DON'T LOOK now, but I think someone managed to offend Muslim extremists. As if the present incursion into Iraq, renewed military presence in the holiest of regions in Saudi Arabia, rampant pork eating, literature reading, dirty dancing, free speaking, music listening, alcohol drinking and general Western hedonism weren't enough, Muslim fundamentalists can now add cartoons to the list of things worthy of jihad. It should not surprise anyone that these impassioned lunatics found another behavior deserving of fatwa; it should, however, surprise some to know that the Bush administration has taken the side of the fundamentalists.
The story -- shockingly ridiculous as it may seem -- deserves some clarification, if only to appreciate the idiocy of this whole charade.
Most cartoons don't have casualties. Nevertheless, as one must know by now, a farcical cartoon published last September by the Jyllands-Posten paper in Denmark has created a tempest of Islamic anger that has, so far, resulted in deaths in Somalia, Afghanistan and dozens of injuries from protests in Turkey, Indonesia, Dubai, Iran, Egypt and elsewhere. Additionally, Iran's widest circulating paper, the right-wing (to put it mildly) Hamshari daily, has announced a plan to host a Holocaust cartoon contest as retaliation to the mocking depiction of the prophet Mohammad.
The not-so-clever cartoons, which depicted the Mohammad with a bomb-shaped turban, complaining about the lack of virgins in heaven due to excessive suicide bombing, was (surprise!) viewed as horrifically offensive to many Muslims. But the truly offensive part arrived with a statement given by the State Department that read, "Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian image, or of any religious belief."
I beg your pardon, but since when did satirizing religion become "unacceptable?" The authors of our Constitution considered free speech important enough to include it in the very First Amendment; therefore, one might argue that trampling it for the sake of appeasing theocratic dictators is, in fact, the most offensive act of this entire absurdity.
When Dateline NBC aired a story reporting about the hundreds of Catholic priests who rape children, the Bush administration remained conspicuously silent. Or when Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show" jokes about stereotypical Jewish cheapness or big noses, one doesn't hear the State Department issuing statements. So, pray tell, at what point does this "anti-Christian" and "anti-Semitic" behavior become "unacceptable?"
According to the Bush administration, these stories, jokes and several of my columns are "unacceptable" by decree of the government. Where does one begin explaining the criminal foolishness at work here?
First, the claim that such images are "unacceptable" is stupid enough. Unacceptable in what way? Quite obviously, the right to free speech isn't suspended when one speaks of religion. So if there isn't any legal unacceptability to speak of, then does President Bush suddenly fancy himself an art critic? Lacking any legal objection to the comic, the State Department's announcement is essentially nothing more than a glorified review of the comic and an egregious affront to free speech.
Second, only a fool would believe that the State Department actually believed the content of that ludicrous statement -- that any satire aimed toward religion hurts our collective feelings. For a bureaucracy that prides itself on "spinning" and convoluted diplomacy, its pandering was hardly concealed. Rather than defend the ideal of free speech (as Bush should have done), he relished the chance to appease the fascist tyrants of the Middle East by whimpering, "We're really upset about those cartoons too." Bush should have stammered something like, "In a free society, people will be offended. It is inevitable and should be welcomed, not feared. It shows that freedom of speech is intact and strong."
Put simply, we need to be offended. If religious groups aren't constantly affronted, someone somewhere is not doing their job. This is not to say that religion is more deserving of mocking than, say, government. Rather, offensiveness is the byproduct of free speech; when societies stop producing offensive material, free speech is almost certainly being strangulated.
President Bush's timid capitulation to murderers and tyrants is shameful. The next time a Scandinavian doodle causes a transnational scourge of violence, perhaps Bush might try retaining his principles instead of disgracefully tossing them aside, hoping not to offend anyone.
Dan Keyserling is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at dkeyserling@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | 2 days agoHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 4 days agoStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | 5 days agoWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
