tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236813364563375770.post5066774624638635658..comments2024-01-22T00:20:40.611-08:00Comments on Celestia's Caricature Blog: My Lofty Opinions: Je Suis Froussard: What Charlie Hebdo Has Taught Me (So Far)CelestiaWardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10022228559263490597noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236813364563375770.post-32722944477912919322015-01-19T10:50:13.001-08:002015-01-19T10:50:13.001-08:00I just think it's more complicated than the I ...I just think it's more complicated than the I am Charlie buttons make it out to be. Yes, the terrorists were very, very wrong. But them being very, very wrong, does not, by definition, make Charlie Hebdo very, very right.Mike Hasson, About Faceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14183293015728339632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236813364563375770.post-29446951481280050302015-01-16T21:31:29.513-08:002015-01-16T21:31:29.513-08:00Mike, thanks for the dialogue. You might really ge...Mike, thanks for the dialogue. You might really get a lot out of a recent article Tom Richmond just directed folks to. Check this out on the DailyKos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/11/1356945/-On-not-understanding-Charlie-Why-many-smart-people-are-getting-it-wrong<br />It raises some really salient points on how we, as non French speakers unfamiliar with their culture or complex satire, are getting it wrong when we have knee-jerk reactions about the meaning (or our presumed meaning) of many of the covers that are going around online. <br /> That said, it's completely fine for you to believe it's wrong to mock someone's religious faith, and no one is asking you to do it. Supporting a satirist's right to satire things is a whole separate issue. Should religions get a pass? Well, where do you draw the line then? Plenty of religions are messed up and deserve some mockery. Taliban fundamentalists shot a girl in the head because she wanted to go to school. Stuff like that should not be off limits because the shooters really believed in their heart it was their sacred duty to put a bullet in the head of a 14-year-old. One might argue that many things are sacred to many different people (including kings and leaders), and if we tut-tut at any satire aimed at that, we'd be left with nothing. Kim Jong Un (like his father, and grandfather before him) is revered as a religious figure in North Korea--do cartoons that mock him bother you at all? <br /> I can think of many justifications for mocking religious belief. Mockery is a legitimate tool of change. Sometimes it is the only available tool to demand change. It is the promotion of an idea, which (unlike the artists) can never be killed once it's been put out there. If religions had not undergone massive changes over the past few millenia (or even the past few centuries), I would not be able to even have this conversation with you. I would be silent, as women are urged to be in the Bible, and I'd probably have twelve kids and no education whatsoever. I'm not saying I owe my modern life to political cartoons, just that satire is a very strong way to bring about a new zeitgeist with a huge amount of people. And that leads to change. <br /> "Mockery of religion is one of the most essential things . . . one of the beginnings of the human emancipation is the ability to laugh at authority, it's indispensable." --Christopher Hitchens. <br /> CelestiaWardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10022228559263490597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236813364563375770.post-34632318771597744202015-01-16T13:45:27.056-08:002015-01-16T13:45:27.056-08:00Yes, wearing a slutty dress does not justify rape....Yes, wearing a slutty dress does not justify rape. And drawing an offensive cartoon does not justify murder. Of course the killers were wrong. Of course.<br /><br />But I do not wear a button that says I am Charlie. Because I would not have drawn those cartoons. They were, in my opinion, the equivalent of refusing to eat lunch with the Jewish kid in elementary school, because he is Jewish, or of wearing a Klan hood and robe and calling for a return to the days of slavery. They were mocking and ridiculing a religious faith and those who adhere to it. I don't agree with the dictates of the faith. I do defend the artists' right to ridicule it. But I would never do so myself. Not because I'm afraid of reprisals (although I am). But because I believe it is wrong to ridicule someone's religious beliefs. Well, perhaps not exactly wrong. But not gentlemanly. I mean, why do it? Those examples you gave of Philipon's political caricatures that ridiculed the King were done with a reason and a goal. What is the justification behind mocking a religious belief? I do lots of things in poor taste - I've got a warped and often inappropriate sense of humor. But I just can't see the humor in something like Piss Christ by Serrano or cartoons that depict Mohammed as homosexual, when the sole point seems to be to piss on someone else's religious values. (Unfortunately, and this may take some of the vinegar out of my rant, I did think the South Park episode was pretty funny). Mike Hasson, About Faceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14183293015728339632noreply@blogger.com