An update on Muhammad in South Park

In a surprising new twist to the controversy over images of Muhammad in western media, South Park continued the censoring Muhammad's image in the recent follow-up episode (no. 201) of last week's story. This was hardly surprising, in particular as this story has now reached mainstream media, and the threats against the cartoonists have become more vocal. But now, in addition to the visual censorship, Comedy Chanel apparently this time around also chose to censor his spoken name, making the episode full of bliips every time the name Muhammad should have been heard.

At first, it seemed as is this form of censoring was intentional by the South Park crew. A form of hyperbolic  censoring to make it plain as daylight how the show is being repressed. This becomes particularly apprent when, at the end of the episode, the usual moralistic speeches by some of the characters are covered by long bleeps as well. This gives the impression that Stone and Parker are trying to show us how Comedy Chanel is refusing to see the real issue at hand, but is instead giving in to fundamentalist threats. This is the impression one is left with at the end.

However, Stone and Parker have now issued a statement explaining that the new form of editing was not intentional, and that the Comedy Chanel actually did censor the name of the prophet and the moral speeches at the end of the show, one of which actually did not even mention Muhammad.

Here is the full statement as posted on another blog (M. Greenberg):

In the 14 years we’ve been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn’t stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn’t some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle’s customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn’t mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We’ll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we’ll see what happens to it.

Another significant point made in the episode was again to reveal to all of us that an image is nothing but a semiotic device, where we interpret what we see based on our expectations. When the image of a person in a bear suit, claimed by the cartoons in South Park in the previous episode to be of Muhammad in a suit, actually was revealed to actually be Santa in a suit, the joke is on all of us. A cartoon pretending to be a cartoon in a cartoon. Again, an image does not become, or even necessarily represent, a thing just because someone links a sound to an arbitrary image...

"We must not fear daylight just because it almost always illuminates a miserable world" (Magritte)

Muhammad in South Park

Originally, I had decided not to discuss caricatures and cartoons of Muhammad in this blog, as these are not originally religious images, but obviously created to provoke reactions from Muslims. Nevertheless, the reactions which such images do spark among Muslims transform the images from mere jokes and provocations into actual religious images, albeit as blasphemous taboos. So, when the 200th episode of South Park, aired on Wednesday the April 14^th, and again raises the issue of Muhammad as cartoon, it is ample reason to take a closer look.

South Park has already shown drawings of Muhammad in earlier episodes. First in 2001, where he appeared as a member of the super hero group called Super Best Friends. Here  he was accompanied by other major religious figures, there-amongst Jesus, Buddha and Joseph Smith. Well, that was before the Danish caricature controversy, and was probably not directed at the Islamic prohibition of images of god and his prophet, but was rather a joke directed at religion in general. The situation was different when the South Park crew decided to show Muhammad again in 2006, but this time in context of the Danish scandal. This time they decided to press the issue of Muhammad’s visual presence, which was actually censored by the Comedy Channel.

In the recent episode Trey Parker and Matt Stone are again testing the limits, questioning the relationship between images and the illustrated object. They are asking the question; when can a cartoon be said to be representative of Muhammad? In an interview the cartoonists actually do not seem to have created these drawings to provoke Muslims, but are actually provoked by the decision of Comedy Chanel to limit free speech, or rater free drawing. The question is, what will the Network allow?

The plot in the episode is as follows. All the stars and celebrities who over the years have been ridiculed in South Park decide to file a class act lawsuit against the town. The only way to stop the lawsuit is to present Muhammad to the celebrities, whose plan is to steal the prophet’s superpower: no one can criticize him. As before, to hammer in the issue the censored image of Muhammad is contrasted to uncensored images of others members of the Super Best Friends in rather blasphemous illustrations. When Muhammad arrives in South Park, the city faces the problem that Muhammad can not be shown. Thus a number of different ways to conceal the physical person are proposed.

Basically four versions of Muhammad are shown. The original version where he featured among the Super Best Friends is shown again. Originally this was shown uncensored, but is now covered by a black square; i.e. an anthropomorphic figure of Muhammad is not acceptable. Probably this particular feature has its background in the 2007-news story of a teacher arrested in Sudan for naming a teddy, Muhammad. Secondly, in a trick paring with the famous painting of René Magritte's pipe, Muhammad is shown as a stick-figure drawn on a sheet of paper and held by Stan’s dad; a drawing made by a cartoon figure within a cartoon. This was not censored. Neither was the illustration of the car from which Muhammad was speaking. Probably more provocative was the idea to place Muhammad within a silly mascot bear-costume. Again, Muhammad is not seen, but we are told of his presence. This was also allowed. The point South Park is raising is the difference in our and the Muslim reaction to drawings of Muhammad before and after the Danish cartoon controversy, which completely changed how we and many Muslims use images of the prophet.  

So much for the television network’s policy. What about the Muslim reactions? Any yet? It is still early, and probably the reactions will be limited. The riots after the Danish cartoons had much of its background in Danish and Middle Eastern religious and political leaders fueling the fire for political gains. This time,  nothing of the sort should be expected.

In a quick Google-search a few reports in the news already report of threats to the cartoonists, but mainly based on various proclamations on twitter and similar media. There seem to be few reactions as yet, and hopefully this will will be the end of it. Some warn the South Park team with the faith of Th. van Gogh:

"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh if they do air this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them".

One blog reports the following from twitter: “May Allah kill Matt Stone and Trey Parker and burn them in Hell for all eternity. They insult our prophets Muhammad, Jesus, and Moses...” Note how the reactions are not only directed at the illustrations of Muhammad, but of other biblical figures as well. Anyway, the episode is to be continued, so perhaps that goes for this blog as well...

Visualizing collective grief in Poland

The tragedy which hit Poland yesterday has cast the country into collective mourning. 97 people were killed in the plain crash, including Poland’s president Lech A. Kacynski, his wife, the chief of National Security Office, the chief of the National Bank, and several other prominent figures of Poland’s political and cultural Elite.

Newspapers the world over are today filled with pictures of Poland in mourning. Tens of thousands have gathered in front of the presidential palace leaving flowers, and lighting candles enclosed in colored glass. The streets have been turned into a sea of colorful flowers and light accompanied by people singing hymns and the sound of church bells.

Collective grief is played out visually in the streets and in churches, but also in the polish online media (and in paper?). In contrast to the colorful display in the streets, the media are today published in black and white. It is interesting to experience the sober feelings this visual instrument creates – an aura of sorrow and remembrance. The use of black and white does not only visually demonstrate the grief of the publishers and newspaper staff, but encapsulates the reader, whether Polish or foreign, in a particular mood of respect or sorrow. In this manner, grief takes place both in the real world and online.

The polish tragedy is not the first time black and white publishing is used to demonstrate collective mourning. During the three day morning period after the earthquake in China in May 2008, most newspapers were published in black and white, online and offline, and on social web-sites people turned their buddy-icons into colorless images. One year later, the victims were again remembered in the same manner, but also including black and white photo montages on television accompanied by emotional music. Using black and white front pages to mark sorrow has been a tradition in China since before the Second World War according to some commentators. In the west, the first use of this visual effect known to me was when Yahoo turned its pages black and white to mark the grief after September 11, 2001 terrorist attack.

Wartime propaganda and the role of religion in occupied Norway

Today, 70 years have passed since the German invasion of Norway during the WW2. To mark the occasion the University of Bergen has opened a few new digital archives of newspapers and propaganda from both sides of the front. I thought it would be interesting to quickly browse through the pages in search of the place of the church and religion in these media from both sides.


What did I find – well, absolutely nothing. The pamphlets, booklets and posters are largely void of religion in both text and image. What is there is exactly what we might expect – a prominent place of the flag and the exiled king next to idolization of Norwegian history of the Viking age and its link to the bravery of modern seafarers. And of course, the usual antisemitic ranting for the nationalist party in charge under Quisling. 

The Norwegian bishops renounced the function of the church as a state church during the occupation years, and most of them were forced to leave their positions. Likewise, even though threatened with severe punishments, most priests renounced their positions, leaving churches empty. In one of the documents published, a general booklet, called Norway, created at the end of the war to educate the British about Norway, religion is briefly mentioned, and it is underscored that through their resistance, the clergy “have done much to maintain the moral of the Home Front”. Religion was important, but apparently the church did not achieve a vital symbolic role and place in propaganda comparable to that of the royal house and flag. Nor do the occupying forces seem to have used religion in their propaganda. 

The Last Supper: growing dishes and guinea-pigs

Even though easter has passed it may still be time for some comments on the last supper...

Religious historians Craig and Brian Wansink of Virginia Wesleyan College have in a new study observed how the portions served in illustrations of the last supper have grown over the last 1000 years. Using advanced computer technology 52 of the more famous images was compared; in fact by comparing the size of heads with the foodstuff. The result revealed a plate-increase of 69% and bread-increase of 23%. The scholars relate this trend to an increase in living standard - the image, albeit a timeless motif, is not surprisingly influenced by the contemporary world of the painter.

On a similar note, the Peruvian version of the last supper, from the cathedral at Cusco, show Jesus and company consuming, not bread, but a guinea-pig, a traditional dish in the Andean world. In fact, the overgrown and meaty cousin of guinea-pigs, the capybara, is excused from the list of meats to be avoided during lent. Apparently, so the story goes, it was classified as a fish as it lives in wetlands. Sadly, in Venezuela, this tradition has driven the big guys to the brink of extinction.

Of course, the last supper of Leonardo is among the most copied and imitated paintings in history. Here and here, you will find an extensive list of parodies, from the Simpsons to the Sopranos - perhaps you can note a growth in head size or an increase in the number of plates? For my part, I noted that Popeye's last supper consisted of spinach and hamburgers while the plate of the supermodel's supper was empty...

Episcopal Priest Barbie

It had to happen - Barbie ordained...

In the news these days it is referred to studies showing that Christianity is now the fastest growing religion, growing faster the the growth of human population, so why not Barbie? The doll apparently started out as a joke - a gift to a friend, but has at this moment gained over 3800 fans on Facebook, and a fair share of negative publicity on Christian blogs. I'm pretty sure Ken will join the new path soon. So, what does this mean? Just another piece of commercial-paraphernalia, or does this one have a meaning? - that is to early to say, as the doll will gain meanings and uses (visual use) as her popularity grows. Her creator gives these thoughts:

What does Episcopal Priest Barbie Mean? What do YOU think she means? Post your comments! I've been intrigued by eople's reaction to her. Speaking for myself, Barbie is a very powerful symbol and has many different meanings for women from the tyranny of the perfect body image (because of her looks) to girl empowerment (through her many different careers). I thought she might make a good vehicle for [1] empowering girls and women in ministry [2] glorifying God as a work of liturgical art and [3] highlighting God's great sense of humor!

Barbie has also entered other faiths, or at least Judaism and Islam, where a similar use of the doll has been known for a few years. The Jewish doll is known as Tefillin Barbie. She comes with a full educational plan for use by schools. 

Her role is to promote gender equality. The doll is actually crated by a female ritual expert; as such one may perhaps suggest the Tefillin Barbie is an extension of her creator.

In this context, then, the juxtaposition of super-feminine Barbie and the traditionally masculine deep black leather straps of tefillin may be startling, but what it signifies is open to interpretation. Certainly, women's feelings and preferences regarding ritual garb are at once very personal and also reflective of communal norms. The relationship between women and rituals such as tallit and tefillin requires continued consideration and conversation, and whether you see tefillin Barbie as an empowering figure or a satirical one, she is undoubtedly a provocative starting point for communal discussion. 

The Islamic Barbie, or Fulla, was as far as I know the first religious Barbie to be launched back in 2003. Her role is different from the other two dolls in that she is not entering an position in the clergy, but stands as a role model for modern modest Muslim women. There is also an Italian made Burka Barbie. Barbie dolls clad in traditional Indian dresses can be found on a simple Google search, but I cannot see that it is directly connected with the Hindu faith. Do you know of others?

One nation under god

I'll start of this blog simply by posting McNaughton's image One nation under God. By and large the painting speaks for itself, as an american right wing civil-religion propagandistic image. The good guys look towards Jesus, or they are attempting to awaken the religious spirit of the liberals in the lower left corner. An unbroken line connects Jesus, and the historical characters behind him, to the conservative crowd to the lower left, contrasting the liberals who are unconnected to religion and and history with their faces turned away.

McNaughton's image has been discussed quite a bit, even enough to prompt  the painter himself to give a detailed description of the "symbolism" (rather icons) presented. Here you will also find links to YouTube videos related to the image.

Apparently, the artist is Mormon, and some hints of this can be recognized in the details, but I'm quite sure the painting has a lager appeal in its target audience, the Christian right. More interesting is the debate the use of the founding fathers has awaken, placing this image in the front of debates on the role of religion in american society.