Only a few weeks ago we were arguing for free speech, even if that free speech takes the form of a mediocre and grossly insulting cartoon of the sacred prophet, Mohammed.
Now I see in the news that large sections of the British establishment are up in arms over a new statue of Winston Churchill.
The statue is only temporary, and part of a display designed to challenge our views of mental illness, and to increase the profile of a bona fide mental health charity. It depicts Sir Winston in a strait jacket.
The charity points out that Sir Winston was mentally ill for most of his life. It is well-documented that he suffered from clinical depression, and was alcoholic.
However, it appears that he is “sacred” to some people, and this image of him is “grossly insulting”.
White people, particularly elite establishment white people are, by definition, incapable of hypocrisy. Perhaps I should say those of “imperial” European heritage.
I see how that is insulting, and like the Muhammad cartoons, I see no reason for producing it other than to get a negative reaction out of those who respect Winston Churchill.
However, I betcha if Winston Churchill saw it, he’d just laugh and then say something amazingly philosophical that would be remembered forever.
the BIG difference is that it’s HIGHLY doubtful that ANY brits will go on a killing spree, or bombing everybody involved with the making of the statue! Thank you! GAme, set, match!
I agree. I found the Muhammad cartoons insulting, but I think what the Muslims did in response to it is even worse. Like my previous example, if Muhammad was around nowadays, he’d just ignore it. In fact, thats what he did, he and his followers were ridiculed so much they were forced to leave the country.
The other point is, is that if you’re NOT a Muslim, or not religious at all, it is factually IMPOSSIBLE to “blaspheme” ANY GOD, if you do not believe in that religion; but you can still respect other people’s beliefs, which I do.
Exactly…just because you don’t believe in God doesn’t mean you have to make fun of Him, or those who do believe. There is no reason to except to get religious people mad at you.
Those without a sense of humor frighten me the most! You gotta be able to laugh at yourself once in a while, and chill out! There are better, more constructive and CIVILIZED ways to vent your displeasure with something, than to terrorize and murder. That is why we (USA, and many other countries) live in a democracy; we can VOTE for change, not resort to anarchy. It also has a lot to do with how you are raised. Teaching children to hate (and call for the death) of ALL who do not share your beliefs is demented, and the definition of child abuse.
[QUOTE=terrybigwheel]
if you do not believe in that religion; but you can still respect other people’s beliefs QUOTE]
This is something often said without thinking it all the way through. It is almost a politically correct mantra.
I do not respect the beliefs of Muslims, or Christians, or any other religious believers because I regard their beliefs as irrational. What I do respect is their right to hold their beliefs, their right to not be persecuted for holding them, their right to worship, and their essential dignity as human beings. I also respect their behaviour when they do good things, whether or not they believe that their behaviour arises from their beliefs.
But I do not respect their beliefs per se, any more than I respect someone’s belief in the easter bunny.
The reason given, which I believe to be sincere, is to destigmatise mental illness. Churchill is iconic - widely regarded as the greatest hero this country has ever produced, who led the fight against Naziism and secured our freedom. However, he was also mentally ill: a depressive and an alcoholic. The point being that he rose to prominence, and achieved great things despite his mental illness - not all mental health patients are drooling imbeciles.
Of course, Churchill never (as far as I know) really wore a strait jacket. However, the jacket is an obvious symbol of mental illness, and also of the constraints felt by mental health patients - constraints arising not only from the illness itself (many depressives are confined to the house by their illness) but also by the attitudes of society toweards mental illness.
The statue is not intended to be an insult to Churchill. It is intended to use him as a shining example of how there is a mismatch between our perceptions of mental illness, and the reality.
Whether the statue is in poor taste is another question. Whether the statue is good art is another.
Churchill led this country in a fight for freedom, including freedom of expression. This example of freedom of expression is now being condemned by many of the establishment!
those Muhamad and Winston related stories remind me of a french showman (who died in the 90’s): Pierre Desproges.
He was politicaly clearly left winged but one day, the guest of his radio show was Jean Marie Le Pen (a famous extreme right politician… If you ask me I’d say he’s a fascist… but you don’t, do you?).
He stated upon the following question: “can we make fun about anything”
He finally gave this answer: “yes, but not with anyone”
If anybody thought that way, the world would probably be more funny and more peacefull.
The prevailling view is that mental illness is a seperate thing from normal psychology. That ‘mad’ people are separate from the rest of humanity. But this is not true. I would argue that there is no such thing as mental illness, merely that some people have more difficulties with the world that others. And you should neither judge nor dismiss others just because they are having problems at the moment. Because the world can change and in a flash it could be you.
Are you saying that Le Pen was asked, “can we make fun of anything?” and that he replied, “yes, but not with everyone” meaning that we can make fun of things but have to be selective about who we do it with?
We can make fun of Raphael, but only when he’s not around, like in all our PMs entitled: Making Fun Of Raphael.
That way there’s peace, and we have lots of good laughs. Good thing we don’t share those jokes with you, because YOU would not add to the laughter. In fact, you might burn down JC.
I know exactly what you mean, and I defer to your academic expertise, but that seems to me to be a very relativist/purist approach. Taken literally, you’re saying Peter Sutcliffe’s view of the world, whilst being a minority view, is somehow equally valid. Ditto for Thomas Hamilton, Michael Ryan, and Ian Brady.
I certainly agree that we should not be judgemental of the mentally ill. or those who have different realities. I’m a borderline case myself. However, surely there comes a point when we say, “This person’s perception of the world (and more importantly, their interaction with it) is so far off beam, dangerous and socially unacceptable, and at odds with the consensus of observable reality that they are in some sense “deluded”.”
This may seem like a douible standard, and I guess it kind of is, but the only point at which a mental “difference” (manic depression is the first that comes to mind) should be considered a mental disorder, or illness, is when it starts to cause harm to other people (the depressed person should not be considered clinically ‘ill’ until he starts injuring other people, as a side effect of his depression)
Does this make sense?
