Politics in Media - The Good, the Bad, and the Preachy

I'm fine with people protesting the Charlie Hebdo drawings for their racism, but I think the idea that shooting them up over it was both an ethically acceptable response and also good praxis was a bit much. Just to be clear, I'm not saying anyone here is defending that, but I remember it being a huge component of the Charlie Hebdo discourse on Tumblr at the time.

It also didn't help that the Charlie Hebdo attackers were linked to an act of violent anti-Semitism that went on at the same time so no, they were not the virtuous freedom fighters and martyrs defending the honor of their Muslim brethren of color that they were being painted as, they were nasty bigots in their own right.

Edited by AlleyOop on Jun 7th 2023 at 12:11:57 PM

Oh yeah, of course. But it is also true that people used that as an excuse to be disgustingly racist.

True but it's worth pointing out that ANY depiction of Mohammed is a big no-no.

the rule over the depiction of their prophet applies (and should only be applicable) to the followers of their religion and nobody else.This rule however been forcefully applied people outside their religion by extremists

That's the issue and what most people take issues with.

Edited by Ultimatum on Jun 7th 2023 at 8:44:54 PM

Even worse, they're framing the Conquistadors as coming to stop religious sacrifice.

It's such a vile 180 that I can't help but wonder if they were always going to do this and are just using the racist criticisms as an excuse.

I'd say a good metaphor for it is that it's like using a gesture in another culture that's equivalent to flipping them off, like the "V" sign.

A non-Muslim drawing Mohammed is like an American flashing a "v" at a British person, knowing full well what that means. It shouldn't be done.

Especially since there aren't many reasons to do so that aren't douchey.

Now, there's a measured response to this, shooting people who do it is unjust. But just because a transgression provokes an overreaction doesn't mean it isn't one.

This comparison does not work.

Shooting someone the "V" sign is an insult, it is calculated to offend and can only do so. The meaning of doing so inherently adversarial.

By contrast drawing Muhammad is no more inherently an insult then eating bacon in-front of a Muslim is. Can it be done as an insult? Sure, just like you can be an asshole and eat bacon in an Islamophobic way. But that doesn't mean the act itself is hostile. Muhammad is a historical figure, if someone wants to depict him then that should be permitted. The problem are the Muslims who expect non-Muslims to follow their religious laws, not the people who choose not to obey a faith they don't subscribe to.

I am not sure it is an equivalent. Muhammad is a significant historical figure as well as a religious figure. He is a lot more than just some culture specific gesture. I would think there could be plenty of reasons for drawings or portrayals of him even among and by non muslims.

Edited by xyzt on Jun 7th 2023 at 1:46:00 PM

But the two examples we were discussing on this thread are of the insult without cause variety.

It is not like we are talking about an encyclopedia drawing the prophet for educational purposes.

So I will argue that @ Protagonist 506 comparison is valid.

Yeah, the portrayals brought up specifically right now are not at issue. They were intended as insulting.

What's at issue is that any depiction, not just the ones being talked about, is considered wrong, even if the people doing it aren't followers of the branches of islam that are aniconic (as several branches are fine with icons!)

Which is among the most ridiculous things I've ever heard and it's very weird that so many people take it at face value.

It's sort of like saying you're not allowed to bury your dead out of respect to zoroastrians. Yeah, sure, it wouldn't hurt anyone to not bury your dead and do zoroastrian funeral rites, but you're still probably going to do that if you're not a zoroastrian and don't do cremations.

My understanding, Muslims consider creating an image of Mohammed to be an insult. Correct me if I'm wrong.

So I would say that generally you shouldn't do it.

Even in something like the Encyclopedia example, I'd argue that you shouldn't, because there isn't really that much value to the picture being there and you've been implicitly asked not to by a very large and already rather disadvantaged group of people.

I dunno, it just seems like the polite thing to do.

I will please ask you to employ the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment, there are over a billion Muslims, with the majority believing the prophet should not be depicted, even if YOU find it "ridiculous"

Anyway, since you agree that the examples we talked about are an insult, I feel we are going off-topic, maybe people should go to the religion and mythology thread to express their opinion of Islam.

I'm not insulting the muslims who believe it, I'm questioning all the non-muslims who try to adhere to a distinctly muslim practice. And it's not even all branches of islam anyway, so why should I be expected to make allowances for the popular branches but not for the less popular ones?

It's like not eating pork because it's against someone else's religion, as was brought up earlier. Sure, it's possible to eat it in an insulting way, but the mere existence of pork consumption is not an insult. Therefore, the mere existence of a depiction of a famous historical figure should not be an insult.

I don't see what there being one billion of anything has to do with it.

This is actually a question of politics in media. Why do so many ostensibly secular media works adhere to religious standards in specifically this case, but then depict jesus even though some branches of christianity are aniconic? It can't be a question of "it might go against someone's religion" alone, for that reason.

This is an interesting question.

Well, according to Wikipedia it's a Sunni / Shia split, with Sunni believing all particularly important religious figures shouldn't be depicted, but Muhammad in particular, while Shia don't care and commonly do so.

> This is actually a question of politics in media. Why do so many ostensibly secular media works adhere to religious standards in specifically this case, but then depict jesus even though some branches of christianity are aniconic? It can't be a question of "it might go against someone's religion" alone, for that reason.

because those branches of Christianity are considered 'fringe' and generally not considered worth listening to,mainstream Christianity loves to spam the image of Christ everywhere

The difference here is the mainstream Islam has the opposite belief in regards to depicting their Prophet

There are two questions here:

1-Why should you, a non-Muslim who -presumably-don't live in an Islamic country, not draw the prophet in a magazine as an animal, just for the LOL?.

2- Why should you, a non-Muslim who -presumably-don't live in an Islamic country, not draw the prophet if it is for innocent purposes like the encyclopedia example, or depict him in a movie or a documentary?

Legally speaking, if you live in a western country, you are by law entitled to do both of the above.

Now morally, this is another matter, I expect you not to do No 1 because it offends people.

The same way I, a non-German who does not live in Germany won't do the Nazi salute, or again I, a non-American who does not live in America won't use the N-word when talking to an African American.

It is not important if there is no law forcing me or if I don't believe it is a big deal, people find it offensive so why should I go out of my way to offend them?

So long story short and quoting this site poetic expression, the argument for not doing No 1 is: don't be a d......

Now, for No 2 I am more ambivalent, I have no problem personally in reading an encyclopedia with Muhammed image on it, but Muslims find it insulting.

So I guess with No 2 the question is: What is the benefit of drawing the prophet? And does it outwit the offense it will cause to people?

Is there a good argument in favor of No 2 except for "who cares if they get offended, First amendment losers"?

Edited by jawal on Jun 7th 2023 at 10:52:09 AM

So where's the number/percentage of people where it becomes appropriate to comply with their religious laws/not offend them?

I don't have a number,but what I do know is that when you're talking about a large, organized religion with plenty of followers is does'nt hurt to at least be respectiveful,not depicting their prophet is no big ask all things considered

Edited by Ultimatum on Jun 7th 2023 at 12:09:04 PM

Okay. Several large nations have outlawed homosexuality and consider any representation of it deeply offensive (as, in fact, do some religions). Is the creation and broadcast of Will & Grace immoral?

Edited by ECD on Jun 7th 2023 at 4:25:56 AM

Of course not,but they obviously can't market the show to countries where such a program would be offensive

Comparing those two things is deeply offensive.

"Please don't depict Mohammed" and "gay people shouldn't exist" are not even remotely the fucking same thing. The first one is easy. And it doesn't meaningfully infringe on your rights at all. The second one involves declaring that a group of people shouldn't exist. And one is not a fucking slippery slope to the other.

Also, I'm going to state that the rebuttal to my shinto thing was deeply stupid. Yes, there used to be a class of untouchables in Japanese culture because they worked with blood. That's not a thing anymore and if you protest that aspect of the culture by spraying a shrine with blood, you're just being offensive and you're not making any point, for trying to make a statement about a thing that the Japanese already fixed and got rid of. It's like going to China and screaming about foot binding. Yes, it was a horrific and awful practice. It's also not done anymore.

Edited by Zendervai on Jun 7th 2023 at 7:33:51 AM

the difference here is that no one is affected by people not deciding to depict Muhammad. People are hurt by the outlawing of homosexuality.

Or to put in other words depicting Muhammad is inherently Islamophobic, just as banning homosexuality is inherently homophobic.

Also, this isn't a fringe cult like Scientology or Happy Science. It is one of the three most prominent Abrahamic religions in the world!

Edited by MorningStar1337 on Jun 7th 2023 at 4:34:46 AM

And doing that "but how many people need to believe a thing for it to matter" thing is just pure whataboutism. Because when you get down to it, that question boils down to "so, how small does a religion or culture need to be for me to be able to stomp on it."

I mean, it was in response to, 'it's wrong because it offends many people' [not a direct quote]. I'd argue that's the viewpoint that allows stomping on the opinions of small groups.

ETA: I mean, I know the President of Hamline agrees with you, but CAIR sure doesn't (https://www.cair.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/1_13_2023-CAIR-Statement-on-Islamophobia-and-Hamline-University.docx.pdf ).

ETA 2: To be clearer, the point I'm trying to make is that it's not some principled opposition to giving offense, it's that some forms of giving offense are viewed as reasonable and some are not. I happen to agree that including homosexuality in media cannot be reasonably viewed as offensive. I happen to disagree that including Muhammed as a character in a cartoon is reasonably viewed as offensive, absent some further information. And, I will also say, yes, art, especially deliberately transgressive art, often directly attempts to offend or shock and that is an acceptable, if often offensive thing for it to do.

Edited by ECD on Jun 7th 2023 at 4:47:25 AM

You mostly just need to be able to be wise about it. Not depicting Mohammed or not using a racial or ableist slur or whatever? That's not a meaningful infringement. And, to be honest, I really do see it about on that level. It's a simple thing that you can avoid to show a base level of respect that in no meaningful way infringes on your freedom.