networks who decided not to show the cartoons; the CEO who made the final determination said he didn’t want to distress the Muslims who watched their network. I see the wisdom in that. Others believe they should be distributed widely. My husband believes they should be available if someone wants to see them (i.e. the internet) but not shown via a general broadcast.
There are other reasons for limiting the exposure. Doing so is likely to be very dangerous. We have friends, journalists, and many soldiers living in places where we don’t want them to be hated or killed just because they are perceived as “the enemy” by radical, militant Muslims.
The best argument for not showing the cartoons widely and retaining civility, respect for our neighbors whatever ethnic and religious background, is that to do otherwise is playing directly into the hands of the murderers. We are in a crisis of extremism. The cartoons unfortunately often increased racism. Protecting our freedom of speech must not be used as a rationale for encouraging hatred or descending into racism.
The motive for the deadly killings was not nearly as much to protect Mohammed’s image as it was to strengthen radical causes.—first by increasing levels of animosity and anger which strengthens the right wing politics in France and throughout the world, and next leads to an increase of recruits for ISES in Syria and Iraq. More violence and death.
All of this is reminiscent of the Danish cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard, nearly 10 years ago, causing the death of at least 139 people. The cartoon depicting Mohammed in an unfavorable light unleashed a fury throughout the world. Masses of people in the Middle East burned Danish flags in “spontaneous” demonstrations. (Where did they get all those Danish flags? It isn’t that easy to purchase a Danish flag in the U.S.A., let alone in Beirut or Damascus. They aren’t usually available where people shop.) Demonstrators were encouraged and aided in their anger, which played into the hands of extremists.
While in Denmark, I was amazed how well Muslims are now accepted there, although there are surely exceptions. In two months, I witnessed only acceptance. I heard no denigrating of Muslims or remarks about Mohammed, etc. Although not fully integrated, Danish Muslims are learning Danish (not easy), passing the Danish drivers’ tests (really not easy) and contributing to society. I asked a Danish friend about the cartoons and how the Danes felt now. “Oh, he [the cartoonist] only wanted attention. Most Danes don’t feel that way!” was the response.
Intermarriage is on the rise in France and throughout the world, a good sign. But the efforts to increase enmity between religions and races continue unabated and are far too successful. Let’s not add to it. We should have learned that in our response to 9/11—war and more war—for what purpose?
ji
PS. A Muslim police officer, Amed Merabet, was killed in the “Charlie” massacre.
RSS Feed