Isn't the Opus Cartoon That the Washington Post Refused to Run Quite Tame?

Here's a link to the Opus cartoon that the Washington Post and some other papers refused to run. Also, the Washington Post archive for the strip does have this strip, as well as past ones.

The Post is of course entitled to run or not run whatever cartoons it prefers. Still, we're equally entitled to discuss and, when sensible, criticize its editorial judgment. And it seems to be an odd judgment here. An Editor & Publisher column reports that managers at the Washington Post Writers Group give two possible reasons: "a sex joke a little stronger than we normally see" and that some papers "won't publish any Muslim-related humor, whether pro or con." Yet the sex joke seems quite tame — as best I can tell, it's that Steve Dallas "won't be getting" sex from the girlfriend who converted to being a "radical Islamist." And the reference to Islam seems quite tame, too.

And this is what troubles me: If I'm right that few papers — especially the Washington Post, which isn't exactly in one of the nation's most sexually reticent markets — would normally be put off simply by a mild sexual reference, then we really do have a situation where any humor about Islam (or at least any humor that might be seen as mildly pejorative, or that involves any sexual references, however mild) is off the table. We've gone beyond the position that papers ought to, as a matter of editorial judgment and respect for readers' sensibilities, avoid depictions of Mohammed. Whatever one might say about such a judgment (and a similar judgment about other religions, for instance one that excludes jokes at the expense of the Virgin Mary or some such), at least it would have a pretty narrow effect. Not so if the test is "won't publish any Muslim-related humor, whether pro or con," or even if the test is "won't publish any humor that relates to radical Muslim sexual behavior": That would substantially limit humorous commentary on Islam, on Muslims, and on Muslim practices.

As those who like to stress the importance of accommodating world Islam in various ways point out, there are a billion Muslims out there. But that cuts both ways: A faith that is this important in the world is an important subject of discussion, both in traditional academic and political debate and in that part of social debate that happens through humor and even the comics.

I stress that I'm not speaking about legal rules; as I've argued before, cartoons that depict Mohammed should be as constitutionally protected as other cartoons, and newspaper decisions to reject whatever cartoons they want to reject should be constitutionally protected, too. But if I'm right in my analysis above, then it looks like certain media outlets are establishing or reinforcing a social norm that immunizes Islam and Muslims from a certain kind of commentary. And we as readers and writers should try to fight such a social norm, by criticizing those who are acting on it.

Finally, if I'm mistaken about the tameness of the sexual reference in this cartoon, please do let me know. On the other hand, if you can support this judgment by pointing (a URL would be great) to cartoons that the Washington Post has run that include similar sexual references — or, better yet, include similar sexual references in a context that refers to religion (say, evangelical Christianity) — then please pass those along as well.

Comments

[Advocate123]

Can anyone imagine what would happen if there were an analogous cartoon about Jesus? The Washington Post would have no problem posting it.

The reason? Christians would not threaten violence.

However, the truth is that Muslims threaten violence and it is no longer safe for people to criticize them.

Might makes Right.

Advocate123
http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com

[GKJames]

Isn't the underlying principle whether it's funny, as in depicting something fundamentally truthful? Cartoons with Mohammed's turban in the shape of a bomb is objectionable first and foremost because it is lame and doesn't deserve an audience because of that. The Opus cartoon, on the other hand, is clever, subtle, and truthful on various levels, both about political fads and relationships. By not getting that, the Post, ironically enough, draws a cartoonish, one-dimensional inference about people who happen to be Muslim.

[disgustedcitizen]

For crying out loud, what in the hell is wrong with that cartoon? The WaPo has more sexually explicit articles in their Style section.

Once again, I am reminded why I canceled my subscription three years ago.

[bbarner]

Aren't you overlooking the Amish nudist angle?

[UltraClassic]

It's quite simple Eugene, radical islamists will kill you if you P them off. Other groups won't. That's why it's open season on conservative christians but it's hands off on islamists.

Don't get me wrong, right wing christians need to be exposed for what they are but so should islamists. The difference? One group lies, manipulates and controls. The other group will simply kill you, deader than a door nail.

[Brennial]

Christian fundamentalists shoot doctors who perform abortions and blow up clinics and gay bars. Don't assume that because evangelicals as a block support the right-leaning American media (which gets them better press than their muslim counterparts) that the christian fringe any less dangerous or scary.

[UltraClassic]

Bren, what you say is true but it is a matter of degree. If you ran an art gallery, would you rather display "piss christ" or a cartoon that islamists object to?

With out a doubt, right wing religious goof balls could and would be as dangerous as islamists if they had the will. But an abortion clinic bombing does not equal a 9/11.

I still say it is a matter for fear. Publishers fear islamists, they do not fear right wing religious goof balls in the U.S.

[LittleBrother]

As I noted elsewhere in response to someone who characterized the "controversial" aspect as a "blatant sexual reference":

The reference was implicit, not explicit; double-entrendre means just that! One has to read between the lines. True, your average adolescent could get the joke without much trouble, but that hardly makes it "blatant".

(In contrast, consider Al Capp's voluptuous and scantily clad Daisy Mae Yokum, and her Dogpatch sisters, who graced the G-rated Sunday funnies for decades without complaints, as far as I know.)

The censorship was based on overweening fear of Muslim backlash.

[ohdem]

As a long-time fan of Bloom County and Opus, I find this tame and funny. You have to see this as part of the cartoon world Breathed has created for his characters, not as an isolated one-off intended to offend.

[Lon]

It would be interesting to know on what grounds the Post chose not to run it. The funnies page still does have a reputation for child friendliness, and I would be interested to see if there are other cartoons that have run that are less essentially about sex.

For TV clearly this is tame to the point of being clean. But it may well be vulgar for the comics pages.

I do agree that there is nothing in the cartoon of a political nature that should get it banished, and that if this was out of muslim sensibilities it seems to be going a bit far.

Children are less likely to be going through the comics archives, so its presence there actually fits with the sexual explanation.

[BeyondPopper]

Labels, labels, stupid labels that mean nothing and control our lives.

One thing we should be telling the editors of the Post and every other paper in American is that there is no such thing as a Muslim.

Because there are so many sects and sub-sects and nationalities and categories that call themselves Muslim and agree on nothing.

I couldn't even list the types of Muslims in the world without going over the word count limit.

A Javanese Muslim is not like a Sundanese Muslim, and that's just in one country.

We talk about Sunni vs. Shi'a, but what about Sevener Shi'a vs. Twelver Shi'a?

Can you even list the five largest Muslim countries in the world? Can you guess how many of them are Arab?

Thus, I laugh when reading about people talking about "respect" for Islam, when they haven't the faintest notion of what they're talking about.

Labels, though, make life easier. Easy to fit in the headlines. And that's all that counts.