| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Fitna and the "Darwin Fish" |
| 2008-04-02 |
| Jonah Goldberg . . . During a 1991 visit to Istanbul, a buddy and I found ourselves in a small restaurant, drinking, dancing, and singing with a bunch of middle-class Turkish businessmen, mostly shop owners. It was a hilariously joyful evening, even though they spoke little English and we spoke considerably less Turkish. At the end of the night, after imbibing unquantifiable quantities of raki, an ouzo-like Turkish liqueur, one of the men gave me a worn-out business card. On the back, he’d scribbled an image. It was little more than a curlicue, but he seemed intent on showing it to me (and nobody else). It was, I realized, a Jesus fish. It was an eye-opening moment for me, though obviously trivial compared with the experiences of others. Here in this cosmopolitan and self-styled European city, this fellow felt the need to surreptitiously clue me in that he was a Christian just like me (or so he thought). Traditionally, the fish pictogram conjures the miracle of the loaves and fishes as well as the Greek word IXÈÕÓ, which means fish and also is an acronym for “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior.” Christians persecuted by the Romans used to draw the Jesus fish in the dirt as a way to tip off fellow Christians that they weren’t alone. In America, these fish appear mostly on cars. Recently, however, it seems Jesus fish have become outnumbered by Darwin fish. No doubt you’ve seen these, too. The fish is “updated” with little feet on the bottom, and “IXÈÕӔ or “Jesus” is replaced with either “Darwin” or “Evolve.” I find Darwin fish offensive. First, there’s the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers. The hypocrisy is even more glaring. Darwin fish are often stuck next to bumper stickers promoting tolerance or admonishing that “hate is not a family value.” But the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims. As Christopher Caldwell once observed in the Weekly Standard, Darwin fish flout the agreed-on etiquette of identity politics. “Namely: It’s acceptable to assert identity and abhorrent to attack it. A plaque with ‘Shalom’ written inside a Star of David would hardly attract notice; a plaque with ‘Usury’ written inside the same symbol would be an outrage.” But it’s the false bravado of the Darwin fish that grates the most. Like so much other Christian-baiting in American popular culture, sporting your Darwin fish is a way to speak truth to power on the cheap, to show courage without consequence. Whatever the faults of Fitna, it ain’t no Darwin fish. Wilders’ film could easily get him killed. It picks up the work of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was murdered in 2004 by a jihadi for criticizing Islam. Fitna is provocative, but it has good reason to provoke. A cancer of violence, bigotry, and cruelty is metastasizing within the Islamic world. It’s fine for Muslim moderates to say they aren’t part of the cancer; and that some have, in response to the film, is a positive sign. But more often, diagnosing or even observing this cancer — in film, book or cartoon — is dubbed “intolerant,” while calls for violence, censorship, and even murder are treated as understandable, if regrettable, expressions of anger. It’s not that secular progressives support Muslim religious fanatics, it’s that they reserve their passion and scorn for religious Christians who are neither fanatical nor violent. The Darwin fish ostensibly symbolizes the superiority of progressive-minded science over backward-looking faith. I think this is a false juxtaposition, but I would have a lot more respect for the folks who believe it if they aimed their brave contempt for religion at those who might behead them for it. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #9 The Darwin fish ostensibly symbolizes the superiority of progressive-minded science It amuses me that these people (the Darwin fish people) are just advertising the fact they don't understand how Darwinian evolution works, or how science works for that matter. One only has to look at the global warming hysteria to see how dangerous this kind of pop-science is. |
| Posted by: Phil_B 2008-04-02 17:38 |
| #8 There are admonitions for both Christians and atheists in order. "In your face" Christians who believe it essential to their faith to proselytize in ways no different from other kinds of bullies deserve to be derided for it. But it is just the same for atheists who really hate Christians and want to demean them and their symbols. Christians can also be criticized for attempting to inject their faith into non-religious subjects, using the pretense that there *are* no non-religious subjects. Much of the obnoxious atheist response is just that, a reaction to having religion shoved in their face. Ironically, the same defense, that of there being extremist, moderate and "secular" Christians, who shouldn't be lumped together, is just as valid an argument for Islam. So "all Christians", "all Muslims", or "all atheists" doesn't really apply, when it is a small minority of each group that is offensive and causing most of the problems. Yet each group gets to be criticized for its obnoxious minority. Society has created a lot of rules to get around the problems caused by such people. That is why there are things like "non-denominational prayers" and "moments of silence", where invoking Jesus or bashing unbelievers in your belief, is throwing down the gauntlet and asking for a fight. Most of the rules in the US were invented to keep Christians from attacking other Christians of a different sect. It is why "polite people don't discuss religion and politics, to avoid a fight." And as long as everybody follows the rules, the fighting is kept to a minimum. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-04-02 14:34 |
| #7 The only group it seems OK to pick on these days is Christians, and specifically orthodox (conserative) protestants and Catholics. This goes double if you are also white and male. OS - you got that right, but it may be turning around. During a conversation in my cube an old friend and I were discussing various Christian faiths as I have experience with a large number of them. She spied my rosary case and said "Oh No, you're not Catholic are you?" in horror. At that I showed her the door. A co-worker overheard and reported it to HR. She was terminated by the end of the day. Even though her anti-Catholic slam has been explained to her many times, she still does not understand that what she said was wrong. heavy sigh |
| Posted by: GORT 2008-04-02 12:04 |
| #6 The Arbic name of Muhammad's tribe translates as "little sharks". This, I didn't know, thanks,JFM. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2008-04-02 11:56 |
| #5 Mocking IS intolerance when it is derived from mindless hatred. It is derision directed at people for no other reason than making yourself feel better by belittling others. Mocking others is for assholes, unless they have earned it. And in general, modern Christians have not, not nearly to the degree that, say, Scientologists (barratry) or Islamofascists (terrorism, extreme intolerence). The only group it seems OK to pick on these days is Christians, and specifically orthodox (conserative) protestants and Catholics. This goes double if you are also white and male. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-04-02 11:29 |
| #4 and notably the Youths, not only the fundos, was to have stickers or graffittis, etc, etc... of sharks, or sharks eating fish. The Arbic name of Muhammad's tribe translates as "little sharks". |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-04-02 11:19 |
| #3 The hypocrisy is even more glaring. Darwin fish are often stuck next to bumper stickers promoting tolerance or admonishing that “hate is not a family value.” But the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims. This is absurd. It is neither intolerant nor bigoted to disagree with Christianity or to mock those Christians who wish to advertise their faith with fish stickers on their cars. Identity politics on the part of women, blacks and Muslims also deserves to be publicly mocked so no sympathy there either. If I had a car, I would put a fish sticker on it, btw. Darwin stickers would not bother me in the slightest. Because I am an adult. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2008-04-02 11:00 |
| #2 IIRC, in a very similar way, a bit of time ago, say 2-3 years (after 9/11 anyway), there was some kind of similar stickers/symbols war in egypt, as the Copts had taken on a fashion of putting fish stickers and other symbolic objets (same meaning) to affirm their faith in a context of growing assertiveness and intolerance from the ROPMA... and the response of the egyptian population at large, and notably the Youths, not only the fundos, was to have stickers or graffittis, etc, etc... of sharks, or sharks eating fish. Fish = feeble Christianity; shark = powerful, manly, conquering islam. I was reminded of that earlier last year, as on Jihadwatc I think, there was an interrogation if an arab advertising campaing (can't remember exactly, this was something rather inocuous like a cellphone company, I don't think it was al jizz or a sat teevee), with the same imagery of a big shark eating a smaller fish was not a nod to this very popular egyptian meme. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2008-04-02 09:46 |
| #1 An employee, of Algerian origins (ie born Muslim) of a French city, dared to publish an a critic of the Religion of Peace. The city's council, the progressive city council, fired the Arab/Berber guy alleging... racism. |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-04-02 09:10 |