The student paper at University of Toronto, The Strand, wouldn’t print the Danish cartoons, on the grounds that they were inflammatory.
So instead, they printed this one.
What do you think?
The paper refused to back down under pressure from student groups but the support of the university. On one level, I find it admirable. On another, I do not.
As I have said in the past, I have doubts about the original decision to publish the Mohammad cartoons in Denmark. I don’t know that I would have published all of them, but the paper’s editor offers a good explanation of his motivations. But once they became the source of such an uproar, the cartoons became newsworthy and needed to be printed to provide context. The failure of media outlets to do so was wrong.
The Strand took a different tack – they published this entirely different cartoon, one that does not show Mohammad’s face but which is, clearly, Mohammad. And for good measure, they showed him making out with Jesus on a carnival ride – with Jesus clearly the sexual aggressor. And that is where I am left somewhat puzzled – what exactly was the point of portraying the Son of God in such a gratuitously offensive manner? I don’t deny their right to do so (though I wonder if Canadian hate-speech laws could be invoked), I just don’t see their reason for doing so if they won’t publish the newsworthy cartoons.
Their explanation for publishing this cartoon?
To some degree, we felt like it was our duty to do so. We would be making a statement: that freedom of expression triumphs over all, that tactics like the administration emptying newsstands over publication of controversial subjects are Draconian and detrimental to an environment like a university, which claims to nurture new ideas and inspire independent thinking. After all, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are basic values in Canadian society. But where does freedom of images fit in?Our own editorial staff was completely conflicted on the issue. Many of them had had their fill of cartoon-related debate with the prophets-making-out-cartoon and didn't even reply to the e-mails that were sent out. By Monday night, not everyone's opinion had been aired, and the notorious cartoons were screaming for a decision to be made.
We won't be like other institutions. We will value the freedom to choose just as highly as that to express. And above all, we will try to the best of our abilities to reach out to the greatest possible audience we can, hopefully inspiring some discussion and critical thinking along the way.
You can see the cartoon we almost didn't publish below. In light of everything else, it seems pretty damn tame. Hell, those could be any two guys kissing! And who doesn't play tonsil hockey in the Tunnel of Love? As for the other ones, you can view them online, but only if you want to.
Frankly, it is a pretty weak explanation, don’t you think? And I won’t get into the question of their blasphemy in the editorial, in which they relegate Jesus to the status of mere prophet (the Muslim designation for Jesus) rather than Christian designations like Lord, Son of God, and Saviour of the World. But it is their right to publish, just as it is my right to say they are wrong – but being wrong and offensive and blasphemous is not a basis for censorship.
Still, I find it interesting to note that not one riot has been provoked by the much more offensive explicit and intentional insult to Jesus. And that may be the real point – offended Christians don’t kill; offended Muslims do.
UPDATE: It seems that the ever-so-tolerant folks at University of Toronto are not so tolerant of free speech in instances when it upholds traditional Christian teachings on homosexuality or abortion.
HAT TIP: Exposed Agenda via Crittermusings.
MORE AT Jawa Report, Dread Pundit Bluto, Hyscience, Live Free Or Die, I'll Get That Chicken, Adam Daifallah, Elder of Ziyon, Nav Purewal, Reason/Hit & Run, Kokonut Pundits, NFOrce
FRead more in Toronto Cartoon Flap
o said:
rfIRead more in Toronto Cartoon Flap
l said:
pXgRead more in Toronto Cartoon Flap
Ƚо said:
åRead more in Toronto Cartoon Flap
Benvarine said:
On the topic of Religious Tolerance, please note The Papal Chase, a hilarious gritty guerrilla do
Read more in Toronto Cartoon Flap
WTF said:
And what is that evidence? Lay it out in black and white. There is no proof what so ever.
Read more in Toronto Cartoon FlapWTF -- Well, you've managed to prove yourself ignorant of history and theology in one post.
Read more in Toronto Cartoon FlapThere is no proof that jesus even existed. Did jesus take a crap? was that part of being human? W
Read more in Toronto Cartoon Flap
Filthy Allah said:
Your first death threat! I remember mine like it was yesterday! Cherish it!
Read more in Toronto Cartoon Flapread leviticus
Read more in Toronto Cartoon Flap
 |
Trackback Information for Toronto Cartoon Flap
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/152313Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Toronto Cartoon Flap'.
» The COLOSSUS OF RHODEY links with: A close blog buddy gets a Muslim death threat, on February 21, 2006, 06:08 PM
Excerpt: Greg over at Rhymes With Right gets a, er, "response" to one of his "cartoon flap" posts: A new comment has been posted on your blog Rhymes With Right, on entry #158774 (Toronto Cartoon Flap). http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/158774.php IP Address...
» Salt Lake Community College links with: Salt Lake Community College, on February 22, 2006, 12:15 PM
Excerpt: RateMyProfessors - Salt Lake Community College Salt Lake City, Good quality Poor quality Average quality...
Comments on Toronto Cartoon Flap
What do I think??
I think there have been MANY people show just how immature, thin skinned and childish they can be...
This cartoon BS is just that, BS, and if the radical Islamics have their delicate sensibilities injured, they need to get over it...
|| Posted by TexasFred, February 20, 2006 06:35 PM ||If the faith of Jews, Christians and Muslims can be shaken by a cartoon, then they should relook their faith period. For anyone to have any outrage over this cartoon of free expression would only show a simple mind that would tend to be easily manipulated by their peers to the benefit of some cause. Let us all be thankful that in Canada we can express ourselves in the press without fear of reprisal.
|| Posted by Larry "O", February 20, 2006 09:58 PM ||Suppose a historian finds a piece of news relating Marlin Monroe and John F. Kenedy along with a photogragh of both of them, totally nude, engaged in some explicite sexual act, will The New York Time's or some other established newspaper print that picture?
I assert, no such photograph exists. You only have to assume the situation.
|| Posted by Kamran, February 20, 2006 11:03 PM ||I take offense, Larry, but would never assert that my being offended undermines the right of others to express themselves.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, February 20, 2006 11:38 PM ||ASALAM_U_ALIKUM
|| Posted by aamir malik, February 21, 2006 01:48 AM ||what the hell have you people made this?
how could you be so much rude ?
what do you think of yourself?
if you vl be here we will jst kill you>?
I think the Danish and whoever newspaper has the right to print the cartoon.. but to take into consideration other people's feelings and sentiments is also important. the muslims have the right to come out and oppose and be angry with the publication but it is absolutely wrong for them to indulge in violence. the burnings and killings, which will further divide. and further go to prove that they are the ones making this world a not very happy place.
more than the publication of the cartoon, what about the destruction, bombing of the Bamiyan Buddha of thousand of years by the muslims, its crazy and worst, completely wiping out a world heritage, do the Buddhist go about burning and taking hostage muslim embassies.. we should always try to maintain balance then there will be peace...
|| Posted by John, February 21, 2006 10:45 AM ||Jesus was gay. He was 33 and not married. Men only lived to about 40 yo then so he was at the end of his life and not married. Spells gay to me.
|| Posted by WTF, February 21, 2006 12:10 PM ||And he hung around with 12 guys all the time, and one hooker. Probably helped her decorate her pad. Not that being gay is a bad thing. Abe Lincoln was too.
|| Posted by WTF, February 21, 2006 12:25 PM ||WTF -- not every man lives a life that revolves around his penis.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, February 21, 2006 04:44 PM ||After Jesus got better from being dead, he made a hasty retreat by blasting off the surface of the earth for the impregnable safety of Heavenly Paradise, never to be seen again, this place he's supposed to be saving (why didnt he stay on earth after his so-called resurrection and actually help people?). If Jesus is offend by this cartoon, let him say so. So far, like all of these prophets, he has nothing to say.
|| Posted by Rodwell, February 22, 2006 02:24 AM ||It is up to us to find a way to peace, not some non-entity who couldn't even be bothered to help those who suffer because of him. And Jesus was gay - what about the disciple that Jesus so loved? As all his deciples were male, then it goes without saying that Jesus loved men. Go for it, U of T!
Actually, given the fact that homosexual activity is sinful according to the Bible -- and that Jesus, as Son of God, was ithout sin -- there can be no doubt as to the heterosexuality of Jesus.
Oh, and by the way, Rodwell, your argument also fails because of the fact that the Gospel of John was written in Greek, which has multiple words that translate to English as "love". The word used in the Greek text is not one that implies sexual or romantic love.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, February 22, 2006 04:58 AM ||There is no cmmandment that says you can't be gay.
|| Posted by WTF, February 22, 2006 09:38 AM ||So it can't be a sin.
I think that these guys are ignorant and insensitive to both the Christian faith and to the Muslim religion. Their only defense to their stupid actions was "we wanted to provoke controversy and discussion, but the only thing they did was fan the flames. This just goes to show how insensitive and totally ignorant people from our generation are!
|| Posted by rachel, February 22, 2006 12:53 PM ||WTF -- actually, there are multiple statements regarding the sinfulness of homosexual activity.
And given that homosexuality is a deviation from the perfection of the human person, it is impossible for Jesus (who was perfect God and perfect Man) to be a homosexual. After all, that which is perfect cannot be flawed.
But I will agree with you that a homosexual orientation is not, in and of itself, sinful -- just like the attraction of a pedophile for his/her child-victim is not sinful. Only acting on the impulse is sinful.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, February 22, 2006 06:51 PM ||read leviticus
|| Posted by s, February 23, 2006 02:24 PM ||Your first death threat! I remember mine like it was yesterday! Cherish it!
|| Posted by Filthy Allah, February 23, 2006 02:50 PM ||There is no proof that jesus even existed. Did jesus take a crap? was that part of being human? Was the crap a holy site then? The bible is a translation of the original. Nobody has seen the first text. It was modified to suit king james and keep the people down. Just as it is used for today. and you acn say it al you want, but if it is not on e of the 10 commandments, then it is not a sin. Unless you think you can cahnge you god's will as you please, as many of you do.
|| Posted by WTF, February 23, 2006 03:53 PM ||WTF -- Well, you've managed to prove yourself ignorant of history and theology in one post.
1) I'll ignore the scatalogical questions as being unworthy of comment.
2) You are right on one point -- we do not have the original texts. However, we have OT manuscripts of every book in the Old testament dating back to between the 2nd cenury BC and 1st century AD (the Dead Sea Scrolls), and they are substantially equivalent to the texts still in use by Jews today in synagogues around the world. Older NT texts dating to well-before the time of King James are also extant, though not quite so old as the OT texts, and they are the basis for contemporary translations.
3) While the KJV is not a perfect translation, it reamins a good one by scholarly stnadards -- and comparisons of later translations AND earlier translations show that it is faithful to the extant ancient manuscripts -- many of which were not discovered until later eras.
4) The 10 Commandments is not an exhaustive list of what is and is not sinful -- you'll find a number of commandments and laws in the Pentatuch, which is the first five books of the OT and which contains and which contain the 10 Commandments twice. When you encounter the term "the Law and the Prophets" in the NT, those five books make up the first half of that phrase.
5) No historical evidence for Jesus? There is at least as much eviddence for him as for many historical figures of the ancient world, including So crates. For that matter, the manuscript lines of most ancient works are substantially weaker than those for any book of the Bible.
I hope what I've written is clear to you, as your above post makes it clear that you are historically, scripturally, and theologically ignorant. I'll try not to let my graduate level study of history, theology, and Scripture get in the way of my communicating with you clearly.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, February 23, 2006 05:07 PM ||And what is that evidence? Lay it out in black and white. There is no proof what so ever.
|| Posted by WTF, February 24, 2006 01:14 PM ||On the topic of Religious Tolerance, please note The Papal Chase, a hilarious gritty guerrilla documentary about one-man's obsession to meet the Pope (during World Youth Day in Toronto 2002), will be making it's theatrical debut at the Bloor Cinema in Toronto on March 23rd-24th, 2006. Come see the film that people are saying puts the "fun" back into Fundamentalist Religion, and stay for a post show symposium on Religious Tolerance in New Media and Culture.
|| Posted by Benvarine, March 14, 2006 11:13 AM ||åեSEX¯ʥˡвåեåввåǿåϽϽSEXϽ
|| Posted by Ƚо, January 29, 2009 10:45 PM ||pXglGAj܂lWRpsϏolȏonoۂoSMo؍loNolotBslo
|| Posted by l, January 30, 2009 09:50 PM ||rfIZuςIbpCRLB[^ƏoƏofޏގReNlߏqZq吶wo܂C
|| Posted by o, January 30, 2009 10:02 PM ||FCvqC\[vhfo[wXf[gipߐetF`ItFttCu`bgozXgoonTCgoUTCgႤ҂Loj
|| Posted by , January 30, 2009 10:30 PM ||Post a comment