Therefore, American cultural pluralism has virtually imposed certain requirements of self-censorship. In the printed media of humor, the U.S. has its own magazines such as MAD, Monocle, The Realist and The National Lampoon etc. in the past, especially in their peak time of the 1950s-1970s. Though some of their cartoons went as far as to rather sensitive areas such as politics, sex and death, they often kept cool distance from religion.

In response to the Charlie Hebdo incident, The New York Time and Times magazine have lately allowed statement as "we are not Charlie" or "we are not all Charlie," which differentiate themselves clearly from their European counterparts. There seems to be a major difference here between America and Europe – though there ought to be a political freedom of speech and media, there shall also be room of cultural and religious sensitivity. When clear disagreement exists between different cultures, it would be rational not to act in a way possibly to be viewed as offensive to the other.

As per Islamic tradition, it is not proper, if not prohibited, to portrait the Prophet, those non-Muslims shall pay due respect to such a tradition. It is not proper to argue that all could portrait each other's saint so this is a trivial matter. As culture and religion is nurtured with time and likely to spread across the border, a single act of disrespect could well incite a trans-border collective response. Arguing that the others should respect one's own right not to respect them doesn't propel such this logic far. Instead, it could well incite ethnic discord or even confrontation.

Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)