The Washington Post ombudsman, Deborah Howell, investigates the reasons the Post and other papers refused to run two recent installments of Berke Breathed's "Opus" comic strip. The purported justification was that the strips could be offensive to Muslims. Yet as Howell discovers, it does not seem that Muslims were offended.
Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a civil rights and advocacy group, wasn't offended. " 'Opus' poked fun at the strip's characters, not Muslims or Islam. I see hundreds worse on the Internet every day," he said.
Akbar Ahmed, chair of Islamic studies at American University, also wasn't offended. He said there is a strong Muslim tradition of satire and self-deprecation. "I think there is a danger of us becoming so politically correct that we end up by blunting the critics' bent and the satirists' wit. Muslims need to be sensitive to the fact that in Western culture there is a healthy tradition of not taking things too seriously."
Related Posts (on one page):
it's about time, as far as I'm concerned. If any religion can't laugh at itself, or can't withstand criticism, then it certainly isn't a religion worth adherring to.
Artistic depictions of ALLAH such as the one below should subject the artist to hate crime prosecution:
HI--I'M ALLAH, CHUMP!
**
<
--
This standard is inherintly problematic because it doesn't correct for the extreme statistical bias it induces. Probably most reporters and editors at the post are christian or jewish so when they run things that poke fun at these religions they just query themselves or their (socially liberal) big city friends in the next cubicle and so end up running things that might even be fairly offensive to a socially conservative rural christian.
On the other hand when it comes to articles that might upset muslisms the muslims they aren't drawing from a population that is so heavily skewed towards the tolerant end of the spectrum as the christians and jews they query. Worse they probably overlook the particularly tolernat muslims they know because these are probably also the ones who don't bother praying five times a day or otherwise behave in a way that lets people know they are muslims. Now some people might not call these people muslims but they are as much muslims as many of the jews and christians at a big paper are members of their faith.
Fundamentally this isn't a problem with the Post but with societies standard for discussion of religious topics. Unlike other topics where the person taking offense , while perhaps catered to, is viewed as the one in the wrong it is the person who says something religiously offensive who is seen as being in the wrong. We need to treat statements about religion the same as statements about any other strongly held belief. We certainly need to stop letting groups define what counts as offensive statements about their own practices.
The only explanation that fits the facts is that the editor was afraid of an uproar that might pose some danger to him or his staff--perhaps a prudent, but certainly a cowardly reaction for a newspaperman.
Perhaps the editor should see if he could enter a convent.
i strongly doubt they have ever done this with stuff (that might be) offensive to christians, jews, republicans, etc.
again, its the double standard that's ridiculous.
as truepath said above: they just query themselves or their (socially liberal) big city friends in the next cubicle. so yes, they do consult someone of the religion before they print it.
As for the "republican" example, when was the last time a republican asked a democrat if something was offensive before saying it? almost none of the conservative pundits would have a job if they had to. but that's a great double standard you have there.
cmon. stop being disingenuous. they consulted (their conception of) representative muslims in regards to Opus.
clearly, they didn't do the same when they referenced piss-christ, etc.
nobody doubts the nyt and their ilk have a very biased view. here, though, they go behind it. they consult a community to avoid offense, but ONLY the muslim community
PERSONALLY, i have no problem with them being offensive, if they wouldn't do so hypocritically, by only offending when they know it will give them cred among leftists AND won't get them killed
that's hardly courageous
*i* don't have a double standard. i LIKE to read offensive stuff because it challenges me. that's why i read democratic underground, etc.
what i am saying is that the NYT is selectively offensive - offensive when it costs them nothing, brings them cheers from their leftist readership, and doesn't put them at any risk whatsoever
offend christians AND muslims AND jews AND liberals AND conservatives and you are deserving of a respect that the NYT does not currently deserve
or just admit you are an organ of the left.
and of course, after giving a 120k discount to moveon.org for their ad, i am SURE they do the same for the minutemen for example (rolls eyes)
cmon. stop being disingenuous. you clearly did not read the article linked in the original post.
from the article: He consulted with other editors, one of whom talked to a Muslim staff member, who believed the strip was problematic. (emphasis mine)
they did exactly as was described above...which is the same thing they do for everything else. just because the staff member they found has a thinner skin that other christian or jewish staff members doesn't make this a double standard.
the quotes from CAIR and ahmed did not come until after the face.
PERSONALLY, i have no problem with them being offensive, if they wouldn't do so hypocritically, by only offending when they know it will give them cred among leftists AND won't get them killed
it sure seems like you have a problem with it. (and i'll note that there was absolutely no indication that they feared physical violence...so you have a problem with facts too.)
They were preening for the rest of the liberal PC crowd. I doubt they care any more for CAIR or Mulsims than they do for Christians or Jews. But, sensitivity to minority sensitivities has a long history of exploitation.
Are people really so afraid of Muslim jihadist types? Why is it that people like Michelle Malkin, Joseph Farah, Sam Harris and David Horowitz don't have fatwahs on their heads? How come Presidential candidates can suggest the nuking of Mecca and not fear for their safety? The fear of Islamic crackpots seems to be a bit exagerrated, if you ask me.
With this blatant difference in treatment, it's hard to credit your theory about the double standard arising from an accident.
Really? no one has been telling muslims that they need to suck it up and deal with it? You are joking right?
Ha!
Because who gets the fatwa, among the people who offend, is totally random. There were other people who made cartoons as offensive as the Danish ones (or the Opus ones); it's just that the Danish ones were the ones some fanatics actually got ahold of.
Must be those brilliant "progressives" at work again.
The double standard is so blatant that it seems a little Twilight-Zone that anyone has to point it out. Is there some mysterious alien influence going on so that we are actually reading different columns?