Pete Ashton's Weblog

Ok, the Mohammed cartoons. As Tom Spurgeon of The Comics Reporter puts it, "probably the biggest international news story with cartoons at its center in the history of the medium" which makes the relative silence on the issue from comics nerds, who have over the last couple of decades been rabbiting on about the power of cartooning and the effectiveness of the medium in communicating ideas, somewhat ironic methinks. Here we are with half the world in uproar over a bunch of gag cartoons and everyone's gone silent.

(At least I haven't noticed anything, but granted I'm not exactly in the middle of the comics community at the moment, so maybe I missed Team Comix getting all vocal on this issue. Feel free to point me in that direction if I'm wrong.)

But still, this is the comics/cartooning medium, of which I'm on record as "caring a bit about", and the world of religion, of which I'm on record as "thinking a bit stupid", so it should be pretty clear cut where I stand on this.

Except it's all a bit complicated. Unfortunately the cartoons (which if you haven't seen them already are on this page about 2/3 down) are kinda shit. Not only that but they were published in what I understand to be a right-wing newspaper on a par with the Express in a country which doesn't have a particularly good track record on dealing with its darker-skinned immigrant population. Parallels can be drawn with pre-war caricatures of Jews in Germany along with the depictions of orientals in 1940s American comics. There's no place for this kind of thing and it deserves to be shouted down.

(Although it must be said that the "Stop! We've run out of virgins!" one is kinda funny.)

On the other hand, the argument that these cartoons shouldn't have been printed soley because they depict Mohammed and for no other reason is... well...

Religion, eh?

I mean, you've got some seriously meaty issues here. Racism, tolerance, imperialism, terrorism, war, economics... But the thing that gets people out there setting fire to embassies (and let's not forget the importance of an embassy in political terms - you might as well invade the country itself) is the visual representation of a man who some people believe to be a prophet.

I'd like to think these cartoons were just the spark that set off a powder keg that has been ignored for far too long. A handy scapegoat for both sides that avoids the bigger more complicated issues, rather like chat rooms being blamed for paedophilia and heavy metal for teenage suicide. I'd like to think that, but unfortunately I think this is a case of stupid bigotry meeting stupid religion and we're just going to have to reap what has been sown.

Here's a simplified example. If Muslims (or more accurately people living in the Middle East in countries that are predominantly populated by persons of the Muslim faith) were to object to these cartoons on the basis that they're racist, inflammatory nonsense then they'd have to put their own house in order and stop printing the same about Israel but objecting on the graven images of Mohammed basis means they can avoid that. On the other hand the Europeans avoid the cancer of racism in their countries by citing freedom of expression, neglecting to remember that with freedom comes a shitload of responsibility and doesn't include shouting fire in a crowded theatre.

Idiots, the lot of them...

[Update: Wikipedia on the controversy including the cartoons themselves. | The Comics Journal message board where comics luminaries swerve around the point a bit, only occasionally hitting it.]

Reactions to the momentous occasion of the British Broadcasting Corporation screening a recording of Jerry Springer - The Opera as performed on the London Stage at 10pm of a Saturday night on BBC2.

• Opera is stretching it a bit. More a musical I'd say.

• The swearing was the funniest aspect, though swearing often is, especially when sung in an operatic style on stage and broadcast on television.

• There wasn't enough swearing in my view. I was led to believe there would be more usage of the word cunt but it only really appeared in one scene with a brief cameo in another.

• Mucho points, though, for the phrase "three nippled cousin fucker."

• We're in South Park territory here.

• That Klan stuff was a total rip-off of The Producers, but I think that was intentional and, thinking about it, what else could you do with a troupe of dancing Klansmen. Also, they're both spoofing the same thing (see my first observation).

• I wasn't aware that Jews don't go to Hell, so I learned something new, unless it's wrong.

• Having Kirsty Wark read the warnings at the beginning of each act was inspired and lent a certain frission to the evening.

• On the whole, I enjoyed it, but not hugely. It was kinda silly, not that poignant where it wanted to be and didn't feel like it got to the meat of the matter. It probably works better seen live rather than from the sofa, but it was nice to see the mind of Stuart Lee projected on such a scale.

And regarding the furore that preceded the broadcast from certain persons of a religious persuasion masquerading as guardians of decency and fair play in the broadcasting arena...

• Now they've burned their license fees they won't be able to watch any television at all. I hope they find this as liberating as I did. However, it should be noted that you don't need to actually burn it. All you need to do is just not buy one in the first place. Cheaper that way too. And you can always watch the 2 or 3 programs a year that you can't do without at your mate's house.

• That wasn't blasphemous. And if it is, why is that a problem? I'm offended by most of the ill informed, blinkered, anti-intellectual garbage that comes out of broadcast media. You're offended by two hours of off-peak arts programming on the minority-interest channel. And you're offended because it uses your beliefs (that is, something you believe in, rather than something you know to be true) to make a point about society in general. And because it has lots of swearing.

• There should be comedies that take the piss out of Islam along with Sikhs, Hindus, all the myriad variations of Christianity and any other belief systems that take themselves far too seriously. If you can't figure out why this is a good thing then you're taking yourself far too seriously. And it says a lot about your faith if it's so fragile that you can't take a frikkin joke.

• This is a secular country. Deal with it.
  

Boing Boing points to a great photo-essay about Tibetan Buddhist Monks who build a mandalla out of sand grain by grain from dawn 'til dusk. Then when it's finished they pour it into the river as "a demonstration of nonattachment to the material existence." I wish I'd read about this a few weeks ago as it would really have helped me with a pointless argument I had in the front of a dump truck.

Well, remind me not to joke about religion on the blog again. Which is what I was doing in the last post. I was a bit tired and antsy - train from Banbury had turned magically into a coach, chesty cough was going all sinal - and religion had been bemusing me of late, not just with this film, about which I don't really care too much, but also the whole gay marriage thing. So I had a rant, and everyone took me seriously. I even got a nice email from Minnesota expressing amazement that I'd written it. So, for the record, here's my cack-handed, ill-informed take on religion and I promise never to revisit it on this forum again.

This whole controversy over The Passion has me rather confused. I can see that Mel Gibson is obviously a close-minded bigoted Xtian with a sense of righteousness blinkered by his susceptibility to confuse myth and storytelling with reality, and while that's a shame (I always liked Mad Max) it's sadly all to common. There are enough idiots in the world that this film is probably not going to help the cause of peace love and understanding, that much I'm sure about.

What's confusing me is this whole "Jews killed Jesus" malarkey. Surely in order for the whole Jesus thing to work he has to die? My understanding of the Easter story was that he knew he was going to die and that everything and everyone around him was, essentially, manipulated by forces unknown (God?) to make sure this happened. That whole thing about Peter disowning him to save his own skin and so on. Surely the only reason the Jews killed Jesus, if indeed they did, is that there were a hell of a lot of Jews around at the time. And more to the point, if Jesus hadn't died then, well, that whole thing about "he died for our sins", which seems to be the cornerstone of mouthy Xtian theology, it kinda wouldn't work. "He grew old for our sins" doesn't quite have the same ring to it. Surely the Jews did the Xtians a favour and should be celebrated by Mel Gibson for making sure that this rather fundamental cornerstone event in his religion actually took place?

But what do I know. I'm just a hell-bound heathen on the fast road to damnation.