I liked the cartoon also, but in general I'm losing my patience with that site. I know many others did a long time ago, but Volokh and Kerr still write interesting stuff pretty regularly. On the other hand Bernstein is hard for me to read, and Kopel is just nuts.
...So that Mohammed's presence-in-the-box or non-presence-in-the-box depended on some probabilistic event at the molecular level? I'm reminded of traffic signs that warn me to stay in-the-box under penalty of fine.
I have this nagging feeling that this is a lot like what it would be like to be transported a hundred years or so into the past and watching pop culture try to poke fun at christians.
Osner, don't those signs tell you to stay out of the box, or at least not to block it? I am personally blaming you for every NYC traffic jam henceforth.
JO: Please send payment to Unfogged Superior Court, Pwnage Infractions Bureau, ATM USA. Failure to pay your fines in a timely manner may result in community "service" hours.
Doesn't it? My French is way rusty, but I thought an direct object before the passé composé did require gender agreement on the participle, par exemple.
In any case, I'm pretty sure that those of undisclosed gender would count as masculine in sexist old French.
Huh, 22 took a while to show up; when I submitted 25 I'd already reloaded the comments once or twice and it still wasn't there. Apologies for the redundundance.
Hey Matt, do you have any idea how the idolatry thing would play out in terms of abstract art? Would a 9' by 12' canvas painted ocher with a thin blue vertical stripe 3' from the left edge, titled "Mohammed", be blasphemous?
Would a really beautiful, idealized picture of Muhammad make Muslims riot? There are quite a number of depictions of Muhammad done by Muslims themselves through the ages, but nice ones, not cartoons.
36: I guess my thought is that description of Muhammad in and of itself wouldn't be proscribed, although some descriptions might be considered blasphemous. Dunno though, maybe any physical description (as opposed to "He did this") would be considered bad.
34 answers 38, AFAIK: the theological issue isn't disrespect, it's that Muslims will be tempted to worship pictures of Mohammed in a manner that should be reserved for God. The disrespect issue that is setting off the riots is, to the best of my understanding, kind of at odds with the theological prohibition on representations.
I almost wrote, "WTF are you talking about, dsquared? Those were Danish cartoons." I came this close to being so badly autopwned I might never have been able to blog again.
I liked the cartoon also, but in general I'm losing my patience with that site. I know many others did a long time ago, but Volokh and Kerr still write interesting stuff pretty regularly. On the other hand Bernstein is hard for me to read, and Kopel is just nuts.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 8:28 AM
So, what if you draw a large cardboard box and put a notice beside it saying "MOHAMMED IS INSIDE THIS BOX"?
Posted by ajay | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 8:29 AM
Sounds kinda like a sideshow attraction.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 8:31 AM
How 'bout dressing someone up as Mohammed and seating him in the dunking booth?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 8:33 AM
Regarde l'image tu voulais evoquer, Labs, et desespere!
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 8:33 AM
And then rigged up the box in a Schrodinger kind of way.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 8:34 AM
Ceci n'est pas une correction.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 8:35 AM
(I realize that the force of French pedantry is someone diminished when the pedant doesn't know how to do accents.)
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 8:35 AM
...So that Mohammed's presence-in-the-box or non-presence-in-the-box depended on some probabilistic event at the molecular level? I'm reminded of traffic signs that warn me to stay in-the-box under penalty of fine.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 8:37 AM
I have this nagging feeling that this is a lot like what it would be like to be transported a hundred years or so into the past and watching pop culture try to poke fun at christians.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 8:40 AM
when the pedant doesn't know how to do accents
html accents
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 8:41 AM
Hélas, Tia m'a pwni (à la manière de Weiner).
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 8:42 AM
Standpipe has revealed that whatever Standpipe is of masculine gender.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 8:46 AM
G:-|>
Okay, now I'm the bad person.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 8:47 AM
Osner, don't those signs tell you to stay out of the box, or at least not to block it? I am personally blaming you for every NYC traffic jam henceforth.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 8:47 AM
9: Isn't it "Don't block the box"? In which case, staying in the box is likely to lead to exactly the penalty you're worried about.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 8:48 AM
here are no pictures or statues of Muhammad because he should not be confused with God. . . .
This confuses me. They're distraught over the idea that people are going to see a blurry cartoon and suddenly think, "GOD!"?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 8:52 AM
Matt Weiner and washerdreyer have ably corrected my lacksadaisical memory.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 8:55 AM
Standpipe has revealed
If I did, it wasn't as a side effect of passé composé gender/number agreement, which my sentence doesn't require.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 8:58 AM
JO: Please send payment to Unfogged Superior Court, Pwnage Infractions Bureau, ATM USA. Failure to pay your fines in a timely manner may result in community "service" hours.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 9:01 AM
Doesn't "pwni" have to agree with "me"?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 9:01 AM
Doesn't it? My French is way rusty, but I thought an direct object before the passé composé did require gender agreement on the participle, par exemple.
In any case, I'm pretty sure that those of undisclosed gender would count as masculine in sexist old French.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 9:04 AM
Oops, "à la manière de" s/b "au sens de". Unless Matt is a more frequent Weiner-pwner than I remember.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 9:04 AM
Tia is standpipe's pony? That's a subtext I missed.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 9:05 AM
21: I thought so -- cf -- but I'm sure that those of undisclosed gender are also masculine in sexist Old French.
Sexist Old French is like Old High Slavonic, but different.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 9:06 AM
The old Slavonics were high on ergot.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 9:08 AM
Oops again, it does have to agree. I was wrong, wrong, wrong.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 9:10 AM
24: When libertarians are fantasizing about ponies, it's really me they're talking about.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 9:11 AM
Huh, 22 took a while to show up; when I submitted 25 I'd already reloaded the comments once or twice and it still wasn't there. Apologies for the redundundance.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 9:14 AM
The Old Slavonics climaxed right around the time they conquered the High Colonics.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 9:14 AM
If you describe Muhammad verbally -- the prophet had great abs -- is that offensive, too?
Posted by Adam Ash | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 10:26 AM
If you describe Muhammad verbally, is that offensive, too?
Posted by Adam Ash | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 10:28 AM
If you describe Muhammad verbally -- the prophet had great abs -- is that offensive, too?
Posted by Adam | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 10:29 AM
Straight answer, AFAIK: No, because the idea stems from a fear of idolatry, and idols have to be pictorial rather than verbal.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 10:34 AM
Hey Matt, do you have any idea how the idolatry thing would play out in terms of abstract art? Would a 9' by 12' canvas painted ocher with a thin blue vertical stripe 3' from the left edge, titled "Mohammed", be blasphemous?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 10:41 AM
I don't know, Weiner. It seems like there are proscribed ways to talk about Muhammed (PBUH).
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 10:43 AM
No idea -- 34 pretty much exhausts my knowledge of the issue.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 10:43 AM
Such a painting would probably be done by Barnett Newman.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 10:48 AM
Would a really beautiful, idealized picture of Muhammad make Muslims riot? There are quite a number of depictions of Muhammad done by Muslims themselves through the ages, but nice ones, not cartoons.
Posted by Adam | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 10:56 AM
36: I guess my thought is that description of Muhammad in and of itself wouldn't be proscribed, although some descriptions might be considered blasphemous. Dunno though, maybe any physical description (as opposed to "He did this") would be considered bad.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 11:45 AM
34 answers 38, AFAIK: the theological issue isn't disrespect, it's that Muslims will be tempted to worship pictures of Mohammed in a manner that should be reserved for God. The disrespect issue that is setting off the riots is, to the best of my understanding, kind of at odds with the theological prohibition on representations.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 11:48 AM
Also, as far as the "make Muslims riot" thing goes, the riots started after Saudi Arabia started a campaign to stir up outrage.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 11:53 AM
hmmm, I'm having Dutch bacon for dinner today. Gonna wash it down with some Dutch lager and then maybe eat a Dutch pastry for breakfast tomorrow.
Posted by dsquared | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 2:52 PM
Hrmphf. Clearly fueled by Dutch courage.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 2:59 PM
I would never have realized that "Danish bacon" was a thing. And you're right, 42 comments without catching that -- we're slipping.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 3:02 PM
I almost wrote, "WTF are you talking about, dsquared? Those were Danish cartoons." I came this close to being so badly autopwned I might never have been able to blog again.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-13-06 3:07 PM