I "Googled" and "Alta-Vista-ed" the phrase "Jesus Cartoon" this morning and found that there were quite a few to choose from. Most were from Christian sites, some from anti-Christian sites, some were whimsical, some were coarse and degrading, many were from European sites (mostly German with cartoon dialogues that defied translation by Babel Fish). There were even political cartoons from American newspapers.
When I was finished I checked for "Muhammed Cartoon" and found . . . nothing. Google and Alta Vista have apparently blocked access to the many Muhammed cartoon caricature that are everywhere on the internet these days. Even the newsworthy Danish cartoons that kicked off the current Islamist riots have been censored by these search engines.
I am sooooo glad that these internet gateways have no problems guiding me to all the pornography I (don't) want to find but are thoughtful enough (or scared of having their throats cut) to protect me from finding the images that have set off major international rioting.
A search for "Piss Christ", however, delivered over 45 "hits" (just of the image itself) on Google and 31 on Alta Vista. Go figure. Sure.
Apparently images of Jesus, no matter how demeaning or insulting, do not create a threat of rioting, burning down an embassy, boycotting a nation or beheading somebody. Clearly, the American news media are not afraid of Christians.
Edited: [!--GH--]
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Clearly, the American news media are not afraid of Christians.
They're not afraid of Jews either, BoP. Besides this, I have no other comment.
2 - diana hartman
there is no justification for the violence...there is, however, an explanation...
neither jews nor christians possess in their religious tenets anything that prohibits imagery of their respective deities...
it is not "just a cartoon" to the islam world, it is in fact a violation of their religious tenet...it is also a violation of a religious tenet in a part of the world where "free speech" is not written into the culture as it is in the states...
yes, it's a ridiculous tenet...yes, the reaction is above and beyond an inappropriate level of rage and anger…and yes, it defies resolution...
and just as ridiculous, inappropriate, and defiant is the non-muslim expectation that the muslim world would have or should have reacted any differently than it has…
the only thing that defies both justification and explanation is why the rest of the world is surprised by the muslim reaction…
3 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Diana writes,
"neither jews nor christians possess in their religious tenets anything that prohibits imagery of their respective deities...
Ex. 20:4 "You shall not make for yourselves an idol, and picture of that which is in the sky above, or that which is upon the land below, or in the waters below the land."
This is interpreted by our rabbis to mean no pictures of things that could be worshipped, but also to mean no pictures of the divinity Himself.
The Arabs got their ideas of not depicting things that could be worshipped from us.
4 - or
Searching Google Images I did find reference to the Muhammed Danish cartoons; in fact, the image is the second result.
5 - diana hartman
"The Arabs got their ideas of not depicting things that could be worshipped from us."
i stand corrected...
why do jews tolerate it when other peoples depict their deity and why have jews not substantiated muslim concerns about the images? i'm not asking why jews don't kill and destroy...
6 - Bryan McKay
You have clearly learned nothing throughout this whole debacle. Perhaps more people used the controversy as an opportunity to learn a thing or two, we wouldn't be seeing posts like this.
The same could be said for the other side too, of course. The Muslim community should use this as an opportunity to open dialogues with the Christian and secular worlds. There could have been an opportunity for real cross-cultural communication.
Instead you choose to be snarky and smugly superior about your religion. Good work.
7 - Phillip Winn
What's to learn, Bryan? Can you summarize? 'Cause honestly, I'm stretching to think of anything beyond "some folks are crazy-violent."
8 - Andy Marsh
There's that BS logic that it's all our fault...what's to learn Bryan? That if you hurt a muslims feelings it results in chaos around the world? Every one of the assholes that was involved in the rioting from the mullahs that incited them, to the people involved need to be dipped in pig blood and burned at the stake! That's what I learned! Maybe you'll share your insight and tell us all what YOU learned from this bullshit...
9 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Bryan, go through the other articles dealing with this issue, particularly this one. Scroll through the comments, particularly mine towards a French lawyer named Hisham. Then tell me about not extending the hand of peace. Then tell me about not opening a dialogue.
All I've done is to point out that we Jews do have a ban on picturing the Divinity and that Islam, a younger religion, got the idea from us. You appear to have trouble with that.
10 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Diana at #5.
Consider how often Jews have been in a position of power to tell others what to do.
It's just not in our nature to riot and destroy when a boycott might do just as well. And how many countries do we own that we can riot in anyway?
11 - gazelle
Bird:
Did you find any Muslim artists drawing cartoons of Jesus (or Moses). Most likely not (although there might be a few exceptions).
Because the same restriction re drawing Mohammad or god, out of reverence, applies to other prophets such as Jesus (Isa) and Moses (Moosa) and the rest. So this is fairly consistent - ethos and "Iconoclasm". And not about free speech or mindless chatter.
It is enough to understand why and what they were - oral culture : imagination
Rather than what they looked like - the obsession of a visual culture. Photography of esp ordinary people was, and is still avoided by a tiny group!
It is enough to have oral teaching, symbols and writing.
This muslims share with Jews and some Christians (Nestorians, and also Buddhist 'aniconism' in the stupas, not Buddha)
I think the reason why Jews for instance 'have not substantiated concerns' is that this is just not "news" - it is odd. The dust kicked up is not in sympathy unfortunately. :)
I would guess concerns such as these, may be part of editorial decisions in the US papers which mostly decided not to print - wise decision.
12 - diana hartman
ruvy, again, i wasn't asking why jews don't engage in violent behavior, i was asking why you think jews are relatively silent on the issue of imagery when, as you've said, muslims got the tenet from jews...
"Consider how often Jews have been in a position of power to tell others what to do."
helplessness (or power for that matter) are not genetic...no one is doomed to silence no matter their history, especially an entire people vs one person...
13 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Diana,
Part of the qanswer is powerlessness. Another part of the answer is that Jews focus this prohibition on idol making, and a prohibition of displaying the Divinity.
I don't mean to be impolite, but many of us would consider Catholicism, at the very least, to be idolatry, with its myeriads of statues, saints, and depictions thereof. But a Jew living in Ireland will view it as smart to keep his mouth shut about the matter, lest a gang of toughs suddenly remember how much fun it is to beat up sheenies. That, unfortunately, is how Jews think.
14 - Bird of Paradise
#4 I just re-Googled "Muhammad danish cartoon" (using Google's recommended spelling of Muhammed) and found three depictions (our of 1940 hits)of the Muhammed with the bomb turban cartoon. The were on page 5, 10 and (curiously)the third only popped up on the abridged list. I'll be interested to see if they are still there in a couple of days. Considering the thousands of postings of the cartoons on the internet (including FoxNews) isn't it interesting that only three show up? And none did yesterday? I think that proves my point.
#11 Gazelle, I sort of agree with your comment. I am aware of this but that was not the point of my post. I have a post on my website US Media's Double-Standard (or Should I Say Hypocrisy) Concerning Muhammed Cartoons
that contains a letter I sent to the Honolulu Advertiser pointing out their ignorance or hypocrasy in printing anit-semetic photos from Associated Press while saying that they did not post photos of the Danish cartoons because of "respect for the religious beliefs of others." AP cited the same reasons for not reproducing the cartoons but seems to have no problem reproducing anti-semetic photos.
15 - Ahmad
I am a Muslim and it pains me to see the extent to which the so called Christian Civilsation has degraded Jesus and Moses.
16 - FatAllah
Ahmad,
The 'so called christian-civilisation' did not give birth to any form of Jihad's or world-wide disruption. I'm a christian and have been for the past 64 years (guess my age?) and i've seen the pain these religious debates have caused.
Comedians almost always go and bag our religious figures from Jesus to the pope and priests etc, yet we're 'Civilised' enough to not get carried away with it. You folks always need something to stirr the pot of hatred to go smash a few things and burn a few flags... well mate, I'll give you, your dog (spell backwards) and your religon the finger and continue living like in the good old days.
17 - Aaman
Funny, the first link on the Google search you mention is to wikipedia, that has more than enough examples of the images, as well as repositories of them
18 - Richard Brodie
gazelle: I would guess concerns such as these, may be part of editorial decisions in the US papers which mostly decided not to print - wise decision.
Stupid and cowardly decision.
It is enough to understand why and what they were - oral culture : imagination
So what if, in Islam or some other orally-based religion, not only were visual IMAGES proscribed, but also any visual WRITING of some religious figures name was considered offensively blasphemous?
Would you also then commend these spineless, milquetoast "news"papers for refusing to ever allow the NAME of M------d to appear in print on their pages? And if not, on what principled basis would you draw the line between these two two types of information communication modes.
Also, would you advocate caving in to comply with a religion's demand to censor in accordance with the dictates of its beliefs, only if they were:
a. sufficiently numerous; and/or
b. sufficiently violent?
19 - Bird of Paradise
Aaman, My references to Googling were, specifically, to Google Images. I apologize for not being more specific in my post or in my commnent. It is the images that I find missing on Google and alta Vista.
20 - gazelle
Bird,
I read the letter you linked in #14. While the hypocracy is there. similar issues, "offensive", are not dealt with uniformly.
In my view however making fun of jews is as bad as making fun of muslims - this is done everywhere.
but making fun of a prophet takes it to another level. while christians and jews of various temeratures may joke about jesus moses others, muslims, on occasion, but rather rarely do too joke about jesus, moses or mohammad, but in good hearty humour, which is not disrespectful of these persons.
The outrage is obviously something else - a political issue - both global and domestic.
21 - gazelle
Brodie:
as you know there isn't complete consensus on not having images of muhammad, the man - there are portraits by muslims. but most follow the consensus.
As for god, no man or image or form can represent god, except the name or attribute.
writing of names is not restricted - writing by its very nature is not a direct, but an indirect way of representing something, and in the special case of 'names' may carry or completely symbolize what is being referred to - such as allah.
otoh a picture, a person, or statue, or any 'thing' cannot share in this, because it is argued that these are incapable of conveying the full meaning and also then begin to share in the qualities of the almighty - which is not possible - no god but god.
I have no objection myself to the printing of the cartoons in newspapers. Its their (editors) decision - i was trying to ascertain on what bases these desisions were being made - with what motivations, and which political environments.
however not printing the cartoons is better in order to pursue more meaningful ways of engaging minority communities and religions by building 'trust'...and becoming familiar.
pressure politics, by numbers or violence is just politics. I dont like either. but these are considerations for newspapers.
i have the pics on my own site and i make fun of them. but the linkages between Daniel Pipes, Flemming Rose and Danish People's Party convince me that this is a relatively coordinated, deliberate effort to inflame - "to make moderate muslims speak up against the extremists" - as they put it. That i find deeply erroneous judgement, belligerent, hate-mongering.
I think it successfully alienates not only all muslims but everyone who disapproves of neocon tactics and the huntington thesis. so this way most people are safe! (despite the terror!)
Without even seeing the cartoons, the political dimension of these are immediately obvious to the crowd. For me, both the inciter and the incited are to blame.
this is a cloud of dust that need settling.
you would be surprised to know that even Rushdie does not say that Islam is against free speech. It is particular environments. particular brands of islam adn particular people. he says
best
22 - Richard Brodie
gazelle: as you know there isn't complete consensus on not having images of muhammad, the man - there are portraits by muslims. but most follow the consensus.
So if most muslims believe that there should be no images of Mohammed, with or without bombturbans, then ANY published image of Mohammed should cause riots, right?
But wait. What constititutes an image of Mohammed? If someone draws just any old Arab-looking man and captions it as a picture of Mohammed, does that make it a picture of Mohammed worthy of rioting over. No, you say? Because maybe it really DOESN'T resemble Mohammed? Well, duh!@ How could we possibly know whether such a concocted "portrait" looks anywhere near what Mohammed the Prophet (pbuh) actually looked like. There were no cameras in the 7th Century. And if they didn't believe in making representations of ANY humans, let alone the prophet himself, then no artist could have captured his features. Conclusion? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PRODUCE A PICTURE OF MOHAMMED!!!
As for god, no man or image or form can represent god, except the name or attribute.
That may be your belief, and the belief of some religions. But it is not mine. I believe that God is my literal Father in Heaven - an exalted man whom you could take a photograph of should He appear in front of your camera.
writing of names is not restricted
For the purposes of my question, it doesn't matter whether Islam permits this or not. I asked you:
So what if, in Islam OR SOME OTHER orally-based religion, not only were visual IMAGES proscribed, but also any visual WRITING of some religious figure's name was considered offensively blasphemous?
This would be just as important to them as the pictorial image is to a Muslim. The point being that the civilized Western ideal of Free Expression cannot and WILL NEVER be compromised to restrict what we can portray using pictures, anymore than it would cave in to censoring what we allow to be expressed using letters and written words - in order to placate some religion or another REGARDLESS of how many thousands, millions, or billions of adherents it might claim to have.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND, NOW?
23 - gazelle
You are mistaken when you think you are talking about free speech, when actually you are not.
If there is an event of insult or blasphemy to a group of people, then one has deal with the consequences.
If muslims (and others) are upset about intended or unintended insult of their most revered figure, one has to deal with the consequences.
If jews (and others) are upset about someone denying the holocaust (incurred by european "whites"), then one has to deal with the consequences.
If jews (and others) are upset about someone 'announcing' the destruction of israel, then one has to deal with the consequences.
If the palestinians are upset that they have been thrown out of their country, then one has to deal with the consequences.
If the united states is (and others are) upset about someone blowing up the USS cole, a couple of embassies and the wtc, then one has to deal with the consequences.
This is not about free speech. this is about politics.
If this were about free speech, there would be no domestic wiretapping, no David Irving in the news, no war on terror, iran would not have to stand up to the big guy's threats, palestinian christians and muslimss would live side by side with jews, there'd be no hammas because they would say okay lets house the jews coming from the wars in europe ....
... and speech would be nothing more than mindless chatter....
.... rather than suspected encryptions of a dangerous code that threatens to blow up the big guy from every possible direction
... or meaningful intimations that forge relationships
can you imagine how mush 'free speech' is restricted because of the 'war on terror'.
words can cause damage, thats the power of speech and the pen. free speech is not gratuitous or without consequences in specific contexts. this is a no win situation. because although 'absolute' free thought might exist, and i'll be in favor of that, absolute free speech is not possible - even on the internet.
welcome to the real world.
24 - Bird of Paradise
Gazelle, Your last comment was very well put and, although I might approach it from a different angle, I do agree with you. Speech may be "free" but it often comes with a price. If a person's feelings are hurt or if something very important to them is derided or blasphemed they wind up "paying the price" of someone else's "free" speech.
If someone responds to what is often called "imflammatory speech" then the one who was excercising their "free" speech might wind up "paying the price" for what they have said.
There is cause and effect. There is push and there is shove. There is action and there is reaction. Often the reaction is greatly disproportionate to the action. Then again, there is the one proverbial piece of straw the broke the camel's back. I believe that the Muslim response to the cartoons is, in a small way, related to this. In this way the "piper" who played the last dance is the one who gets paid. (have I mixed enough metaphors yet?)
More than that, however, the cartoons, though a small itch, have been manipulated into a metaphor for the (largely false) perception of the West as it is viewed by angry, depressed and unhappy Muslims living under various forms of oppression.
There is, of course, a greater agenda at work. But, as a civil society, we must always be sensitive to the cultural and religious beliefs and traditions of others, not because they demand it or force us to, but because we freely choose to do so. The Danish cartoons served little other purpose than to incite anger. The same point could have been made with drawings of a mosque with a cannon or a missile pointing out of a window.
For this reason I did not (with one exception) post the cartoons on my own site although I did link to them where they are displayed at FoxNews. The one exception was to compare the difference between CNNs pixelated version of one of the more innocuous images and the uncensored version shown by FoxNews.
I am enjoying the comments very much. Thank you.
25 - jamal
There may not be cartoons of jesus, but the christians are certaintly rioting and killing.