US sides with Muslims in cartoon dispute

[ECH1969]

Washington on Friday condemned caricatures in European newspapers of Islam's Prophet Mohammad, siding with Muslims who are outraged that the publications put press freedom over respect for religion.

"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question.

"We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060203/pl_nm/religion_cartoons_usa_dc

[Sal316]

1. Wow...that should make Freeper heads explode.

Heheh... might have to venture to the dark side to see their reaction.

[xultar]

3. Wear protection.

[Burning Water]

8. It's a dirty job.

But someone has to do it.

Beware, though, it's pretty bad.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1571020/posts

[Sal316]

9. Some choice Freeper cuts.

To: thesharkboy
The State Department is full of nothing but spineless, appeasing crapweasels.

--------

To: tallhappy
But the idea of insulting people's religion is common among liberals and the like.
Islam is not a religion. It is a violent political philosophy that masquerades as a religion. Very similar to Nazism.

----------------------------

Because the "belief system" is a murdering death cult, and needs to be eradicated. Humiliate them and treat them like Nazis, who also sought to kill or enslave everyone else.


-------------------------

Un-freaking-believable. Did the State Department say the same thing when a cross was put in a jar of urine?


(WTF is THAT supposed to mean?)

-----------------------



LOL. Whatta bunch of chukleheads!

[GoddessOfGuinness]

39. Cain't be a REAL religion

if'n it ain't Christian!

[ima_sinnic]

62. BWAHAHA! I heard the RW radio gasbags re the "cross in urine"

thing today. Some artist, like 20 years ago, covered a cross in some urine or something. "Did we riot then?" Limpballs (or it might have been Boorz) sounded resentful that "we" "had to accept it" and "didn't riot about it."

[depakid]

66. Projecting

A very common psychological phenomena on the far right.

Of course, they're so irony impaired that they'd never begin to see it.

[William Seger]

17. Not exactly "explode"

... more like the sound of popping corn.

[mikeytherat]

23. More like a bunch of "duds"

mikey_the_rat

[smartvoter]

2. Gotta love freedom with limits. nt

[Julius Civitatus]

21. "There oughtta be some limits to freedom" (G.W. Bush)

This is consistent with previous statements from King George.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sal316]

7. I gotta book recommendation for you.

"The Complete Idiot's Guide to Islam"

Learn about it instead of swallowing the western world's interpretation.

[genie_weenie]

15. Thanks for the recommendation

What interpretation have I swallowed, Who conquered the Levant in the 600s, who turned the greatest church in Christendom (Hagia Sophia) into a Mosque? Who forced Christians to give up their strongest and smartest sons to become the crack Troops (janissaries) for the spread of the Religion of Peace, who forced Zoroastrians to wear pointed shoes, a large red sash and stars depicting their lesser status, who forced the Nicean Church in Mesopotamia almost to non-existence

BTW, before you start bashing Catholic, Hindus or whomever, I'm an atheist, all religions are unfortunately false.

The real problem with Islam is that it is not in the Modern Times. There is no modern Catholic Inquisition torturing and burning.

I think you should read some more history than an Idiot's Guide, possibly go to the region, before, I take it call me an idiot.

If, I misinterpreted your post about me being an idiot, sorry, please don't kill me, because I know in Islam an Atheist is THE WORST, lower than even those Cow Worshiping Dogs the Hindus!

[Sal316]

19. No, I don't think you're an idiot.

That's the actual title of the book. I own it myself.

All religions have their dark side, promoted by fundamentalists....except Hindus, tho the caste system is abhorrent to me.

Over the last few years I've studied religions, both east and west. They're all based on the same simple premise.

"Be good. Do good."

It's when they start thinking their way is 'gooder' than others is where the message gets perverted.

Islam isn't in the 'modern times', true. I do, however, have a theory about that.

Islam is only about 1400 years old, give or take. It's experiencing the same 'growing pains' that Christianity, et.al, had at about the same age. Go back 600 years and compare Christianity in the 15th Century to Islam today and I think you'll see alot of parallels.

Another good book to read, if you're interested, is "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong. Excellent reading with alot of historical context on the birth of the "Big 3".

If I insulted you, I apologize. That wasn't my intent.

Peace!
Christian (sal316)

[rayofreason]

25. Your point...

...about the time evolution, comparing Islam to 15th century Christianity has some validity (though it also has a lot of holes). One could argue that what Islam needs is a Reformation of sorts.

[Sal316]

33. I realize it's a swiss cheese theory....

....I've just recently started researching the comparison.

Hmmm... sounds like it could be a good idea for a book.

DIBS! LMAO!

[genie_weenie]

34. Mea Culpa

Sorry, I've been taking alot of gruff from areas, didn't mean to take it out on you!

I apologize for missing your point.

Like many religions, (Democracy, Christianity) the origins get changed over time.

You are correct that many religions start with being the best person you can and treat every man as your neighbor.

I always try and remember the point of arguing is not VICTORY but the advancement of knowledge.

[Sal316]

38. Don't worry about it.

I didn't take offense.

The theory is just something that's been running through my head for a coupla weeks, maybe a month.

Kinda like how the story of 'Adam and Eve' isn't about Creation of Man, but the Creation of a new religion. The symbolism in Genesis, and the way that Eve is demonized made me think that it wasn't about woman, but about the demonization of paganism.

Just a thought.

[genie_weenie]

40. no tag line

Great!

Your theory is interesting, think of this angle, imagine during the 30 years War in Germany (1618-1648) or the Wars of Religion in France (1550-1598) that one of the large powers of the Day in this case the Ottoman Empire, declared it was going to intervene and restore order and impose religious tolerance, I'm sure it would have been greeted with similar anger as the US *Crusade* in the Middle East today is viewed by the Muslim World.

Thanks for the lesson in Civility! I needed it!

[MrPrax]

30. Thank You...

Good to see some sense here. More than enuff crap to go 'round, that's why I support 'freedom'...you can never go wrong defending freedom and all the religious folks can think whatever they want under it's banner.

Although, why this incident is being stoked by presumably 'allied' governments in the ME should really be questioned...I am sorta tired by the fact that many of these regimes, like to use the West, as a dodge to avoid their own 'unMuslim' practices.

[Bridget Burke]

32. The 4th Crusade had mostly destroyed Constantinople in 1204

How shall I begin to tell of the deeds wrought by these nefarious men ! Alas, the images, which ought to have been adored, were trodden under foot ! Alas, the relics of the holy martyrs were thrown into unclean places ! ....

Nor can the violation of the Great Church be listened to with equanimity. For the sacred altar, formed of all kinds of precious materials and admired by the whole world, was broken into bits and distributed among the soldiers, as was all the other sacred wealth of so great and infinite splendor....

No one was without a share in the grief. In the alleys, in the streets, in the temples, complaints, weeping, lamentations, grief, the groaning of men, the shrieks of women, wounds, rape, captivity, the separation of those most closely united. Nobles wandered about ignominiously, those of venerable age in tears, the rich in poverty. Thus it was in the streets, on the corners, in the temple, in the dens, for no place remained unassailed or defended the suppliants. All places everywhere were filled full of all kinds of crime. Oh, immortal God, how great the afflictions of the men, how great the distress !

www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/1204.html

The source is Byzantine. The "Great Church" is Hagia Sophia. Many treasures were carried to Venice, which had financed the Crusade. Many more were destroyed--including art dating back to Classical Greece. The Western & Eastern churches were already divided by doctrine, but this atrocity sundered Christendom.

The Great Mosque of Cordoba was made into a Church in 1236. Its destruction was proposed in the 16th century, but even most Christians had better sense. So a Cathedral was built inside it; much still remains.


When the First Crusade captured Jerusalem, almost every inhabitant was killed--Muslim, Jew & Christian. When Saladin recaptured Jerusalem in 1187, negotiations allowed all Christians to leave the city. But Christian pilgrims were still allowed & the Church of the Holy Sepulchre remained in Christian hands.

[genie_weenie]

36. Saladin

is a singularly great man, in an age of violence and hatred, he showed some of the all-time great qualities, mercy, compassion, understanding, temperance, unless of course you were from one of the Knightly Orders then it was beheading for you!

Saladin was also largely responsible for the creation of the Romantic version of how a Knight Errand was supposed to act, the qualities, the learning, the views.

Of course, Saladin was a Kurd and he is not celebrated as the Hero of the Islamic Reconquest of Outremer, that was Baybars the brutal Mameluke Ruler.

[Emendator]

76. Exactly

You are right on. Islam is a uniquely dangerous religion in that it seeks to conquer this temporal world and is a vehicle for Arabian imperialism. I recommend Ibn Warraq's great book Why I am Not a Muslim, and also Ali Sina's excellent site www.faithfreedom.org.

[colonel odis]

5. talk about a conundrum for the administration.....

do they say the muslims were right because they hate europe?

do they say the muslims were right because they hate the press and anything that erodes its freedom anywhere is ok by them?

do they side with the danes because they're white and most muslims are brown?

do they side with the danes because they don't want the fundies here getting any ideas about rioting in the streets?

whew! so much hypocrisy, so little time.

[entanglement]

64. LOL

[Endangered Specie]

6. So we will side with religious extremists before European allies...

Birds of a feather....



and while Im here, Im sorry, but I must question the integrity of someones faith if a little cartoon gets your panties in this big a ruffle.

[fakeshemp]

10. Fundie authoritarians stick together- big surprise...

Disgraceful, but predictable.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

11. Wow. This astonishes me

I mean, I think they are crude and bad manners, but .... holy moly, that sentence about "inciting religious or ethnic hatreds" could be very WIDELY interpreted!

[GrpCaptMandrake]

12. The State Department position is much easier to understand in context

To-wit: if it's OK for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to waste his time and our money by having a downright juvenile hissy about a cartoon, then Dear Leader's State Department is hard-pressed to criticize a religious hissy about a cartoon.

See how it works?

Fools, all of them. Mad fools.

[Gato Moteado]

14. exactamente.

nt

[Gato Moteado]

13. well, i gotta side with freedom of the press on this issue......

.....religious fanatics who get their panties in a wad about religion don't trump freedom.

and, of course the US gov't is going to side with the fanatic muslims on this one....because they'll use it as a precedent next time they want the press to put aside freedom of speech in order to not publish photos of torture or some other thing that will make the repukes look bad.

freedom of the press is freedom of the press. period.

[izzie]

55. I am with you on this.

Many people just think it is all fairy tales any how. Let people print what they want.

[Igel]

16. Fools.

Then again, there's seldom been a position at State that I could wholeheartedly endorse on its merits. When I've agreed with them, it's usually been accidental, and for completely different reasons.

Coupling, indeed. Most of State's positions are simply alternative ways of asking to be screwed, and doing it "in our name". The least they could do is either offer it for free (making them merely loose), or charging a large enough amount to confer some sort of respectability. As it is, it's embarrassing--slightly below a hooker's putting out for a cup of cold Dunkin' Donuts coffee.

[Left Below]

18. The vile side of Christianity has been blunted

by secular humanists over time. Christian fundies hate us (humanists) for it.

Tough shit.

The State Department kicks the can because it requires minimal effort.

The problem is not going away until Muslims learn how to deal with Western style freedoms/Bill of Rights - the kind the ACLU protects...and guess who hates the ACLU?

Our fundies, of course.

[Igel]

22. That I can agree with.

Secularists--not just humanists, but secularists of all stripes--have blunted the fangs of some of the virulent kinds of Xianity.

Now, most virulent anti-blasphemy campaigns in the West are letter writing, maybe a consumer boycott of advertisers or even (gasp!) a picket line. All in keeping with free speech. (I'll leave aside abortion clinic attacks, since that gets into a rather different value.)

I used to think that the neo-cons had a point, and the criticism of some of their ideas was racist. I'm beginning to seriously doubt that: on the face of it, some cultures and peoples just aren't ready to not live under oppression. Take away the oppression, and they run for cover under some other sort of oppression.

Dostoevsky (think "Grand Inquisitor" from Karamazov) would be proud.

[Colorado Blue]

29. Are you speaking of the elections that have resulted in

Islamist governments?

Those indeed seem to be reinforcements of a sort of theocratic or authoritarian system, rather than an opening to a western sort of democracy?

Maybe the sort of dissonance, the widespread cacaphony of opinion we nurture here in the West, that creates a balance within democratic societies, hasn't developed there yet?

Or - maybe it won't, actually, if theocratic belief systems are reinforced legally, via the ballot box and even militarily.

[iverglas]

42. yeah, rather different values

Now, most virulent anti-blasphemy campaigns in the West are letter writing, maybe a consumer boycott of advertisers or even (gasp!) a picket line. All in keeping with free speech. (I'll leave aside abortion clinic attacks, since that gets into a rather different value.)

Never mind all the other stuff that goes on in your own bit of the West -- for instance, not just clinic bombings, but all the other daily and escalating violations of women's fundamental rights, just for starters. Never mind capital punishment, free speech zones, the Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, torture of prisoners, denial of voting rights to groups composed overwhelmingly of members of minorities, bombing of innocents abroad -- never mind all that.

Y'all got freedom of speech (or so you like to think), and that's all that matters. Uber alles, and über everyone else's interests.

Muslims need how to "learn how to deal with Western style freedoms" according to one, "some cultures and peoples just aren't ready to not live under oppression" according to you.

Damn that white man's burden.

[liberalpragmatist]

81. "Some cultures and peoples aren't ready to not live under oppression"

I don't support the NeoCon ideology of trying to militarily force change upon the Muslim world, but I hardly think that such a blanket statement like this is valid.

Nobody wants oppression. But democracy takes time to build. I hate it when people say that some people and cultures cannot adapt to democracy. Democracy is a pretty radical concept all over the world. Don't forget that even in Europe outright secularism is relatively new - many countries, including Denmark, still have national churches. The United Kingdom is technically a theocracy. The Catholic Church holds a privileged position in several countries, including Ireland, Italy, and Poland.

As for non-Western countries not being able to handle democracy? Considering that democracy has been a fitful process even in most of the West, I think that's a pretty sweeping statement to make. India is a democracy with the second-largest Muslim population on Earth (150 million); Turkey is a democracy; Indonesia (the largest Muslim state) is a democracy. American Muslims don't have any problems with democracy.

Democracy is always going to have problems in a society in which it hasn't existed. That doesn't mean it can't be established, but rather that it's often a fitful process and change has to come from below. And it isn't Muslim countries alone that have problems adopting democracy; South America went through a lot of dictatorships until recently, some installed by the U.S., others forcing themselves into power through radical populism (such as Juan Peron). Russia certainly hasn't had an easy time adopting democracy.

Personally, the victory of Islamists in Iraq and the PA doesn't bother me that much; I'm not advocating violent regime change and I think going into Iraq was a mistake and that we need to formulate a withdrawal strategy through this year. But Islamists have gained popularity in recent decades because they are the only permitted opposition; keep supporting dictatorships because Islamists will win elections and you'll only increase their popularity. I'd rather have elected Islamist governments in ME countries than corrupt dictatorships that have no popular support.

[iverglas]

41. they hate you for your freedoms

The problem is not going away until Muslims learn how to deal with Western style freedoms/Bill of Rights

Some people really seem to have no shame.

[Julius Civitatus]

20. Not surprising. Dubya is all about censorship

And he sure offended his Saudi pals this week already with his call to cut US addiction with Middle Eastern oil.

[Spinoza]

24. Typical of Dubya,

when we should be 4-square behind Europe and their demand for the rights of free expression, Dubya stabs them in the back.

[Left Below]

27. The State Department wants to avoid the uncomortable

truth.

Islam is incompatible with Western style democracy.

Amir Teheri writes about it often for Benador Associates, the resource on Islam that Richard Perle and other neocon-men used after 9/11.

Too late now. Someone has to give up their principles. And freedom of speech/press is sacred to us liberals.

[Bridget Burke]

35. Do you propose we deport all Muslims?

Even those born & raised in the USA? Of course, we must stay in Iraq--since the Iraqis will never be able to have democracy. Other Muslim countries await liberation--as we liberate their oil.

Thanks for your recommendation of Benador Associates, a public relations firm and speaker's bureau that promotes neoconservative writers and speakers focusing primarily on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

Benador Associates describes its areas of specialization as "media applied to politics, conflict resolution, the dialogue of civilisations, foreign policy, national security, anti-terrorism, defense of human rights and freedom of religion, among others."

The CEO and founder of the firm, Eleana Benador, is a Peruvian-born linguist-turned-publicist whose client list of prominent and influential neoconservatives includes Richard Perle, the former chairman of the Defense Policy Board; former CIA director James Woolsey; Daily News columnist A.M. Rosenthal; American Enterprise Institute resident scholar Michael Ledeen; National Review contributing editor Frank Gaffney Jr.; former Washington Times editor in chief Arnaud de Borchgrave; former Secretary of State Alexander Haig Jr.; and Iraqi dissident Kanan Makiya, a Brandeis professor who advocated the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benador_Associates

Of course, Wikipedia entries can show bias. Please feel free to make corrections.

"us liberals?"

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

45. "Respect liberal values or suffer the consequences"?

What consequences? Invasion--as you heroes at Benador recommend?

Death threats are going too far. But the Muslims who feel offended have the right to say so.

[iverglas]

47. and some people actually wonder ...

Muslims need to respect liberal values or suffer the consequences. ... Muslim values are abhorrent.

... why some other people feel targeted by racism, xenophobia, ethnocentrism, bigotry ... whatever anybody'd like to call what some people feel targeted by.

btw - I don't like Christian "values" as practiced by today's fundies either.

Interesting distinction you make -- in this case.

And if I want to ridicule 'sharia' or oppose "honor killings" then I will fucking well do it

And expose your ignorance for the world to see, apparently. Gosh, I'd love to see you ridicule Shari'a. Doesn't one have to know something about it to ridicule it?

What are actually abhorrent are disgusting characterizations of whole groups of people based on nothing but the speaker's prejudices.

prejudice
preconceived opinion

[Left Below]

49. You defend 'sharia' and "honor killing" then...

I respect women too much to stand by and allow them to be forced into "Submission".

[iverglas]

54. oh yes indeed

You defend 'sharia' and "honor killing" then...

Yup, that's what I do! Just look at me go!

Oops, all I'm seeing is straw blowing in the wind ...

And a viciously false allegation framed in the usual cowardly way, as a question for which no evidentiary basis exists.

The Wizard of Oz might have a couple of things you could use.

[Left Below]

56. So what do you propose

When the press is critical of Islam?

Censoring authors?

Buring books?

A fatwah?

Killing the author?

I prioritize - Freedom of speech is paramount. Nitpick if you wish.

btw- I propose a solution ---Boycott the publication or another peaceful method of civil disobedience.

What do you propose?

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Left Below]

60. So I am a racist?

Even though critical of Islam, Christianity and other authoritarian systems?

I am black.

A black racist from Georgia in love with civil liberities and the tradition of open dialogue.

You pegged my type, all right.

[genie_weenie]

65. Yes thats the spirit

When someone denigrates Islam, mind you Islam meaning the one true religion forever and ever and it never changes cause it don't need to and it's been inspired by God's Holy Fire and a little Godly Honey poured into the ear of Mohammed and if you don't like it that's fine, but then since you are "fighting" acceptance of the ONE TRUE RELIGION, it is time to fight you with the sword and lawsuits and GeeHad!

Wait, what was I saying, oh yeah Islam is right!

[DemExpat]

26. So much US and UK sensitivity to Muslims and their beliefs

after what they are DOING in the Middle East at this time is just mind-boggling to me....
comparing these atrocities to mocking caricature cartoons.....

:puke:

DemEx

[smirkymonkey]

79. This will be interesting, as the right wing is going to be very

divided seeing thier "heroes" in the government defend the "evildoers". Also, the Christian fundies may start to feel empowered by this and start demanding more say over the press and what is allowable in the UK and the US.

One good thing about Communism - no religion.

[Ernesto]

28. All this talk, I just wanta see the cartoon...... n-t

[jayfish]

31. WTF!! I'm Sorry, But In OUR Constitution...

it specifically mentions freedom of the press. I don't see any reference to the respecting of peoples religions.

Jay

[iverglas]

37. I don't see any reference in your Constitution

to washing your hands after using the toilet, either. So I suppose your govts should not advise that this be done. People are obviously free to wash or not wash their hands in their own homes, at least, so govts should zip their lips on the subject.

What your govt has said is:

"We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."

I'm no fan of your govt, but even a blind pig and all that, and even regardless of what its own motivation might be.

Calling someone's behaviour unacceptable really, really is not the same as calling for him/her to be placed in the stockade, or to be assaulted by a mob, because of what s/he did. Decent people really do speak out against bad behaviour, constitutionally protected though it may be. (Hey, freedom of speech, anyone?)

Unfortunately, the report cited in this thread got things rather muddled:

Washington on Friday condemned caricatures in European newspapers of Islam's Prophet Mohammad, siding with Muslims who are outraged that the publications put press freedom over respect for religion.

The publications in question obviously put a number of things over respect for people, but it is simply meaningless to say that they included "press freedom". Freedom to do something is never a reason for doing it; people do things for actual reasons, and because they can really just isn't a reason.

[jayfish]

46. Here Is the Problem.

"outraged that the publications put press freedom over respect for religion." I read that as a quote. That being said, I think it's a ridiculous position for our government to take.

Jay

[iverglas]

48. I don't know why

I read that as a quote.

Didn't look like anybody was being quoted, to me. Looked like a characterization of someone else's views, feelings, whatever. And as I pointed out, it doesn't even make sense.

The position your government took was what I quoted from the article. And I'm still failing to see a damned thing wrong with it.

I might hoot derisively at it hearing it come from the mouth of your government, but that still wouldn't make it objectionable.

[jayfish]

50. How Far Should Our Government Go?

Should we have taken the same stance with Salman Rushdie? Should our government have proffered a statement on "The Last Temptation of Christ"? How about "Jesus Christ Superstar"? Should our government issue a statement about McDonald's advertisements because Hindus in this country might take offense. Where does it end?

Jay

[iverglas]

51. don't know about you

but I'm capable of making distinctions and presenting argument for them. Slippery slope "arguments" don't tend to persuade me.

[jayfish]

52. They Should!

Look at us. People here have been making slippery slope arguments for years. Guess what... we've slipped off the slope.

Jay

[Left Below]

71. Of course people "do things for a reason" -

In this case, the "prophet Mohhammed" is a misogynist rabble-rouser and killer.

Our friends in France and Northern Europe have a duty to depict him as such.

As free people, we need to uphold egalitarian values. In my society, women are not scorned or stoned because they have pre-marital sex!

Western values protect women....

[Solon]

72. So what? Jesus was himself not a saint...

And Yahweh was a Genocidal Maniac of the highest order. Hell he even raped women, look it up, its in the "Holy" Bible.

[Left Below]

73. So what? The First Century was a brutal time period---

No religion gets a pass from me...

I am not a Christian. It amazes me that "open-minded" types always assume that someone critical of one religion is an adherent to another.

I propose freedom from oppresion for ALL!

Guess that makes me a humanist....

[Solon]

74. Actually I agree with you there...

I just hate the "singling" out of one religion over another, the Big 3 so to speak, can go at each other all they want, as far as I'm concerned.

[daleo]

44. Washington doesn't like to offend Muslims

But killing them seems to be okey-dokey.

[smirkymonkey]

80. Ironic, isn't it?

[izzie]

53. Gee I must be sick I like cartoons to pick on every one.

And to think these people are mad at Denmark. Denmark of all places.They would not even back down to Hitler. The Danes must be shocked at all this.

[dusmcj]

58. conservative fanatics have a lot in common with Muslim ones. nt

[Rigby Reardon]

59. Headline from Fark..

"Muslims offended by caricatures proceed to act them out"


----I thought it was pretty funny

[Psephos]

70. LOL n/t

[jeannicot]

61. Intolerant Fundies

are all alike.

[Left Below]

63. Agreed! I want to see scientists protesting in the street!

I want to see the real radicals for humanist values holding signs up!

We have one environment! There are many gods- too many!

Creatures have one life! There is ONE eco-system!

Superstition is ruling reason....

[PBass]

67. I think the State Department did the right thing by condemning it

The idea that it's a free speech issue is bullshit. Other newspapers ran with the cartoons because they are controversial.

What if Rush Limbaugh told a "nigg#r" joke and the whole radio world was in an uproar. Should the NY Times repeat the joke, under the pretense of "free speech"?

Something else: newspapers have a civic duty. It's not like "the Book of Daniel" on NBC where people can change the channel. "The Book of Daniel" is not news programming. Newspapers are not primarily for entertainment like Sports Illustrated. If you don't like the "swimsuit" issue then don't buy Sports Illustrated. There is a certain level of "news" credibility that newspapers have, that Sports Illustrated doesn't have. Newspapers should be in service to the ENTIRE COMMUNITY.

Racism and intolerance are serious problems, all over the world. I believe that these cartoons are "off color", and it's not about the promotion of "first ammendment" issues whatsoever.

Finally, printing these cartoons is liking yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. I don't see any point to it. Perhaps the original newspaper had good intentions (even if the gesture was terribly flawed) but the papers who jumped on the bandwagon have an indefensible position.

CHANGE THE CARTOON'S SUBJECT MATTER and see if the rationales still hold water... make the cartoons about "holocaust deniers" for example. Still think this is a Free Speech issue????????????????????

The State Department did the right thing!

(sorry about the disjointed writing but I am totally distracted at the moment)

[jseankil]

68. so mocking religious figures is a no no?

What about mocking countires and burning flags?

[PBass]

69. It doesn't belong in a newspaper, in my opinion.

It's not news.

You could say it's an "editorial cartoon" but that excuse doesn't justify printing anything under the sun (for example. holocaust denial cartoons).

Burning the flag and publishing these cartoons are 2 TOTALLY different things.

[jseankil]

75. I think it's up to the newspapers of what they put in

The comic Doonesbury uses political imagery all the time, does it not belong in the paper?

[fshrink]

77. A religious state siding with religion.

In addition, this validates the impartiality of the so-called "war on terror". Another savvy political move from the neo-fascist experts in propaganda who rule what's left of this nation.

[ButterflyBlood]

78. Fundie nutjobs of a feather stick together I guess

Plus both share the same contempt for freedom of the press it appears.