http://www.frogworth.com/blog/archives/2006/02/09/can-an-atheist-blaspheme/ a sporadic weblog Thu, 22 Sep 2011 05:03:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.frogworth.com/blog/archives/2006/02/09/can-an-atheist-blaspheme/comment-page-1/#comment-317 Michael Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:17:40 +0000 http://www.frogworth.com/blog/archives/2006/02/09/can-an-atheist-blaspheme/#comment-317 "I personally feel that the cartoons in question were rather offensive and racist" That's a very all-encompasing statement. Each cartoon was done by a different artist, with different backgrounds, motives, etc. You have focused, no doubt, on the picture of Mohammed with a bomb on his head, as most of the newspapers have. But what about the others? Is the cartoon of Mohammad just standing in the desert racist? (Extreme Muslims certainly find it offensive, as they find *any* representation of Mohammed offensive, but do you? Do you feel offence on their behalf?) Or what about the cartoon of the cartoonist furtively drawing his cartoon of Mohammed. Is that racist? Hardly, I would suggest. Is it offensive? Again, only to some. Ohr how about the extremely abstract cartoon which combines the star and cresent with the face of Mohammed. Racist? Well, to me it harkens back to similar cartoons that used to use the hammer and sickle to mark sommething as communist. So if anything this is a political cartoon, not a racist one. And offensive? Well, it's almost so stylised that unless you are *told* it's a representation of Mohammed, how could you know? Now, as an overall body of work *perhaps* you can classify the series of comics as racist or offensive, but by looking at the whole series I think it also becomes clear that the paper was not just aiming to offend the easily offended. The "message" of some of these cartoons is more sophisticated than that. "I personally feel that the cartoons in question were rather offensive and racist"
That's a very all-encompasing statement. Each cartoon was done by a different artist, with different backgrounds, motives, etc. You have focused, no doubt, on the picture of Mohammed with a bomb on his head, as most of the newspapers have. But what about the others?
Is the cartoon of Mohammad just standing in the desert racist? (Extreme Muslims certainly find it offensive, as they find *any* representation of Mohammed offensive, but do you? Do you feel offence on their behalf?)
Or what about the cartoon of the cartoonist furtively drawing his cartoon of Mohammed. Is that racist? Hardly, I would suggest. Is it offensive? Again, only to some.
Ohr how about the extremely abstract cartoon which combines the star and cresent with the face of Mohammed. Racist? Well, to me it harkens back to similar cartoons that used to use the hammer and sickle to mark sommething as communist. So if anything this is a political cartoon, not a racist one. And offensive? Well, it's almost so stylised that unless you are *told* it's a representation of Mohammed, how could you know?
Now, as an overall body of work *perhaps* you can classify the series of comics as racist or offensive, but by looking at the whole series I think it also becomes clear that the paper was not just aiming to offend the easily offended. The "message" of some of these cartoons is more sophisticated than that.

]]>