First Cartoon

An American Supreme Court justice died.  His name was Scalia.

I had never heard of him, before.  My ignorance is profound, sometimes.

Judging by Facebook posts about the kinds of things he said, how he said them and the principles he stood for, he seems to be a man worthy of admiration and approval.  You can google it for yourself.

But, on the other hand, the BBC simply reports how sarcastic he often was. Then there also was a report listing all the mean-spirited tweets and responses from very famous people in arts and entertainment and where ever, who were imagining him in hell having various conversations with the devil.  

Now, that is that something that strikes you as strange:  the very people who do not wish to abide by, honor, or even discuss, conservative ideas such as marriage, prohibition of abortion, upholding of constitutional rights, and so on, who would not care for the teaching of the Bible, the law or the gospel, now, in their fertile imagination wish him to be in hell.  They even feel free to say so, practically on the day of his demise.  With glee, their rub their hands saying one more for the hell fire.

What is says to me, is that they feel that they have been condemned to hell by those who profess conservative ideas.  What they should realize that the religious conservatives are on a mission to save them, in God's name, not to condemn them:  as Jesus said, I have come to save not to judge. 

In honor of this man Scalia, of whom I had not heard and because of my sadness to the responses to his passing from some quarters, I drew my first ever cartoon, for the blog and the internet.  I did not spend enough time on it, and it is not pretty.  (From here, they can only get better, if I make any more.)

I hope I see him in heaven.  Rest in peace.  

Matters of Taste 5 / Satire, the Pope, Mohammed

Very recently, the killings of several cartoonists were perpetrated in Paris.  After that thousand and millions stood in solidarity and were themselves "Charlie".  The leaders of nations found their way to walk arm in arm through the streets of Paris.




I myself would have to declare myself "Charlie", as well, because I passionately would resist all destruction of printing presses and suppression of freedoms.   Among some Lutherans there was a discussion as of whether we would support the production of very nasty anti-religious propaganda, as expressed in this very left-leaning magazine.

The most powerful argument there was, for me, that during the Reformation some pretty strong cartoons were produced, as well.  The printing press had just invented by Gutenberg in Mainz (I went to see the museum there);  on it was first printed the Bible in vernacular languages, and then also the political and religious discussions and pamphlets.  Erasmus wrote some satirical work of the Roman Catholic church, that is still banned I believe.  The printing press changed the world, and we would not want to go back.

Where ever dictators and scurrilous figures have wanted to establish their rule, preferences, and hide hedonistic or other escapades, they have wanted to intimidate the press, burn down the print shops, put dissident writers in prison, suppress the truth, etc.  So, we do have the overriding principle of the freedom of the press.

Yet, so much can go wrong.  Hitler's propaganda, for example was not subtle, at all, but striking and avant-garde.  The posters were stunning and installed fear of the enemy, in the population.  An elite took charge of the universities, the intelligentsia, and the propaganda.  We should talk more about how this happened, as not to repeat this sort of thing.  In the same light, it is worrisome that "Charlie" is a propaganda machine of sorts.  We don't have to dig very deep, here.  Peter Hitchens wrote about it.

It is also somewhat surprising how the support lined up behind this particular victim, as there have been plenty of victims recently, for whom nobody seemed to speak up. Where is the support behind Ayaan Hirsi Ali?  Where is the outcry for the multitude of Christians persecuted in many lands?  Why the solidarity with Charlie, in particular?

Because it makes fun of all religions?

Satire hurts.  Cartoons hurt.  As an average housewife, I have more occasions to laugh at cartoons than to be hurt by them.  Perhaps, if I were a consumer of Charlie, I would be deeply offended, too.  The news I subject myself to is relatively tastefully presented, as much as the subject matter generally allows.

But it has happened to me, on-line, that I was involved in a conversation with someone who considers himself a philosopher, who sent me some cartoons ridiculing Christianity, the cross, and the meaning of the cross.   Undoubtedly, this was meant to spark the discussion further, but the insult to me was profound.  It could have been as if we had gone to a coffee-shop to have a relaxed or animated discussion, and my partner had just pulled out a knife and stuck it in my ribs. The wound and the scar are still there.  This event has impacted my profoundly and permanently.

So part of me understands the Muslim sensitivity.  As ridiculous as we find it, for example, that the impulse to go to heaven is to be rewarded with 70 perpetual virgins, and other many objectionable doctrines (very, very many), and as easy as it is to make fun of all this (very easy), I feel for the average faithful.  The Pope was trying to feel for the average faithful when he made the now famous, or infamous, remark that, analogously speaking, the natural reaction to having your mother insulted would be the throwing of a fist.

Myself, I am not a thrower of fists, and I am not given to fits of rage.  Anger is not me.  More so sorrow, pain--anger turned inward, as they say.  A female response, perhaps, to indulge in stereotyping.

Jesus said to turn the other cheek.  This, I imagine, is supposed to involve neither anger, nor anger turned inward, not to mention not retribution by killings and executions.  Maybe one can get so tough that these kinds of images and cartoons would not call forth a strong response.  But what are we, if they don't call forth a strong response?  Jesus had strong responses, too.  Most similarily, perhaps, we can consider the desecration of the temple by the presence of all the mercantile enterprise.  The house of prayer had been turned into a bazaar.  Here he went in with the whip.  So, actually, no turning of the cheek here, now that we think it over.  A heart-felt response is appropriate, but also one that is measured.  Lynching would never be ok.

So, therefore, I cannot really be "friend" to one who chooses to bring out my deep pain for his amusement.  I cannot really be "friend" to one who insults my God, and that gratuitously. We are not made of the same stuff.  We are not brothers and sisters. We don't have the same blood.  At the same time, I find that those who like to do this sort of provoking, do not actually allow for a reasoned discussion of the matter at hand.  It would not suit them at all.  In contrast, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is into reasoned discussion.  I can be her friend, though she is not a Christian.  She speaks calmly, decently and rationally.  I can respect her tremendously.  The art and provocation she produced together with Theo Van Gogh, who also was killed in cold blood, were perhaps of similar kind as Charlie's.  The subjugation of women in Islam was highlighted.  Delving  into this subject matter cost them dearly.

And here, things really go beyond religion and faith in God.  The treatment of women concerns us all.   We are talking about human rights issues, now.  What is done to women in the name of Allah is highly objectionable and deserves strong treatment. On the other hand, Muslims are offended by what the "West" does to women.  They have a point, too.  What the "West" does to women is also highly objectionable.

We have to be able to talk about these matters.  And we have to be able to make cartoons and art about problems.  The less gratuitous, random or tasteless they appear, however, the better.   They need not be weak, but they need not be uglier than necessary.







Also see "Fighting Satire with Satire".

http://www.intercollegiatereview.com/index.php/2015/01/12/how-a-religion-can-respond-to-public-ridicule/

Insightful analysis from Muslim about Muslims:

https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentary/564693-on-muslims-lessons-from-charlie

Knowing your enemy / Cartoons ridiculing Christianity

Talking about knowing your enemy, I just googled "Cartoons ridiculing Christianity."

This is one article I read:

Firstly, it mentions that there are now fewer newspaper cartoonists than there used to be.  This is supposedly blamed on the fact that there are always these cries going up for "civility".

Quote:  For some strange reason, it's considered "wrong" by more and more people to mock, ridicule, or otherwise attack foolish ideas, foolish politicians, and foolish decisions. Since when? Why? Ridicule can in fact be one of the best weapons against the powerful, the privileged, and those who would presume to control others.

The problem is seen to be our intolerance of the offensive cartoon.  The struggle is against the powerful, privileged and those who want to control.

I would add that a neutral cartoon is actually an illustration. The function of editorial cartoons is to attack and subvert those in power and their official pronouncements (which are, inevitably in class society, lies). 

Here we have the contrast between a neutral cartoon which only illustrates, and an editorial cartoon which is meant to subvert power and official pronouncements, which are inevitable "lies".  An editiorial cartoon must at least be oppositional, if not revolutionary.  Whether veiled or overt the opposition is always there, and that is why the reader loves it.

The message is pared down to the minimal essence.  "When done well, a cartoon reaches the reader's consciousness with instant clarification, turning a previously complex or obscured concept into something now obvious."

This is kind of good and as someone has pointed out to me, Jesus parables serve a similar purpose.  We usually say they are earthly stories with a heavenly meaning.  We can't exactly say the same thing about editorial cartoons. And therein does lie a serious difference.  They may have a complex and obscure concept in mind, but they are not teachings about God.  Some would like the make it sound like that is the same thing, but it is not.  But I concede a certain overlap. 

I have often used the phrase resistance through ridicule. When we use humor to expose absurdity and hypocrisy, and inspire our readers to laugh at those in power, then we help our readers to be less afraid. When our respect for the powerful switches to contempt, we can better imagine them toppling from their lofty positions. We can imagine toppling them ourselves. 

Personally, I have had these kinds of encounters with people who think that they should treat me this way.  If I, per chance, advance a reasonable argument they can just heap contempt upon me that should satisfy something.  First of all, I am no person in power or have any power to control anything. I am just a housewife, living in a cold climate, who also likes to read.   If my argument possibly is powerful and someone finds it oppressive it could be the weight of the matter or the truth that's not liked.  (It is worth taking into consideration. Maybe.  Yes?)  Most often, I quote people who are much smarter than I.  Quoting is also not well liked.  Yes, yes, we should keep it short. 

I have met people on-line (in real life people don't dare do this to each other), who just simple call me "immature", "bigoted", "medieval", "morbid", "bitch", worthy of contempt as per Matth. 23, etc.;  thankfully I forget the rest.   The ad hominems should really be beneath them or any of us.  But they are not.  When the argument is bad, just yell louder, is the thing that comes to me.  I am not their oppressor.  And if they have a different opinion they might try and state it plainly.  However, stating things plainly is also not wanted.  You have to state things ambiguously.  So, in the end, when a simple woman explains something, the way to deal with it is with mocking and ambiguity, as to topple the existing authorities.  -- Oh, all these revolutionaries.  

Ok, political and doctrinal review and critiques have their place and surely also the simple man and woman, wannabe revolutionary or housewife, should be able to engage in them.  Especially they, actually, as opposed to the career critiquer.  I give you that.  And we are not against simplifying and brevity where appropriate and when well done.  I give you that, too.  And they think, that I, as a confessing Lutheran, present some kind of oppressive power.  I have no idea what oppressive power that would be.  I have pretty much no power, at all.  My church has pretty much no power, at all.  We go to church out of our own free will and need and we pay for it, ourselves.  We let groups use our buildings for all kinds of things.  We hatch, match and dispatch those who barely associate with us, using our facilities, ministers and comfort in the hopes that they may become part of our community.  But we are some kind of oppressive power. 

So maybe it's not that ridicule is "mean," but rather that ridicule -- at least when done well -- causes us to laugh at the targets. Laughing at powerful people and institutions deprives those people and institutions of some of the authority which they depend upon.

--Only if you can't laugh at yourself and your positions depends on your supposed superiority.  But to simply laugh at a reasonable proposition, to oppose things just for the sake of opposing, to ridicule for the sake of ridiculing or your own ego, is not a responsible way of proceeding.  It really is immoral.

The use of sober, calm, rational critiques don't achieve this because they typically presume that the power being used is legitimate. Instead, the focus of the critique is on specific decisions or actions that were poorly handled. But why should we necessarily grant the premise that the power being misused is legitimate in the first place? Why shouldn't we go after the basis of their claims to power in the first place?

BECAUSE, if your argument is poor and theirs is good, they may actually have the moral authority to say what they are saying.  So, to simply attack the basis, their power without actually having the moral high ground or a reasonable thing to say, is just hooliganism.  But, instead, they like to call themselves "prophets" now.  They should remember that a prophet has something useful to say.  He does not just simply oppose "power". 

I do agree that satire and cartoons can be highly effective, so can stories, like Jesus' parables.  People have gone to bite size information these days, much of it encapsulated into tweets and Facebook shares.  And really, one can learn a lot from a well-formulated, well-drawn, little piece.  And humor is powerful.  

But we do need civil discourse.  It does not serve to simply "hate", as they say, or simply "blaspheme", which used to be against the law, or simply "oppose power", as we have explored.  

Here is a response to the article we've been dealing with:

I have received hate emails from readers for my own online comic strip, Cockroach Comix which runs at comicssherpa. Usually the messages come in two forms. The first is out-and-out hateful, telling me to stop oppressing christians (I never mention Christ or Chrisitanity, just religion in general). The second type consists of plaintive whining that begs me to be civil and stop dragging comics through the secular muck and to stop insulting believers with blasphemy, and that I will be prayed for. Next time I get a batch of them I will openly incorporate them into a strip where the bugs present the messages verbatim, and discuss them with readers. All told I include very few storylines with the anti-religion theme, but they garner the most hate mail.

This too, I have seen done on-line.  Someone who had private conversations, even, who had encouraged them all the way, and framed the discussion and set the tone, indulged in what he would know would be "blasphemous" to the other, then turned around the publish excerpts to show how stupid, mean or ignorant the conversation partner was.  

And to be insulted by the fact that someone said that they will pray for you is just the height of it all.  Yes, praying for you is the height of oppressive behavior, the height of hate, the height of ludicrousness   It stings even more than a mocking cartoon. 

The dark side of cartooning is that they have often also served to dumb down issues, or to incite in favor of another power, one as evil as the one that is being decried.  The masters of propaganda were, of course, the Nazi's, and we're recently looked at how they could rise to power.  Their use of media was ahead of the time and masterful.  There were posters and comics and magazines.  You name it, all for the consumption of the "masses", for those who would buy into it. 

Here is one example of a poster I just googled.  It summarizes  the problem at the time.  A great hate and fear of Bolshevism was used to whip the people into supporting National Socialism.  This one says: "Bolshevism without its mask." 




And indeed, Bolshevism was to be feared.  There were the uprisings during the Weimar Republic, there were the purges in Soviet Russia, there was the purposeful mass starvation in Ukraine...  There was the international communist organizations that were poised to bring more countries under Soviet style leadership   The answer lay in National Socialism--not!  We always need to be leery.  I wouldn't worry so much about the people who are offering to pray for you.  

 Mocking also as encouraged by Dawkins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51rR4aC9aMg