Serious Cartoons

There’s been a major flap over two cartoons lately. I’ve already discussed one of them, the blasphemous portrayal of Muhammad that has led to a technical act of war between Lebanon and Denmark, among various other riots and demonstrations. This issue apparently has legs; I may come back to it later. For now, though, I want to mention another cartoon, of interest only to U.S. citizens.

You’ve probably seen the cartoon, a Washington Post editorial image drawn by Tom Toles, depicting a quadruple amputee soldier being treated by “Doctor” Rumsfeld. It drew an unprecedented response from our military leaders – the so-called “24-Star Letter,” signed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Vice-Chairman, and the senior officers of all four services. Ever since that letter was made public, the Chiefs have drawn flak for it. They’ve been accused of attempting censorship. They’ve been accused of ignoring other issues, like body armor, to defend our troops from a cartoon. And in this Les Payne column, they’ve been accused of trying to shift the meaning of the cartoon in order to defend their Commander-in-Chief from richly-deserved criticism.

They’ve been accused of so many things that I begin to wonder if everybody else read the same letter I did. Their letter clearly states that no subject is forbidden – “The Post is obviously free to address any topic…” The letter is short, probably shorter than most of the critical responses Post editorials draw from their readers – it certainly didn’t take a huge amount of time to write, so the Chiefs probably still had some time that day to deal with other issues.

As far as the accusation of shifting the focus…I am certain that every one of those 4-star officers has personally met and talked with a number of amputees in Bethesda and Walter Reed – they’ve probably each met and talked with at least one quadruple amputee. They've met with the family members of those amputees. They’ve seen how such injuries affect the lives of their troops, both in such direct meetings and in detailed reports on the total numbers of casualties, costs of treatment, proposed plans to assist wounded soldiers, and so on. They know exactly how painful and life-altering such injuries are, as well as anyone can who has not experienced them directly.

And they are responsible for each and every one of them. I personally have a very limited responsibility for sending soldiers into combat zones – and even that weighs heavily on me. Say what you like about those six senior officers, but none of them got there without recognizing the value of those personnel serving under them. They all know the risks their soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines bear, and recognize that their orders and policies send those servicemembers out to face those risks.

With such personal knowledge and personal responsibility, it is no wonder that the Chiefs were offended at the cartoon, and felt it necessary to respond. They deserve the right to express their opinions, too. If you read their letter for what it actually says, rather than for whatever hidden meaning you might think lies behind it, I think you'll understand their feelings.

Religious Establishment

Religious tolerance is a contradiction in terms.

The recent reaction of the Islamic community to that Danish editorial cartoon is a perfect example. I understand that Islam forbids any depiction of Mohammed. The intent of that prohibition is apparently to prevent idolatry, specifically to keep Muslims from worshipping the Prophet himself as opposed to Allah – and I can’t see anyone praying to a rather insulting caricature – but let’s put that aside and just consider the rule itself. Despite the occasional protestations from Imams and Mullahs and other Islamic experts that Islam is a religion of peace that preaches tolerance for other people and religions, the entire Muslim world seems to be in an uproar because a NON-Muslim in a primarily NON-Muslim country violated this rule of THEIR religion. It has led to protests, riots, boycott threats, death threats, terrorism threats, and burning the Danish flag. This is tolerance?

Of course, Islam is far from the only offender. Does anyone really think that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints gave up polygamy voluntarily? No, that was a case where the various Christian sects and the Catholics all agreed that such immoral behavior could not be tolerated – so the legal persecution drove the Mormon Church to change their views.

Need another example? Assisted suicide. Anathema to any Christian religion, so it is illegal. In the one state that legalized it, the Justice Department did its best to find a loophole to persecute…excuse that misspelling, of course I meant PROsecute…doctors who aided terminally ill patients to end their lives on their own terms. The furor over Terri Schiavo is a related example. Congressmen, in an effort to appear moral for their constituents and the cameras, interfered in a case where they had little knowledge, less comprehension, and no business.

In general, our religious freedoms are not protected by the First Amendment – they are protected by an “armed truce” between all the different faiths, mostly Christian, that run this country. In the no-mans’-land between them, the minority faiths – Islam, Atheism, Wicca, and so on – manage to survive. If ever one particular sect becomes ascendant, well, the truce will end, and our nation built on freedom will quickly become a tight little theocracy. The pageantry of the Presidency, Congress, and the Courts will no doubt continue, as will the rhetoric of freedom and democracy, but that will be nothing but a shell. Don’t believe that, either? Look at the makeup of the Supreme Court these days, and ask yourself how much farther it would go if the President and 60% of the Congress were not only the same party, but the same church. If justices didn’t retire fast enough, well, impeachment is always an option.

So unless you are SURE that your church would be the majority…pray for the stalemate to continue forever.