Should We Avoid Criticizing or Satirizing Minority Religious Doctrines?

[gsa]

Eugene Volokh has an interesting post up about Garry Trudeau, creator of Doonsbury, criticizing Charlie Hebdo last Friday for attacking a "powerless, disenfranchised minority," namely the religion of Islam in an article titled "The Abuse of Satire." From that article:

Traditionally, satire has comforted the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable. Satire punches up, against authority of all kinds, the little guy against the powerful. Great French satirists like Molière and Daumier always punched up, holding up the self-satisfied and hypocritical to ridicule. Ridiculing the non-privileged is almost never funny—it’s just mean.

By punching downward, by attacking a powerless, disenfranchised minority with crude, vulgar drawings closer to graffiti than cartoons, Charlie wandered into the realm of hate speech, which in France is only illegal if it directly incites violence. Well, voila—the 7 million copies that were published following the killings did exactly that, triggering violent protests across the Muslim world, including one in Niger, in which ten people died. Meanwhile, the French government kept busy rounding up and arresting over 100 Muslims who had foolishly used their freedom of speech to express their support of the attacks.

This is an interesting position that appears to be inconsistent with rampant criticism of Mormonism and Scientology, to name two religious minority groups that endure a level of criticism that is certainly disproportionate to their demographic positions within the United States, to say nothing of the West generally. Islam, by contrast, is a religion with nearly 2 billion adherents, second in absolute numbers only to the oft-parodied, oft-criticized Abrahamic cousin of Christianity. Yet Mormons and Scientologists do not generally behave as savages when their doctrines are subjected to merciless parody.

Could one imagine, for example, what would happen if a parody of the life of the prophet of Islam was staged in Manhattan as a major broadway show? Is it fair to say that the death threats would kill attendance before jihadists had a chance to kill the audience?

 

[Kalibhakta]

Ok, airing of grievances time, not fully related, but this seems the right place

Islam has a lot of issues, and thats not going to go away or be minimized

But these people, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris and whatever.... They seem to really, really shell hard for the Neo-Con lobby.
A lot Anti-Islamic thinking seems to imply that the final and only option will be war. A lot of it hits Iran, which is to Israel's and the Saudi's benefit

Civil rights in the Middle East suck. Hard. It's so disgusting we should have nothing to do with them.

But why are we obliged to try to fix them if they don't want it? Can we bomb them into civilization?

"We must fund freedom fighters in Libya/Syria/Yemen/Who Cares" and "We must invade yet another freaking sand dune" become a lot more palatable when "Islam is Evil, it needs to be crushed" is common thinking.

No, Charlie Hebdo did not deserve to die. No, it should not be illegal at all to say what they say and printed what they printed . I have the right to call them petty for it. You have the right to call me petty for mine.
I just think this "Islam is a special evil" line feeds a lot of power peoples pockets....and feeds a lot of people into the grave.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No. Criticize everything. At least until I get into power. Then, if you criticize me, I'll have you sent to a forced labor camp, never to be heard from again. Or if you particularly irk me, I'll have you shot out back.

 

[Kalibhakta]

I like you Saint Frankenstein. I rather have an Honest Person who I disagree with then somebody who agrees with me and has no spine or decency.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I like you Saint Frankenstein. I rather have an Honest Person who I disagree with then somebody who agrees with me and has no spine or decency.

Thanks. That's my view, too.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ok, airing of grievances time, not fully related, but this seems the right place

Islam has a lot of issues, and thats not going to go away or be minimized

But these people, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris and whatever.... They seem to really, really shell hard for the Neo-Con lobby.
A lot Anti-Islamic thinking seems to imply that the final and only option will be war. A lot of it hits Iran, which is to Israel's and the Saudi's benefit

It seems to me that war is ultimately to everyone's loss, at least with the current level of widespread weapons technology.

As for anti-Islamic thinking, it is complicated. There is considerable evidence pointing towards a lack of middle ground options. I'm not sure it is fair to accuse its critics of not seeking one.

Civil rights in the Middle East suck. Hard. It's so disgusting we should have nothing to do with them.

But why are we obliged to try to fix them if they don't want it? Can we bomb them into civilization?

Bomb them, no, of course that is simply stupid. However, we all do have a duty to attempt to fix the rest of the world to the best of our abilities. It just happens to be an incredibly difficult task, among other reasons because it is hindered instead of helped by militarism.

"We must fund freedom fighters in Libya/Syria/Yemen/Who Cares" and "We must invade yet another freaking sand dune" become a lot more palatable when "Islam is Evil, it needs to be crushed" is common thinking.

If you say so. I don't buy that line, personally.

No, Charlie Hebdo did not deserve to die. No, it should not be illegal at all to say what they say and printed what they printed . I have the right to call them petty for it. You have the right to call me petty for mine.
I just think this "Islam is a special evil" line feeds a lot of power peoples pockets....and feeds a lot of people into the grave.

Unfortunately, so seems to be the case with refusing it as well.

 

[gsa]

Ok, airing of grievances time, not fully related, but this seems the right place

Islam has a lot of issues, and thats not going to go away or be minimized

But these people, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris and whatever.... They seem to really, really shell hard for the Neo-Con lobby.
A lot Anti-Islamic thinking seems to imply that the final and only option will be war. A lot of it hits Iran, which is to Israel's and the Saudi's benefit

Civil rights in the Middle East suck. Hard. It's so disgusting we should have nothing to do with them.

But why are we obliged to try to fix them if they don't want it? Can we bomb them into civilization?

"We must fund freedom fighters in Libya/Syria/Yemen/Who Cares" and "We must invade yet another freaking sand dune" become a lot more palatable when "Islam is Evil, it needs to be crushed" is common thinking.

No, Charlie Hebdo did not deserve to die. No, it should not be illegal at all to say what they say and printed what they printed . I have the right to call them petty for it. You have the right to call me petty for mine.
I just think this "Islam is a special evil" line feeds a lot of power peoples pockets....and feeds a lot of people into the grave.

Well no it isn't exactly related because the post isn't particularly about Islam. It is about the logic of this "Islamophobia" nonsense, among other things.

Why is it that no one who insists it is "hateful" or "dangerous" to criticize Islam because of its minority status (nationally) does not extend the same courtesy to other minority religious groups? Mormons are basically an American ethnoreligious group and Scientology is not far behind. No one paid much heed to the Mormon complaint that Jon Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven" portrayed LDS ideology as misogynistic, patriarchal and prone to violence.

You do seem to be getting to the heart of it though: This is not about racism or intolerance, but politics. But honestly, I don't think that this reflects most of the criticism you are hearing from atheist critics of Islam. Christopher Hitchens, for example, was a strong supporter of Palestinian rights and a critic of the occupation and mistreatment of Palestinians (as am I). Yes, he supporter the Iraq war, but he was not exactly a knee jerk supporter of the neoconservative agenda. Nor can the same be said for Richard Dawkins, certainly.

The question is not about Islam per se, but the violent and extremist forms of the religion that enjoy a much wider base of support within Islam than their equivalents do in the Abrahamic religions.

 

[Katzpur]

Mormons are basically an American ethnoreligious group...

That would have been a true statement in the early days of Mormonism. Not so today. There are currently more Mormons living outside of the U.S. and Canada than there are in those two countries combined. Ethnicity in today's LDS Church is all over the map -- both figuratively and literally. Mormons of various ethnic groups are encouraged to continue to be a part of their ethnic and cultural groups in addition to being part of their religion. This two-minute trailer for the movie, "Meet the Mormons" gives you some sense of that.

 

[leibowde84]

Eugene Volokh has an interesting post up about Garry Trudeau, creator of Doonsbury, criticizing Charlie Hebdo last Friday for attacking a "powerless, disenfranchised minority," namely the religion of Islam in an article titled "The Abuse of Satire." From that article:

Traditionally, satire has comforted the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable. Satire punches up, against authority of all kinds, the little guy against the powerful. Great French satirists like Molière and Daumier always punched up, holding up the self-satisfied and hypocritical to ridicule. Ridiculing the non-privileged is almost never funny—it’s just mean.

By punching downward, by attacking a powerless, disenfranchised minority with crude, vulgar drawings closer to graffiti than cartoons, Charlie wandered into the realm of hate speech, which in France is only illegal if it directly incites violence. Well, voila—the 7 million copies that were published following the killings did exactly that, triggering violent protests across the Muslim world, including one in Niger, in which ten people died. Meanwhile, the French government kept busy rounding up and arresting over 100 Muslims who had foolishly used their freedom of speech to express their support of the attacks.

This is an interesting position that appears to be inconsistent with rampant criticism of Mormonism and Scientology, to name two religious minority groups that endure a level of criticism that is certainly disproportionate to their demographic positions within the United States, to say nothing of the West generally. Islam, by contrast, is a religion with nearly 2 billion adherents, second in absolute numbers only to the oft-parodied, oft-criticized Abrahamic cousin of Christianity. Yet Mormons and Scientologists do not generally behave as savages when their doctrines are subjected to merciless parody.

Could one imagine, for example, what would happen if a parody of the life of the prophet of Islam was staged in Manhattan as a major broadway show? Is it fair to say that the death threats would kill attendance before jihadists had a chance to kill the audience?

It seems that Mormons and Scientologists are made fun quite a bit, at least in the US. Scientologists seem to use lawsuits as a means to stop criticism towards their religion. Mormons, I think, do a much better job of just ignoring criticisms. Further, I think that a religion based on the story that Joseph Smith told has to have a good sense of humor about itself, or else it wouldn't last too long.

With Islam, on the other hand, there is this immense paranoia that it's them against the world. They used to be the most powerful religion in the world. Muhammad wanted to unite the world under one single religion, and it failed. Because of this, there seems to be an animosity toward the West (which really destroyed that dream of Muhammad), so when they hear insults about him coming from the west, they lash out as if it is the ongoing war where everyone in the West thinks the same way. It's ironic though because the West is filled with so many opinions on the subject, it is ludicrous that it could "unite" against any religion or system of beliefs.

For example, I heard someone on this site ask, "what are we supposed to do if we ask for the cartoons to stop, we go to court, but our requests are denied in the interest of free-speech. If all of the other methods have been tried and have failed, violence is the only option." This scared the crap out of me, as it is so against the idea of freedom and democracy. Everyone is free to speak their minds and fight for legislation that they want, but most of the time, you are going to fail. It takes a really honorable/reasonable person to accept defeat. I think that is what we are missing from Middle Eastern Muslims these days. Mormons and Scientologists are fine with how they are portrayed in the media ... they have manged to stop caring. For some reason, Islam has not been able to achieve this.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Absolutely everything in existence is open to criticism. Period.

On the matter is Islam, since that's the subject of the article, it's not some "powerless disenfranchised minority." It's almost 1/3 of the Earth's population... It's an unfathomably huge entity. And I've never seen a criticism or parody of someone's individual faith. I've only ever seen parodies and satires based on the supposed grandiose claims. If those grandiose claims can't sustain a little prodding, then what does that say about the validity of those claims?

I think the push-back, ultimately, is from the anger of knowing that the grandiose claims are unsubstantiated, and not of the criticism itself. The pious are made to feel disenfranchised because the foundation of their faith, and many times their own identity, is baseless. That can be a very scary thing to deal with. And it's often easier to retaliate against the "demon" that is highlighting that truth than to deal with it on a personal and global level.

 

[leibowde84]

Eugene Volokh has an interesting post up about Garry Trudeau, creator of Doonsbury, criticizing Charlie Hebdo last Friday for attacking a "powerless, disenfranchised minority," namely the religion of Islam in an article titled "The Abuse of Satire." From that article:

Traditionally, satire has comforted the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable. Satire punches up, against authority of all kinds, the little guy against the powerful. Great French satirists like Molière and Daumier always punched up, holding up the self-satisfied and hypocritical to ridicule. Ridiculing the non-privileged is almost never funny—it’s just mean.

By punching downward, by attacking a powerless, disenfranchised minority with crude, vulgar drawings closer to graffiti than cartoons, Charlie wandered into the realm of hate speech, which in France is only illegal if it directly incites violence. Well, voila—the 7 million copies that were published following the killings did exactly that, triggering violent protests across the Muslim world, including one in Niger, in which ten people died. Meanwhile, the French government kept busy rounding up and arresting over 100 Muslims who had foolishly used their freedom of speech to express their support of the attacks.

This is an interesting position that appears to be inconsistent with rampant criticism of Mormonism and Scientology, to name two religious minority groups that endure a level of criticism that is certainly disproportionate to their demographic positions within the United States, to say nothing of the West generally. Islam, by contrast, is a religion with nearly 2 billion adherents, second in absolute numbers only to the oft-parodied, oft-criticized Abrahamic cousin of Christianity. Yet Mormons and Scientologists do not generally behave as savages when their doctrines are subjected to merciless parody.

Could one imagine, for example, what would happen if a parody of the life of the prophet of Islam was staged in Manhattan as a major broadway show? Is it fair to say that the death threats would kill attendance before jihadists had a chance to kill the audience?

One other major criticism of Islam at this point, very evident from some of the posters on this forum, is that they feel that arguing against the validity of the Quran or Muhammad in general, claiming he was dishonest, they assume you are just being a jerk. It's not possible for them to understand that many people have issues with Muhammad's character in general, that many don't consider him to be an "honorable person". I am always puzzled when I see this attitude and get "ignored" by the Muslim Contributor for merely expressing a commonly held point of view. It's almost like they are covering their ears whenever something comes up that doesn't fall in line with their already held beliefs.

 

[Tumah]

Eugene Volokh has an interesting post up about Garry Trudeau, creator of Doonsbury, criticizing Charlie Hebdo last Friday for attacking a "powerless, disenfranchised minority," namely the religion of Islam in an article titled "The Abuse of Satire." From that article:

Traditionally, satire has comforted the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable. Satire punches up, against authority of all kinds, the little guy against the powerful. Great French satirists like Molière and Daumier always punched up, holding up the self-satisfied and hypocritical to ridicule. Ridiculing the non-privileged is almost never funny—it’s just mean.

By punching downward, by attacking a powerless, disenfranchised minority with crude, vulgar drawings closer to graffiti than cartoons, Charlie wandered into the realm of hate speech, which in France is only illegal if it directly incites violence. Well, voila—the 7 million copies that were published following the killings did exactly that, triggering violent protests across the Muslim world, including one in Niger, in which ten people died. Meanwhile, the French government kept busy rounding up and arresting over 100 Muslims who had foolishly used their freedom of speech to express their support of the attacks.

This is an interesting position that appears to be inconsistent with rampant criticism of Mormonism and Scientology, to name two religious minority groups that endure a level of criticism that is certainly disproportionate to their demographic positions within the United States, to say nothing of the West generally. Islam, by contrast, is a religion with nearly 2 billion adherents, second in absolute numbers only to the oft-parodied, oft-criticized Abrahamic cousin of Christianity. Yet Mormons and Scientologists do not generally behave as savages when their doctrines are subjected to merciless parody.

Could one imagine, for example, what would happen if a parody of the life of the prophet of Islam was staged in Manhattan as a major broadway show? Is it fair to say that the death threats would kill attendance before jihadists had a chance to kill the audience?

I don't know if this is the correct frame of reference for this issue. On the one hand, I see the value in not stepping over board with any people.
On the other hand, with this people, the reaction is incredibly out of proportion to the act. Look at Iran. As a way of emphasizing the hypocrisy of allowing anti-Islam cartoons while prohibiting antisemitic speech, Iran began an International Holocaust Cartoon competition. How many Jews have you heard about shooting up or otherwise harassing Muslims as a result?

Had all things been the same, I would say that both antisemitic and anti-Islamic cartoons are unquestionably wrong. But now I feel there is an added dimensions to the question: why should Western law be dictated and reactionary to Islamic violence- at least in Western countries?

 

[gsa]

That would have been a true statement in the early days of Mormonism. Not so today. There are currently more Mormons living outside of the U.S. and Canada than there are in those two countries combined. Ethnicity in today's LDS Church is all over the map -- both figuratively and literally. Mormons of various ethnic groups are encouraged to continue to be a part of their ethnic and cultural groups in addition to being part of their religion. This two-minute trailer for the movie, "Meet the Mormons" gives you some sense of that.

I am not concerned with Mormonism globally for purposes of this analysis, only with its clear ethno cluster structures in the US. According to some figures at least you are three times the size of our national Muslim population, but you are still a distinct religious minority. And I am pretty sure that your ethnic makeup is not that diverse within-country.

See? I had something to say about how Mormons do a better job of responding to criticism of their religion and you even found fault with that.

 

[leibowde84]

That would have been a true statement in the early days of Mormonism. Not so today. There are currently more Mormons living outside of the U.S. and Canada than there are in those two countries combined. Ethnicity in today's LDS Church is all over the map -- both figuratively and literally. Mormons of various ethnic groups are encouraged to continue to be a part of their ethnic and cultural groups in addition to being part of their religion. This two-minute trailer for the movie, "Meet the Mormons" gives you some sense of that.

As a Mormon, what do you think of the South Park Musical? Just out of curiosity? Why do you think that Mormons have so much more self-control (maturity) when it comes to mockery of their faith?

 

[gsa]

I don't know if this is the correct frame of reference for this issue. On the one hand, I see the value in not stepping over board with any people.
On the other hand, with this people, the reaction is incredibly out of proportion to the act. Look at Iran. As a way of emphasizing the hypocrisy of allowing anti-Islam cartoons while prohibiting antisemitic speech, Iran began an International Holocaust Cartoon competition. How many Jews have you heard about shooting up or otherwise harassing Muslims as a result?

Had all things been the same, I would say that both antisemitic and anti-Islamic cartoons are unquestionably wrong. But now I feel there is an added dimensions to the question: why should Western law be dictated and reactionary to Islamic violence- at least in Western countries?

I do not think that the vast majority of antisemitic cartoons are remotely comparable to the Danish cartoons or the other depictions of Mohammed that offend Muslim sensibilities because they are blasphemous. I think that both should be legal, sure, but the equivalent would be a cartoon parodying Moss (or easier yet, the "righteous" yet incestuous Lot and the would-be child sacrifice proponent Abraham, or something poking fun at Orthodox misogyny or superstition). Instead the antisemitic cartoons that these cartoons are being compared to are usually racist stereotypes that have little to do with Judaism as a religion and much to do with conspiracy theories about Jews controlling world governments.

 

[gsa]

One other major criticism of Islam at this point, very evident from some of the posters on this forum, is that they feel that arguing against the validity of the Quran or Muhammad in general, claiming he was dishonest, they assume you are just being a jerk. It's not possible for them to understand that many people have issues with Muhammad's character in general, that many don't consider him to be an "honorable person". I am always puzzled when I see this attitude and get "ignored" by the Muslim Contributor for merely expressing a commonly held point of view. It's almost like they are covering their ears whenever something comes up that doesn't fall in line with their already held beliefs.

Yes! And even worse, when you criticize him for his many human flaws, like having sex with a 9 year old girl, a belief widely held among Sunnis and supported by hadiths considered authentic, you will be accused of disrespecting the prophet even though most Sunnis don't contest those teachings. Which leads me to believe it is all about wanting public affirmation of one's belief system. By sword if necessary.

 

[gsa]

I don't know if this is the correct frame of reference for this issue. On the one hand, I see the value in not stepping over board with any people.
On the other hand, with this people, the reaction is incredibly out of proportion to the act. Look at Iran. As a way of emphasizing the hypocrisy of allowing anti-Islam cartoons while prohibiting antisemitic speech, Iran began an International Holocaust Cartoon competition. How many Jews have you heard about shooting up or otherwise harassing Muslims as a result?

Had all things been the same, I would say that both antisemitic and anti-Islamic cartoons are unquestionably wrong. But now I feel there is an added dimensions to the question: why should Western law be dictated and reactionary to Islamic violence- at least in Western countries?

Here is an example that I think might come closer for most Jews: The concept of being the chosen people. I think it is perfectly acceptable to satirize and criticize that belief as encouraging ethnocentrism and a sense of superiority, notwithstanding the more generous and less inflammatory interpretation of its meaning. It will make Jews uncomfortable, yes, and they will disagree strongly with that criticism no doubt.

But yes your bottom line question is the real crux of it.

 

[Tumah]

I do not think that the vast majority of antisemitic cartoons are remotely comparable to the Danish cartoons or the other depictions of Mohammed that offend Muslim sensibilities because they are blasphemous. I think that both should be legal, sure, but the equivalent would be a cartoon parodying Moss (or easier yet, the "righteous" yet incestuous Lot and the would-be child sacrifice proponent Abraham, or something poking fun at Orthodox misogyny or superstition). Instead the antisemitic cartoons that these cartoons are being compared to are usually racist stereotypes that have little to do with Judaism as a religion and much to do with conspiracy theories about Jews controlling world governments.

I hear the comparison you are making. But even in that were the case, do you see such a reaction occurring?
(Also, I didn't know that Lot was considered righteous by some people.)

 

[Katzpur]

And I am pretty sure that your ethnic makeup is not that diverse within-country.

It's definitely less diverse than it is outside of this country, but probably greater than you would think.

See? I had something to say about how Mormons do a better job of responding to criticism of their religion and you even found fault with that.

No I didn't. Why would you accuse me of that? I merely stated that Mormons are not an ethnoreligious group. I didn't comment on your other statement at all.

 

[Quintessence]

Whether or not an individual represents a minority or a majority should be irrelevant with respect to upholding basic standards of civility and decency, otherwise known as the "don't be an $#@%" rule. Criticism can, but does not necessarily, violate that rule.

Honestly, when people criticize my religious minority, I just laugh because the vast majority of the time, they don't have a bloody clue what they're even talking about and are doing little more than demonstrating unsightly ignorance and a deficiency in various praiseworthy virtues.