What is sacriligious?
Feb 07
All this uproar about the cartoons of Mohammed brings up a lot of tough questions. One of the toughest is deciding if it’s OK to do something sacriligious towards a religion when you’re not of that religion.
Muslims have every right to be mad at the papers who published the cartoons. They can, and probably should, engage in a boycott of those papers. But, anything beyond that is where it starts getting questionable.
To start the thought process, here’s an article that brings up an interesting point, although I don’t agree with how far it goes: We are all Danes now.
The point I like is: “Hindus don’t protest against countries that eat beef.”
Further:
- Christians haven’t burned the Isreali embassy even though Jews claim Jesus was not a god.
- Buddhists don’t bat an eye when they see people living their lives off the eightfold path.
- None of the Abrahamic religions have put a call for the assassination of the creators of South Park even though they’ve shown some pretty nasty things about Jesus.
Perhaps the above examples aren’t considered as sacriligious as showing an image of Mohammed. An interesting case to think about: what if a movie came out depicting Jesus and Moses in a situation very similar to Brokeback Mountain? How would the western religions react? I guarentee a large number of Americans would be extremely mad. But, how far would it go if that movie was produced in Germany? I’m sure people would try to organize large-scale boycotts of that film production company. Would they try to organize a boycott of anything German? I doubt it (the all-French boycott example is different, but equally stupid – it was a government decision to not vote for the Iraq war.) I’m sure no one would burn down any German embassy.
In this situation, who’s wrong? Both. I don’t think the ideal of free speech should be curtailed. But, in societies that value free speech there has always been a line of acceptability. This crossed that line, but that still doesn’t make it “wrong.” Large-audience media always has to be respectful of the views of it’s readership or face the consequence of a smaller readership. The reason South Park gets away with it is because its relatively small audience wants exactly what it’s giving.
I’m sure the non-European Muslim population that’s protesting feels somewhat powerless here because I’m sure they weren’t buying those papers anyways. But why demonize the entire country? The citizens of those countries had nothing to do with those cartoons. Should the “west” demonize the entire Muslim culture just because a very small number choose to kidnap and murder journalists? Oh wait… that already happened…
RSS
Feb 08, 2006 @ 11:18:40
Actually, South Park is not immune to this pressure.
A few months ago, South Park showed an episode which was intended to discuss alcohalism and addiction by showing how people can have the self-control to avoid overdrinking without swearing off drinking altogether. In the episode, Randy Marsh is convinced that his alcohalism is a ‘disease’, like cancer, so there’s no point in exerting self-control to change his behaviour. He gets the idea to visit a miraculous bleeding Virgin Mary statue to seek divine healing for his ‘disease’. The joke, as usual, was that the statue was bleeding out of its ass.
Catholic groups protested this episode so effectively that the network executives promised never to run that episode on Comedy Central again and never to distribute the episode via DVD or internet. The Catholics actually effectively erased the episode from existance. Except for the one stored on my TiVo. The surprising part to me was the DVD ban. DVDs are typically more racy, with unrated and deleted scenes. For Comedy Central to pull this episode from distribution entirely is a truly drastic measure.
How did it come to that? Is there a line that really shouldn’t be crossed? Or are people just looking for something to bitch about and someone to listen to them? Increasing numbers of people are angry about things out of their control and frustrated by their powerlessness. They need a reason to rally. They need a fight they can win. And they aren’t picky about what excuses they use to start that fight.
Feb 08, 2006 @ 12:20:07
Wow, I hadn’t known anything that extreme had happened to South Park.
I agree that in general people are getting more willing to take action when they hear something they don’t like. But I think part of that is related to the media spinning things way out of context.
Mar 21, 2006 @ 13:20:29
This might be a little off topic, but i’m going to delve in.
Showing the virgin mary bleeding from her ass, we can all agree, is offensive and sacriligious. How about showing the virgin mary with green skin? Probably still sacriligious.
Now when you consider her ethnicity, is it sacriligious to show the virgin mary with white skin?