First, the cartoon.
As you are probably well aware, the cartoon on the left, sparked an enormous controversy several years ago after being published in Europe. Since Muslims believe that any depiction of Mohammed was blasphemous, they protested. The more fundamentalist of them went crazy and started a wave of violent protesting, which I find rather ironic, as that violence was what the cartoon was about. But the West rallied and claimed that they had a right to publish this cartoon as we value this little thing called Freedom of Speech.
A few weeks ago, the New York Post posted a cartoon of two police officers shooting a chimp, saying, "They'll have to find someone else to write the stimulus bill." Someone found this to be racist and started to protest against it. The cartoon however was suppose to be mocking the Congress, who the cartoonist saw as being "a team of trained monkeys." (TimesOnline). It wasn't meant to be racist at all, it was merely misinterpreted as being racist. The chimpanzee in question was actually a chimp who was shot by police after mauling its owner, also in recent news.My question is this. If we supported publishing offensive material a few years ago, that offended the muslims blatantly, then why is there so much anger over a cartoon that was not intended to offend, but caused it by mistake? I'm not advocating hate speech, I just see a double standard. Why was it considered Free Speech when it was directed at the Muslims, but considered Hate Speech when directed at blacks? Especially in this case, where the Mohammed cartoon was definately tactless (although it made a good point) and this cartoon was misinterpreted. Either they both are hate speech, or they both have protection under the right to free speech.
Is it because we Americans as a majority are afraid of the scary Muslims but ashamed of our racist past? We're afraid of being judgmental towards black people because of our past, but not afraid of being judgmental towards muslims because the radicals in their groups advocate death to the US. This is a double standard. Blacks, muslims, jews, chinese, etc, etc, should all be regarded under the same level of tact and sensitivity as anyone else. Either we allow ourselves to produce offensive, yet poignant, cartoons, or we restrain ourselves with tact and sensitivity. We can't be showing more to one group and less to another.
****************
In other news, several republican state congressmen in states such as Utah and Colorado have made statements stating that gays are the biggest threat to the US and that homosexuality is worse than murder (ABC and Think Progress respectively). Meanwhile, Tennessee is working on a bill allowing only married couples to adopt children (UPI.) Unsurprisingly, gays can't get married, making this a subtle "anti-gay" law, and unsurprisingly led by Republicans.
I know the Bible says, in Leviticus, gays are an abomination. But the problem is, this is the Bible. Not everyone follows it. Not everyone believes in it and since this is a nation with no official religion, the Bible is not a legal authority. You can't legislate on the basis that it's in the Bible. And under the same logic, you can't legislate on the basis that some god said it was wrong.
So the question remains, on who's authority is homosexuality wrong? I for one don't see it. If two loving, same sex adults want to get some in the privacy of their own homes, who am I to judge them? Who am I to tell them to stop? It doesn't affect me, it doesn't hurt me. They're happy and I'm unaffected. As to not letting them adopt, that's asinine. Marriage is not some magical state that makes a couple suddenly become stable and loving. There are many marriages that fall apart and many single couples that are stable and loving, but unmarried for whatever reasons (perhaps because they're gay?).
If you can't find a reason why something is wrong, a reason that does NOT include religion, you can't legislate it.
**************
In other new again, (I have a third topic), a message to Michael Steele:
GROW A BACKBONE.
GOP Chairman Steele commented a few days ago that radio host Limbaugh was not the leader and the voice of the Republican Party. He said that the pundit often got ugly and was simply an entertainer. I was happy for a moment, thinking that the GOP might actually be disowning the nutjobs that make their party look like idiots (Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity).Then he rescinded his comment.
Then he apologized to Rush (Politico).
Apparently the loudmouth Limbaugh is the voice and the leadership of the GOP. Which is sad. He's a rightwing nutjob who compared the presidency to the Superbowl, in an asinine analogy where he defended his stance hoping that Obama fails. Rush believes the whole thing is a game and that what is important is that his side "wins" no matter the cost.
But I guess Chairman Steele isn't the leader of the GOP. Limbaugh is.
This is for you Steele:
And the Republicans wonder why they're becoming irrelevant . . .
"I accept the verdict, but I deny the sentence. I have a destiny." -Richard, Chief Warlock of the Brothers of Darkness, Lord of the Thirteen Hells, Master of the Bones, Emperor of the Black, Lord of the Undead . . . and the mayor of a little town up the coast. (Looking for Group)
J Kuhl Signing Off
No comments:
Post a Comment