Who Gets To Define Offensive?

Our intrepid correspondent is writing from the wilds of the Missouri bootheel. I was reading a column by Mark Steyn, and he made a very good point about the Mel Gibson's drunken anti-Semitism. Apparently, Gibson's diarrhea of the mouth anti-Semitism is somehow more egregious to many people than say a Muslim-American practicing his anti-Semitism by shooting several Jews in Seattle. Now, is Mel an anti-Semite as so many have said or was he just drunk as some of his defenders say? I wouldn't be surprised either way. You sometimes can't tell, but I do know one thing. Mouthing off is not near as bad as shooting someone.

Of course, whether someone being offended gets media play depends too often on who is offending and who is offended. The Mohammad cartoons were big news, and newspapers in this country were more than willing to kowtow to offended Muslims by not showing the pictures. Here’s a thought. How are readers supposed to know if the Muslim rioting over the cartoons was unreasonable if they never actually see the offending cartoons? Actually, I think we all know the real reason why papers like the NY Times didn’t want to show the cartoons. They didn’t want the Religion of Peace to firebomb their office. It’s a Hell of a lot easier to offend non-Muslim religions because they have a tendency to not do such things. There’s a play out there that depicts Jesus and his disciples as homosexuals which I find much more offensive than a couple of cartoons of Mohammad. Yet, while there have been some protests and hollow threats, I don’t see the Christian community rioting over this.

With this fresh on my mind, I come across something that makes me think any entertainment figure that jumps on Gibson is a hypocrite because they haven’t said a thing about Madonna. Gibson made some rather unpleasant comments about Jews while drunk. Madonna has deliberately taken the Crucifixion, one of the holiest acts in Christianity, and appears to be mocking it in a concert. I freely admit I have a long way to go to be a good Christian, but how on earth can someone look at what she’s doing and not think it’s highly offensive to Christians. Yet, the only complaints are from religious leaders. No one from entertainment or politics is demanding that Madonna apologize. Why not?

I really shouldn’t be surprised. I’ve never thought that much of Madonna’s singing ability or her choice of songs. One of my fraternity brothers was a huge fan, but he could never get me to understand what the fuss was about. I always figured his little head was the part that liked her. Oddly enough, Shane was a big Madonna fan, but he thought the song by the Divinyls, “I Touch Myself”, was disgusting. I guess a female singing about having a little afternoon delight by herself is bad, but doing it onstage with a Puerto Rican flag is okay. Suffice to say, I never “got” why Madonna was so popular. When I’d hear her songs, the best ones were listenable, but that’s not really an endorsement. For the most part it’s been pedestrian dance music. As with most straight white males (Jesco White being the exception), I can’t dance so I certainly have a bias against dance music.

However, the career of Madonna has been as much promoting herself through outrageous behavior as it has been about her music. Usually when you have to do that, your music doesn’t stand on its own. For example, Marilyn Manson was nothing when it was fronted by a somewhat normal but unattractive man named Brian Warner (unattractive isn’t a problem for male rock singers, just boy band members). Get a makeover to look like an idiot and tell everyone you’re satanic and suddenly you have a following. It doesn’t matter that your music is still crap.

I just think that what we accept and reject as religiously offensive is skewed quite a bit. However, I must admit that Madonna's antics did lead to a great quote from the Daily Gut website - "It's funny that Madonna's greatest achievement in her life will be the unification of religious leaders under one belief - that Madonna sucks."