What would a Buddhist Christian American make of South Park’s portrayal of Muhammad in its April 14, 200th episode? Was it imprudent? Impudent? Or was it something you would just expect from the always irreverent, usually tasteless (at least for an old fuddy-dud like me), and sometimes embarrassingly funny fare that producers Trey Parker and Matt Stone have been dishing out since 1997?
Clearly, for many Muslims it was offensive – very much so for the group called Revolution Muslim who immediately after the show announced on their website that they were “outright insulted.” Okay. That’s understandable, and their insult should be addressed. But they then added: “We have to warn Matt and Trey that they will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show.” van Gogh was the Dutch filmmaker stabbed on the streets of Amsterdam by an Islamic militant for making a film that was critical of Islam’s attitude towards women.
So I, and many others, ask ourselves: Should South Park have aired this program? Should all comedians in the United States avoid depicting or joking about Muhammad?
These are not easy questions. On the one hand, I firmly believe that we should respect the religious sensitivities of others. On the other hand, it is part of our Western-American culture that comedians make fun of all kind of “sacred” topics and people. Following the South Park blow up, Jon Stewart on the Daily Show reviewed all the religions and religious figures his show had teased and ridiculed and made fun of over the years – no religion was spared (though references to Muhammad were sparse).
Here’s the rub. Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in our country. That calls for adaptation on both sides. American non-Muslims need to know more about and respect Islam. American Muslims need to, and the vast majority of them want to, adapt to their new home. (I’m speaking, as is evident, about immigrant Muslims, not African American Muslims.) But this means that Muslims have to adapt to a culture in which religions are taken seriously enough to be laughed at. Americans are as ready to seriously practice religions as they are ready to seriously criticize them – and much of that criticism will come through humor. As a child of this culture, I think this is good. God only knows how much we need to be critical of the excesses that religion is capable of.
So, recognizing that I cannot really understand the depth of offence that a Muslim may feel when they see their Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) “disguised” as a bear (since his face cannot be seen) on South Park, I still would cautiously and respectfully suggest to them that if they live here in the United States, they will have to put up with such audacities. “Put up” doesn’t mean that they should keep silent. Not at all. They should speak up, try to explain to their fellow Americans why they feel insulted, make their Muslim presence felt in American culture.
But I don’t think I have to be as cautious and respectful when I address my Muslim friends and add: but don’t respond with threats to kill people! Not only does that diminish the respect Americans have for your religion; it also, if I may say so, is contrary to what I have understood about your noble religion.
When such incidents as this South Park portrayal of Muhammad occur, I hope they could be learning occasions for all of us: for us non-Muslims, to try to understand the feelings of our Muslim fellow-citizens — and for Muslim Americans, especially their leaders and scholars, to stand up and declare loudly and clearly that responding to such insults with threats of violence and murder is not only un-American, it is un-Muslim.
Dear Paul,
Thank you for addressing this very sensitive issue!
Sam
I wonder if it should make a difference that the episode in question apparently goes on to reveal that it is in fact Santa Claus in the bear suit. Or that the show got its start as a VHS tape featuring a violent battle between Jesus and Santa over the meaning of Christmas.
What’s the value of intention weighed against action? When can those on the “inside” of the cultural norm ask those on the “outside” to laugh at themselves? Isn’t laughing at oneself in fact the jealously guarded privilege of the insider and the maker of the norm?
Whatever the answer to any of these questions might be, I’m fairly certain that it isn’t a veiled death threat or any other act of overt physical violence. But what responsibility do we bear for the subtler forms of cultural violence enacted in our names?
Peter, You sure do raise some very crucial questions — questions I don’t think I was really aware of in my reflections. I guess the issue comes down to this: can those who are part of the dominant group validly and morally be critical of — in this case joke about and with — those who do not share in this power?– Am I tuning in properly to your concern?
My tentative reflections: yours is the same question I often face in inter-religious dialogue: can dialogue really take place between participants who do not share power equally? I hope so. Given the unequal power-relations that obtain almost universally, dialogue would not be possible at all if we had to wait till the power were shared. However, given the uneven playing field that is our world (and this where I think I am taking your criticism seriously), those in power have to 1) be aware that they have the explicit or implicit advantage and 2) do whatever they can to adjust the imbalance; this can be done, first of all, by recognizing that the first act in the dialogue for those in power is to shut up and listen.
This means that I will have to listen very carefully, and I hope humbly, to what my Muslim friends think about what I have to say about Muhammad and South Park.
Southpark is quite funny but some of the scenes maybe a bit too morbid even for adults..*;