I don't know, I just don't find southpark that funny anymore. It's cute to see them mocking family guy, but besides that I didn't crack a smile.

Not just this episode, but most of them lately have been kind of like "oh that's a clever way of saying things" and that's it.

This cartoon has just never really clicked with me. People always go on and on about the daring satire on this show as if satire could be accomplished by doing nothing more than pushing the limits of good taste. Not that I really care if South Park or any TV show crosses some arbitrary line of "good taste", but, well.... I guess that's just it: saying or doing outrageous things on a TV show just doesn't seem that daring to me. What fates, so to speak, are they really tempting? The lawsuit fates? And if they or Family Guy stick in a Muhammad character and this results in protests or violence or whatever, well, OK. Are we supposed to hand them the Daring Satire Award? Would this be more daring or original or important than some 5th grader's derogatory Muhammad cartoon appearing in some local newspaper? Is it going to further the discussion of freedom of speech? When Chef was pilloried recently on South Park, was the great weight of oppression I felt over not being able to express my tongue-in-cheek views of Scientology lifted from my shoulders? I'm not trying to piss anyone off--I know that there are lots of fans of this show on this site (hell, my wife loves this show) and I know that the humor one likes or doesn't like is a highly personal matter. I'm just saying I don't get this type.

I view it as a series of connected political cartoons with the characters providing the captions.

I miss the good Old Fashioned Days when no movie studio would show an actor playing Jesus (Joshua)for fear of reprisals.

I don't divide our country between religious and non-religious, but between tolorant and intolorant. Reasonalbe and unresonable.

That said, I do believe it is important to respect the wishes of others as long as they do not hinder your own freedom.

The Danish Cartoon was an intentional stab at a minority to "get them to accept" the western ways. Ironically, that fiasco got started when an author wished to tell the story of Mohamed to westerners, and unsuccessfully tried to find an artist to illustrate it.

Of course, I has also found highly intolorant scientists.

Q: if Mohamed's visage appeared on the side of a building, what would happen?

God I hate Family Guy.

"The Danish Cartoon was an intentional stab at a minority to "get them to accept" the western ways."

I don't think it was to get them to accept our western ways, but to affirm that we continue to stand by our western ways, freedom of speech, and are not willing to accept their ways just because they find it offensive.

The cartoons that sparked the riots may not have been the ones that were published in the Danish newspaper, but other cartoons that were intentionally spread by Muslims to spark riots. See

http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/_showarticle/_a000010-001632.htm

The Danish Parliament contains a woman, Hirsi Ali, originally from Somalia, who suffered immensely in the name of Islam[1]. She an a Danish film-maker made a film that rubbished Islam, in quite a forth-right, and arguably offensive manner.

A fundamentalist Muslim youth then murdered (brutally) the film-maker in question.

This shocked the Danes. While many thought the film was gratuitously offensive, all agreed that no person should fear for their well-being for uttering an opinion. The Danes are quite proud of their heritage as a tolerant country. This event caused them to look at the large and growing Muslim minority in their midst, who - it seemed - did not share this tolerant attitude.

As a part of this dialogue, one Danish paper published a series of cartoons mocking Islam. Most of them were quite mild, some didn't even mock Islam at all. The most controversial cartoon is arguably one showing a bearded Muslim man whose turban is made to look like a bomb with a fuse. There is nothing in the cartoon to suggest that this is Mohammad himself, but many took that to be the case, and it may even have been the cartoonist's original intention. The cartoons can be viewed on Wikipedia here: it's a good idea to look at them before commenting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Cartoons

The cartoons were published on September 17th. Complaints were made the paper and the government, but neither saw much wrong with what the paper had done.

Angered by this, fundamentalist Muslim Imams started touring the Middle East, drumming up support for their cause. The brought with them a dossier consisting of several letters from Muslim organisations explaining their case, citing the Jyllands-Posten cartoons but also the following causes of "pain and torment" for the authors:

1. Pictures from another Danish newspaper, Weekendavisen, which they called "even more offending" (than the original 12 cartoons);

2. Hate-mail pictures and letters that the dossier's authors alleged were sent to Muslims in Denmark, which they claimed were indicative of the rejection of Muslims by the Danish;

3. A televised interview with Dutch member of parliament and Islam critic Hirsi Ali, who had just received the Freedom Prize “for her work to further freedom of speech and the rights of women” from the Danish Liberal Party represented by Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

Item (2), the hate mail, included the worst images, which no paper would publish, and which did not represent the views of the average Dane. It was these that really got the Middle East going.

A large number of Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa then - displaying enormous gullibility, hypocrisy, and a scant regard for human life - started protesting, rioting (causing many deaths), buring down building, and organising pogroms against Christians (this in Nigeria).

I say hypocrisy because of the following:

1) The prohibition is to prevent the worship of idols. The cartoons are unlikely to inspire idolatry

2) The prohibition covers all holy figures, including Moses, but Moses has appeared without comment in anti-semitic cartoons in the Middle East

3) The protestors complained that they were oppressed, but far stronger and more vicious anti-semitic cartoons are commonly published in the Middle East. Indeed Iran encouraged the publication of more during the furore, including one of Hitler haveing sex with Anne Frank (who died in a concentration camp)

4) Despite the ban on idolatry, no-one minded when the name of Mohammad was used as a new name for Danish Pastries

The cartoons were an affirmation by an unnerved people of their rights to free expression, not a "stab at a minority".

[1] To be honest, most of what was done to her were cultural things that became wrapped up in Islam, instead of things derived from the Koran itself; but Islam refuses to cast away these cultural fossils (like its treatment of woman which veers from shoddy to appalling).

Thanks for you commments Bryan,

I still believe that the editors of the newspaper intentionally angered a religious minority simply because it could.

Simply because the Islamic people acted horribly before and after the publishing of the cartoons does not excuse an intentional abuse of free speech. Shouting Fire in a theatre is a fair comparison (Bush administration anyone?)

I fully agree that the Islamic cleric took the cartoons that were published and then others that were not and intentionally drummed up hate and violence. I abhor this. But for there to be a 'victor' in this conflict of cultures we must all reach for our higher selves and allow 'our side' to occupy the moral high ground in every sense and at every opportunity. Showing respect and tolorance, generosity and kindness, even though they attack us. This is a war of ideas not disimilar to the Civil Rights Movement.

You could think of it another way, the Western World has quite a bit of power, much like a Police Officer. If an Officer acts with arrogance, few people will follow him, and many will hate him. If he acts with restraint and respect for others, his acts will have reach.

Just because we have the power to be ruthless does not mean it will be the winning strategy in this war of ideas.

Thanks again Bryan, solid post and great info!

Gee Bryan... a Dane is somebody from Denmark. A Dutchman is somebody from The Netherlands. Hirsi Ali is a Dutchwoman from The Netherlands, being born in - indeed - Somalia. The filmmaker being murdered was Dutch as well.. Denmark, The Netherlands: two different countries.

You've made a number of factual errors in the comment above, Bryan.

Ayaan Hirshi Ali is actually in the Netherlands, not Denmark.

The Danish newspaper asked cartoonists to create representations of the prophet, not the religion. As such, it's obvious that the bomb-as-turban cartoon represents the prophet, not a random member of the religion. Didn't you even read the link you provided?

I would be extremely surprised if newspapers (or other forms of media) in the Islamic world published anti-semitic cartoons with Moses in them. Moses is a prophet in Islam, like Jesus; you won't find Jesus, or Abraham, or any of the other prophets in any cartoons. You won't find any graphical depictions of them at all. Even the Iranian competition cartoons don't depict the prophets. (On the other hand, if you have pointers to any such cartoons, please post them. I very much doubt that I'm wrong on this point, but hey, you never know.)

That is not to say there aren't anti-Zionist or anti-Jewish cartoons in the Islamic media -- they exist. (Be specific about who you call anti-semitic; Arabs are Semites just as Jews are.) But on that note, are we to believe that nowhere in Jewish media there are anti-Arab cartoons?

Muhammad is not the name of the pastries; they're called 'Rose of Muhammad' pastries instead of Danish pastries. In one country, only. And, I doubt that people will continue to use the term for long. Anyway, the name doesn't make it blasphemous in any way.

Do images of Muhammad exist in the Islamic world? Certainly! In most paintings and such, the prophet's face is obscured. In a few (especially popular with the Shi'a branch of Islam), a face is shown. And yes, no one really riots over them. But, then, in none of them is Muhammad a terrorist, or woman-oppressor, or whatever.

So often Danes get confused as Dutch and vice-versa.

How insulting! The differences are quite obvious.

Danes: Clogs. Dutch: Wooden shoes.

Danes: Sex Change. Dutch: Free Sex.

Danes: Shakespearean Princes. Dutch: Painters.

Danes: B&O electronics. Dutch: Phillips.

It can't be clearer!

Eh.

South Park is good and all but Family Guy is far superior.

It was kinda clever and all, but eh.

I think they were still sticking Tom & Chef too.

Different people have different theories as to why Jyllands-Posten originally published the cartoons. But, if you'd like to know the real reason-- please read this article: Why I published those cartoons

The whole story about images of Mohammed being forbidden is a big hoax, anyway:

1. Egyptian newspaper published cartoons...no major reactions! Why?

2."Forbidden Images of Mohammed"-- merely a big hoax?

1. "That is not to say there aren't anti-Zionist or anti-Jewish cartoons in the Islamic media -- they exist. (Be specific about who you call anti-semitic; Arabs are Semites just as Jews are.) But on that note, are we to believe that nowhere in Jewish media there are anti-Arab cartoons?"

"They exist?" That's quite an understatement! Anti-semitic cartoons and other anti-semitic material is QUITE COMMON thoughout the Arab world! There are several good sources of information-- try this one for starters: Tom Gross: Mideast Media Analysis

1. " But on that note, are we to believe that nowhere in Jewish media there are anti-Arab cartoons?"

"Nowhere"? Well, there might be...somewhere..I haven't seen any. I have lived in several Arab countries as well as Israel-- nothing in the Israeli media comes close to the incitement and raw hatred vs Jews that is constant in the Arab world. (And yes, it is specifically hatred vs Jews-- when talking to Westerners, they claim its only vs "Zionists"-- but when talking to their own people, they almost always mention "Jews".

There is a LOT of taquiya....

There so many examples of vicious anti-Semitism in the Arab world-- its quite common. Here are a few, for starters-- I could just as easily picked any of 100s of others...

Important: Watch these videos and decide for yourself-- are they attacking political "Zionism"...or Jews in general?

1. http://www.aishconnection.com/videos/relentless/sermonkillthejewseverywhere_01-17.asx

2. http://www.pmw.org.il/asx/PMW_MudyrisMay13.asx

3. This one is interesting-- a 31/2 year old speaks out:

"We must teach our children to be good Muslims (The URL occasionally changes, so go to that page, and where it says: "Clip #_Search" you must type in 924 to view clip.

Food for thought: If someone were to see this sort of thing from childhood, what sort of adult would they turn into?

If you didn't know things like this exist-- how good are the sources you turn to for news?

If you think it is important for people to know about this, please forward to your mailing lists, or post on your blog.

Please feel free to copy anything on my blog (a reference/link back to my blog would be nice :-)

Ah, sorry, that was a silly mistake to make. I'll go slap myself about the back of the head now

/smack!

That's better.

Hello,

Just wanted to let you know I linked to your blog in my column on CBSNews.com today. Thanks!

If you want to take a look, here's the link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/11/blogophile/main1487924.shtml

Happy blogging,

Melissa

Thanks for the mention Melissa. I don't remember running across your column before. I like it. How often does it appear, and is there a non-dated url that takes one there.

South park is really getting old, maybe their just mad that their not the most popular cartoon on tv anymore. I use to be a south park fan but ever since family guy came on the air theirs no need to watch south park anymore

south park isnt funny anymore. they should stop with all the current events and making fun of politics, the media, etc, and start being actually funny again. not that references to the media and politics can't be funny-like the episode making fun of queer eye for the straight guy, or "red sleigh down"-but constantly centering entire episodes around these things for the purpose of satiring them, and not even bothering to add real humor, defeats the purpose of watching south park. if i want satire on current events, i'll watch the daily show-and i already do.