For those of you not familiar with a recent art controversy in Colorado, a museum in Loveland exhibited a lithograph containing a picture of Jesus imposed on a female body with a man performing oral sex on the same figure. People were outraged claiming a double standard. Many were arguing the lithograph was pornographic. Some were claiming it was anti-Christian. But many were contending a publicly-funded museum should not exhibit the art at taxpayer expense. A few claimed it was art, and even if objectionable or reprehensible, should be displayed.
The lithograph was eventually destroyed by a crowbar-wielding truck driver from Montana. She walked in late one afternoon and took the crowbar to the Plexiglas container and ripped apart the lithograph. Some cheered, some guffawed, others thought she went too far.
But no one has expressed any outrage at the following story. Let me start that outrage now.
I am an avid reader of newspapers, including the Washington Post, the Denver Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and even your local newspaper if I'm in your town. Comics? I always read the comics.
Last Sunday I downloaded the electronic version of the Denver Post, including the comics. I read through everything as usual. Something was missing, but I didn't realize it until today. The Washington Post alerted me to what was missing with this screaming headline:
Where Was The "Where's Muhammed?" Cartoon?
Political correctness has now run amok. Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Shinto, Atheists, Agnostics, Jews, and members of the Church of Body Piercing should be outraged.
According to the Washington Post's ombudsman:
"Non Sequitur" is a popular comic that runs daily in about 800 newspapers, including this one. But the "Non Sequitur" cartoon that appeared in last Sunday's Post was not the one creator Wiley Miller drew for that day.Editors at The Post and many other papers pulled the cartoon and replaced it with one that had appeared previously. They were concerned it might offend and provoke some Post readers, especially Muslims.
Miller is known for social satire. But at first glance, the single-panel cartoon he drew for last Sunday seems benign. It is a bucolic scene imitating the best-selling children's book "Where's Waldo?" A grassy park is jammed with activity. Animals frolic. Children buy ice cream. Adults stroll and sunbathe. A caption reads: "Where's Muhammad?"...
What is clever about last Sunday's "Where's Muhammad?" comic is that the prophet does not appear in it.
You can see the benign cartoon that did not appear in either the Washington Post or the Denver Post, and, perhaps, your local newspaper here and below:
Are you offended? If you're Muslim, are you offended? Frankly, I'm offended. I'm offended the Washington Post and Denver Post are afraid someone might be offended by such a benign cartoon simply because it asks, "where's Muhammad" when Muhammad doesn't even appear in the cartoon. That's the point of the cartoon, you editorial weasels.
So Jesus appears in a bottle of urine by one artist and we're told to accept it as art. Christ appears receiving oral sex in a lithograph in Loveland, Colorado, and we're told to be tolerant. But let a cartoonist ask "Where's Muhammad" and the politically correct editors, fearful of the radicals who behead those who dare make fun of Muhammad are frightened into rejecting the cartoon.
I don't like, nor appreciate, art that depicts Christ in urine, or receiving oral sex. But I accept it as a consequence of free speech. Frankly, I fear living in a country without free speech, where government bureaucrats or elites determine what is proper speech, more than I fear Muslims who might be offended by this cartoon.
So, I am proud to offer you, the readers of this blog, a chance to see speech hidden, censored and feared by the editors of the Washington Post, Denver Post and perhaps your newspaper.
Read it, relish it, hate it, love it. I don't care. But at least accept that freedom of speech in this country is under attack, and not just by liberals, haters or others, but by the press itself.
God save the United States of America from itself.
Follow Michael D. Brown on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mikebrowntoday
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elayne-boosler/you-didnt-hear-the-one-ab_b_750131.html
As usual, you're late.
She completely didn't think of it. As he was crying, refusing to let her put his shoes on, she picked him up, put him in his playpen (that he hasn't used in months) and said to him "when you stop crying and want your shoes on, let me know, until then, you are staying in there." At first he cried more and then she repeated "do you want to come out and cooperate, and put your shoes on?" A light bulb went on in his head. He shook his head yes, stopped crying and then allowed his mother to put his shoes on. She has since done this time out, a few other times and you know what
The little guy is learning that HE is in control of himself. That he can stop his tantrums, that he can cooperate, that he is not a slave to his irrational feelings. And you know what? He's happier!
The take away is he has learned that he is in charge of himself and his actions. Instead of giving into radical Islam, lets help them learn self control. The one thing a cartoon does is reveals quite openly the extremists among us!
and everyone is happier.
We HAVE to stop taking the bait. We HAVE to stop backing down. The west has brought this "child" onto it's soil...and now we have to help this "child" to value our higher ideals and mature. And yes, freedom of speech, to think, to question - is the hallmark of a society with higher ideals! If you don't believe me - just look to the countries that jails dissent, and denials - such as China, Korea, Burma, Egypt, Iran,the EU etc etc etc...would you want to live there?
It's a slippery slope..
Why be discourteous to these "adult" Muslims as well?
Your delusions are more ridiculous than theirs.
Does anyone have a count or at least a sample of newspapers running the cartoon before we get all huffy about this?
"Frankly, I fear living in a country without free speech, where government bureaucrats or elites determine what is proper speech, more than I fear Muslims who might be offended by this cartoon."
DITTO!!!!!
Instead of US retreating to a more ancient, soo 16th century, fear based reaction...why INSTEAD don't we ask Islam to join us in the 21st Century!?
If radicals become extreme: We did not cause that
If they make death threats: We did not cause that
If they kill, in the name of their religion of peace: We did not cause that.
No one causes anyone else to ACT as they do. People are either grown up and take responsibility for their actions, or they don't.
Any amount of blame, or hiding behind their religious beliefs - DOES NOT excuse -their behaviors. Religions don't make people DO stuff, others don't make people DO stuff, people, all by themselves - choose to act in barbaric ways all by themselves.
Now, if we are to assume that intellectually they are incapable of using their self-control and are easily manipulated - then alas -we EDUCATE exactly BY NOT BACKING DOWN. By NOT throwing away OUR maturity, our comprehension, our rights!
We ask that they join us, but we should NEVER ever lower our standards to that lowest common denominator, or the world -yes, the world- will be lost.
What are you talking about? Yusuf Islam is nicely living in the 21st century! He is even producing good music these days! :-)
I think a starting point would be when the US stops bombing or invading their lands. Maybe then the moderates can say "See? They don't mean us harm!"
I agree, we do keep bombing the Muslim world, and it's obviously not good; but I secretly think it has more to do with a proxy war for oil and resources, than about Islam or "the middle east."
Jihad against cartoonists, or Koran burners is NOT about our wars - otherwise there would be a continuous Fatwa on our heads all the time. This is specifically about how some in Islam interpret their "bible" and then justify their actions...Most likely this would be taking place regardless if we stopped our war, or not. Don't you think? It's the cartoon - remember - not the war.
It's all quite convoluted -regardless -to be sure!
Whatever happened to mutul respect and common courtesies?
I am aware of corporations adopting mutual respect policies where the employees are expected to treat each other courteously and with respect. People don't go around posting pictures or cartoons that are disrespectful to other employees.
So why can't a nation adopt and adhere to such policies and good practices?
The newspapers made a calculation that the unfunny cartoon was attacking a religious group that is already under attack in the USA. They want to make money - that's what being in a "business" is all about.
Why must we all be disrespectful and discourteous to each other?
Economy? Well, humanity is fully capable of finding other means. But I acknowledge the irony presented in your post.
The reality is the so called archtypical courageous newspaper editor and critics are straw dogs and have been for years. They only attack those who will not or choose not to fight back. Make fun of Christanty and Jews you see angry letter or statement in retailation. Insult Islam and the gloves come off Miafia style. Just ask the European atist and critics in hiding or surrounded with security. fearful of being murdered on the "mean" streets. We all now our crusading newspapers are nothing more than pretenders.
What cartoons in the USA "make fun of Jews"?
If God existed, I'd get him in court for breach of contract, intent to defraud, and back taxes.
The works of Robert Mapplethorpe and, um, whoever in Loveland are about as relevant to mainstream culture as the iconoclastic doodlings of goth teens. (Actually, less so, because so many of those end up being tattoos.)
Nonetheless: since we're willing to take a joke, why can't they? Never mind the violence that followed the publication of the Danish Mohammed cartoons--if we don't publish this installment of Non Sequitur the terrorists have won!
Why don't you just kick back and enjoy some Family Circus? Hey, it got you through Katrina, didn't it?
My point is that it's infantile to suggest that since we didn't behead Andres Serrano (which, touche, is the scandal I meant to reference), flippant Mohammed cartoons should be fair game.