Protected nonsense
Apparently this is the result of "careful consideration" by our university students today:
The reasoning for this?
A university newspaper in Canada is defending its publishing of a cartoon showing Jesus and Muhammad kissing, saying it's not "an act of hate."
"The decision to print the cartoon was carefully considered in an effort to advocate tolerance," Brian Clow, president of the Victoria University Students' Association said.
As Brian Clow is a member of the Young Liberals Club, I can see where he gets his ideas of "tolerance". If we don't tolerate having a same-sex agenda shoved down our throats, we're socially backwards in some way.
But hey, I don't think Brian Clow needs to have his head removed from his body because we disagree. And if certain Muslims think this Catholic is going to make common cause with them because the same people insulted both of our religions, they are going to be sorely disappointed.
Maybe it's a sign of my confidence and faith that I don't flip out whenever someone insults the Church, the Pope, Jesus, or what have you. Whether it's screaming for blood or asking for a hate-crime investigation -- it infringes on Brian Clow's God-given right to be jerk. Who am I to get in his way?
The corollary is to wonder about the confidence and faith of those who do become unglued, whatever their religion. Those who cry out for death whenever they see others not following their rules are those who, deep down, know that given a real choice, no one would willingly follow their rules, at least the way they've implemented them.
Now here's the kicker.
Deeper down, these same people know that they wish they didn't have to follow these rules. And that fundamental lack of faith is what drives them mad. At least that's what I think.
If you are interested in the thoughts of the people who put out this cartoon, go read the blog. Despite what I said, these people are actually aiming for more lofty goals than merely annoying everybody:
We aim to reclaim the language of liberty from its enemies on the left and the right: those who would bind liberal societies in the poisoned chains of identity politics and moral relativism, and those who would impose the false freedom of a society in which the market is the only source of value. We believe that personal freedom must be protected by political institutions, and that an unreasonable threat to personal freedom is a threat that must be met with any sacrifice.
However, we are not survivalist troglodytes or libertarian anarchists. We believe that personal individual freedom can be maintained only by living with a sense of civic responsibility, compassion, and moral justice.
Actually, there is lot about what these people stand for that I can get behind. I think, though, that their message might be drowned out in the uproar. Purposeful controversy is a tricky thing to manage, as we've all seen.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Steve I think the cartoon is hilarious.
I’d rather draw the pope chasing after a little boy with a lollipop myself!
But then I don’t go for ritualistic acts of cannibalism every Sunday like you do, or believe that everything the pope farts is sacred.
Posted by: Nick the Dick at February 21, 2006 08:46 AM
Perhaps Brian Clow would tell us why he has the face of Jesus Christ showing, while Mohammed's back is to us??
Posted by: MikeP at February 21, 2006 10:08 AM
Well, I think the cartoon is in poor taste, but fortunately I can't find my whetstone becasue fighting the traffic into Toronto is often a chore.
I did find it interesting that the cartoon is drawn in such a way as to not show Mohammad's face. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the prohibition about depicting Mohammed was not that you couldn't draw him, but that you couldn't draw his face. If that's the case, this cartoon misses the point of the Danish cartoons debacle completely. Odd how they would capitulate on not portraying the visage, but imply the prophet has homosexual tendencies by drawing him kissing a man.
The longer I look at this cartoon, the more I think I miss the point they're trying to make, because they missed the point they're trying to make.
Posted by: whiteotter at February 21, 2006 10:13 AM
You've chosen an apt pseudonym, Nick the Dick.
Posted by: rick mcginnis at February 21, 2006 10:15 AM
Ach - MikeP, you beat me to it.
Posted by: whiteotter at February 21, 2006 10:15 AM
I guess while I have something to say Rick McGinnis and whiteotter have nothing to add.
Do you have a substantive criticism or comment?
If not you two seem like mental midgets to me.
Posted by: Nick the Dick at February 21, 2006 10:49 AM
Nick, I felt I had made my points, but perhaps if you could get a mental midget to read it to you slowly, you might see that I use subtlety.
In plainer language (for Nick's benefit)...
1) The cartoon is in bad taste, but I don't need to kill anyone over it.
2) The illustrator claims tolerance by not drawing Mohammed's face (an offence in Islam) but insults them by implying he's gay (an offence in Islam)
3) The cartoon's intent is self-defeating, and therefore pointless.
I realise that mental powerhouses like yourself prefer the 'Pope farts' level of discourse. I feel no urge to debate you on that plain, as you would no doubt trounce me with experience. Please don't be insulted by my decision to ignore you forthwith, until you decide to slum with the rest of us trogdolytes who must rely on reason in debate.
Posted by: whiteotter at February 21, 2006 11:54 AM
Nick, what you have to say is very telling.
It must be nice to be so simply amused. I bet you watch Scooby-doo.
The cartoon is just plain dumb.
Posted by: Gargoyle at February 21, 2006 12:27 PM
"The corollary is to wonder about the confidence and faith of those who do become unglued, whatever their religion. Those who cry out for death whenever they see others not following their rules are those who, deep down, know that given a real choice, no one would willingly follow their rules, at least the way they've implemented them."
Steve, though I disagree with the violent response many Muslims chose, I can't help but understand it -- and I think this is not quite fair. (What interest we have in being fair to those who will not be fair to us is a valid question; but then, some would answer it's precisely *because* others do not meet our standards that we must strive all the harder to meet our own.)
Let me ask you this, Steve: Pick the person who means the most to you in your life. Your wife, your kids, your parents, whoever. Now imagine that in a bar you overhear a colleague or acquaintance of theirs telling the most horrible lies about them, slandering their character, laughing at them, belittling them, flippantly dismissing anything good about them as mere accident or fluke, openly stating that the things they do -- which mean so much to them -- are foolishness and stupidity....
I don't know about you, but in that situation, I would certainly feel rage. And that rage has absolutely nothing to do with fear that this person might be "right" about what he's mocking, or envy that this person is "free" to wallow in something I, in a moment of irritation or weakness, might briefly have wished I could do myself.
It has to do with simply one fact: What we love and revere becomes part of us -- and so when it is attacked, *we* are attacked. And rage is the instinctive human response to attack.
What separates Rage the Instinct from Wrath the Mortal Sin is simply this: Are you controlling it, or letting it control you? Are you using it to drive your response, or letting it choose your response? Are you using it as a tool to resist evil, or an excuse to inflict evil? And are you using it as an excuse not to forgive others their choices, even as you resist the execution of the actions resulting from those choices?
To suggest that the only reason your opponent is angry is because he knows you're right may not always be inaccurate... but it does reduce the debate to the level of the schoolyard somewhat. Perhaps this argument's due to wind up there anyway, but I'd rather resist that slide than assist it.
Posted by: Stephen J. at February 21, 2006 12:34 PM
What happened to Jesus the last time he was kissed by someone before he was crucified. He was sold out as a hereitic. And why is Jesus' face shown and not mohamids? Jesus was a master at sarcasm and what the rioting terrorists do not understand from the cartoon is that the cartoon makes fun of them and NOT mohamid and by extension muslims.. It is completely and utterly sarcastic to show the "peacefull" prophet with a bomb on his head. It would be the same as showing jesus with an M-16 assault rifle. Talking about rightwing arian nation terrorists. Mohamid and his teachings promote NON-violence so therefore the rioting bombing burning terroists are NOT muslims nor are they following the faith. Now it is upto the REAL followers of islam to condemn the violence, condemn the terrorists, to do EVERYTHING posssible to promote the real teachings of mohamid. It is because of the lack of condemnation of terrorism that people of the world are continuing to equate islam with terrorism. Unfortunately the REAL muslims have to take up the fight against these radicals to prevent themselves from being lumped in with them.
Posted by: ROB at February 21, 2006 01:29 PM
Call Mr. Insensitive but....
Maybe we could add Abraham to the cartoon and make it a threesome. That way Jews won't be offended.
Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 21, 2006 01:47 PM
How do we know the guy in the turban is Mohammad? lots of guys where turbans over there - quite the dashing fashion statement - Couldn't it be some other guy?
The point being that Jesus loves all the children of god. Irregardless of their hats.
Posted by: Curtis at February 21, 2006 03:21 PM
I wonder what the lefty libs would do if one of their gods were ever mocked?
Imagine a cartoon of Michael Moore reaching orgasm because his Haliburton shares doubled in value...
or
Oprah finally admitting the reason she is so smart is that she is, in reality, a man...
Somehow, I don't think the lefty libs would think twice about burning down the cartoonist's home...with him in it.
accidentwaitingtohappen
Posted by: accidentwaitingtohappen at February 21, 2006 04:32 PM
accidentwaitingtohappen...Do you even know what it means to be a lefty Liberal.
We consider mocking a form of humour not to be taken seriously and would never burn down a cartoonist's house.
The only thing we burn down is right-wing bigotry and hypocrisy.
Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 21, 2006 04:54 PM
Now now. There is plenty of hypocrisy in both wings.
I dont think that the lefties, would burn down a cartoonists house over any cartoon. - at least not anymore - The union types might during a strike.
Posted by: Curtis at February 21, 2006 05:15 PM
jeeze... I thought it was a drawing of two lesbians kissing.
Must be suffering from ssm sturation.
Posted by: eastern paul at February 21, 2006 09:13 PM
Nick/Dick - I don't have to say much. You just set yourself to typing and you do my job so well; judging from the tone of your comments, you're a snarky, unlikeable 17-year-old at a mid-level private school with an unearned sense of superiority and a vicious case of spots. Please, by all means, post some more and deepen this character sketch.
Posted by: rick mcginnis at February 22, 2006 09:34 AM
Perhaps Brian Clow would tell us why he has the face of Jesus Christ showing, while Mohammed's back is to us??
Mo's a bit shy and he has an erection. Jesus is quite a kisser.
Posted by: That Golem at February 22, 2006 10:15 AM
Perhaps, the picture should stick to the facts. Just show Mo' raping his nine-year-old wife, Aisha.
Posted by: That Golem at February 22, 2006 10:37 AM
Personally, I think the cartoon is funny. I don't think it suggests in any way that Jesus and Mohammed are gay, as most intelligent people (whether religious or not, Christian or not) know full well that neither man was gay.
If anything, I think the cartoon is a plea for tolerance and understanding, and it used humour and unexpected imagery to get its point across.
As for the Danish cartoons, I've seen them, and yes, some are borderline offensive to adherents of Islam. But not all. One the cartoons (which shows Mohammed turning away from Paradise a long line of shredded, smoking suicide bombers) is a simple case of "well, if the shoe fits, wear it."
Sometimes you have to set aside your moral and religious tenets to see things more clearly.
Posted by: Steve at February 22, 2006 11:37 AM
I think this is a really 'smart' cartoon with a clear message of let's kiss, make-up & be friends again.
Now how can anyone, even with the slightest sense of humour, belonging to any religious group, possibly be offended by this cartoon's message?
Posted by: JM at February 22, 2006 12:15 PM
After reading this, I now know why Steve is considered one of the best!
Posted by: sherwood baker at February 22, 2006 04:12 PM
 
|
|
