Depiction follow-up

Let me try to respond to thoughtful comments that have appeared regarding this exchange.

Farid writes that "it is not the responsibility of any creator to contribute to the collective wisdom," but then continues to point out that he thinks that in fact these depictions are doing precisely that.

It is easier to rebut the second claim, so I will start there. Is there something inherently wise about the notion that no one is above caricuratization? I would challenge that assumption on its face. Let's be careful here. Nick seems to suggest in his comment that I am arguing for a ban on depictions of sacred persons. That is not the case; I am merely arguing that it is imprudent for respectable outlets to carry such depictions. I would suggest that there is in fact nothing inherently good or wise about the notion that no one is beyond caricature. Do we think that caricatures of children with Down syndrome are worthy because they will push the buttons of those whose loved ones suffer from it? Would we welcome caricatures of victims of genocide because it would push the butttons of those whom that offends? Again, I don't think that contributes anything to the conversation. Of course, the response is that this is different; sacred persons are not being victimized in the same sense. In fact, the notion of their sanctity is all in people's heads, it is just supernatural baloney. Operating on that assumption for a moment, one realizes that yet another assumption is buried underneath: By making a caricature out of someone whom someone else holds to be sacred but who the creator thinks is decidedly not sacred, the idea is to mock the belief in that person's sanctity as being irrational and stupid. That, I would submit, is not a valuable contribution either. But why shouldn't people who deny the sanctity of certain persons mock them in order to make the point that it is silly to hold them in such high regard? I would suggest that there is a basic tenet of respect for other's people holy things; it is a basic tenet of common courtesy, and eptiomizes the idea of tolerance. Now, tolerance doesn't mean blindness to oppression. But I humbly submit that depicting the holy figures of a faith has nothing to do with combating oppression; if that is the goal, there are many more straightforward ways to accomplish that. At the end of the day, the singular question is what end is served by the notion that no one is above caricature. So far, I see none.

Let me also deal with the inevitable "but people make satire out of Jesus all the time" response. I think that the most important thing to realize there is that such satire (whatever its merits) is part of an internal conversation within the Christian world about the legacy of Jesus, its meaning etc. By implication, one might respond, then what about newspapers in Muslim countries engaging in similar depictions? I think the merits of such depiction, if it should ever occur, deserve analysis on their own terms. I am running out of time, but at a later time I would be happy to explain further my distinction between "internal" and "external" conversations.

As to the first claim that Farid makes, stay tuned.