Print
Long live satire
by Sue Blackmore
Reposted from:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sue_blackmore/2007/03/offended_muslims_should_be_ash.html
In the name of academic freedom, Clare College, Cambridge, should have defended the pupil responsible for printing cartoons depicting Muhammad.
A Cambridge student is in hiding because he dared to print one of those infamous Danish cartoons and have a laugh at Islam's expense. Yet if offended Muslims want people to stop laughing at them, this latest incident will only have backfired.
I bet I'm not the only one whose reaction was to go straight to Google Images and type in "Muhammad". And yes, you find lots of pictures of him who must not be pictured - "about 88,400" to be precise. The top 20 includes some ancient depictions (and I've no idea whether these offended anyone), a selection of Muhammad clipart, and several cartoons. I especially like the first one that Google throws up - Muhammad looking at himself in a mirror and exclaiming "Blasphemy". Ha ha. Then there's one I regularly use in my lectures on memes. It shows some suicide bombers arriving in heaven to be met by the man himself shouting "Stop, stop, we've run out of virgins".
These are just simple jokes, available to all, but when a student at Clare College reprinted one in the college magazine, offended students complained in droves and the college started an investigation. Even worse, senior tutor Patricia Fara said, "The college finds the publication and the views expressed abhorrent." But isn't it the college's reaction that is abhorrent? I think the "offended" students are the real culprits, and the college should have had the guts to stand up to them in the name of academic freedom - and the good old freedom to laugh at ideas we find silly or disagree with.
The whole sad story is told on Cambridge University's "Varsity" site and in the Cambridge Evening News. On February 2 Clare College's prize-winning student paper, Clareification, published a special issue renamed "Crucification" and largely devoted to religious satire (and presumably, from its name, not just Islam). In its regular "lookalikes of the week" the cartoon of Muhammad was set next to a photograph of the president of the union of Clare students, along with a caption suggesting that one was "a violent paedophile" while the other was "a prophet of God, a great leader and an example to us all".
OK it's offensive, and funny, and that's what satire is all about. But the magazine apparently "provoked anger in Cambridge", with enraged students complaining in droves. A second-year student said these were "some of the most offensive things I've ever seen." The president of the university's Islamic society said "I found the magazine hugely offensive ... freedom of expression does not constitute a freedom to offend."
I say to him - oh yes it does, and you should be ashamed of yourself. You didn't have to read the magazine. You didn't have to spread the news about it. And you certainly didn't have to encourage other Muslims to believe that claiming to be offended gives them the right to stop the rest of us having a laugh. Yet you did so.
We are talking here about a student magazine read by a handful of students at one college at one university. Student magazines have always been satirical and satire hurts. The president of Clare students might have been offended too, along with any other students who get picked on by their student mag. I expect the politicians who are regularly lampooned in Private Eye feel offended and upset, but unless they have been libelled they accept it. The freedom to laugh and poke fun at things we disagree with is fundamental to freedom of thought.
And freedom of thought is fundamental to education, scholarship, and learning - all the things that Cambridge University should be standing up for. Great thinkers and scientists are always offending people by overthrowing the dogmas and false beliefs of the past. People were offended at the thought that earth was not the centre of the universe; they were offended at the idea that mountains and rivers were created by natural processes; they were offended at the idea that species were not immutable and they were offended at the suggestion that we humans might be descended from apes. Happily, in the end the evidence overwhelmed them.
I hope the same will happen with these claims, and society as a whole will not let religious believers claim a right not to be offended. When I contacted the college the master told me that the student has not been reprimanded and the disciplinary process will determine whether he has infringed any regulations. I sincerely hope he has not and that the college will offer him and his magazine their support. The freedom to think, to argue, and to laugh at silly ideas must be allowed to flourish.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sue_blackmore/2007/03/offended_muslims_should_be_ash.html
In the name of academic freedom, Clare College, Cambridge, should have defended the pupil responsible for printing cartoons depicting Muhammad.A Cambridge student is in hiding because he dared to print one of those infamous Danish cartoons and have a laugh at Islam's expense. Yet if offended Muslims want people to stop laughing at them, this latest incident will only have backfired.
I bet I'm not the only one whose reaction was to go straight to Google Images and type in "Muhammad". And yes, you find lots of pictures of him who must not be pictured - "about 88,400" to be precise. The top 20 includes some ancient depictions (and I've no idea whether these offended anyone), a selection of Muhammad clipart, and several cartoons. I especially like the first one that Google throws up - Muhammad looking at himself in a mirror and exclaiming "Blasphemy". Ha ha. Then there's one I regularly use in my lectures on memes. It shows some suicide bombers arriving in heaven to be met by the man himself shouting "Stop, stop, we've run out of virgins".
These are just simple jokes, available to all, but when a student at Clare College reprinted one in the college magazine, offended students complained in droves and the college started an investigation. Even worse, senior tutor Patricia Fara said, "The college finds the publication and the views expressed abhorrent." But isn't it the college's reaction that is abhorrent? I think the "offended" students are the real culprits, and the college should have had the guts to stand up to them in the name of academic freedom - and the good old freedom to laugh at ideas we find silly or disagree with.
The whole sad story is told on Cambridge University's "Varsity" site and in the Cambridge Evening News. On February 2 Clare College's prize-winning student paper, Clareification, published a special issue renamed "Crucification" and largely devoted to religious satire (and presumably, from its name, not just Islam). In its regular "lookalikes of the week" the cartoon of Muhammad was set next to a photograph of the president of the union of Clare students, along with a caption suggesting that one was "a violent paedophile" while the other was "a prophet of God, a great leader and an example to us all".
OK it's offensive, and funny, and that's what satire is all about. But the magazine apparently "provoked anger in Cambridge", with enraged students complaining in droves. A second-year student said these were "some of the most offensive things I've ever seen." The president of the university's Islamic society said "I found the magazine hugely offensive ... freedom of expression does not constitute a freedom to offend."
I say to him - oh yes it does, and you should be ashamed of yourself. You didn't have to read the magazine. You didn't have to spread the news about it. And you certainly didn't have to encourage other Muslims to believe that claiming to be offended gives them the right to stop the rest of us having a laugh. Yet you did so.
We are talking here about a student magazine read by a handful of students at one college at one university. Student magazines have always been satirical and satire hurts. The president of Clare students might have been offended too, along with any other students who get picked on by their student mag. I expect the politicians who are regularly lampooned in Private Eye feel offended and upset, but unless they have been libelled they accept it. The freedom to laugh and poke fun at things we disagree with is fundamental to freedom of thought.
And freedom of thought is fundamental to education, scholarship, and learning - all the things that Cambridge University should be standing up for. Great thinkers and scientists are always offending people by overthrowing the dogmas and false beliefs of the past. People were offended at the thought that earth was not the centre of the universe; they were offended at the idea that mountains and rivers were created by natural processes; they were offended at the idea that species were not immutable and they were offended at the suggestion that we humans might be descended from apes. Happily, in the end the evidence overwhelmed them.
I hope the same will happen with these claims, and society as a whole will not let religious believers claim a right not to be offended. When I contacted the college the master told me that the student has not been reprimanded and the disciplinary process will determine whether he has infringed any regulations. I sincerely hope he has not and that the college will offer him and his magazine their support. The freedom to think, to argue, and to laugh at silly ideas must be allowed to flourish.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Tuesday, March 6, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 42 of 42 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #24399 by Hip_Priest on March 6, 2007 at 12:06 pm
"The president of the university's Islamic society said "I found the magazine hugely offensive ... freedom of expression does not constitute a freedom to offend.""I can understand the outrage in the theocracies of the middle east amongst those who have not had the benefit of a liberal western education, but from a Cambridge student??
Other Comments by Hip_Priest
3. Comment #24401 by John P on March 6, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Right on!(or if you're in the UK) Spot on!
Islam has got to be the most humorless religion on earth.
Other Comments by John P
4. Comment #24402 by yiggy on March 6, 2007 at 12:22 pm
I'm genuinely surprised that a US college campus is grappling with understanding the Right to Free Speech. We (college students) are supposed to be the demographic that trumpets its the loudest!Other Comments by yiggy
5. Comment #24404 by ScienceBreath on March 6, 2007 at 12:34 pm
yiggy, I think the article is referring to Cambridge University in the United Kingdom.Other Comments by ScienceBreath
6. Comment #24406 by ridelo on March 6, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Sue Blackmore, I don't like your hair color but I like what you've said.Hopefully I didn't offend you. I'm off to google up some Mohammeds.
Other Comments by ridelo
7. Comment #24407 by melisande on March 6, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Sue, I love your hair color.
but you probably already knew that.
;^)
Other Comments by melisande
8. Comment #24408 by DerrickB on March 6, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Professor SUSAN BLACKMORE is a British author known for her popular science accounts of the field of memetics (The Meme Machine, 1999, co-authored with Richard Dawkins) and the non-existence of the paranormal. Blackmore writes for several magazines and newspapers and is a frequent television and radio talk show guest. She is a Lecturer at the University of the West of England, Bristol and holds degrees in psychology, physiology, and parapsychology. Though a self-proclaimed atheist, she has been practicing Zen style meditation for the past 20 years.Other Comments by DerrickB
9. Comment #24410 by mantel on March 6, 2007 at 1:18 pm
I am new here, but have been visiting this site and reading comments since reading The God Delusion just bfore Yule. I think it is a great book, particularly concerning the evidence for God and morality, and it has been both amusing and frustrating to see all the negative reviews and comments unable to tackle the arguments. Having long been somewhere between agnostic and atheist, it nudged a bit further towards atheism. The book is also quite good when it comes to morality when pointing out immoral passages in the Bible, asking how believers actually separate the good passages from he bad. These are water-tight arguments which no negative commentors have successfully addressed (the latter they have even avoided to mention. For obvious reasons, I might add, you needn't think hard to realize it completely undermines the widespread belief in "no faith, no morality".)The reason I dislike religion because it causes people to act immorally when they base their ethics om pleasing a higher power rather than being good to the people around you, following humanistic values and human rights. (Obvious examples include how you treat homosexuals, women, etc.) Of course, I am also annoyed at the extraordinary ability believers have to ignore basic facts about the world, ignoring evidence in favor of a supernatural world for which there is no evidence, and the negative consequences this has for humanities quest for true knowledge.
The book does have some weaknesses, though. How religion has evolved is one question that deserves a more thorough (and less biased) discussion than there is room for in TGD. There is also the matter of what role religion plays in society and politics, a matter that is also handled too briefly. Psychology, even evolutionary psychology, sociology and political sciences aren't exact sciences, and can't be handled in the same ease as the other arguments.
Dawkins refer to the Catholics and Protestants of Northern Ireland as an example for religion being negative. This conflict has other dimensions as well, political, social, ethnic, historical. What role does religion play among these other factors? It is a question with a highly complicated answer. What role does religion play in other human conflicts compared to other factors? Again, not easy to answer.
Which brings me to Islam. Western commentators on the left, who are often atheists, seem to have a more negative view of Islam than of Christianity. Why is that? Being a leftist when it comes to international politics myself, I thought I try and comment upon this. I may not be correct, I would like thoughtful comments on this.
Islam, of course, is not favorably view by many in the West these days. September 11, suicide bombers, the Mohammad cartoon issue have, of course, helped shape this view. Islamic radicalism is increasing. But we should ask ourselves how to battle this, and to do that we need to know the context. Historically, Islamic civilization has been a more tolerant society to Christian civilization. When Europe persecuted and Jews and Muslems, Islam let them live inside their borders, although of course not with the same status as Muslems when it came to taxation and political and legal positions. Jews were forbidden in Spain before and after the Muslem rule there, and the Jews in Jerusalem were much more tolerated when the city was under Muslem rule than during the part of teh Crusades when Christians were in control. Europe eventually become more tolerant than Islam, due to the Reformation (which made it necessary to tolerate both Protestants and Catholics in order to not have constant warfare) and the Enlightenment and secularization. (Which, of course, shows how rationality and secularization is good for a society's tolerance). Islam didn't have this development, even thoug Jews were still more welcome in the Arab world than in the European. This however, changed during the 20th century, especially after WW2. Europe's bad conscience changed the perceptions of Jews for the better there, Israel's brutal occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestinian land and suppression of the Palestinian people changed the perceptions of Jews for the worse there.
All this shows that there is nothing in the Christian religion that makes it inherently morally better than Islam, but developments, particularly humanistic developments, have made the Christian civilization morally (in my opinion) better, and that is one of the reason the fight for rationality is so important.
But how to fight Islmic radicalism? A criticism of religion just doesn't suffice. The Islamic civilization is under the impression that they are besieged and oppressed by the west. And, of course, they do have a point. The Israeli occupation of Palestine, abhorable as it is, murder of civilians that far exceeds Palestian attacks on Israel, gains a support from the west that no other country which behaved in the same way would have got. (Much of the legitimacy of Israel's human rights abuses, and the west supporting it, is based in Jewish and Christian relgion, by the way, one other reason religion is bad). The west has supported many authoritative regimes, Saddam's Iraq in the 80s, Saudi-Arabia today; as well as doing warfare not to help the people there, but for control and resources. The shah's dictatorship in Iran is one example, it was a western-backed (and made) secular dictatorship in which women wearing hijabs were beat up by the police because it was forbidden. The brutality led to the Islamic coup in 1979. Afgahnistan, of course, was under siege by the Sovjet Union. Egypt, Lebanon, other Gulf States of course are under western influence. And, of course, let's not forget the Iraq war, and neither should we forget that after Palestinians recently had democratic elections (which the west had been crying about for years), the Palestians were condemned to poverty due to economic sanctions from the west because they elected the wrong party, Hamas, instead of the corrupt Fatah. Israel still got massive aids, despite continued documented human rights abuses.
So, of course, this is a civilization that feels itself being under siege. In such conditions, religious radicalism is sure to rise. Islamists are the ones offering security, fighting back. What is western values worth when the west wants democracy, yet starves when you go through with it? That promises freedom but supports oppressive regimes and goes to war killing tens of thousands innocents? Of course, this will make people not trust these values.
Isreal and the west are by far the stronger parts in this conflict. The Arab and Islam civilization is the weakest, in terms of relative power and in terms of loss of innocent lives. What is rightly perceived as suppression has to stop, for two reasons: One is that it is immoral, it hurts a lot of people. The other is that it will be the first step of a long way against the Islamic religion, to help the homosexual Palestinian, the Iranian woman. But getting there is a long way, and criticism of the Islamic religion coming from the West today will, obviously, be viewed as coming from an immoral (due to all the suffering it has caused in the Middle East) civilization. To preach a moral and rational superiority, we also have to show it.
This is why the fight against Islamic radicalism must be fought very differently than against the Christianity, which has been and often still is in power, or Jedeaism, which certainly now has the upper hand and exploits that position brutally. (Of course, radical Islam would do the same if they were in the same position, which is another reason it should be fought.) Islamic criticism should come from within Islamic countries. If it is to come from the west, it should be very clear to all that it isn't seen as another aspect of negative western interference. But it is, and as long as the West's Middle East and Israel policies remain as they are, it will continue to be seen this way.
Other Comments by mantel
10. Comment #24411 by Djudge on March 6, 2007 at 1:25 pm
In the light of this article, please read a christian complaint mail to the creator of www.jesusdressup.com and his response. It's very moving and to the point.http://www.normalbobsmith.com/hatemail312.html (second letter)
The creator, Normal Bob Smith, also made www.muhammaddressup.com
Enjoy!
Other Comments by Djudge
11. Comment #24413 by Sancus on March 6, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Freedom to offend and much more; it is the freedom to be offended. What hell would society be to not have the freedom to recoil at anything.TV Ontario hosted a lecture by Christopher Hitchens a couple months ago. He heads straight into the issue through Islam and holocaust denial. No doubt some of you will be aghast and offended!
http://www.tvo.org/podcasts/bi/audio/BIChristopherHitchens010707.mp3
Here's the details page on TVO.
http://www.tvo.org/TVOsites/WebObjects/TvoMicrosite.woa/wo/XCPab1elMqZtATIbTUHVG0/2.0.0.83.45.26.25.13.9.1
Other Comments by Sancus
12. Comment #24416 by Dogbreath on March 6, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Mantel wrote..."The book does have some weaknesses, though. How religion has evolved is one question that deserves a more thorough (and less biased) discussion than there is room for in TGD. There is also the matter of what role religion plays in society and politics, a matter that is also handled too briefly."
I think you miss the point on TGD. Dawkin's purpose was not to write a book exploring the origins of religious belief. Whatever claims are made about these origins it doesn't make the claims of religion true, and Dawkins is searching for truth.
On another point, admirable though your intention, there's a forum for opening up these kinds of discussion. I suggest you post your views there and enter a focused discussion.
Couldn't agree more with Sue Blackmore - nice injection of reason. There is no shortage of believers desperately seeking to be offended!!
Other Comments by Dogbreath
13. Comment #24419 by Carl S. Richardson on March 6, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I'm offended each time someone proclaims we can't be moral without religion or that we atheists are somehow depressed suicidal fools devoid of any joy or meaning. But I would never try to silence anyone advocating such nonsense.Other Comments by Carl S. Richardson
14. Comment #24421 by LB on March 6, 2007 at 2:26 pm
That woman looks like Chris PackhamOther Comments by LB
15. Comment #24423 by tatsie on March 6, 2007 at 2:59 pm
I couldn't care less if muslims are/were offended.. Sod it, we should be honest and say it.. Fuk em..They don't like us.. and they don't even like their own.. Seriously who gives a toss about offending those people..
Other Comments by tatsie
16. Comment #24424 by Jack Rawlinson on March 6, 2007 at 3:02 pm
"I found the magazine hugely offensive ... freedom of expression does not constitute a freedom to offend."Is that right? Okay then, I demand that Islamic preaching and the open sale of the koran be banned. Because it offends me. Or does one person's offence count for more than another's?
Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson
17. Comment #24425 by Bremas on March 6, 2007 at 3:15 pm
re. Post 16 by Jack Rawlinson"I demand that Islamic preaching and the open sale of the koran be banned. Because it offends me."
Spot on.
That same thing has been said many times, but sadly goes unheard.
I suggest (I know it's not the first time) a massive write-in campaign demanding the removal of the koran and the bible from public places, based on their offensive material, any time we see something like this.
Quote obviously offensive passages in each, and let her rip.
Other Comments by Bremas
18. Comment #24426 by aleprechaunist on March 6, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Quite right, Jack Rawlinson. And considering that atheism is apparently 'another religion' our sensibilities really ought to be given special consideration...Other Comments by aleprechaunist
19. Comment #24433 by Linda on March 6, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Who isn't fed up with the perpetual bullying by theists? Submission is no way to live life in fact it seems to be the root cause of terrorism. Proponents of Atheology must take on the pushers of superstition and defend rational thought against clerics who advocate violence endorsing anti-social acts.Getting a sense of humour should be added to the St Petersburg Declaration too:-
"We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies. We are believers, doubters, and unbelievers, brought together by a great struggle, not between the West and Islam, but between the free and the unfree.
We affirm the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience. We believe in the equality of all human persons.
We insist upon the separation of religion from state and the observance of universal human rights.
We find traditions of liberty, rationality, and tolerance in the rich histories of pre-Islamic and Islamic societies. These values do not belong to the West or the East; they are the common moral heritage of humankind."
http://www.secularislam.org/blog/SI_Blog.php
Thank you Sue Blackmore.
Other Comments by Linda
20. Comment #24436 by MelM on March 6, 2007 at 4:55 pm
If I don't have the freedom to commit blasphemy, I don't have freedom of speech. Every news outlet should publish the cartoons in the spirt of "I am Spartacus". We needed mass defiance rather than pathetic submission; but, not one major political or cultural leader (to my knowledge) in the U.S. counseled defiance!I don't know of an Islamic counterpart to "The Brick Testament." Too bad!
http://www.thebricktestament.com/
Other Comments by MelM
21. Comment #24453 by Roedy on March 6, 2007 at 6:13 pm
No one is so precious they should be exempt frombeing offended or lampooned.
On the other paw, calling for murder or other such mayhem toward any group should not be protected.
The middle ground is the right to tell lies about people. In Canada is it illegal, but the prosecution depends on two factors that make it reasonable:
1. that the statement is untrue.
2. that the stater knew it was untrue.
Other Comments by Roedy
22. Comment #24473 by DavidJMH on March 6, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Ladies and Gentlemen,Islam is offensive, as offensive as Christianity and Judaism. These monotheistic religions are an affront to decent, reasonable thinking people the World over. They are oppressive and pretend freedom from fear, they are based upon ignorance yet promise enlightenment and profess forgiveness yet practice vicious punishment.
These three religions particularly and all others in general should be treated with derision and contempt on every possible occasion; treat their practitioners and adherents as mentally ill for that is what they are.
Other Comments by DavidJMH
23. Comment #24504 by Jef on March 7, 2007 at 12:42 am
The president of the university's Islamic society said "I found the magazine hugely offensive ... freedom of expression does not constitute a freedom to offend."
Perhaps I could direct the President to the case of Handyside v UK (1976)1 EHHR 737, where the European Court of Human Rights held that the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the ECHR is not only applicable:
"to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no democratic society."
This is now given direct effect in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998.
So yes, freedom of expression does include the freedom to offend, as expressly interpreted by the ECtHR.
Other Comments by Jef
24. Comment #24505 by hopeful on March 7, 2007 at 12:55 am
I am a New Zealander and one of the things I like about American entertainment (e.g. The Simpsons, countless TV series and comedy movies etc) is that Americans always seem to be quite willing to laugh at themselves. They must be otherwise all the comedies that are made in America would only be popular outside America.I hope we don't lose this ability because the world would be a very dull place. As someone said in an earlier comment, Islamic countries must be very dull - and of course living in fear wouldn't make you feel like laughing.
Other Comments by hopeful
25. Comment #24506 by epeeist on March 7, 2007 at 1:09 am
Comment #24436 by MelMIf I don't have the freedom to commit blasphemy
You shouldn't have the freedom to commit blasphemy.
But that is because there should be no such thing as blasphemy.
Other Comments by epeeist
26. Comment #24508 by Myryama on March 7, 2007 at 1:22 am
For an enlightened view of Christianity and Islam, you could do worse than visit www.jesusandmo.net.Other Comments by Myryama
27. Comment #24518 by JJOneway on March 7, 2007 at 3:23 am
I followed the link to the article in the Cambridge news and rather wish I hadn't. They go on at length to decry the "racist cartoon" and "other vile material" and issue a stern warning that comments such as these could fuel racial tension.Sorry but it seems almost impossible NOT to fuel racial tension where Islam is concerned. That particular religion is like a rabid dog: poke it with a stick or leave it well alone, and it will try and bite you anyway.
Other Comments by JJOneway
28. Comment #24519 by MouthAlmighty on March 7, 2007 at 3:32 am
I thought a religious belief was supposed to be the rock; the very foundation of one's life. I thought it was supposed to be an anchor providing infallible security against the storms of adversity. Surely its ultimate truths are transcendent; beyond the infantile and fallible conceptions of man. And isn't it supposed to be unlimited in its transformative power?Shame it can't stand up to a bit of satire.
Other Comments by MouthAlmighty
29. Comment #24520 by Luthien on March 7, 2007 at 3:36 am
27. Comment #24508 by Myryama on March 7, 2007 at 1:22 am For an enlightened view of Christianity and Islam, you could do worse than visit www.jesusandmo.net.
Ooh, I love that site!
If you like jesus and mo, you should also try http://russellsteapot.com
Other Comments by Luthien
30. Comment #24522 by Friend Giskard on March 7, 2007 at 4:10 am
Is it really fair to imply that Muhammad was "a violent paedophile". After all, Aisha was a pig, and pigs are already fully grown when they are nine years old. Other Comments by Friend Giskard
31. Comment #24524 by Sue Blackmore on March 7, 2007 at 4:50 am
When my blog first went up on Monday it was already more than 2 weeks old. Usually CiF blogs go up after a few hours or a day at most but this one was apparently held back by the Guardian because it is such a sensitive subject that the Editor herself had to decide on posting it. After many emails and several phone calls it was finally posted.By Tuesday night it had more than 350 comments and some terrific lines of debate. I expected it to be open to comments until Thursday morning because the site claims to hold threads open for 3 days. In fact it closed about 10.30 today, Wednesday, and when I asked why I was told the policy has now changed to 48 hours.
I was, therefore, especially delighted to find that Richard has reposted it here. I'll now add some comments I was planning on posting on the CiF site as well as some referring to comments here.
Several people have argued that one should not gratuitously offend people just for the sake of it. I agree. I am not asking to be allowed just to have fun offending people, I offend them because I think their ideas are wrong, harmful, dangerous, unfair, oppressinve or just plain silly and I want (for all of us) the freedom to say so. As LordSummerisle says, having the right to offend is usually enough.
By contrast Edwardrise says "the joke you use in your lectures, the one about 'suicide bombers arriving in heaven',- leave it out." And Denpa says "Sue Blackmore, who are filled with hatred for Islam and things Islamic and who think its funny to mock Islam. She chooses an anti-Islamic cartoon mocking the popular Islamic notion of a material heaven in her class on memes."
These hit the point right on. I use this funny cartoon in my lectures on memes to illustrate a point – that religious memes coerce people into adopting them by using many tricks including horrible threats and empty promises. Then they add strength to their grip by forbidding laughter. This is another stop-gap meme trick needed because anyone who has not been infected by such a religion might easily laugh at the idea that heaven holds a specific number of virgins to reward people (I mean men) who kill themselves spreading those very memes! So in my lectures I'm using the cartoon for a purpose – to show how these meme tricks work and, in this case, how very nasty they can be. I don't hate Muslims; it's the religion of Islam that I find so disgusting and I say so in my lectures. I don't explain this gratuitously to offend. Nevertheless I defend everyone's right to do so if they wish.
On this site REFarnos seems to imply that I am demonising or bullying a whole community and adds that it is "the responsibility of an education institute to stop and prevent such bullying of students by others". So exactly which students have been bullied in this case? The ones who were so terribly offended by a picture they need not have looked at, or those forced into hiding?
Other Comments by Sue Blackmore
32. Comment #24532 by Logicel on March 7, 2007 at 5:43 am
Sancus, Thanks for the link. Hitchens passionately and eloquently summed up the situation very well. Also thanks for the info on TV Ontario--sites are now duly bookmarked.Djudge, thanks for those dressup links, wow, what fun, I seem to have a predilection of dressing up male religious figures with female garb! Jesus gussied up as Marilyn Monroe and MO as a muslim woman in a veiled costume is still making me crack up as I write this post!!!!! Thanks!
Other Comments by Logicel
33. Comment #24539 by Djudge on March 7, 2007 at 7:03 am
If you like the dressup games, check out other versions: www.normalbobsmith.com/portfolio/part9/If you like the comics check out www.normalbobsmith.com/satanssalvation/pfss_comic01.html
All by Normal Bob Smith, an atheist artist from New York.
Other Comments by Djudge
34. Comment #24542 by Sue Blackmore on March 7, 2007 at 7:13 am
I just noticed something interesting. In the version I originally wrote for CommentisFree I included a link to the actual cartoons http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/jyllands-posten_cartoons/. The editors replaced the link with one to a story about them instead http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoonprotests/story/0,,2008004,00.html. Are Guardian editors unwilling even to link to a site that might offend some religious people?Other Comments by Sue Blackmore
35. Comment #24544 by epeeist on March 7, 2007 at 7:16 am
Interesting that Abdul Muhid, who has just been convicted of soliciting to murder had a previous conviction for smashing a bus shelter in Walthamstow market "which was displaying an advertisement which he said offended his religious beliefs". Other Comments by epeeist
36. Comment #24547 by Martha on March 7, 2007 at 7:32 am
HOPEFUL wrote: I am a New Zealander and one of the things I like about American entertainment (e.g. The Simpsons, countless TV series and comedy movies etc) is that Americans always seem to be quite willing to laugh at themselves. They must be otherwise all the comedies that are made in America would only be popular outside America. I hope we don't lose this ability because the world would be a very dull place. As someone said in an earlier comment, Islamic countries must be very dull - and of course living in fear wouldn't make you feel like laughing./unquote
As you rightly say, you wouldn't feel like laughing in you were living in fear. But, the truth is, a lot of Americans ARE living in fear right now!
I agree with Susan Blackmore.
Other Comments by Martha
37. Comment #24555 by troodon on March 7, 2007 at 8:04 am
Thanks Sue. I agree with you and also with Christopher Hitchens in the link provided by Sancus.Question: Does anyone know more about the history of the three additional cartoons that were used to spark the riots - the squealing pig etc?
It's plausible that the imams themselves had a hand in creating them deliberately to add fuel to the fire, but I haven't seen anything that would confirm or deny that.
What would happen if the imams were shown to have done it themselves and were therefore "blasphemous"? Would there be riots and marches demanding the beheading of those imams? I doubt it, but that would at least expose the hypocrisy.
Other Comments by troodon
38. Comment #24572 by Stublore on March 7, 2007 at 10:54 am
Comment #24410 by mantel on March 6"Islamic civilization has been a more tolerant society to Christian civilization. When Europe persecuted and Jews and Muslems, Islam let them live inside their borders, although of course not with the same status as Muslems when it came to taxation and political and legal positions. Jews were forbidden in Spain before and after the Muslem rule there, and the Jews in Jerusalem were much more tolerated when the city was under Muslem rule than during the part of teh Crusades when Christians were in control. "
That's quite a statement, so lets look at some of these things:
1)Muhammad in 628, attacked the Jews at the oasis of Khaybar, and after capturing one of the leaders, had him tortured till he revealed where the treasure was hidden.After then accepting surrender, Muhammad imposed the following conditions, that half the produce was to go to him, and most importantly, M could cancel the treaty and expel the jews whenever he wanted.
The 2nd Caliph, Umar, expelled the Jews from Mecca and Medina, quoting M "Two religions shall not remain together in the peninsula of the arabs"
When the muslims invaded India, hundreds of thousands were put to the death, and others forced to convert to Islam.
Non muslims are not allowed to repair their places of worship, and display of items showing affiliation to a religion apart from Islam was not permissible.
Non muslims have less rights under the law in Islamic states, a non muslim may not be the boss of a muslim, but ofc the reverse is perfectly acceptable, non muslims are subject to much higher taxes than muslims, if a non fine was imposed on a muslim, it was halved if the victim was not a muslim. A non ,Muslim could be put to death for raising his hand to a muslim, even in self defence!
Then there was something called the "Devshirme", introduced by the Ottomans, it took a fifth of all catholic children, and made them into soldiers for islam, and continued for at least 300 years.
And ofc, lets also remind ourselves that it was Islam, which first adopted the rule, saying that Jews had to wear a yellow star to mark themselves out from the population.
If you look into it, you will find that the myth of Islamic tolerance is just that, a myth!, like the koran :).
"Islamic criticism should come from within Islamic countries. "
Strongly disagree with that. Criticism if valid, can and should come from not only within a sociey, but also from outside it. It is ridiculous and dangerous in the extreme to state that a society/culture group can only be criticised by that group, especially when that groups worldview comes into contact and conflict with other groups. Surely the criticisms of those who are in conflict be it ideologically,technically,intellectually etc are also worthwhile, even if they are not one of the parties involved in the conflict, and even more valid if they are one of the parties.
(Thanks to Why I am not a muslim by Ibn Warraq for this info)
Other Comments by Stublore
39. Comment #24575 by Linda on March 7, 2007 at 11:24 am
The ongoing insanity and tragedy of Submission is shameful."A TEENAGE Saudi gang-rape victim who was sentenced to 90 lashes for being alone with a man she was not related to has beseeched King Abdullah, the country's monarch, to intervene in the controversial case."
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=348792007
Other Comments by Linda
40. Comment #24582 by poppythinks on March 7, 2007 at 12:14 pm
really good article - well written, well reasoned, and a breath of fresh air amongst theusual unfathomable posts by faithheads.
for those of us who do not want to engage our brain cells in the neural acrobatics 'religion' requires, this is the kind of rationality that gets my vote. more please.
Other Comments by poppythinks
41. Comment #24599 by stephenray on March 7, 2007 at 2:14 pm
"freedom of expression does not constitute a freedom to offend"Sorry, chum, but that is EXACTLY what freedom of expression constitutes. Otherwise, it would not be worth anything.
Other Comments by stephenray
42. Comment #24881 by Russell Blackford on March 9, 2007 at 3:17 am
Long live Sue Blackmore - this was absolutely right. Nothing more I can add.Other Comments by Russell Blackford
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning."
Albert Einstein
"When I think of all the harm the Bible has done, I despair of ever writing anything to equal it."
Oscar Wilde
"By simple common sense I don't believe in God, in none."
Charlie Chaplin
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."
Delos B. McKown
"The kindly God who lovingly fashioned each and every one of us and sprinkled the sky with shining stars for our delight -- that God is, like Santa Claus, a myth of childhood, not anything [that] a sane, undeluded adult could literally believe in. That God must either be turned into a symbol for something less concrete or abandoned altogether."
Daniel Dennett
Other Recommended Reading
Creationism's Trojan Horse
Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross
Richard Dawkins
Alan Grafen, Mark Ridley
The Varieties of Scientific Experience
Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan (Editor)
Irreligion
John Allen Paulos
Genome
Matt Ridley
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #24394 by nine9s on March 6, 2007 at 11:52 am
Like hell it doesn't. "If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they don't want to hear." ~Orwell.On this note, did everyone see the South Park episodes about the Muhammad cartoon controversy? Wicked smart. You can download them on iTunes. Season 10A, I think.
Other Comments by nine9s