Skip to main content

The Muhammad Cartoons: An Ethnocentric Double Standard

We all thought, didn't we, that the Muslims were somehow crazy to be so incensed that a Dutch newspaper would publish cartoons in 2005 that portrayed the Islamic Prophet Muhammad in a negative light? Well, we were wrong. Let's look at what the same newspaper didn't publish because of its offensiveness to readers.

In 2005, the Dutch newspaper, Jyllands-Posten published a series of 12 editorial cartoons that depicted Muslim prophet Muhammad in a negative light.  The paper's intent was to show that it would not be cowed by demands for self-censorship.  Muslims the world over were dismayed by the disrespect shown their prophet by Jyllands-Posten. A few were positively apoplectic about the rudeness shown by the paper, and an even smaller percentage called for death to the perpetrators.

Crazy, huh?  Not so fast...

Interestingly, the Jyllands-Posten already has a regime of self-censorship. It refuses, out of good taste, to print pornography, pictures of dead bodies, or any but them tamest of curse words--and that only rarely.  Why? Because it respects (ahem, most) of its readership and doesn't want to offend them.

More to the point, Jyllands-Posten had the opportunity, just two years before the Muhammad cartoon series was published, to print cartoons that were mildly unflattering as regards Christ and his resurrection--yet they chose not to. Jens Kaiser, the paper's Sunday editor, said of the decision: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think they will provoke an outcry. Therefore I will not use them."

If I were I Muslim, I would be angry at Jyllands-Posten too.  Wouldn't you?  Come to think of it, I'm not a Muslim, and I'm still angry at JP's ethnocentric double standard.

Comments

  1. It's not a double standard, it's a choice. One you might disagree with but not one that should get people killed. I'll go so far as to say that if they had published those unflattering pictures of Jesus the worst that would have happened would have been outcry, calls for someone's job and perhaps a boycott. All quite tame in comparison to what the muslims, across the world, did. What price free speech and personal choice eh?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

Red Clothing and Resurrection: Jesus Christ's Second Coming

The scriptures teach that when Christ comes again to the earth, that he will be wearing red apparel. Why red ? They also teach that at Christ's coming, many of the dead will become resurrected. Will this only include members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Not by a long shot, no matter what some Mormon might tell you.

To Have the Compassion of an Ogre

At least when it comes to using government as a weapon of compassion, I have the compassion of the ogre. I will explain below why I think government cannot and should not be in the business of compassion. The force of government has caused many people to show less compassion to their fellow men. On the other hand, some of the best things happen when government is not compassionate. In such circumstances, individuals personally begin to display more compassion. One such instance of this happened recently in Utah when the governor asked the legislature to convene a special session in order to (among other things) provide special monies to pay for dental care for the disabled . If they didn't fund the governor's compassion project, it would make the legislators look even more heartless in a year where the budget surplus was projected to be at least $150 million. In spite of these political odds, the legislature did not grant the $2 million that 40,000 members of the disabled

Hey, Senator Buttars: "Happy Holidays!!"

Utah Senator Chris Buttars may be a well-meaning individual, but his actions often don't come out that way. His latest lament, with accompanying legislation that businesses use the phrase "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays", is at least the third case in point that I am aware of. First, we were entertained by the faux pas made by the Senator in the 2008 Utah Legislative session, when referring to an In reality, America has a Judeo -Christian heritage, so maybe Senator Buttars should change his legislation to "encourage" businesses to advertise with " Happy Hanukkah and Merry Christmas"...? analogy of a human baby, of declaring that " this baby is black ". Then there was the attempt to help a friend develop his property in Mapleton, Utah, by using the force if his legislative office . Let's see if we can top that... Who cares that businesses hock their Christmas wares by using the term "Happy Holidays"? I