Let me try to chop up the whole Danish Cartoon affair into bitesize pieces. Part one of 2 today examining the cartoons themselves, part two of 2 examining everything else tomorrow (I hope).
The Cartoons.
They get lumped together, but there are twelve different ones of varying quality and content that were published. Most of them are simple depictions of the prophet Muhammed or poke fun at the commisioning of the cartoons themselves. Only 4 have political messages and could be considered offensive beyond just depicting the prophet in and of itself. And considering the level of discourse in the media today, the level of criticism is pretty mild. They all suffer from the problems of any single pane cartoon - they are essentially soundbites or slogans, and not a fully developed argument.
I've found essentially 3 objections to the cartoons, the first being that the commisioning itself was wrong because it would be knowingly provocative, would produce racist or anti-religious work, and had no news value. The problem is that if you think political cartoons do have merit (which by and large I don't), then it would make sense to commission them on a topic that is undercovered and provocative.
The second is that any depiction of the prophet is offensive to Moslems and therefore should be avoided. I think there is some merit in this -- and to explore it personally I need to substitute my own religions symbols and think about that case. But I also think you have to look at why there is this taboo on the depiction of the prophet Muhammed and that is to prevent the false worship of him. It seems to me that by having such a rigid taboo without the appreciation of why it leads to the very thing that it seeks to avoid in the first place. The prophet is placed on a level that no other person is allowed, and his person with Islam itself.
Perhaps my blase response to the cartoons is that I'm used to seeing critical cartoons of Jesus (who by the way isn't just a man but God when comparing what believers of both religions believe). Vengeance is mine saith the Lord, so my response as a Christian is to worry about the critic's soul, not their punishment.
The third is that by using the prophet in a political cartoon, the religion itself is attacked, and not the believers. IOW it's one thing to say that there are a few wild eyed crazy terrorsts who happen to be moslems, but another to say that Islam turns its adherents into wild eyed crazy terrorists. While this is a distinction about the point of the cartoons, I don't see it as making a real difference in the response. Why is one worse than the other? And aren't political cartoonists free to criticize a religion as well as particular adherents?
The Fake Cartoons
In addition to the twelve cartoons that were actually printed in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, three cartoons (here, here, and here (which as you can see are of a much insulting nature) were added by certain Danish Imams when they circulated them in Arab countries. The Imams declared that the cartoons were the work of Danes even though they hadn't been published with the others. It now appears that they have pulled a Dan Rather and have been caught peddling phonies.
The first photo is what the Imams claimed was a Danish cartoon, the second an AP photo of the winner of a French pig squealing contest discovered by who else, a blogger.
No doubt the defense will be the same, fake but accurate.
I have no idea if the imams were duped or if they made the cartoons themselves, but my BS detector votes for them being deliberate hoaxers. The only thing that argues against them drawing the fakes is this fact, pointed out by Paul Belian (linked above):
Denmark is being punished at the instigation of radical imams because twelve cartoonists have depicted Muhammad. However, these imams created their own three Muhammad images. They have even presented a French clown as being Muhammad. Because the twelve JP cartoonists are not Muslims, the Muslim blasphemy laws do not apply to them. But these laws do apply to the imams. Consequently, these imams deserve death. They – and no-one else – depicted the prophet as a pig – the highest imaginable insult in Islam.
I'd have to believe they would commit such a blasphemy. Again, I have no idea, but it is as far as I can see the only fact that argues against the imams drawing them themselves.
So the response we are seeing isn't to just what was published, and given the contents of the fake cartoons, the response isn't to what was published at all, but to fake cartoons either made up or provided to radical Danish imams who then circulated them in several Arab countries.
Those are the facts. I hope to get to implications and speculations tomorrow.
