Please read "The Mohammed Cartoon Controversy" (under "Pages") and review the Powerpoint printout I passed out in class. I want you to reflect deeply on these issues. Consider the cultural, political, social, and historical factors that are at play in the three crises that were discussed. Consider the arguments presented by both sides. Can you defend and challenge these arguments? What are the valid points made by both sides? Is this simply about free speech, or does this reflect a deeper divide? In your mind, how do we move forward? Can the media have a role in the solution?
Thursday, October 6, 2016
Blog #12
Please read "The Mohammed Cartoon Controversy" (under "Pages") and review the Powerpoint printout I passed out in class. I want you to reflect deeply on these issues. Consider the cultural, political, social, and historical factors that are at play in the three crises that were discussed. Consider the arguments presented by both sides. Can you defend and challenge these arguments? What are the valid points made by both sides? Is this simply about free speech, or does this reflect a deeper divide? In your mind, how do we move forward? Can the media have a role in the solution?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a very difficult subject because it’s focused on two of our greatest freedoms. Freedom of religion and free speech. Both of those are in the first article of the U.S. Constitution. I honestly don’t think there is a correct argument.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand I could see how people in the Islamic community were upset. This is a very important part of their beliefs and to have someone openly mock it is hard. I think about how I would feel if people started putting some of my most sacred beliefs in the paper. I would be upset. But I don’t think I would ever be upset enough to harm or kill the author. It also must be hard for these people because they’re living in a country where they are the minority. And the majority of the people honestly don’t care about God and religion. This may be a way for the people to act out against other injustices that they see.
On the other hand free speech is an open right for everyone. And while I don’t agree with using this to insult people’s religion it is their right to do so if they wish.
I think this issue really stands for a larger divide. Due to the refugee crisis and immigration in general many countries are being flooded with Muslim people. Places were once there may have only been a handful of Muslims who mostly stuck with themselves now have hundreds or thousands of very vocal people. Change is usually hard for people to accept and I think that may be one reason these cartoons have been coming out. Kind of as a small way to say that they aren’t welcome or that they need to change. It’s a collision of two cultures. Both are proud and unwilling to change and this leads to conflict. I believe there is a way to find a solution but I’m not quite sure what it is. Deep down I think most people know the majority of Muslims are kind and normal people like them. But with the media portraying them as terrorists, it leads to a unnecessary fear. I think the first and best solution would be to have a more fair portrayal of Muslims in the media.
This is a really hard topic, I've been thinking about it for a while, and as a relevant side-note it's trending on facebook that Southwest Airlines kicked a Muslim off one of their flights this week because he was speaking in Arab on his cell phone as he boarded or something like that. Here are my two-cents:
ReplyDeleteWe need to be careful to understand what kind of outcome we want out of the things we say and publish, and analyze what kind of outcome we think the things we are publishing could cause. I definitely think that freedom of speech and the press needs to be defended, but sometimes it's more of a matter of being a decent human being. Here's where the problem is: if they had published a bunch of comics making fun of Joseph Smith, or Jesus Christ, or Buddha, or even God, there would probably have been minimal outlash, if any at all. The real issue is that Muslims are already so worried about their public image (for good reason of course), that anything that could promote fear against Muslims or Arabs is just really unnecessary. I'm not sure, but I think had these comics depicted Mohammad in a peaceful, not dangerous light, there would've been less outrage (of course many likely would still be furious), because it wouldn't directly threaten the image that the Muslims are trying to create for themselves. It seems kind of unfair that we (the general public) judge them to be violent and hateful, but we hardly let them change that image because we keep perpetuating the images we already have. I think if media would just understand the implications and possible outcomes of what they are publishing, they could make decisions based off of just what is a good idea and what isn't. We have to uphold freedom of speech of course, but understanding that there are times when it really is better to not say or publish certain things, not because we censor them, but because we care about other people. If I were an editor during a similar situation, I would probably write a letter to the person/people who submitted the unkind things and said that while I support freedom of speech, I don't support unkind, unnecessary targeting of any one group of people, and that if they wanted it published as their own opinion, they could post it on their personal social media, or in a personal publication, but not in mine.
The heart of the controversy of Muslim portrayals in media is that of Freedom of Speech. Similar to the Simpsons, South Park is a show that overshares aspects of every culture, religion, and stereotype. When we talked about the Simpsons in our previous classes, we talked about how the writers target everyone, that they can get away with jokes because they’re not targeting a single stereotype. I feel that this is true for South Park. From the clips I’ve seen and from what I’ve heard from my friends talking about the show, I recognize that the writers of South Park continually make jokes at every stereotype whether it be Mormons or Muslims. The writers are able to do this because of Freedom of Speech. I believe that no matter how offensive to a certain party, Freedom of Speech should be upheld and not suppressed by any party, including Radical Islam. In the Larry King clip, one of the interviewees said the writers of South Park should, “know what they’re getting into,” and I agree with that. If they want to make light of a serious topic, there are always consequences however sadly, those consequences can be a threat of death in our modern society.
ReplyDeleteWe, as mormons, are constantly attacked by media stereotypes and disapproval but the answer to these media portrayals is never violence or terrorism. The way our church has dealt with this issue is by trying to reverse it with an onslaught of our own media messages sharing who we really are and I believe Muslims could do the same.
Yes, both sides have legitimate arguments and yes, it is terrible to be misunderstood by the media but the answer is never the answer that Radical Islam vies for. Once Freedom of Speech is threatened in our society for ONE religion or group of people, others will think this is an acceptable practice: to violently challenge something we don’t like to hear. This is unacceptable and potentially extremely detrimental to our media and it’s creates as well as consumers. If we censor everything in efforts to prevent contention, we live in constant fear and constant suppression.
I agree with all those who have commented so far, this is a very sensitive and difficult subject and it is hard for me to formulate a correct argument. These issues have cost journalists, cartoonists, and others their lives, so I don’t think that it is a topic that can be taken lightly. Fair warning, my thoughts are pretty scattered during this blog post and I don't know that I will ever be able to fully decipher this topic.
ReplyDeleteI remember when the Islamic terrorist group attacked Charlie Hebdo in France. I remember feeling uneasy and scared that a news publication had been attacked because the Islam religion was offended that Muhammad had been characterized in an offensive matter. As I watched the YouTube Clip from Larry King regarding the episode in which Muhammad was again characterized in this light, I kept thinking no one really knows if it was wrong or right for the creators to show this. On one hand, they poke fun at everyone, and on the other they knew it would be offensive. I don’t think the issue is about freedom of the press or freedom of religion specifically, I think it is about Muslims wanting to preserve their prophet in the most highly favored light—which they feel is their responsibility.
I think that legally speaking, the media has a right to offend, and upset whomever they want. Is it moral though? Probably not. For this blog post, we read about three instances where television and cartoons brought out riots, and violence. The media does have a role in which they are supposed to be a “mirror” and be a reflection of what is happening in the world. In the case of acting as a mirror, I don’t think the media has been a good mirror in reflecting the Islam religion. The media pokes fun at Muslims when they know that it offends them. Wrong? Probably. Against the law? No. During this assignment I kept wondering why does the media keep highlighting the Islam faith when they know it bothers them? I found this quote stated by editor-in-chief of Charlie Hebdo before he was murdered in the 2015 attack: “We have to carry on until Islam has been rendered as banal as Catholicism.” I didn’t know what banal meant before so I googled it and it means “ordinary.” All of these publications and media outlets that we read about, have all made fun of various religions, not just the Islam.They want to make it as ordinary as the rest. I understand how important the Prophet is to Muslims and especially how important his reputation is, but I do not agree that violence is the answer.
Like everyone else is saying, this is a really controversial topic so it makes it hard to discuss. With this scenario, you have two of the most highly valued human rights, the freedom of speech in the press and the freedom of religion, in direct competition with each other. Personally I think both parties are in the wrong at least a little bit.
ReplyDeleteThe freedom of speech is one of the greatest privileges that the individual or a society can experience. In free countries we have the incredible right to speak our minds and opinions freely without fear of being persecuted to the point of death for it. However, I think that because of this illusion of lack of consequences, people and the media have gotten the idea that they can say whatever they want without any consequences. While no one will legally be imprisoned or killed for their words by government agencies, there are still consequences to the words we speak. Offending others can lead to divisions in families, friends, societies and even entire countries. These divisions cause much more damage to society than people realize or like to admit. I think that the media is especially guilty of this, and they get away with it by targeting any and all groups, like South Park or the Simpsons. In my opinion its perfectly fine voice an opinion or even call out people or groups, but there is right way and a wrong way to do it. People forget to show respect to others, they forget that just because they can, doesn't mean they should.
This is the problem that the Jyllands-Posten newspaper and its artists ran into was that while they had every right to publish those cartoons, they were not respecting the religious views of Muslims. For them depictions of their prophets are banned, because it is something they hold incredibly sacred. In my opinion it was not wrong of them to draw Muhammad because they are not practicing Muslims and so do not have the same beliefs, but in where they went wrong, was in how they depicted him. Many of the cartoons were insensitive to the sacred beliefs of Islam, and so therefore disrespectful to Muslims and their religion.
On the other hand, the violent outrage that ensued on the behalf of radical Islam, was where they were wrong. Violence is never the answer, and does not lead to the respect or understanding that is desired. A great example of this is Martin Luther King Jr., he changed society completely all through non-violence. It was his most advocated point in his campaign to end segregation. He understood that violence breeds nothing but animosity and even further division among peoples and society. The violence that radical Islam employs has done nothing but alienate, divide and grow a deepening misconceived view of Islam by other cultures.
Obviously there isn't one plain and simple answer to this situation. Like mentioned before this controversy plays tug-a-war against the balance of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Muslims have been a victim of harsh stereotypes that has have been offensive towards their religion and what they stand for. As we mentioned in class, they are more similar to us then we realize but because of the media, they have been portrayed as dangerous and a threat to society. Consequently when people like the writers of South Park or the publishers for the Danish newspaper contribute content that would add to the fire, they put themselves in a direct line for backlash.
ReplyDeleteThis situation reminds me of the Westboro Baptist Church whose members would target military funerals to stand outside and protest against homosexuality and abortion. In the same sense, the church was allowed to preach through the rights given in the first amendment. Although this action was extremely disrespectful to the family members of the fallen soldier and was morally wrong, they were able to preach through freedom of speech. In the Islam's case, what the media shared about them was disrespectful. In the readings and videos it mentioned that they had asked the newspaper to remove the content but were ignored due to the protection of freedom of speech. The Muslim community then went to extreme measures of violent riots because they thought it was the last resort. Consequently, it only added evidence to the stereotypes that had started the whole thing in the first place.
In my opinion, the world isn't perfect and there will be constant tribulation against what is morally right. The media can play a large role in helping portray ways in which one should react and be respectful of one another. There are also ways to make a difference and influence others for the better. Rather than focusing solely on the negative, the media can shed light on reality and diminish certain stereotypes.
The Muhammad Cartoon controversy is one that is deep rooted and multi-faceted—just as the issue of Islam is a complicated issue as well. My first thought on the issue is compassion, as no one likes to have their religion mocked. I find it horrible that the media thinks it is ok to publish images and concepts that denounce some of Islam’s most sacred subjects. If LDS prophets, beliefs, or even temple practices were publicized in the same context that Muhammad and Islam has been I would be equally offended. The difference in this comparison, however, is the way in which the issue would be handled. I don’t believe the LDS faith would ever act out so violently—both in words and actions—against those who speak against us. However, with depictions of any kind—especially of Muhammad—as a matter of religious sacredness, I think that it is difficult to rationalize why the papers benefit from these publications.
ReplyDeleteLastly I acknowledge the role of freedom of speech in the issue, and the difficulties it brings. After reading the NY Time article that states the French paper was one that is against religions as they enter into the political realm, I greater understood—not supported—their reasoning. Islamic people do not typically live spate from religion. Their religion is a part of them and it seems absurd to separate the state from spirituality. Their religious leaders often lead politics and influence decisions of all kinds. For example, in Jordan, it is illegal to be seen eating or drinking in the streets during the Ramadan Holiday and if you are seen doing so you could be arrested on spot. That is a political enforcement to a matter that should be a religious choice. When Islamic people live out side of Muslim dominate areas, and start to increase in numbers, political leaders that support Islam quickly gain followers based on their religion and not their capabilities to hold office. It can be difficult for people that live in a society of freedom of religion—like the US or France—to understand why people would infringe on others freedoms and put in place laws that are more in favor of one religion, but it’s a difference that needs to be better understood.
Ultimately, it is a spiraling cycle and I’m not sure if there is any real answer other than respect. Respect on the part of the media to greater understand the offense that can occur with certain actions. Respect from the Muslim people on the cultures they live in. Respect for all parties to see people as people and make compromises on issues that matter most.
First of all, it's understandable for Muslims to be offended and upset by artists and TV writers' mockery of a prophet that they've held very dear and sacred for thousands of years. The prohibition of any image of Muhammad has long been a part of their belief system, and people should respect that whether or not they understand its necessity. There's no real need to poke fun at their prophet. Though I am grateful for free speech, I think that love and respect for others is often more important than being able to say whatever we want.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, as a non-Muslim in the Western hemisphere, it's also a little ridiculous that Muslims would get so offended and violent when their prophet is mocked. Like the woman who was raised Muslim was saying in the interview, other sacred things from different religions get mocked in the media all the time, and you don't really see any horrific violence come out of it like it has with Muslims. Why should their requests to be exempt from mockery be granted when no one else's are? Because they threaten to murder if we don't?
It's hard to piece together and describe exactly how I feel about this issue since I understand parts of the arguments from both sides. I guess my main opinion is that both sides have pride issues that they should work on. I definitely agree with the part of the NY Times article where White House press secretary Jay Carney said, “We don’t question the right of something like this to be published, we just question the judgment behind the decision to publish it". Same goes for what Seth McFarland was saying about the South Park episode- was it really necessary to get laughs in that way, or did they just want to upset people? Was it the most hilarious joke ever written? Either way, it's probably not worth it to deeply offend millions of people to tell it, regardless of how stupid they may think it is that they "can't". They just shouldn't.
And as for the Muslim side, I just don't see how something like a cartoon or a drawing that is only harmful in the fact that it mocks what they hold sacred, justifies murdering anyone. In my opinion, something has gone terribly terribly wrong in the minds and hearts of anyone who thinks that murder is an acceptable punishment for insulting an ancient prophet, no matter the religious background or reasoning. Protests? Sure. Outrage? Fine. Massacre? Never.
I find this argument very interesting because there are so many different perspectives, and it is hard to say that one is "right" and that one is "wrong." No matter what, violence and killing people is WRONG, and I know many Muslims who would agree. We also have to remember that not every non-Muslim in the world mocks Islam and not every Muslim reacts violently. Going back to what the woman who was raised Muslim was saying- many religions get poked fun of and nothing violent comes out of it. I think about the Book of Mormon musical and how I don't remember any members of the LDS church starting riots and killing others out of offense. They simply chose to not support that play. If someone wants to make a change or help make a movement happen, violence and massacres are not the answer- especially over something as simple as a cartoon drawing.
ReplyDeleteNow although I do not believe in or support acts of terror or violence, I also don't like it when news reporters or organizations become filthy, rude, insensitive, conflict creating jerks all in the name of "free speech." Free speech was a right created by our Forefathers to ensure that we were all treated equally as humans. In my opinion, it isn't very "human" to treat others with blatant disrespect and crudeness. So, there are times when I don't feel like using the excuse of "free speech" to justify being inhumane is exactly what our Forefathers were anticipating when they wrote that law. Just like the New York Times article was saying- just because something can be said, doesn't mean it should.
As for the media, I think that a lot of responsibility rests on their heads. I feel like the media tends to create conflict by telling stories in a sensationalized way that will turn heads and thus create traffic, and then walk away. They twist news into entertainment (which sparks emotions such as anger and rage) and then completely relieve themselves of responsibility. I would like to see the media become much more involved in telling stories the way they truly are and not for entertainment purposes. I wish the motto "If it bleeds, it leads" could be dissipated and the media could just be a vessel for knowledge rather than a vessel for sensationalism. I would like to see the media report without bias and without regard for how it may be received- just simply tell the story. I think then it wouldn't be neccasary to hide behind the "free speech" curtain at all.
It’s impossible for us to truly understand the significance of the prophet Mohammed unless take part in Islamic practices. Obviously there have been many representations and depictions of the prophet in media, yet I don’t think the people who publish them know exactly the impact they have.
ReplyDeleteInitially watching the videos and reading I could not help but think of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in France, caused by the printing of Mohammed cartoons. It makes me wonder if publishing content that may be funny or entertaining is worth putting lives at risk. What if the News Director made you print it? Would you still do it? Others may not see it as offensive. Maybe he’s depicted in a positive way. Is that still considered inappropriate?
With this conversation most members would essentially compare Mohammed to Joseph Smith. I can’t say exactly what Muslims believe about Mohammed but I understand that he is sacred to them. With that said, I think a better comparison for LDS members would be the temple. We don’t discuss what happens in the temple in the outside world. In the temple we take part in sacred ordinances. We often hear “sacred not secret” before going through the temple. How would you feel if South Park made references to the ordinances we make in the temple? Or tried to show those ordinances happening through animated television? We wouldn’t be very pleased. I’d feel violated, which is probably how many Muslims react to the public depictions of Mohammed. I personally think it’s a lack of respect for another person’s beliefs. Whatever is sacred to them should not be publically displayed, whether what’s depicted is accurate or not, it’s still disrespectful.
The effects of disrespecting the Muslim prophet are plentiful. As we’ve seen before, threats and even deaths occurred. Before the Charlie Hebdo attack happened, threats/warnings were sent to the company, yet they continued to print.
Anderson Cooper explained in the beginning of his report that everyone in America has his or her right to free speech. He added an important part, “We can say whatever we feel in our minds and in our hearts as long as it’s not threatening to someone else.” I think Muslim people probably feel their religion; specifically the sanctity of their prophet is being threatened.
In retrospect, I believe extremists might overreact. But they probably don’t think that. Their devotion could be reasoning behind attacks.
Overall, I think this is all a matter of respect. We may all have free speech but sometimes it may be better to do research before publishing anything.
This is obviously a very sensitive issue. I don't claim to understand the specific reverence that Muslims give to Mohammed, but one thing is very clear to me: the group threatening the cartoonist is radical Islam, not Islam as a whole. We too often lump both together, kind of like affiliating FLDS with our church. I feel for Islam as a whole, because if a cartoon were to depict the Savior in a joking way I might be offended as well.
ReplyDeleteHowever, violence is never the answer, and in this case I would side with the cartoonists. While I feel for Muslims who take offense to cartoons like these, I believe more in free speech and personal responsibility than I do in censorship. If something is offensive, we as human beings have the choice to turn the other cheek and not let it bother us. Making the cartoon is the creator's choice, and choosing to be offended to the point of violence is the viewer's choice.
I feel this way because while South Park's depiction of Joseph Smith is irreverent, I can choose whether or not I watch it, and whether or not I take offense to it. Taking offense at all is a personal decision, and violence is never the answer, ever.
What seems to be at the heart of this debate is freedom of speech. Everyone outside of Islam is saying basically that “anything goes” while Muslims contend that freedom of speech shouldn’t include sacred things. I found it interesting in the news clip with Anderson Cooper that freedom of speech (as defined in the U.S.) includes everything but threats or violent speech. The irony is that outraged Muslim radicals claimed that South Park creators violated freedom of speech with their depiction of Mohammed while they were the ones making veiled death threats.
ReplyDeleteWhen people of most religions see their prophets or leaders or beliefs being poked fun at in the media, most just brush it off. I think that they understand the jokes are mostly made by disbelievers who intend no serious ill-will. However, from the material I viewed, Muslims seem to take offense every time the things they consider sacred are brought up in the media. I can see the value of not pandering to one specific group in society at the expense of all others, but I can also see the value of not provoking groups who would take lives in order to attain justice. If there is a solution for finding balance, I’m not sure what it is yet. Perhaps people should not take offense so easily but also not make it easy to offend
I think that this is a very delicate subject for many people, especially since it is threatening rights. People need to be very careful with what they say and respect that everyone can practice whatever religion they want. But, if religious people really appreciate their rights to worship whomever and however they please, they must also give people the same level of rights with their publishing. People publish a lot of stupid offensive things, but it's just their opinion and the audience gets to decide whether they are offended by it. If people start to protest and try to restrict people's right just because they are offended by someone else's opinion, then slowly the government will have more restrictions on every right. We all appreciate all of our rights and since they are individual rights, there is not one correct way to practice those rights. The freedom of religion comes with a price, and that is to allow everyone else to exercise their rights.
ReplyDeleteNow, people do need to practice self-censorship and be compassionate towards other people's feelings. If a person is publishing material that could be offensive just to get other people angry and hurt is an abuse of their rights and should be regulated. How those rights should be regulated, I don't know. I don't think there is a correct way to regulate them in every situation which is why individuals have to regulate themselves. In the case of the cartoons that offended Muslim groups, I think both groups acted irrationally. South Park did not need to post those cartoons, they were not benefiting people. And the Islamic groups did not need to have an outrage. If people get offended by someone then they should suck it up and move on. Throwing a temper tantrum is only going to prove that they only appreciate rights if the rights are in their favor. Which then it wouldn't be "rights" it would be favoritism which is unfair to everyone. I think everyone needs to humble themselves down a bit, practice a little bit of consideration and these quarrels would go away.
I think that it is definitely about more than just free speech, given that both sides have done things they know would bring anger and contention, while also violating their own principles. For example, the various news outlets that allowed for the cartoons to be published, as well as South Park’s episode depicting Mohammed in a bear suit were intentional and seen as threatening to Muslims. On the other side of things, many radical Islamists took to violence, which is a clear violation of their own principles not to damage other’s property or to be violent towards others. That being said, both thought they were acting within their own rights and doing the best to make progress. I also think both are at fault. I would like to cite a scripture from the Book of Mormon that I believe holds a deep insight into what has happened. Alma 43:30 states “And he also knowing that it was the only desire of the Nephites to preserve their lands, and their liberty, and their church, therefore he thought it no sin that he should defend them by stratagem.” It’s important to note, however, that one side believes they are fighting for liberty and the other for their church – two good causes. The solution I believe is when Moroni says “…it was the ONLY DESIRE of the Nephites to… fight for their land, liberty, and families. I would argue that both sides not only had desires that exceeded solely defending their liberty and their church, but that those desires were poisonous and destructive – and the root cause of all the outrage that followed.
ReplyDeleteSome of those desires (on the free speech side) were:
1 – Trying to make the Islamic religion look foolish for adhering to strict rules pertaining to the Prophet Mohammed
2 – Incite Islamophobia and present Muslims and Islam in a negative light
3 – Use stereotypes to demean the other party
Desires of the Muslims (who were violent and non-cooperative) – not all Muslims:
1 – Retaliate in violence to those who violated Muslim law, even though that violence went in opposition to basic Muslim teachings, and even though the acts were committed in countries that criticize all religions
2 – impose their point of view on others
3 – expect submission of their religious principles on other people of different cultures
*To move forward requires both sides to rethink their desires, and seek peace and understanding, as well as tolerance, as opposed to immediate submission. The media can help by communicating points of view of both sides in a clearer way, so that there is greater understanding of the issues.
I feel rather inclined to come down on the side of free speech. I'm never one for supporting 'hate-speech' bans and I am of the strong position that people have a right to offend, and those who are offended may offend back or counter their ideological opponents in a peaceful manner, without ever having to resort to violence. Speech in and of itself is not a violent thing. Only the reactions to one's speech may be violent.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, part of our problem (in my mind) with dealing with Islam is "Orientalism," or the otherization of these cultures. We tend to describe them in an abstract way and see them as exotic cultures with completely different motivations than our own. It is through our own willing behavior that we treat these cultures as alien, and I think this contributes heavily to the problem. I'm currently taking a class in Middle Eastern studies, and one of the topics we have begun to discuss is the problem in speaking on similar cultural terms. In the past we have had problems (moreso during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) where when we try to work alongside local authorities, we end up having to turn a blind eye to behavior we would not find acceptable in our own culture, because they hold to the claim that "you don't know our culture, only we do, and we can deal with it better than you can when you try to understand and fail in the process." To a degree, perhaps they are right, though when it comes to abusive activity, punishments and suppression of free speech, they take an approach that we cannot endorse in our own line of cultural thinking (again, I'm speaking from our involvement in middle eastern wars). As with my mention of otherizing behavior, I think that because we treat these people as so foreign, we end up not only mistreating them culturally, but creating a dichotomy where they can be seen as different from ourselves and therefore justified in their behavior. The truth of the matter is, the people of this culture are as human as we are. We in western culture get offended at plenty, and at times when something truly sacred to us is defaced, we get violent. I've seen plenty of videos of 'patriotic' Americans throwing fists at protesters burning an American flag. The common theme between this behavior and the behavior of violence in reaction to sacrilegious depictions of Muhammad comes from statistical outliers reacting passionately to human emotions. I'm sure the average patriotic American isn't going to start a violent fight when someone speaks disrespectfully of our flag, and I believe the average Muslim will likewise, not engage in violence despite their offense. However, because of our otherizing behavior, we have created a mindset where this different culture is both an alien evil and justified in its behavior based on the assumption that their culture is so different as to allow it. I believe offensive people can continue to offend, and should have a right to do so. I also believe that the path to resolving the issue of a violent reaction is to stop "otherizing" and seeing these people as exotic and instead focus on the fact that they are more similar than we realize. In turn, we may just create an atmosphere where violence is less easily condoned and while some provocateurs create problems, our overall cultural practice can be more inclusive and welcoming and able to create a peaceful and sympathetic atmosphere.
As I was scanning through the PowerPoints, I noticed how much the depictions of Islamic culture has changed from century to century. The art forms were informative. There still could have been a hidden message that was untruthful or inaccurate of the Islamic culture, but it was somewhat respectful. Today, our depictions of other cultures are cheap entertainment. People today have shot attention spans. So, the media produces things that catch the eye. Releasing images, film and cartoons that are inaccurate, but eye catching is popular in today’s culture. It’s more sacrilegious and disrespectful. This is why I don’t support the media 100% when they say they have the right of free speech. While that is true, I think they’re just using free speech as a cover-up for entertainment that sells to the public.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I liked what the co-creator of family guy said about the cartoon. At what point is the risk worth the humor? The risk here is the insensitive nature of the cartoon. I do agree that revealing a truth about something shouldn’t be limited by political correctness, but I do believe things should not be generalized or stereotyped. For those making the cartoon, they said the purpose was to challenge sensors. But they’re going about it in the wrong way, I think.
Although I dislike the tone of the cartoon, it should not leave room for violent or threatening reactions. Both sides are wrong when it comes to this issue. As someone said before, two freedoms are being challenged here—speech and religion. I have deep respect for our freedoms, but I believe both sides are stretching these rights. This is where I think they crossed the line. I also think the cartoon is wrong, but I don’t think it crossed the line as much. For example, a threat is a harmful act and shouldn’t be glorified as exercising freedom of speech.
Although I understand the importance of the freedoms for speech and press, I believe that individuals still need to be respectful of others. Individuals should be comfortable in their environments and not become vulnerable by other individuals' actions or media displays. Sometimes, the agenda for media should be reviewed to protect groups of interest. Media should not have the goal to offend or be inappropriate with certain situations. Media should act as a medium to understanding the world and learning about other cultures in accurate terms.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, individuals need to understand that the media is ignorant about certain religious procedures. We cannot take serious offense from their actions. South Park has not only made fun of Muslims, but many other religions as well such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. Different individuals handle offense in different ways. The LDS church finds humor in working to turn the media into good publicity. An example of this is "The Book of Mormon" musical in New York. The church has taken different actions to turn the play into a light hearted joke. Unfortunately, the Muslim remarks in South Park have caused threats and hatred to come forth. We need to understand that these cartoons do not take a serious nature.
In making fun of religion in comedy, I think that it is hard for individuals to recognize how far is too far. There is a thin line determining what is right and wrong in media. Unfortunately, we see media sources straddling the line on these issues. These problems are not just for bold American media outlets, but they are issues around the whole world. In various countries, we see controversy in media. These controversies are especially prevalent in Europe. In Middle Eastern countries, these media statements would be cause for death so one can see high regulation of certain media statements. In countries where freedom of speech are, media is much more open minded.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLike everyone has said, I agree that this is a very hard thing to judge. Who is to say that one side is right and the other side is wrong? It is simple: sometimes laws conflict; in this case it the Freedom of Speech vs. Freedom of Religion. It is nothing new either, think of how even the eternal laws of the universe sometimes conflict such as the law of justice versus the law mercy. Because of this confliction, Christ had to be sent to the earth to pay the price for our sins so that we could receive mercy. Another example that I can think of is from the Book of Mormon when Nephi had to kill Laban even though it was clearly against the law.
ReplyDeleteSo where do we draw the line when there is a conflict? America is based on so many wonderful rights and privileges but are there points when one law is more right than the other?
With this controversy, both sides were technically expressing their freedoms given to them. I think when trying to protect our rights becomes violent, that is where the line must be drawn. That being said, shows like "South Park" should create lines for themselves for going to far. I think that it is funny when stereotypes are made fun of through the media, but not to the point where sacred information and rituals become a joke to the writers. I feel that these shows, though they are known for a particular type of humor, have an ethical and moral responsibility to protect others.
Just a side note: There is a comment above about how Mormons have been persecuted in the past but never reverted to violence. However, that is not true. Have you ever heard of the mountain meadows massacre? This was when Mormons took it into their own hands to kill a bunch of emigrants that were supposed to be travelling west. It was devastating and Mormons were not innocent.
Even if the other side of the issue is at fault, there is never an excuse for violence where innocent lives are at stake.
Although I agree people should be careful and smart about what they say, I do NOT think it's right to try and CONTROL what is said. So when someone says things are simply black and white when it comes to violence and speech freedoms, it is an easy, yet blind way of the gray cognitive dissonance. I think it is very clear that issues run much deeper than issues of speech and expression. There are varying cultures, religions, and even laws accross the world that should be respected.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Smith taught to "Teach men correct principles and let them govern themselves." Unfortunately, many do not govern themselves properly (largely in part to the attack of family units, gender roles, and religion). Nevertheless, this should never be cause to try and control what people can and cant say (as so many big governments have attempted and still attempt to do). Otherwise, we, as latterday saints wouldn't be able to express our faith or bring the gospel to others as we do. "The pen is [still] mightier than the sword."
I agree with one of the comments above that says it is our reactions that are violent, not the words themselves. Jesus, who knew perfectly who He was, may have had more "reason" than anyone else in the history of the world to take offense at what others said and did to him. Nevertheless, he recognized the principle of agency, and chose the harder right, of not attempting to control that agency. Rather, He attempted to persuade through use of "the pen."
On violence, in response to the side note above:
Because of this basic human right that good people of the world have always understood, there are times when violence IS needed -- NOT as a reaction to others words/opinions-- but as a means of protecting freedom. Think of our founding fathers in the American Revolution! Think about Captain Moroni, or even the sons of Helaman that knew it was more important to fight for the freedom of their family than to avoid contention and violence simply because of the carnage and destruction it brings. I think the scriptures are clear that violence is justifiable when freedom is being taken away. However, when there is violence for the gain of power, or to satisfy pride (attempt to heal the wound of offense), or to take away that freedom of others, this is not justifiable.
Myself included, I believe we often are a bit too ignorantly judgmental when it comes to such issues, wishing, like we see so often in media and stories, that things were simply black and white, so we can settle the conflicting messages in our minds. Overall, I think there is needed a deeper look into what is really happening, and then trust the daily counsel of the spirit and our prophets.
I can see both sides -- There is a need for both religious freedom and respect as well as a need for free speech and expression. It seems that this issue falls between the grey spaces of the law and it is up to us a humans to act in a way that benefits the world community.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, these Danish cartoonists find it their duty to use their right of free speech to create insensitive and degrading content -- content that in the end makes large populations of people feel uncomfortable, and in the end, unwelcome in the community. I feel like there should be some kind of restriction to the creation of content that has profound negative effects to religious people.
Take hate speech laws for example. Hate speech is defined as "gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it incites violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group."
While these insensitive cartoons may not encourage violence, it certainly communicates a distaste towards to a specific group of people. I am not sure how these laws will be enabled -- the only real solution I can see is for people to be sensitive towards others and there beliefs. The law should find a way to encourage this sensitivity while still allowing free expression.
This topic is extremely difficult for me to tackle. As I watched the many videos, I felt differently in each one. My first thought goes to our previous blog when we discussed how Muslim culture is portrayed in the media. There were comedians poking fun at themselves, their culture, and current social issues facing them. I felt that media was causing some of these biases and it was a problem.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this issue of freedom of speech/press vs. freedom of religion is an extremely tricky one. I instantly think of the offensive videos, TV shows, and cartoons that portray LDS culture and it’s leaders. I think of the play “Book of Mormon” and it’s ruthless humor/criticism of our beliefs and story. However, the biggest difference is the reaction of our religion and the reaction of the Muslim extremists in many of these stories. I remember a flyer specifically published by The Church that they would hand out after the play that said something to the effect of “Now that you’ve seen the play, it’s time to read the book!” and gave the recipient a way to contact the missionaries; a great example of using the negative humorous depiction and turning into a positive opportunity.
I am in no way condoning hurtful comments or media portrayals of religion, race, gender, etc. However, it is the reaction of the Muslim community that is dictating what is ok to say and write and what is not. I think it is the laws and freedoms that should dictate what is ok, not the reactions of others. The comedian Penn Jillette surprised me when he said that nothing touching Islam should be free game because it isn’t safe. It seems that fear is the strongest motivator here.
Going forward, I don’t see a simple resolution. Bottom line, I think from my own upbringing and moral compass, that we should always be sensitive of others beliefs and not condone the ridicule of anyone. However, I also see the potential consequence of severely limiting the freedom of speech/press. I think as an LDS person it’s up to us to react in a Christ-like way and turn these incidents into positive opportunities.