Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons

[meganmonkey]

Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.
The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.

In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.


Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1703501,00.html?gusrc=rss

[baldguy]

1. Publishing the Muhammad cartoon was a calculated effort

designed to elicit exactly the kind of violence which has occurred.

[meganmonkey]

2. I agree. The more I read about it, the more

convinced I am of that fact.

:(

[ronnie624]

87. I am convinced as well.

From the beginning it had the "feel" of a contrivance engineered to appeal to racist fear and hatred.

[ksilvas]

91. I totally agree.

This act was to twist the proverbial knife, in the back, of the muslim world.
If I were to guess, to ellict world approval for an attack on Iran and to
further the myth that radical Islam is the law of the land in the Muslim world.
Everyone knows, especially Europeans, that showing a visual representation
of the prophet Mohammad is specifically forbidden. Thats their religion, it's not
an ethics, morality or democratic debate.

[no name no slogan]

97. So true, so terribly true

Once again the media is looking for a reason to justify its existence. It's pretty damn hard for them to claim that they didn't see this coming-- especially since this was the SECOND time they ran the cartoons.

It's a little like walking around the house with bucket of gasoline in one hand and a lit match in the other, and not expecting an explosion.

This whole incident didn't have a damn thing to do with "freedom of speech". It was more about selling newspapers and creating a scandal than anything else.

[BooScout]

3. Then blame the French too...

Because the Danish paper published the artoons last fall with barely a whisper occurring. It took the French, with the largest Muslim population in Europe to re-publish the cartoons months later to create such a firestorm.

[jseankil]

4. Sad that they could predict that violence would occur

really tells you about the Muslim world doesn't it? (If what your saying is true)

[baldguy]

7. How much violence have we done to Iraq & Afghanistan?

And how many here predicted that?

All because the BFEE had business deals with Saddam & Osama that have turned ugly. The Muslim protests have killed less than a dozen people. How many hundreds of thousands of deaths has Bush's terrorism caused?

[jseankil]

9. wow great, really interesting. What does that have to do with the cartoon

Oh nothing, thats right it has nothing to do with the cartoon, but thanks for sharing and diverting the topic. Muslims aren't upset at the U.S. over this in fact it appears that they are more pissed that their man was mocked in a cartoon than they are over the two wars so please let's stay on subject for christ's sake.

[meganmonkey]

13. Actually quite a bit

Iraq and Afghanistan are Muslim countries. Given the fact that the Danish RW has supported the wars and the violence that the US and others have been perpetrating against Muslims, these cartoons were just the icing on the cake.

These things are directly connected.

Use some historical perspective, the world will seem less confusing.

Peace.

[jseankil]

18. Except it wasn't until France republished the cartoons that things got

out of control, and they were against the war. And reports that these riots were controlled/ organzied by Muslims govt's punches holes in your theory.

[Judi Lynn]

26. They don't have a wholesome image with Muslims, due to the illegitimate

_Bush war support they're offering, and incidents of Iraqi prisoner abuse by Danish personel:

First Published 2006-01-12, Last Updated 2006-01-12 15:04:55

Danish officers found guilty of Iraqi prisoner abuse
Five officers will not be sentenced despite being found guilty of abusing Iraqi prisoners in 2004.

COPENHAGEN - A female Danish reserve captain was found guilty Thursday of abusing Iraqi prisoners in 2004, but will not be sentenced, a court in Copenhagen ruled.

The six-month trial, which ended in November in the Copenhagen district court, marked the first time in Denmark that soldiers were accused of violating the Geneva convention on the protection of civilians in times of war.

The court recognized mitigating circumstances on the basis that reserve captain Annemette Hommel had sought guidance from her superior officers, but in vain.

Four male military police sergeants were also found guilty of the charges, but will likewise not be sentenced.
(snip/...)

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=15466

[High Plains]

30. It's the context.

I would submit that the Muslim world is feeling pretty beleagured these days and those cartoons were the straw that broke the camel's back. It is certainly not irrelevant to mention the ongoing demonization of Islam (as seen in your posts, as well as many other places), the fact that Western infidel invaders are are wreaking death and destruction in the heart of the Arab world, the fact that Western infidel invaders also dominate Afghanistan, the festering situation in Palestine, and the attempt to gin up a war against Iran.

Nah, don't mention any of that. It's all about the freedom of some right-wing newspaper publishers to be asses.

[politick]

36. I don't think

he's demonizing all Muslims here. My problem is with fundamentalists of any ilk. There is no reason for such a violent reaction from cartoons, no matter how strongly they feel about the depiction of the Prophet nor how right wing the newspaper is. I think it's alarming how people are jumping to the defense of rioting people, people who burned the Danish consulate, just b/c they're on the other side of Bush. I would never, ever disrespect Muslims that way, but we have every right to publish a cartoon of Muhammad if we want to. We live in 2006. IT's their preference not to depict him and that should be respected, but not at the cost of violence and threats. It's their religion, not mine. And I speak, as always, of the fundamentlists. Be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Neocon.

[iverglas]

40. for anyone who still "doesn't think"

Please watch the BBC interviews linked to in this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2089742&mesg_id=2089742

How anyone could not think that a "cartoon" of Mohammed wearing a bomb as a turban, published in a sociopolitical context in which Muslims are discriminated against, harassed and vilified, is demonizing the people who revere him as their prophet ... I still haven't figured out.

I would never, ever disrespect Muslims that way, but we have every right to publish a cartoon of Muhammad if we want to.

You have every right to jump off a bridge if you want to, too. Wouldn't you refrain from doing it unless you had a reason to do it?

Damned if I can figure out why anybody can't see what the reason for publishing these things was.

IT's their preference not to depict him and that should be respected, but not at the cost of violence and threats.

Seldom have I seen so many people swallow so much bilge -- from both the European right wing and the Muslim right wing.

The preference of Muslims in Europe, and most places, is not to be portrayed as followers of a mass murderer, not to have their religion portrayed as the reason why people commit mass murders, and not to be subjected to the kind of vilification, or even plain simple disrespect, in the mass-circulation media that no other cultural/religious/ethnic/racial group is subjected to.

[politick]

41. Exciting

What I meant with "not at the cost of violence and threats" but perhaps didn't word well, was that their reaction to this is completely disproportionate and out of control. Regardless of what the newspaper's political leaning is.

You are very quick to paint me as someone who villifies all Muslims, as someone who is "swallowing bilge," when all I've said is that it is their religion and newspapers -- even right wing ones, even if it's intended to provoke -- have the right to publish something that would be considered religiously offensive.

You would rather live in a world where we do not have this freedom? Would you prefer to live under a strict theocracy (yes, there are worse theocracies than the one we live in now)? Or are you defending people's right to burn down consulates and riot over a political cartoon? Just tell me where you're coming from.

And, incidentally, Mohammad was a mass murderer in many ways, I'm afraid. That's just simple fact. He had to go conquer by force to spread his word. Just as the Christians did.

How can you defend this kind of fundamentalism while (I assume) condemning it here in the US? It has to go both ways, I'm afraid.

[iverglas]

53. let's try again

all I've said is that it is their religion and newspapers -- even right wing ones, even if it's intended to provoke -- have the right to publish something that would be considered religiously offensive.

Everybody has the right to do all sorts of things. That's just blah blah. Like I said ... the right to jump off a bridge. WHY DO IT? If one would not do something one's self unless one had a REASON to do it, what sense does it make to pretend that a publisher had no reason to publish something? I don't jump off bridges because I have a right to. Nobody publishes something because s/he/it has a right to.

You would rather live in a world where we do not have this freedom?

You talking to me? Why would you ask me this question WHEN I GAVE NO YOU NO REASON WHATSOEVER TO THINK that I would rather any such thing?

I would rather live in a world where right-wing racists don't publish racist material for right-wing political purposes.

Would you prefer to live under a strict theocracy (yes, there are worse theocracies than the one we live in now)? Or are you defending people's right to burn down consulates and riot over a political cartoon?

Would you read over what I wrote and copy and paste any bit of it that suggests to you that I WOULD prefer any such thing, or defend any such thing? And if you can't do that -- which you can't -- would you explain to me why you would ask me this?

Just tell me where you're coming from.

Gee. I wonder why you didn't just ask.

And, incidentally, Mohammad was a mass murderer in many ways, I'm afraid. That's just simple fact.

Yeah, and oh so very relevant to this context -- which is a drawing of Mohammed WITH A BOMB ON HIS HEAD, and has precisely bugger all to do with any historical/legendary events of a millenium ago.

How can you defend this kind of fundamentalism while (I assume) condemning it here in the US?

How can you say something as flatly false as an allegation that I defend anything of the sort is, I won't begin to guess.

[politick]

75. Well

I am glad you quoted me and then responded. But why all the anger? I don't mean to accuse you of anything. All I know is I said that I think this is a totally out of whack response to the offense. That's really it. I think freedom of speech should be protected just as freedom of religion should. When the latter infringes on the former -- as we have here -- it is unacceptable no matter how right wing these publications are. Wouldn't you also say that the Muslims here are pretty right wing? That they're provoking something beyond the publication of a cartoon?

I didn't mean to accuse you of not wanting freedom of speech, but you have to choose here between that or right wing zealotry, you really do, and since you seemed to think that the Muslims protesting are in no way wrong, I drew the conclusion -- unfairly, since I don't know you -- that you would support their ultimate aim, which is a global theocracy under strict Islamic rules -- at least the fundamentalists in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and elsewhere. And furthermore, Arab newspapers regularly feature provocative and offensive depictions of Jewish people -- all Jewish people -- but we seem to think, in these circles, that that's ok because Israel is occupying Palestine.

Last, I made the reference to Muhammad because you said that Muslims don't want to be thought of as followers of a mass murderer and he is a mass murderer. It can't only be in or out of context at your discretion, friend. This is a two-way discussion.

So here we are, and I still don;'t know what it is you want to say. I just think violence in response to these cartoons is ridiculous and insane. That's all. I cannot defend it. You ask me about the Intifada, and I have different views, as theirs is a right that these fanatics do not have, IMO.

[iverglas]

94. once again: this is NOT a binary choice

you have to choose here between that or right wing zealotry, you really do

Nope, I don't. I choose a world in which the racist right wing doesn't exist -- but as long as it does, it shuts the fuck up when it has a choice between publishing its racist right-wing hate-mongering and not.

I can condemn violence in response to anything AND condemn what the violence is claimed to be in response to. No one else's response to something conditions my response to it.

I can condemn certain exercises of the right to speak AND attempts to punish people who exercise the right in ways that our society has decided should not be punished. (We really do punish some exercises of the right to speak: lying in court, selling state secrets, advertising snake oil to cure cancer, shouting "fire" in crowded theatres, threatening death, conspiring to commit crimes ... all are exercises of the right to speak, and all are illegal at least in certain circumstances.)

you seemed to think that the Muslims protesting are in no way wrong

You are continuing to make statements for which you have no evidence, and which are in fact false.

I drew the conclusion -- unfairly, since I don't know you -- that you would support their ultimate aim, which is a global theocracy under strict Islamic rules

"Unfairly" ... or maybe without a shred of evidence and contrary to anything that a reasonable and decent person would assume in the absence of any facts. How often do you encounter a regular old English-speaking North American who supports a global Islamic theocracy? How reasonable is it to make the assumption that someone you encounter at DU is such a person? Good bloody grief.

And furthermore, Arab newspapers regularly feature provocative and offensive depictions of Jewish people -- all Jewish people -- but we seem to think, in these circles, that that's ok because Israel is occupying Palestine.

If I may quote Redd Foxx speaking as Tonto: "Who we, white man?" Not you, apparently. Me? Why would you think so? These discussions aren't about the depictions of Jewish people in Arab-language newspapers, or the price of tea in China, for that matter.

The persistent reference to these other matters are red herrings. They are also graphic illustrations of the exact problem at hand: the stereotyping and collective blaming that the editorial "cartoons" themselves consist of. Hundreds of thousands of individual Muslims in Europe are not responsible for what Arab-language newspapers print -- or for terror bombings, or for death threats against journalists or for the killing of film-makers. The publishing of hateful commentary about Muslims is collective punishment for the actions of a tiny minority of Muslim individuals.

... he is a mass murderer. It can't only be in or out of context at your discretion, friend. This is a two-way discussion.

I have no idea what "a two-way discussion" has to do with anything. I was talking about your side of the discussion, which was an attempt to associate one thing with another thing it is not associated with. "Two-way discussion" really doesn't mean that one side gets to say anything it wants without challenge.

The "cartoons" in question had nothing to do with the historical/legendary facts of Mohammed's life. They had to do with modern-day terror bombings, for which neither Mohammed nor the vast majority of people who revere him bear any individual responsibility. They were not commentary on Mohammed's life or deeds, they were the ascribing of despicable actual acts to the reverence for Mohammed felt by millions of people who have committed no such acts.

I just think violence in response to these cartoons is ridiculous and insane. That's all.

I condemn the violence. It is ridiculous, insane and wrong. It was also entirely foreseeable, of course, and people are often regarded as bearing a share of responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of their actions.

And I do appreciate the distinction you draw regarding the Intifada, and we would undoubtedly agree that the current events are subject to denunciation on the "pragmatic", perhaps, ground that they lead to conflation of the two issues in minds vulnerable to such irrational associations at the hands of those who have an interest in that conflation occurring, as well as on the purely "principled" ground that violence is an intolerable response to such things ... although we'd have to explore further the issue of when violence is a tolerable response to something other than actual violence ... the USAmerican revolution coming quickly to mind ...

How come you, and so very many others hereabouts, don't condemn the hate speech?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

48. Your points are well taken

but I ask you one question: should free expression of any group EVER be stifled in order to molify another...regardless of the sociopolitical context?

[iverglas]

54. gee, a loaded question

should free expression of any group EVER be stifled in order to molify another...regardless of the sociopolitical context?

If you choose to define refraining from holding a vulnerable minority group up to hatred and ridicule as "mollifying" them, I guess your question is capable of being answered by you.

I don't, so it isn't capable of being answered by me.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

83. I didn't mean to load the question

Would you reword it for me and answer it?

[iverglas]

95. okey dokey

should free expression of any group EVER be stifled in order to molify another...regardless of the sociopolitical context?

Should anyone ever refrain from saying things that s/he has a right to say, when what is said is dishonest, cruel and/or likely to expose the people they are said about to the consequences of other people acting on their acceptance of the things said as accurate and fair?

Yup.

Should things that some people want to say ever be prohibited?

Yup. Where serious harm to someone is foreseeably likely to result from someone acting on the basis of what is said, or where the interests of society as a whole are likely to be seriously harmed by someone acting on that basis.

We outlaw lying in court -- an exercise of the right to say what one likes -- on the ground that harm to both particular individuals and society as a whole may result. We outlaw shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, selling state secrets, advertising snake oil to cure cancer, uttering death threats, publishing child pornography -- all exercises of the right to say what one likes.

The right to say what one likes IS subject to limitation in our liberal democracies. The issue is not WHETHER this may be done, but WHEN. "Free speech!" simply is not a complete answer to anyone's objection to any speech.

Stating this fact is also not a statement of opinion about the justifiability of prohibiting any speech in particular, I am sure I need to add.

[DemExpat]

57. No, only threats/incitement to kill should be unacceptable.

Free speech and freedom of the press is not something we want to stifle AT ALL in our democracies IMO.

Non-violent demonstration, civic discussion, and action through the courts are the avenues provided for here.

Just look at the US news media and how it has been bought by conservatives who censor/stifle much progressive idea and expression?

The EU Commission is coming up with some kind of code for Religion for the media after this event, and I am absolutley against this.

DemEx

[TallahasseeGrannie]

84. Do you live in Europe? I'm wondering from your username?

[DemExpat]

59. As for your last paragraph....

this is indeed part of the problem - that Muslim groups here (Netherlands) have NOT in any sustained manner loudly and visibly denounced suicide attacks carried out implicitly in the name of Islam, Allah, and the Prophet, or of terrorist attacks in the US and Europe. This relative silence is interpreted as approval to many people living here. The more actively outspoken European moderate Muslims become, the more understanding there will be and hopefully less fear/aversion from all sides.

I believe there are other interpretations of the turban bomb - that the religion and prophet have been hijacked not by ridicule/bigotry from the West, but from all of the violence perpetrated in his name (and broadcast by Al Jazeera.....)

I've seen some cartoons here on DU (and other progressive sites) depicting in an exaggerated, mocking and demeaning way how violence is perpetrated in the name of Christianity and Christ, which are in my view very similar to these cartoons.

The point is IMO - freedom of the press and speech is not to be controlled/limited/tempered by any faction in society other than an individual or media source's own discretion (and the red line of advocating murder) - leaving the inevitable cases of crossing a moral/ethical line of some published expression up to the courts to decide.

When a fundy Islamic site here posts anti-Semitic text or cartoons, charges are promptly made to the courts. This is how you disapprove/fight what offends you.

This very freedom of speech/the press PROTECTS minorities, minorities also like ours here in the increasingly rightwing world! Corporate takeover is threatening Western media as it is, I certainly don't want any state control of content either.

This is the form of our democracies and a form that needs protecting now more than anything IMO.


DemEx

[iverglas]

68. sorry

this is indeed part of the problem - that Muslim groups here (Netherlands) have NOT in any sustained manner loudly and visibly denounced suicide attacks carried out implicitly in the name of Islam, Allah, and the Prophet, or of terrorist attacks in the US and Europe.

No individual Muslim is responsible for what Muslim groups do. No individual anything has any duty to denounce what anyone else does. No one's failure to speak about anything justifies anyone else portraying him/her as something s/he is not.

On the other hand, I'd say that people who beat their breasts and proclaim themselves to be "liberal" do have a duty to denounce hate speech. Precious few hereabouts have shown any inclination to do so, although many have been eager as all hell to denounce supposed attacks on freedom of speech.

This relative silence is interpreted as approval to many people living here.

Ah. So many people must also be interpreting the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholics' silence on their pope's efforts to prevent HIV-prevention resources being made available to potential victims in Africa as approval of children dying of AIDS. I guess there are a lot of those "cartoons" I asked about in another thread -- Jesus (or St Peter, if some prefer) walking among the children with a vial of HIV virus and doling it out, or St Peter at the pearly gates welcoming Roman Catholics who participated in the Holocaust. Just like Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, or welcoming terror bombers into paradise. (And of course I guess that Roman Catholics are a vulnerable minority group where those cartoons appeared.)

And heavens, I guess Muslims could interpret the silence of the overwhelming majority of all Europeans and North Americans, say, on the US's criminal invasion and occupation of Iraq to be approval of it. Hmm.

The very "interpretation" you refer to is an expression of -- here insert whatever term you like: racism, bigotry, ethnocentricy, xenophobia, Islamophobia, hatred of Muslims or Arabs.

The more actively outspoken European moderate Muslims become, the more understanding there will be and hopefully less fear/aversion from all sides.

How about we place responsibility for the fear/aversion on the shoulders where responsibility belongs: places like the editorial offices of mass-circulation dailies that publish hateful misrepresentations of minority groups?

I believe there are other interpretations of the turban bomb - that the religion and prophet have been hijacked not by ridicule/bigotry from the West, but from all of the violence perpetrated in his name (and broadcast by Al Jazeera.....)

Yes ... and if we knew that fer sher nobody would be interpreting it as a portrayal of Mohammed as a mass murderer, and of those who revere him as mass murderers or potential mass murderers or approvers of mass murder, well, that would matter.

The point is IMO - freedom of the press and speech is not to be controlled/limited/tempered by any faction in society other than an individual or media source's own discretion (and the red line of advocating murder) - leaving the inevitable cases of crossing a moral/ethical line of some published expression up to the courts to decide.

Well, the courts kinda have to have a law to apply before they can decide anything.

There tend to be laws against shouting "fire" in crowded theatres, telling lies in court, conspiring to commit crimes, threatening death, advertising snake oil to cure cancer ... so in those cases, the courts have laws that limit freedom of speech that they can apply to appropriate cases.

When a fundy Islamic site here posts anti-Semitic text or cartoons, charges are promptly made to the courts. This is how you disapprove/fight what offends you.

If you have a law that you can wield in that battle. Do Muslims have an equivalent law? Not as I understand it. Odd, that. (And odd that such materials appear in "fundy Islamic sites", and not apparently in the mass-circulation media.)

Where there is no law that the courts can apply, there ain't much the courts can do. There may be a question as to whether there should be such laws. But there is also the plain simple fact that no one is compelled to say anything, and that people are as free to not speak as they are to speak. The publishers of the materials in question were entirely free not to publish them, and so they must be presumed to have had a reason to do so. I'm not seeing anything I regard as a good reason.

Exercise of freedom of speech can be tempered by the exercise of decency.

Given the apparent dearth of voices calling for the newspapers in question to exercise a little decency and not publish such inflammatory materials, I guess Muslims can just assume that everybody who reads them approves of them.

This very freedom of speech/the press PROTECTS minorities, minorities also like ours here in the increasingly rightwing world!

That's fine talk. But the plain fact is that some EXERCISES of free speech and some ACTIONS by the free press legitimize and exacerbate hatred. And hatred just doesn't protect anyone.

Corporate takeover is threatening Western media as it is, I certainly don't want any state control of content either.

That's a complete non sequitur. I don't want corporate control of health care delivery, and I do want "state" control -- i.e. control by my society collectively.

In any event, and I'll say it again: it is entirely possible to condemn certain exercises of freedom of speech/the press without calling for anyone to be punished for them. Wot the hell have we got all this free speech for, if not to speak out against things that need speaking out against?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

47. I'll also add another

fundamentalist to you list: the radical left.

Radicals of any stripe are dangerous and should not be cow-towed to.

[fujiyama]

61. You said it

I've seen too many justifications and excuses for this violence. Oh, but wait, it's all the West's fault.

[iverglas]

71. "too many justifications and excuses for this violence"

Here at DU?

Can you quote ... um, one?

[BoneDaddy]

82. Um..

how bout the weak defense you keep making excusing their behavior? You seem dedicated to justifying their actions over and over again.

[iverglas]

89. how about you stop making false statements about me?

how bout the weak defense you keep making excusing their behavior?

I dunno. How 'bout that cow that jumped over the moon? How 'bout that big wart on your nose? Got any more questions loaded with false premises you'd like to ask?

How 'bout YOU QUOTE A SINGLE THING I HAVE SAID that can be honestly characterized as a defence for "their" behaviour?

You seem dedicated to justifying their actions over and over again.

You seem dedicated to persuading someone of something that is false. Anyone in particular, or just the reading public in general?

[BoneDaddy]

66. ding ding ding get that person a ceegar!!

Absolutely correct. Let us not be apologists for this over the top, violent, irrational and reactionary actions of the fundamentalist muslims. They, like all fundamentalists, see the world in black and white, good and evil, right and wrong. This thinking is incredibly dangerous.

I am not talking about the totality of Islam. It's history is wonderful, it's people amazing. But fundamentalism has taken a HUGE foothold in many countries and it, like the Christian fundamentalism here, needs to be rejected and kept in close check.

Had they boycotted, peaceably protested, and worked for change instead of knee-jerk irrational violence, they would have my support. But they did not and they are continuing the escalation of this crisis sparked by the cartoons. I cannot condone that or make apologies for their actions like I am seeing here.

Let me say I understand their anger at the west, I understand the encroachment (they feel) of Western culture into their lives, BUT I do not agree with their actions and no one should overlook this.

[iverglas]

69. and thar she blows yet again

Had they boycotted, peaceably protested, and worked for change instead of knee-jerk irrational violence, they would have my support. But they did not and they are continuing the escalation of this crisis sparked by the cartoons.

"They". All the hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Europe, all the hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world. THEY are all the same, THEY all did the same thing.

In actual fact, a tiny percentage did what you disapprove of, but ALL of THEM now do not have your support. All of them who are vulnerable to hate-motivated discrimination, harassment and worse, daily, whose vulnerability was exploited and exacerbated by the editorial materials in question, who have done nothing in their lives to harm anyone, who have expressed no approval of any harm done to anyone. THEM, you don't give a shit about -- or at least not enough of a shit to have anything to say about the dishonest vilification they have suffered in the mass-circulation media.

I wonder whether THEY are surprised.

[BoneDaddy]

81. Are you blind?

I have to ask that question because you obviously didn't read my post before you jumped down my throat.

I made a clear comment on how much I value Islam and it's adherents.
I specified the problem I have is with FUNDAMENTALISM and NOT the totality of Islam.
I linked the same kind of fundamentalist mentality with the extreme whackos in Judaism and Christianity.

Now if you can on one hand condemn the Bush administration and it's fundamentalist approach yet give these people a pass for their behavior over an insensitive bit of free speech, then you are a hypocrite.

The muslim extremists are dangerous. That doesn't mean ALL muslims, it means the ones who act in such fashion.

Take a course in reading comprehension because you simply see what you want to see without ever really understanding.

[iverglas]

96. maybe

I may indeed have missed the referrent for your "they" --

Had they boycotted, peaceably protested, and worked for change instead of knee-jerk irrational violence, they would have my support.

And so I may indeed owe you an apology for reading your statement as being like so many others I have seen in the last couple of days. I offer it.

I guess I can now look forward to your apology for this:

how bout the weak defense you keep making excusing their behavior? You seem dedicated to justifying their actions over and over again.

My false allegation seems to have arisen from a culpable failure to pay attention. Yours?

[fujiyama]

65. So anyone criticising

this violent streak among some followers of Islam is demonizing the religion and its followers?

Sorry, I'm not going to buy that. As I see it, you are correct about invading Iraq. It has inflamed the Muslim world and understandably so considering it was of no threat. I also understand that the US support of Israel doesn't help matters.

But that doesn't mean Islam should be free of criticism.

It's now clear that this paper is guilty of incredible hypocrisy, but this violence is still not justified.

[iverglas]

70. dang, can I borrow your glasses?

So anyone criticising this violent streak among some followers of Islam is demonizing the religion and its followers?

I didn't see anything in the post you replied to that would have given you any reason to ask this question. Maybe if you lend me your specs I can see it. Or heck, maybe you could just copy and paste it.

But that doesn't mean Islam should be free of criticism.

Well, if you haven't just hit the nail on the head ... backwards and upside down.

Nothing means that Islam should be exempt from criticism. Nobody has said that Islam should be exempt from criticism.

Now, someone did indeed say something about the ongoing demonization of Islam. I can see the difference. Maybe if I lent you my trifocals ...?

It's now clear that this paper is guilty of incredible hypocrisy, but this violence is still not justified.

And when you find someone who has suggested it is justified, you'll have an argument all ready to offer in rebuttal, I guess.

[politick]

77. Who are you?

I cannot tell what point you're trying to make, friend. All you do is quote and refute without outlining what is is you support or do not support. And you do so angrily and insutingly. Do you reject or condone this wave of violence by certain persons over the publication of political cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad? Not asking about your opinions of racism, the Iraq war, right wing media or any of it. I will assume that, being on DU, we're all of the relaively same mind on these issues. Just this. Not accusing others here who are trying to have a conversation of wholesale prejudice or support for the Bush Administration or insulting anyone's intelligence by saying they buy into propaganda. Just this event. And while we're at it, is this response, by certain persons, most of whom are Muslim, fundamentalist hardline religious fantacism? If not, what is it, and why do you defend it?

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

99. ah, clarity

1. YOu interpret any criticism of the extremist Islamists as an attack on the totality of Islam.

A false statement made without evidence. (If you have some, why don't you offer it? Cut 'n paste function not working?)

2. You continue to justify and excuse the irrational behavior of these people in response to an offensive cartoon.

A false statement made without evidence. (If you have some, why don't you offer it? Cut 'n paste function not working?)

3. Anyone who disagrees with you, you label as being in cahoots with the Bush administration or are sympathetic to their views.

A false statement made without evidence. (If you have some, why don't you offer it? Cut 'n paste function not working? Supplementary question: can you find the word "Bush" in a post of mine in these discussions? Follow-up: is there a reason that so many USAmericans think that everything in the world is about them, and/or feel the need to divert every discussion of anything in the world to a discussion about them?)

Any time you're ready.

[iverglas]

98. gee, what does it matter?

I cannot tell what point you're trying to make, friend.

Well, I fail to see how that's my fault.

Do you reject or condone this wave of violence by certain persons over the publication of political cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad?

Why can't people ask straight questions? Ever, ever, ever?

I condemn the violence committed by people allegedly in response to the publication of the editorial "cartoons" in question.

I do not characterize the cartoons as "depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammed" any more than I characterize this cartoon:



as depicting Mr. Joe Blow.

Not asking about your opinions of racism, the Iraq war, right wing media or any of it.

Dearie me. I'm to be limited in what I say by what you ask me?

I don't thiiink so.

I'm to subscribe to the right-wing racist framing of this particular discourse if I am to open my mouth on the subject?

I don't thiiiink so.

Maybe you could tell me your opinion of violence committed by African-American gang members in the US, and kindly refrain from stating any opinions about slavery, economic injustice, social exclusion and Jim Crow.

Condemn it, do you? Gosh, just as I condemn the violence in the situation under discussion (and have done numerous times; if you're so curious to know who I am, you might try reading what I've written). And does condemning violence by African-American gang members make you feel all warm and fuzzy? Is your job done now? No need to discuss slavery, economic injustice, social exclusion and Jim Crow? Okey dokey.

And while we're at it, is this response, by certain persons, most of whom are Muslim, fundamentalist hardline religious fantacism?

Hmm. Aren't the liquor store robberies committed by African-Americans?

If not, what is it, and why do you defend it?

Why don't you put your money where the mouth spewing this false premise is, and substantiate your allegation that I have defended it?

Because you can't? Yeah, that must be it.

So the next question would be why you are making false statements about me, I guess.

Do I see any hands?

[Ben Ceremos]

79. Ding-ding-ding!!!!

We have a winner. Good work.

[iverglas]

19. does it really?

Sad that they could predict that violence would occur
really tells you about the Muslim world doesn't it?

It tells one everything one needs to know about a few hundred million people, I guess.

I mean, if one didn't already "know" it.

I wonder what the daily killing of Iraqis tells us about the USAmerican world.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[jseankil]

11. Mossad took over these Muslims and forced them to act like idiots!!

Egads you've got it!

[meganmonkey]

14. LOL - And the award for putting words into someone else's mouth

goes to....

:eyes:

[Colorado Blue]

12. WHAT????????????

I don't really even want to THINK about what this post is implying.

[Behind the Aegis]

16. .

:eyes:

[GrumpyGreg]

6. There would have been an oucry if they had published the Jesus

cartoons but I'll bet that there wouldn't have been violence and raiding of embassies.

[meganmonkey]

8. This didn't happen in a vacuum

or with a clean slate. This happened in the midst of violence against muslims that the Danish RW has supported and continues to support. This paper has a very RW background, too. The cartoons seem to have pushed some folks over the edge, but they are by no means the only thing they are reacting to.

Peace.

[Kagemusha]

10. Not that two wrongs make a right

but I certainly agree this didn't happen in a vacuum or with a clean slate. Not at all.

[JohnyCanuck]

21. Darn right

Why has the US been Shipping Muslim Extremist Schoolbooks into Afghanistan...for 20 Years?

And why is President Bush hiding it?

By Jared Israel


=======================================
<snip>

Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/jihad.htm

[TallahasseeGrannie]

17. When cultures collide

it is inevitable. The German Muslims (I really don't know much about the Scandinavian situation) have certainly given the RW there plenty of fodder. They don't appear to be very interested in assimilating into the German culture, and one element of Germany bends over backward to be accommodating which pisses the hell out of the hardliners who see it as capitulating to a foreign culture. And it doesn't help that there have been reports of some sort of Muslim plan to make all of Europe Muslim. Whether that is real or not I have no idea. If it is true, the RW has a point. But it could be all overblown.

I'd love to hear from some folks who live or have lived in Europe and dealt with this interesting social issue.

[Karenina]

32. You're reading disinformation.

Maybe I'm just lucky to live in the S.F. of Europe. The integration efforts here politically are GROßARTIG! The Realschule kids who pass under my window each day have their OWN LANGUAGE. Even if we both spoke fluent German and Turkish, we old ladies would STILL have NO CHANCE.

The problems you write of are those overblown by the right wing daily, intended to hamper our march toward mutual understanding. The GOOD thing I've found here is, unlike the U.S., people realize the "they" you speak of are "us" and with little discussion realize the media manipulation.

Yes, those Caliphate folks exist and YES, some have been deported. YES, there are difficulties. I often ask the young'uns born here how they see themselves, how they identify. "I'm born here, my parents were born here, I'm GERMAN, aber ich bin für immer und ewig irgendwie Ausländer wegen meine verbindung mit Turkiye...

These kids are "foreigners" when they visit family in other lands...

[iverglas]

34. thank you

people realize the "they" you speak of are "us" and with little discussion realize the media manipulation.

Once again, the "they" I have commented on in numerous posts in threads like this had reared its ugly head. "Those people" ... just don't understand freedom, aren't ready to live without oppression, need to grow thicker skins, can't expect special treatment ...

Ugly.

The problems you write of are those overblown by the right wing daily, intended to hamper our march toward mutual understanding.

And the "cartoons" are precisely part of that.

"I'm born here, my parents were born here, I'm GERMAN, aber ich bin für immer und ewig irgendwie Ausländer wegen meine verbindung mit Turkiye...

For those whose German is even rustier than mine:
... but I am forever some sort of foreigner because of my connection with Turkey ..."

[TallahasseeGrannie]

46. Thank you so much

for your insight and experience.

My family in Europe is in Pfozheim and is the source of the only info I have on the immigration issue in Germany.

The Caliphate info I believe I gleaned from reading on the Internet.

So summing up, you feel that the Turks and native Germans are working things out satisfactorily?

[Karenina]

58. Do you mean Pforzheim, T-Grannie?

The rural strip down there between Karlsruhe und Stuttgart?

There is no "summing up." It's a dynamic, organic situation, at least where I am. Lots of intermarriage, which of course, changes EVERYTHING. I just watch the young'uns to read a pulse. The Turks have been here so long that many entering the political scene today have GERMAN as a first language. Moms speak to their kids in Turkish and the kids answer in Deutsch. Should a 3rd generation kid born in this country be considered a "native German?"

[TallahasseeGrannie]

85. Yes... typo, sorry.

What a great point "there is no summing up." Of course there isn't. I think watching the kids IS a great indicator.

It sounds to me, from what you are saying, that assimilation is definitely taking place. And as for your question about "native" German, to me, "native" means born there. No racial component.

I believe here in the US we have found that the mixing of cultures, while sometimes difficult, has made us stronger.

[Igel]

28. You're right, it didn't.

Nobody was concerned about the cartoonists' safety when the Jesus cartoons were considered. They'd be offensive, and that would be the end of it; there was no intimidation over respectful representations of Jesus. Such cartoons would have said nothing greater than, "I have a right to offend, even if there's no purpose in it other than offense."

This is not what the Muhammed cartoons said, however, except to those that think that only the possible context is the one the Middle East as perceived by Americans, or by some Muslims in the Muslim world.

Such narrowness of perspective is, sadly, apparently forgivable on the part of fundie Muslims.

Such narrowness of perspective is, apparently, unforgivably sad on the part of Americans.

[iverglas]

31. "even if there's no purpose in it other than offense"

If only there were no other purpose in publishing the materials in issue here.

Ah, I see you agree:

This is not what the Muhammed cartoons said, however, except to those that think that only the possible context is the one the Middle East as perceived by Americans, or by some Muslims in the Muslim world.

But I wonder:

Such narrowness of perspective is, sadly, apparently forgivable on the part of fundie Muslims.

-- forgivable by whom?

Muslims who see the materials in question for what they were -- dishonest representations of Muslims, calculated to validate and incite public hatred of them -- aren't expressing forgiveness for anyone engaged in violent response. They're calling the people engaged in violent response thugs.

[Igel]

103. I see many people

arguing that anger and rage on the part of Muslims in Beirut and Damascus--not the violence of course, but the rage--is merited or justified.

Those who see the cartoons as "dishonest representations of Muslims, designed to validate and incite public hatred of them" are the ones that, regrettably, are having their ignorance forgiven, if not simply overlooked. Perhaps many assume that Middle Eastern Muslims are too narrow minded to be able to understand the context, or are deprived of a press free enough to learn of it. For the representations are, by and large, neither dishonest as such, nor of Muslims in general, nor designed to validate and incite public hatred of Muslims or Muhammed. They are, if the discussion that surrounded their publication is accurate--and at the time there was no reason to suspect that it wasn't--a response by Danes to perceived fear and intimidation by extremist Muslims for whom Muhammed is indeed an advocate and preacher of terror and oppression, not of peace and tolerance as commonly understand in the West.

Danes feel threatened; they portray their perceptions in ink and paper; and suddenly, they're the oppressors, in an Orwellian media reversal of the original state of affairs. Fear is liberty, oppression is virtue. Ecchhh. If you don't like the idea of a terrorist Muhammed, perhaps those who propagated the idea in Denmark should be dealt with; for that, we've moved beyond protesting Danes, and moved to contemplating what can only be termed Muslim apostates (if the usual representations of Islam are accurate).

[Bushy Being Born]

80. Yes, it was calculated, but not in the way you think

It seems very few are aware what the reason for the publishing actually was. Not that surprising I guess, since I gather we don't have many Jyllandsposten-reading Danes with us here. But even so, you'd think it would be known by now. A book on the religion of Islam came out in Denmark last year, and Jyllandsposten picked up on the fact that the author hadn't been able to get anybody to illustrate it, simply out of fear for drawing Mohammed. They put this in the context of Rushdie's persecution and set out to investigate if cartoons of the prophet would, regardless of supposed free speech, be stifled and in practice prohibited. After events took such an ugly turn and the supposition was in fact proved, the paper has published apologies for printing the cartoons, and the editor has said if he had known what the outcome would be, he would never have done it.

Now, on the other hand, publishing offending pictures of Jesus wouldn't have served any purpose to begin with, since we already know that this would be allowed without eliciting such a vicious response. Piss Christ, Ecce Homo, or anything else much more offensive about Jesus than these quite harmless cartoons still wouldn't cause Christians to go an a rampage of this scale.

[KDLarsen]

15. 2 things here..

First: Until these images are reproduced, I don't think ANYONE should comment on whether it was appropriate or not. This really seems like a non-story, considering that there were 2½ years apart & as far as I know, there has never been any Danish Christian groups advocating for their religion to give them special privileges (then again, I haven't bothered to check). And certainly, no Danish illustrator has been haunted for drawing a picture of Jesus H. Christ.

Second: Ahmed Akkari, the person that the Guardian is quoting, claims to be representing an organisation that in turn represents 27 muslim organisations. A Danish newspaper (not affiliated with Jyllands-Posten btw) has conducted a search through the organisations papers, and concluded a) that several of the organisations doesn't exists or were created by the leaders of the umbrealla organisation, b) that some of the organisations has not been contacted by the umbrealla organisation (and even if they had, they strongly oppose the umbrealla organisations goals) and, c) that some of the individual muslims they claim to represent includes children as young as 7 years old.

[meganmonkey]

20. Regarding your second comment

Akkari is quoted later in the story, but that does not change the facts in the first few paragraphs. In fact, the illustrator himself "...said that he felt Jyllands-Posten rated the feelings of its Christian readers higher than that of its Muslim readers." You could remove all the parts referring to Akkari and that would still be there.

A little bit about this newspaper:

"In the 1920s and 1930s, Jyllands-Posten was infamous for its affinity for Italian fascism and the German Nazi dictatorship. In 1933, it argued for the introduction of a dictatorship in Denmark.

Last September, the newspaper asked forty cartoonists to draw images of the Prophet Muhammad, something that is proscribed by Islamic law as blasphemous. Spelling out the provocative and inflammatory aim of this exercise, the chief editor said its purpose was “to examine whether people would succumb to self-censorship, as we have seen in other cases when it comes to Muslim issues.”"
more

[Tulum_Moon]

23. There are just way too many things offending a whole people

And they keep popping in up in suspect places. The Koran being flushed. The torture pictures, and I am sure countless more. It is if we, they, or someone is saying "let's see if this will set them off". I think this is the result that is being sought. It is a sick game with a deadly ending.

[meganmonkey]

24. Unfortunately I agree with you

It is really sick, isn't it.

Welcome to DU!!! :toast: (I wish it were on a happier note!)

[iverglas]

29. I think that's a secondary, though undoubtedly intended, effect

It is if we, they, or someone is saying "let's see if this will set them off".

The obvious and plainly intended effect is simply to validate and exacerbate hatred of Muslims among the non-Muslim population, by validating their decision to regard Muslims as a host of nasty things, including terrorists.

The parallel to the treatment of Jews in the right-wing press in the early last century is so blatantly obvious that no thinking person can honestly miss it. Muslims are responsible for bombings, Jews were responsible for economic breakdown (and other things). Not all Muslims are bombers, any more than all Jews then were evil bankers. But creating the perception in the public mind that a group of people who resist cultural/religious assimilation are determined to destroy the society they live in sure does keep the public mind occupied in ways that the right wing likes to see.

[fedsron2us]

37. If its a fascist plot as the Trotskyists are suggesting

then the Islamic world has swallowed the bait hook, line and sinker.

[Igel]

104. Let's try some arithmetic here.

Let's assume the editors in the 1930s were in their 40s. Seems reasonable. That means they're in the 110s now. I'm fairly sure that 100 is the mandatory retirement age in Denmark.

In other news, there was a war and a couple of political upheavals since then in Europe and elsewhere. Looking for that kind of continuity in a newspaper is iffy given those circumstances, and must not simply be asserted as though it's the norm. It must be proven. That's up to the WSWS organ. "The paper was fascist 70 years ago" isn't enough to prevent their reasoning from being circular: "the cartoons are fascist therefore the paper's continuing to be fascist so the cartoons must be fascist."

[iverglas]

22. oddly enough ...

as far as I know, there has never been any Danish Christian groups advocating for their religion to give them special privileges

... as far as *I* know, Danish Christians are not subject to discrimination and harassment, and demonization by right-wing political factions.

And I don't happen to consider asking the mainstream press to refrain from feeding the hate that fuels those problems to be asking for "special privileges". I'd tend to think of it as asking not to be singled out for misrepresentation and vilification.


Ahmed Akkari, the person that the Guardian is quoting, claims to be representing ...

And any illegimacy of any of his claims regarding whom he represents would refute the facts related by him -- let alone the email reported by the illustrator in question, and not by Akkari -- how?

[The Stranger]

25. Christians aren't the demonized "Other," singled out for hate, bigotry,

xenophobia, and soon another illegal war to steal their natural resources.

[VegasWolf]

27. To be fair, they should lampoon a different god every day for a year.

Homo sapiens love their gods.

:sarcasm:

[gavinandresen]

43. To be fair, they should lampoon a different god every day for a year.

Yup, they should be fair to all the other gods.

We should do the same for the pledge of allegiance; divide the schoolyear up according to the US percentage of believers in all the various deities (see http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions ), and instruct schoolchildren to say:

"One nation, under God" (about 80% of the time-- say 4 times a week)
or
"One nation" (for all the Nonreligious/Secular/Atheist/Agnostic-- maybe one day a week)
or
"One nation, under Allah" (.5% of the time-- 1-2 days a year)
or
"One nation, under Buddah" (another 1-2 days a year)

... and maybe one that rotates:
"One nation under the Goddess"
or
"One nation under the Gods"

Fair's fair....

[GOPFighter]

33. The irony is that Copenhagen has a large Muslim population.

It's disgusting that the paper was unwilling to insult Danish Christians, but felt it was okay to insult Danish Muslims. That's shameful.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

35. Some background to the publishing of the cartoons

In mid-September there was an article in another Danish paper about the difficulty a writer was having getting an illustrator to work on his childrens book about Mohammed's life. According to the author, the various illustrators he spoke to were too afraid of fundamentalist retribution - citing the murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh & more recent physical attacks on academics in Denmark by Islamic fundamentalists. This article sparked off a debate in the Danish media about free speech, Islam and European secular society. Jyllands-Posten asked a load of cartoonists to provide something on Islam and the twelve who responded were published in the paper at the end of the month, along with an editoral.

[iverglas]

39. wouldn't it have been nice

In mid-September there was an article in another Danish paper about the difficulty a writer was having getting an illustrator to work on his childrens book about Mohammed's life.

... if the writer in question had just thought to himself, hmm, a book about Mohammed's life ... do I want to show blatant disrespect for what Mohammed taught (not to worship graven images, the reason that Muslims do not portray Mohammed in graphic form) and for the people who regard him as their god's prophet ... or do I maybe want to respect their beliefs and traditions by not obtaining an imaginary likeness of Mohammed and publishing it?

According to the author, the various illustrators he spoke to were too afraid of fundamentalist retribution - citing the murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh & more recent physical attacks on academics in Denmark by Islamic fundamentalists.

So my assumption would be that the illustrators he spoke to were non-Muslims or secular Muslims, since a believing Muslim would pretty likely have declined the job on the basis of his/her beliefs alone.

I just wonder why someone who intended to violate the rules of the religion whose founder he was writing about was writing about him in the first place. And why he saw fit to kick up such a public stink about his problems.

[eallen]

44. Are you suggesting authors must adhere to their subjects' principles??

You seem to be suggesting that only someone who respects Christianity should write about Paul, only someone who favors slavery should write about Jefferson Davis, and only someone who believes in ghosts should write anything on Jane Roberts. That is such an outrageous proposition, that I'm not sure how to respond to it.

[iverglas]

55. are you standing on your head and spitting nickels?

If you didn't understand what I wrote, do feel free to ask for an explanation.

If you want to portray me as having said something I didn't say, feel free to go on asking "questions" that do so.

You seem to be suggesting that only someone who respects Christianity should write about Paul, ... blah blah blah

You seem to be trying very hard to convince someone that I suggested something I never suggested.

That is such an outrageous proposition, that I'm not sure how to respond to it.

Well, first you could try finding someone who advanced it, I guess.

[eallen]

60. An author who's not Muslim has little reason to respect Islamic rules.

You wrote, "Wouldn't it be nice if the writer in question had just thought to himself, hmm, a book about Mohammed's life ... do I want to show blatant disrespect for what Mohammed taught (not to worship graven images, the reason that Muslims do not portray Mohammed in graphic form)?"

The obvious answer is that there is no particular reason for someone writing a biography to adopt their subject's mores.

"I just wonder why someone who intended to violate the rules of the religion whose founder he was writing about was writing about him in the first place."

For the same reason that people who aren't Marxist write about Marx, people who aren't Mormon write about Joseph Smith, and people who aren't Jewish write about Maimonides. These are all important and interesting historical figures. Again, I'm astounded by the notion that an author should write only about people whose precepts the author follows.

[iverglas]

63. the obvious answer ...

still needs a question.

And the question still is: what was the purpose of writing the book in question?

I still don't know.

The obvious answer is that there is no particular reason for someone writing a biography to adopt their subject's mores.

Yeah, but hmm. If someone writing a biography of, oh, Diana, Princess of Wales, illustrated it with lots of pictures of Diana in the nude, mightn't one question the motivation behind the book?

There are no photographs of Mohammed. I still don't know what purpose imaginary drawings of him were supposed to serve.

If the book was intended to inform children about the life of Mohammed (the impression I've got, which may be erroneous), it just doesn't strike me that violating one of the precepts he taught, in the book itself, is quite consistent with that purpose.

Again, I'm astounded by the notion that an author should write only about people whose precepts the author follows.

Yeah, so am I. Let me know when you've found someone expressing it, will you?

[Jim Sagle]

67. He understood EXACTLY what you wrote, and you know it.

[iverglas]

72. ah, I'm a liar.

Good to know.

What you have said about me is entirely false, and you know it.

[sweetheart]

38. divisive ontology

By simply "naming" this cartoon, a problem is created.
By sharon forcing the temple mount, an infitada was created.
By sayin' they got wmd's the iraq war again name portend
devious unpleasant end, off to sea we should send,
"names" that impose such a violent end.

[WhiteTara]

42. can we say racist hypocrite?

I wonder about people all the time. What in heavens name are they thinking?

[liberalpragmatist]

45. Also, in several European countries, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian talk.

... is banned. Several European countries have laws that will allow the government to prosecute anyone mocking or slurring Jews, Christians, or other groups such as homosexuals and the disabled. So an awful lot of European Muslims - not just the ones who are violent and protesting - feel there's a big double standard. And given that there's an awfully large amount of Islamophobia in Europe, many Muslims feel singled out. Of course, the violent reaction in places like Syria and Beirut can't possibly be helping dissuade that Islamophobia.

[Endangered Specie]

50. I think alot of people arent aware of that Islamophobia in Europe...

Id say it is just as bad if not worse there now than the rascist feeling present in America in 1950.

[eallen]

56. Denmark does not. This is good time for other nations to shuck those laws.

A revolt in the UK House of Commons just saved Britain from a bill designed to ban speech that was insulting to religion.

[liberalpragmatist]

62. Okay. I was not familiar with the particulars of Denmark

... I was just pointing out that such limits on free speech exist in many European countries.

[fujiyama]

64. But why shouldn't we look at the root causes

of this Islamaphobia (atleast in Europe)?

Leftists always say we should do that. Maybe it's time to do that in this case as well. Many Muslims have seemingly tried to impose their cultural beliefs on the host nations. This shows poor assimilation into those respective societies.

Does this excuse xenophobic attitudes in Europe? No, but tolerance should be shown not only by the host nation to immigrants, but by the immigrant community as well.

[iverglas]

73. how about the root causes of anti-black racism in the US?

But why shouldn't we look at the root causes of this Islamaphobia (atleast in Europe)?

Many Muslims have seemingly tried to impose their cultural beliefs on the host nations. This shows poor assimilation into those respective societies.

Many African-Americans have committed heinous crimes. Many African-Americans deal drugs. Many African-Americans just won't get jobs. This shows ... well, all manner of nasty things about African-Americans, I guess.

Well, of course, I don't. And anyone who did guess that would be, and would rightly be denounced as, an out and out vicious racist.

Funny how that works.

[BoneDaddy]

88. Not really

YOu cannot compare the two. You are talking race on one end and a very specific form of religious fundamentalism.

Whereas I could not make an across the board statement about black people because of the plurality of thought and expression each individual has, i can make a rational logical observation about radical islamists as they all tend to adhere to a similar system of thinking, or you could argue not-thinking.

[iverglas]

100. not buying in

You are talking race on one end and a very specific form of religious fundamentalism.

Nopers.

The anti-black "cartoon" was talking about a very specific set of characteristics and ascribing them to all members of a group defined by race.

The anti-Muslim "cartoons" were talking about a very specific set of characteristics and ascribing them to all people who revere a particular individual.

Defining an issue out of existence is really pretty feeble argument.

[liberalpragmatist]

74. Yes but that itself is complex

Many Muslims could do a better job of trying to integrate, but European countries often haven't made it easy to integrate and the result is that many European Muslims are marginalized and become more radical.

Europe is the birthplace of ethnic nationalism. Over the past two centuries, what was once an ethnic mosaic across Europe was wiped out, culminating in the World Wars. The nations of Europe are defined by ethnic and historical identities that assert a certain character to all citizens of a state.

The problem with this is with new immigrants who don't want to completely give up their old identity, which is what they've often been told to do. Most Muslims in Europe will tell you that they want to be accepted as full citizens of whatever countries they are in; most of them don't want to be marginalized or segregated from the rest of the population, but they do want to retain some of their cultural heritage. For many of them that means going to mosque, or eating halal, or for some of the women, wearing the hijab. If European countries were more tolerant and understanding of cultural differences, many of the problems could be averted. Instead, many Europeans see these identities as a threat to national cohesion. It's often expected that a person become fully secular, drop "irrational" old habits, and embrace the liberal culture of Europe. There's nothing wrong with that culture (hell, although I'm not of European origin, that's basically my identity) and many European Muslims have integrated into that fabric. But lots of them don't want to drop all of their identity and yet they are expected to do so if they want to become full citizens. Speaking of citizenship, Germany, for example, didn't even allow Turkish immigrants and their children to become citizens until very recently. Inevitably, being seen as an outcast from European society makes many youth embrace a radical Muslim identity. In some cases, such as with Turks, this is especially ironic, since many Turkish Europeans are far more aggressive about their religion than anybody in Turkey is.

Another factor is economic. In the US and Canada, Muslim immigrants are overwhelmingly middle-class professionals - doctors, businessmen, IT workers, etc. In Europe, however, most Muslim immigrants come from a poor, rural background and were brought to Europe as cheap labor. As an essentially working-class community that is marginalized from economic and social advancement, they embrace a lot of the "ghetto-ization" you see in lots of poor, working-class communities throughout the world.

That all being said, while there's a lot of alienation, it's important not to blow it out of proportion. Europe clearly has a "Muslim problem," but it isn't that most European Muslims are followers of those fringe radical imams. Although the protests in London got a lot of coverage, it was only a couple hundred people who were denounced by all the major Islamic groups in Britain. There have been no riots or burning of embassies in Europe, mainly peaceful protest and letter-writing. So I'd be careful not to paint with such a broad brush.

[iverglas]

101. thanks n/t

[Endangered Specie]

49. First, Id like to explore the idea that

two different people approved/rejected the respective cartoons (large paper might have more than one editor?).

Still, it IS a privately owned paper and regardless of what you feel about this (I will say its a bit hypocritical) it is their right to do so, (along with y'alls right not to read it).

I doubt they expected or wanted to cause this kind of reactions, worser things have happened to Muslims and this kind of reaction hasnt happened (I bet someone is fueling them from the sidelines, or its just a pretext/straw-broke-the-camel's-back to other problems)

[meganmonkey]

51. Of course they had a right to print them

But no one is going to convince me they didn't have an agenda:

A little bit about this newspaper:

"In the 1920s and 1930s, Jyllands-Posten was infamous for its affinity for Italian fascism and the German Nazi dictatorship. In 1933, it argued for the introduction of a dictatorship in Denmark.

Last September, the newspaper asked forty cartoonists to draw images of the Prophet Muhammad, something that is proscribed by Islamic law as blasphemous. Spelling out the provocative and inflammatory aim of this exercise, the chief editor said its purpose was “to examine whether people would succumb to self-censorship, as we have seen in other cases when it comes to Muslim issues.”"
more

[DemExpat]

52. Certainly the cartoonists, editors and publishers have no death wish.

I believe they were addressing, in a clumsy, ineffective and bigoted way, the encroachment on civil liberties - expecially freedom of speech and of the press - in Europe by fundamentalist Muslims and their threats.

DemEx

[NuttyFluffers]

76. well, that's pretty telling... and damning.

"things that make you go 'hmmm.....'"

(is there nothing C+C Music Factory cannot make better? :7)

[daleo]

78. Maybe the newspaper could print the Jesus lampooning cartoons now

Just to prove they really mean it, when they say it was all about freedom of speech.

[ksilvas]

93. When pigs fly, hence the hypocrisy.

[Renew Deal]

90. You bolded the wrong area.

"I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings."

It's all about the money.

[meganmonkey]

102. I think there is more of an agenda than that:

A little bit about this newspaper:

"In the 1920s and 1930s, Jyllands-Posten was infamous for its affinity for Italian fascism and the German Nazi dictatorship. In 1933, it argued for the introduction of a dictatorship in Denmark.

Last September, the newspaper asked forty cartoonists to draw images of the Prophet Muhammad, something that is proscribed by Islamic law as blasphemous. Spelling out the provocative and inflammatory aim of this exercise, the chief editor said its purpose was “to examine whether people would succumb to self-censorship, as we have seen in other cases when it comes to Muslim issues.”"
more

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[athena]

105. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It's about respect.

No one is saying that the newspaper should have been banned from publishing the cartoons. Once again, the right-wing cries "freedom of speech!" and 90% of liberals fall into the trap.

As other people have stated, having the right to publish something does not necessarily make it a good idea to publish it. It was stupid, insensitive, disrespectful, and irresponsible of the newspaper to publish the cartoons, considering the current political environment and all the ways in which Muslims around the world feel discriminated against. The Muslim response was completely predictable. Would all you people crying "free speech" defend the decision of a newspaper to publish cartoons that suggest, for example, that colored people are inferior to whites? The Muslims who are behaving violently are wrong, but that doesn't make the newspaper's decision a good one. If I insulted you, you would be wrong to punch me in the nose. But that wouldn't mean that I was right to hurt you in the first place.

As an atheist, I am apalled at the number of self-proclaimed atheists here who are so pro-Islamophobia. I am an atheist, but I respect that other people may not feel the way I do. Religious people have as much right to believe in their choice of a god as atheists do to not believe in one. Some of my ideas would be offensive to my religious friends, so I don't bring them up if they're unlikely to accomplish a useful purpose. The cartoons have produced chaos, not a fruitful discussion of Islam and terrorism. It was therefore a bad idea to publish them.