This cartoon flap is quickly becoming a very big deal.

[trumad]

The Danish Gov basically said stick it to the Muslims who are going bat shit over this and other Western Governments are posting the cartoons as a way of showing their support for a free press.

This has showdown written all over it.... It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

[Gman]

1. The cartoon speaks for itself

no matter the "outrage" shown by the other side, the cartoon is powerful and says volumes about our presence in Iraq and the sad treatment of veterans.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

3. You're confusing the cartoons

The OP was about the European cartoons of Mohammed; you're thinking of the Toles cartoon. By coincidence, I happen to agree with both of you.

[JDPriestly]

2. Free speech is a human right

Both the cartoonist and the Muslims have the right to express themselves as they wish. The Muslims do not have the right to prohibit the cartoonist from expressing himself freely. The Muslims are out of place on this.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. Would you still say that if

the cartoon causes someone to attack a Muslim or vandalize a mosque? Just curious to know if you draw a line between free speech and hate speech.

[Squatch]

8. A cartoon cannot "cause" anybody to do anything

[Demit]

11. Exactly.

[Yupster]

93. Thank you Squatch

Exactly.

[formernaderite]

9. The cartoons are mild and pretty humorous

I say this as a devoted atheist, who thinks anything goes. I hope some of the US papers have the balls to reprint the "offending" cartoons. This is just silly, I NEVER want to have my reading or viewing pleasure defined by a religious group....whether they're fundamentalist muslims, christians, jews or anything else.

If someone burns down a mosque...arrest them...but we're not going down the slippery slope of fearing the backlash over publishing something. That said, publishing the cartoons could actually help to innoculate everyone.

[CJCRANE]

56. I'm not so sure...

The cartoons to my mind clearly ape anti-semitic cartoons of the kind used against the Jews in Europe in the 30's.

(I also think that Middle Eastern papers that publish anti-jewish cartoons should be criticised too).

[vi5]

10. I would still say that.

People's actions are their actions. If those actions are stupid and violent then they stand on their own and should be dealt with accordingly.

Are you saying free speech should be limited out of fear of the action it may provoke in unstable people. That sounds familiar. Almost like what the right claims when it says that speaking out against the war emboldens the enemy and causes them to attack our troops.

Sorry, I don't buy it either way. Then every stupid, violent action can be dismissed as being the result of someone else's words or actions and every type of speech can be discouraged or censored for the fear of the reaction it will cause in someone else.

It's not a defense of the cartoons. There's plenty of speech I personally hate and disagree with. But I'd still never support censorship or abridging the freedom of speech for anyone.

[uppityperson]

22. Cartoons don't "cause someone to attack", they chose to. Here is one carto

[Leopolds Ghost]

25. That's the only one that doesn't seem to be pushing an agenda

That gets in the way, artistically, of simple conceptual "freedom of expression".

If the only goal was to tweak people by exercising the right of free-thinkers to imagine what Mohammed looks like, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

When did so many people on DU become convinced that objecting to something means it should be banned, and someone else objecting to it (not us) means it should be put on a pedestal? That is a very Old World, pre-1st Amendment concept of political expression.

Socrates would not be impressed. Diogenes or Aristophanes might, however. But who said they believed in free speech back then?

[Rainbow gatherer]

49. Now if a conservative forwards this thread to a jihadist...

would that justify a fatwah against this site? Think about it in regards to free speech.

[BushOut06]

30. That's absurd

Cartoons do not cause people to act. If someone does attack a Muslim or vandalize a mosque, it sure as hell won't be because of that - the underlying hatred would have already been there. It's not as if a normal, tolerant person is going to see that and think to themselves "holy shit, I need to take action and attack a Muslim!"

This is almost as silly as politibots in this country suggesting that video games like Grand Theft Auto cause kids to go out and commit crimes.

[WinkyDink]

41. the cartoon causes someone to attack a Muslim or vandalize a mosque

You're joking with this locution, right?

But then, cartoons have often caused me to eat potato chips, damn their eyes.

[fishwax]

66. or if the response of muslim government officials caused masked gunmen

to surround the offices of the european union?

[Freedom_Aflaim]

105. I would say that person was looking for an excuse

to commit that crime.

[radwriter0555]

48. HATE speech is not the speech of the free. Hitler used the same techniques

to stir and drive the hatred of the jews.

It's INTOLERABLE.

Criticize that which is deserving, but don't make up LIES and demonize the gods of others. That is HATE, it's not a critique.

[DemInDistress]

4. I have heard of this toon but haven't yet seen it,,can anyone show

me the the cartoon so I can see what the fuss is all about? Thanks,.

[Squatch]

12. Look here:

Link

[DemInDistress]

20. Thanks for the look although it wasn't ez distinguishing which

ones were offensive,nothing over the top but what do I know about muslims..very little..
if their outraged then they should go to the drawing board and create their own sort of like when stupid Rudy Giuliani had a hissy fit when an artist represented the "Virgin Mary" from elephant dung..lol
Not only that this depiction of the blessed mary was a black lady..how stupid people can be...

Thanks for the look...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. I can see both sides

I understand and support freedom of the press, but I also feel that no one has the right to publish things that incite violence and hatred. I have seen the cartoons, and they made my blood run cold. To explain why, please imagine that you are a practicing Christian, and saw Christ used in these cartoons. Further imagine that you lived in a country where Christians were a minority, and where the government had, by various means, instilled the concept in the population that all Christians were terrorists or supporting terrorists. Imagine people threatening members of your family with death merely because of your religious belief. Imagine your place of worship being bombed or smeared with filth. Or if you are Jewish, imagine that these cartoons were depicting Jews-and that it is 1933 Germany.

[vi5]

14. Yes, but then answer this....

Do Bush, and Rumsfeld, etc. have the right to stop anti Bush or Iraq war cartoons from being published because they might incite violence against the troops? Or embolden terrorists? Or might incite violence against americans overseas or at home?

I'm not defending the cartoons I'm just saying it's a slippery slope w'ere on here and there's no shortage of irony that earlier this week people were having a sh*t fit over the fact that the government demanded that an anti-Rumsfeld cartoon be pulled because it was insensitive to the troops. We must act against and stop violence in all of it's forms but a free society has no business trying to predict or censor speech on the basis of how certain segments may or may not react to it. And if anyone advocates doing so then I ask them who gets to decide?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. Ok, then one question

the next time my husband's life is threatened, if you were there, would you walk away because "it had only come to words"? Will you follow us home to make sure that pickup truck with the bright lights doesn't run us off the road? We've really been finding out who are our friends and who aren't lately by their actions.

[vi5]

17. But you didn't answer my question....

Do you believe then that Bush and Rumsfeld have a right to censor insensitive cartoons about them or about the war since it might be used as justification for acts against them or against the troops or against americans abroad? Do you think Cindy Sheehan should have been forbidden from wearing her shirt because we shouldn't take the chance that the message on that shirt might have resulted in some form anger or violence? What if some redneck saw Cindy's shirt and got enraged at the anti-war sentiment and threatened the aging hippie that lived down the street. What would you say to someone who told me that I shouldn't put up an anti-war sign because the wingnut down the street might get angry and violent and threaten me?

Anyone who would threaten your husband's life or anyone's life would be committing a crime. End of story. For us to squelch or censor speech only when it offends US or only when it results in US being threatened is hypocritical.

If you believe that all speech that anyone might find offensive in any way or might be used to justify acts of violence should be censored then at least that's not hypocritical and I'll give you points for consistency and then simply agree to disagree.

But if what you're saying is that we should only prohibit certain speech that might offend certain people or may result in acts of violence only against people we are sympathetic weith, or that we find threatening then with that I vehemently disagree.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. I really think there is a difference between politics and religion

If you aren't a believer, it will be hard to explain this. But believers generally consider their faith to be something that is more important than anything else, because this life is limited, while Life is eternal. Ask a Jew or a Christian if they feel that cartoons ridiculing Jesus, Moses, or Abraham would be ones that should be published without apology.

Politics is involved with what happens on this earth, and politicians are fair game. Besides, I have yet to see an anti-Bush cartoon that is so hateful and venal that it has caused large groups of people to decide it is time to take him out or to start trashing Republicans in general.

[vi5]

19. I'm not a believer, but my point still stands...

Censorship is wrong. Period. Not wrong when it's offensive to me but o.k. when it's with regard to someone else. Freedom of speech is an absolute and the foundation of a free society and nobody is allowed to pick and choose.

Religion is a set of ideals and understandings that people choose to adopt, or to not adopt, or to disavow and change just like every other set of beliefs.

Who gets to decide which images are sacred or which religions get a pass? Should we not speak out against the fundamentalists like Pat Robertson or Falwell? Or is it not o.k. to make fun of them and possibly offend them or incite some whack job to take action agains them? What about Hare Krishnas? Should we ban the movie Airplane! or any other movie or cartoon that paints them in a negative light? Should we stop using the phrase "Drinking the Kool Aid" because it might be offensive to people who really believed Jim Jones was the messiah? What about mentions of Branch Davidians? Moonies? Are they all off limits or only the religions that are regarded as legitimate? Or does it only apply to people who are sincere believers? Who gets to decide?

I'm not saying they shouldn't be offended or that I wasn't offended by the cartoons. We can boycott the paper, we can boycott the paper's advertisers, we can scream from the tops of buildings as loud as our voices can carry that we were offended. We can stand outside and protest what the paper did. What nobody can do is use speech no matter how vile, as a justification for violence. Nor can they use threats of violence to stop that speech.

It's clear you believe that censorship is o.k. That's your right. I simply disagree. It's not o.k. and it's never o.k. and neither is violence.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

21. I never said I advocated violence

I do believe that in this case an apology was in order.

[vi5]

23. Huh?

I never said you advocated violence. I just re-read my post and don't see where I attributed an avocation of violence to you. I was talking about the nature of violence, but my point was that violence in reaction to free speech is wrong (on that we both seem to agree), but that censoring that speech simply because of the threat or spectre of violence is just as wrong.

[smirkymonkey]

32. I just don't believe a Democratic nation should be beholden to

religious fanatics in the Middle East.

Why do Muslims think that everyone must adhere to Islamic Law? They have no respect for the culture of Denmark (or any other European Nation). I am sorry but I see an apology as giving the Muslim world the go-ahead for thinking they can determine policy in democratic state.

[DemExpat]

36. European press must not give in here!

If they do there will no longer be a line IMO.

DemEx

[pitohui]

43. denmark is owed the apology if you ask me!

removing embassies and threatening violence over some cartoons, that is just sick and disturbed

[eggman67]

26. "Ask a Jew or a Christian...

...if they feel that cartoons ridiculing Jesus, Moses, or Abraham would be ones that should be published without apology."

I'm a Christian and my answer is YES cartoons ridiculing Jesus, Moses, or Abraham would be ones that should be published without apology.

My faith; my relationship to God would remain unchanged. The cartoonist's faith or lack thereof is his own business.

[CJCRANE]

65. Similar semitic caricatures

were used by the Nazis to stir up hatred against Jews. The cartoonists have the right to freedom of speech but others also have the right to call the cartoons hate speech.

[Igel]

86. Similar semitic caricatures are used by the Arab

press to show Arabs.

Note that the way one caricaturist drew a Dane is markedly similar to how Arabs "caricature" Danes and N. Germans in general.

You caricature what's there; it's not the caricature that's offensive, but the attempt to dehumanize the entire ethnicity. I'm not sure that by showing Muhammed with (sometimes) exaggerated Arab features the goal is to show that all Arabs are subhuman.

Similarity of form or style does not necessarily entail similarity of purpose in something as abstract as a drawing.

[Yupster]

96. Sure - protest all you want

Just keep it legal.

[Yupster]

95. Oh hell, we all remember "PissChrist"

there have been far worse pieces of art published about Christ and usually the argument isn't whether it should stand. That's a given. The argument is usually whether it should be supported by government funding or not.

[Yupster]

94. I just don't think believers have a right to regulate the lives

of non-believers.

If any of the cartoonists were Muslims, then the mosque can excommunicate him, or whatever Muslims do to their fellows who've lost the path.

But if the people aren't Muslims, then it's none of the Mosques business what they draw. It's their right to draw whatever they want.

If you think they stepped over the legal line, then sue them. That's what Jerry Falwell did.

If you think they are just being offensive, then don't look.

[BushOut06]

31. Hold on just a second...

...no one has the right to publish things that incite violence and hatred.

Using that logic, the RWers in this country could shut down any newspaper that prints editorial cartoons critical of Bush. Why, some crazed person might think Bush is dangerous and decide to attack him.

[bobbieinok]

7. you should read this DU post from Norway about the cartoon and free speech

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=311557&mesg_id=311557

(original post)

....

This document is a demand for a public invstigation of Vidar Selbekk and Per Edgar Kokkvold, and their campaign for 'free speech'.
I want a public investigation into this matter which covers all aspects of it; who talked to whom, who influenced Selbekk to publish the charicatures.

....

I know where this campaign comes from, and who's running it. I know which people that got Norway into the Iraqi war, and also how it came to be. I also know there's a connection to this present matter, because the same people that removed vital voices from the Norwegian debate prior to the war - against the will of the Norwegian people (68% was against this).

I want these people brought to justice for taking part in something that can only be compared to the ugly cartons of Jews published before the second world war, then claim it's about 'freedom of speech'. By doing so, they are stealing my whole life, my present and my future.

I know what freedom of speech is, and what it implies. I also know what democracy is and how the counter forces work.

more....

[bloom]

28. thanks for the link!

I hope people read this.

[madrchsod]

13. according to the law only muslims are

forbidden to create an image of Mohammed. although it may offend muslims that is the "price" they pay for living in a free society.i`m really sick of fundys in any religion telling others what they should think and do.

[izzie]

16. Looks that way

I think in the history of the Church they had a split about images in art at one time. That was so long ago that I took world and art history that I can not even recall the dates. Any Art and History people on DU? Before the Middle ages I think. Hard to believe in this day and age things like this would get so big. It is like that book they man wrote that started a mess also. Didn't he go underground?

[liberalpragmatist]

91. There was the iconoclastic controversy in the Christian Church...

... which led to the split between Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

[DemExpat]

24. I agree, and only have deep dread that European

press/governments will capitulate.

:-(

Although escalating violence and threats is also not a positive outcome here.

DemEx

[Stephanie]

27. PBS showed them last night on the Newshour so I guess we're in it too

I think they were right to do it - free speech is free speech.

[BushOut06]

29. Western Governments are posting the cartoons?

Or do you mean newspapers in Western countries are doing so? ;)

[Karenina]

33. Good question!

In many instances the line looks blurry to me. Maybe I need new glasses.
;-)

[Katherine Brengle]

34. this is clearly a press freedom issue>>>>>

I said this somewhere else on DU earlier this afternoon about another issue, but I will say it again here.

In order to preserve freedom of expression for yourself, you must be willing to accept that there will be people who will say things (or in this case, draw things) that make your blood boil.

While the individuals/groups that are upset over the cartoon have a right to be angry, as far as I'm concerned they have no right to try to hinder another's freedom of expression. Then again, if they don't believe in freedom of expression, then there's a problem. BUT the cartoons were printed in countries that, as far as I know, protect this freedom...

So it's basically a culture thing and bah.

[DemExpat]

35. This is how I see it too.

In order to preserve freedom of expression for yourself, you must be willing to accept that there will be people who will say things (or in this case, draw things) that make your blood boil.

:hi:

DemEx

[Karenina]

37. This is a media driven crisis

to cover any false-flag MIHOP ahead of the Iranian bourse. :tinfoilhat:

[sendero]

38. At first..

...I thought it was pretty stupid of the press to have published this cartoon.

Then I saw it.

I don't get it. How is this cartoon insulting? I suppose you have to be a Muslim to understand, because I've seen cartoons of Jesus that would make this one wither.

[CJCRANE]

67. What if 12 non-christian asian countries

made a point of printing anti-Christian cartoons? Or anti-jewish cartoons?

[sendero]

72. Did you know...

... last week that images of Mohammed were verboten? I sure didn't. I suppose you can make the case that the editor should have known, but there is a huge difference in INTENDING to defame a religion and doing it accidentally.

[CJCRANE]

78. I still don't think that's the issue.

It's the CONTENT and the INTENT.

The content is racist caricatures and the intent seems to be designed to defame muslims.

I'm all for these cartoonists to have their freedom of speech.

But I also have freedom of speech to say they're racist. Just as cartoons about African Americans and Jews have been called out as racist in the past.

[sendero]

80. I'm neither condemning nor supporting..

.... the cartoonists. I just don't have enough information.

[Yupster]

99. Of course you can

You can call them racist. You can organize a boycott, or a protest.

You can even sue them.

You just don't have a right to burn other people's stuff or call for people to be killed.

[Yupster]

98. It's not verboten

if you're not a Muslim.

It's interesting to know what different groups can and can't do, but they don't have the right to tell non-members of their group what to do or not do.

[rayofreason]

92. Anti-Christian or Anti-Jewish cartoons?

You ask "What if 12 non-christian asian countries made a point of printing anti-Christian cartoons? Or anti-jewish cartoons?"

Replace "asian" with "arab" and the answer is THEY DO!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x322801


And what happens?? Are Egyptian and Saudi embassies burned down by enraged Hassidim? Do rabbis during temple services call for the beheading of the authors of the cartoons?

[Yupster]

97. What if they did?

Who would care?

Maybe some church group would organize a boycott or a protest.

There sure wouldn't be any embassies torched.

If 12 Muslim newspapers printed anti-Jewish cartoons in one day, Israel would probably think they were having a pretty good day.

[phylny]

39. A client of mine is a devout Muslim woman is sweet, kind,

and very gentle. Her explanation is that "It is not allowed." She said that financially, France and Denmark won't know what hit them due to boycotting products.

She explained that no religious figure, including God, Jesus, Mary, or Mohammed, may be portrayed in any way. In fact, she said that if there is a movie or tv show with one of them, you only hear a voice.

[pitohui]

44. that is amusing

financially, France and Denmark won't know what hit them due to boycotting products.


that's what the numbnuts over here said abt freedom fries, i notice the euro continued to do just fine, as did the french balance of trade

[phylny]

45. Yes, amusing and, amazingly, evidently

true:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x317751

[JI7]

46. Jesus and Mary are often portrayed on movies, tv

etc.

and it is not allowed according to what or whom ?

many Catholics have portraits of the virgin mary and Jesus in their homes. so it's not according to these catholics.

they can boycott all they want. but i might increase my purchases from their countries. i can't stand religious fanatics, no matter what religion it is.

[Joanne98]

59. Remember what the Southern Xtians did to John Lennon....

When he said "The Beatles were more popular than Jesus". They a temper tamtrums too.

[megatherium]

74. That was a long time ago.

They didn't even have cell phones back then.

And nobody burned down any embassies over the Beatles.

And nobody burned down any embassies over the Serrano piece "Piss Christ" (that had a cross immersed in urine), or the play "Corpus Christi" (that portrayed Jesus as a contemporary gay man) -- although a UK Islamic group did declare a fatwah over that one.

[WinkyDink]

40. Muslims who are going bat shit over this

It's what Muslims do.

[pitohui]

42. well good for the danish gov't

i too say stick it, i think the danes, french, germans etc. should be allowed to run their own countries and publish their own newspapers w.out checking w. the saudis for approval first

this is just over-the-top

[esbelt]

47. I repeat my message

It seems to me that nobody knows the story in the full length, here I repeat a summery.

but you have to know the stories behind the pictures.
Here in Denmark a writer had published a new book on the religion Islam, He failed to find any cartoonists to make
any pictures in his book, simply out of fear!
then the newspaper Jylland-posten took up the story of salman rushdi etc. and asked the question if simple cartoon pictures would be censured out of fear in DK.
so they asked some professional cartoonists to make a picture and printed them out of respect of our free speech.
The paper have now made several apologizes and they have pupblised that in fact we do not have free speech in DK
simply because they regret it and would never had don it if they had calculated the effect!

It is not the "art" or the outlook of the pictures that is the issue in DK, more than the fact that we do not have free speech when it comes to religion!

[JDPriestly]

50. How sad.

We had a similar situation a few years ago here. Rudi Giuliani wanted to censor an artist's show because he thought the art was demeaning to Jesus or the Catholic Church or something. Everyone is entitled to think for themselves in this area. I have just s much right to see cartoons that make fun of Muslims as I have to see cartoons that make fun of atheists or Bush or Kerry or anyone or anything elses. Free speech is a human right endowed by our Creator and nothing is more sacred than the human rights that are a part of our birthright as human beings. These cartoons do no harm whatsoever. If someone finds them offensive, they should not look at them. That's their choice. but they can't dictate to others what they can see. We are having this same problem with the Christian right -- with the right wing in general.

[clyrc]

51. This is so very frustrating

Every time someone from the right suggests that Democrats are practically terrorists, a DUer finds it, posts it, and it upsets Duers. Why? Because it isn't true, and it's an attempt to paint liberals with a bad brush. I agree with the concept of free speech. But I can also see when speech is used for an evil end. Of course Muslims are upset over this. With some of the posts I've seen on DU, I realize that even some Progressives don't want to face the fact that most Muslims are moderates who don't want any part of violence. Yes, there is a radical element. It does not represent, by a long shot, most Islamic thought. The context is this: Islam is misrepresented by the West, and Muslims know it. They know a provocation when they see it. I can think of a few grudges Middle Easterners have against the West, and of course this is just an escalation because of that.

Because I live in the ME, I do worry a little that this may be a catalyst for a showdown. I absolutely do not want that, and I do not approve of meeting ignorance and intolerance with violence. I, too, am waiting to see how this all turns out.

[genie_weenie]

52. The War is On...

It is interesting to note that the Muslim World has demanded an apology from the Governments. Not from the Newspapers or their parent Corporations. Now why is this?

1) Because the Muslim world knows it can browbeat the governments of Norway, Sweden, France, Denmark, Holland, et al into submission by causing the Muslim refugees and immigrants those nations took into their homelands to rise up
2) But then cartoons can't "cause" anybody to do anything, but religious fanatics sure can...

Well, the point is no religion has the right to impose their beliefs (ie images of Muhammad are the gravest Blasphemy) upon any peoples. Unless of course your feelings are hurt by the images, in which case people should kick down your doors and take you off for re-education...



http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/747

[Ani Yun Wiya]

89. WOW

"Unless of course your feelings are hurt by the images, in which case people should kick down your doors and take you off for re-education..."


You have some nerve recommending a Nazi-like approach to those who are legitimatly offended by these gross insults.

Where did you grow up in such ignorance ?

I guess you will be on the front lines of the assault on Iran ?

[NC_Nurse]

53. I understand that Muslims

are offended by the toons, unfortunately their over the top reaction (death threats, storming embassies, etc.) just makes them look like nutcases. If they don't want to be protrayed that way, why not react in a more reasonable.

Even though I know these groups are a minority...where are the mainstream Muslims calling for them to stop?

Another thing I don't understand....why can't one draw Mohammed? It reminds me of the part in "Life of Brian" where they stone a guy for saying God's name (Jehovah). Quite hilarious actually, and proof that Christians have had some weird rules too.

[JCMach1]

54. It's the 'graven image' thing in Muslim thought

Humans are basically not depicted at all in art that is inspired by Islam.

Most Muslims are fundamentalists... this movement emerged more-or-less at the behest of the colonial masters at the end of the 18th and through to the beginning of the 20th century. If displaced (largely) the Sufi tradition which the Colonial powers did not like because it served as a catalyst for a number of colonial resistance movements. So, enter the Wahabis and other fundamentalist Sunni and Shia sects. Even muslim fundamentalism is something of a hangover from colonialism. Can you say blowback???

[JCMach1]

55. The cartoons are the moral equivalent of lighting a cross

for Muslims...

It is insulting (racist, etc.) and it violates basic religious beliefs that they hold. Similar to a cross-burning, it is PROVOCATION. It was precisely meant by the right-wing newspaper to be so.

Most Muslims will be happy just to boycott. However, there will always be an element that gets its panties in a twist.

Imagine if the Boston Herald had published a cartoon during the priest sex scandals of Jesus having anal sex with an altar boy.

Can you imagine the uproar and boycotts?

[Igel]

87. Check out post 47.

It's the story as I remembered it (and as google's confirmed) it at the time.

Illustrators felt threatened by adherents of the religion of peace, lest they draw respectful representations of Muhammed to educate Danes in Denmark. If those loons hadn't inspired such fear in the name of ersatz tolerance, we wouldn't have Muslims rioting in the street showing that the fear was well merited, and the much bally-hooed tolerance really is oppression.

The provocation started elsewhere, among cultural supremacists that really deserved to have their faces slapped, if only for their use of obfuscatory and Orwellian language to impose their views on another culture.

[Yupster]

101. There would be boycotts, protests and prayer vigils

Catholic bishops would not be calling for artists to have their heads chopped off and newspaper buildings would not be burning.

[petronius]

64. But why should non-Muslims be expected to follow Islamic rules?

It may be forbidden within Islam to depict Mohammad (or humans in general), but I see no reason why people who are not members of that faith should be expected to obey that requirement, and I see absolutely no reason for Muslims to be offended when others do things that are not permitted for Muslims.

Muslims are free to be as angry as they want, and boycott whatever they choose, but there is no need for an apology or any other response from the paper of the government.

[CJCRANE]

68. The point is the defamation of a minority.

The Jewish minority in Europe were victims of anti-semitic propaganda in the 30's. Now there are laws to protect them.

Change the name on the cartoons from Mohamed to Moses and you'll see immediately that this using the same technniques of hate speech.

[petronius]

69. I'm not seeing the defamation or hate speech,

no matter what I change the name on the cartoon to. All I'm hearing is that this newspaper did something that is not allowed under Islamic rules - and I see no reason why the newspaper should have been expected to follow those rules in the first place.

As for the cartoons themselves, maybe they weren't flattering depictions, but cartoons almost by definition are distortions and caricatures. And I really don't buy this comparison to Nazi propaganda - the logic of 'the Nazis used unflattering cartoons, these cartoons are unflattering, therefore these cartoonists are the equivalent of Nazis' is defective.

[CJCRANE]

70. Not "unflattering" -

they're racial stereotypes of semites showing them as violent and menacing.

You find me one muslim who would protest against an innocent and sympathetic portrayal of Mohamed then I'll change my mind.

[petronius]

71. I used "unflattering" because I don't agree

with the 'racist, ant-semitic, defamatory' characterization.

I don't get the point of your last sentence - are you suggesting that no Muslim would protest against an innocent (i.e. non-racist) portrayal, so therefore the fact that protests occurred proves that these images are racist? That's a rather circular argument.

My position is that Muslims can dislike these cartoons as intensely as they want, and express that dislike verbally or economically, but the paper did no wrong in publishing them. No apology or retraction is owed, and anyone who responds with threats or acts of violence is in the wrong.

[JCMach1]

75. Exactly, but wouldn't the Catholics I mentioned have a right to be angry

If a cartoon showed Jesus (dressed as a priest) raping an altar boy...

Of course (as Americans) we have freedom of speech... On the other hand, most of us exercise discretion on when, where, and how to use it.

[JCMach1]

79. Editorial published today in Gulfnews,,,,

...Let's get one thing clear: Freedom of speech is not absolute. There are many topics reputable editors do not champion. Incitement to hatred is one. There are limits beyond which reputable journalists will not go. These cartoons should not be the battleground on which this hard-won freedom of speech has to be defended, but they could be the arena for the right to oppose bigotry and racial stereotyping.

Parts of Europe have less than harmonious community relations and there has been a backlash against immigration. Hard-right political parties, spreading their message of bile, have gained in popularity across the continent.

A strongly anti-immigrant party provides part of the parliamentary coalition supporting Denmark's centre-right government. The response against the cartoons, while predictable, has revealed just how offended many people, not just Muslims, are... The Danish government has apologised for the offence caused. The Islamic world, as well as people everywhere who found the cartoons offensive, have raised their voices and let their views be heard.

But there is another issue. The cartoons are reminiscent of an era in European history that should have been consigned to the history books. It is right to ask questions about the current political climate in Europe that allows such cartoons to be published... http://gulfnews.com/opinion/editorial_opinion/world/10016226.html

[petronius]

82. I said that Muslims could be as angry as they wanted...

However, your comparison is very much apples to oranges: merely depicting Mohammad (a violation of Islamic law) is not really in the same league as depicting another religious figure engaged in rape. Still, even if the cartoon you hypothesized was published, I would condemn Christians who burned down the newspaper (or a government office).

Of the cartoons that I saw, the one that comes closest to your hypothetical Jesus is the bomb-turban. It's clearly a hard-hitting cartoon (although milder than yours), but IMO does not justify violence or require an apology.

[JCMach1]

106. I don't think it is milder... it depicts the prophet as a terrorist

i.e. a criminal... That would be very similar to the cartoon I described.

[petronius]

107. Your opinion may differ from mine, of course

To me, the stylized nature of the bomb blended into the turban seemed more symbolic of the way violent extremists cloak themselves within Islam, rather than a direct representation of Mohammad as a terrorist. If the cartoon had been a more realistic representation, say of him wearing a bomb-vest and walking into a pizza parlor, I'd be more inclined to see it your way.

Still, even assuming that the bomb-turban cartoon is the exact moral equivalent of your rapist-Jesus, the violent response is totally inappropriate and no apology is owed. I'd point out that the 'Jesus getting a blow job' cartoon (I won't post it but you've probably seen it) has been around for years, and I've yet to hear of any Christians setting fires because of it.

In short, Muslims can be offended and angry, but violent responses are indefensible.

[Yupster]

100. Muslims have every right to regulate Muslim art and artists.

They can excommunicate them or whatever their religion does, but they have no right to regulate the work of non-Muslim artists.

They can be offended all they want. They can't break the law though.

[CJCRANE]

57. There are a billion muslims

so it's hard to know what they're all saying. I guess we have to rely on the MSM to tell us.

My hunch is that the offense is caused more by the anti-semitic style caricature of Mohamed (and the bomb on his head) rather than the prohibition on images.

BTW the same rule against holy images applies in Christianity and Judaism (I think it's the 2nd commandment).

[JCMach1]

60. Right, but Islam has a strict sanction against it...

I also think politicos will take advantage of it too...

For example, it is a great distractor issue for someone in trouble like Bashar Assad in Syria... Everything there happens with his permission... So, the embassy fire...? No difficulty in figuring who sanctioned that.

[CJCRANE]

62. I agree

that leaders in different muslim countries will clamp down on or stoke up the protests for their own benefit.

But I still think it's the intention behind the cartoons that's the fuse. If someone did a graphic novel with a sympathetic portrayal of the Prophet's life I doubt many muslims would protest about it.

on edit: I haven't actually talked to any muslims about this, it's just my hunch. If anyone can weigh in with some first-hand experience I'd be interested to know.

[JCMach1]

73. I have seen the reaction one might expect (full-range)

With the exception that in the UAE, no one is stirring the populous for political gains...

[CJCRANE]

83. But is it the CONTENT and INTENT

of the cartoons that muslims are angry about?

(For instance, if it had just been a nice picture of Mohamed doing some charity work I don't think it would've caused so much protest?)

[Igel]

88. I agree, too.

But if you look at the intention, you'll find that there's innuendo and suspicion, and then the stated intention.

They were really quite explicit about it, the motivations were discussed and publically aired, and it was precisely something along the line of a "graphic novel with a sympathetic portrayal of the Prophet's life" that loony, insane, immigrant Muslims in Denmark had illustrators in fear of. This was even discussed in the US press, to some extent: look at the kinds of limitations that immigrant Muslims are demanding, instead of respecting the culture they've moved to, they demand it conforms to them. Otherwise, "intolerance occurs"--on the part of the Danes. Yeah, that's how I like my language, twisted and warped.

The Muslim community was strangely mute during this: it didn't dare actually say much but "Danes have to respect shari'a", if not in those words.

The protests have shown exactly why the illustrators were in fear; and it's shown the necessity of the caricatures' being published, in order to show that tolerance *is* needed and cultural fascism is wrong.

[genie_weenie]

77. Thou shalt make no graven images

Iconoclaism 7th century Byzantium edict destroying all icons, which included ciolent destruction and whitewashing of statues, drawings and images.

Good to know the Muslim world is on par with 7th Century Thought!

[Joanne98]

58. Religious zealots are the problem, they can stick it.

[Nye Bevan]

61. As a Christian

I wasn't particularly thrilled about the "Piss Christ" that some artist displayed a few years ago.

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

But it did not occur to me for one minute that he did not have the right to create this display notwithstanding that some people would be offended or outraged by it.

[CJCRANE]

63. Did newspapers in non-Christian countries

make a point about promoting it though?

I think that's the more relevant comparison.

[megatherium]

76. per earlier posts,

They promoted it to make a point that cartoonists had voiced fears about drawing cartoons critical of Islam. This is the heart of the matter: is our fear of a very touchy minority group, a religion that has a history of violent reaction to criticism (see: Salmon Rushdie), damaging our freedom of expression?

[redherring]

81. You know, Muslims don't make fun of Jesus

Jesus is one of their prophets as well.

[Ksec]

84. I "have a theory " - the word "fun" doesnt exist in that religion

Im probably going to be accused of being an ignorant redneck hilljack, but have you ever seen anyone laugh over there? I cant remember ever seeing a Muslim comedianne or a comedy show . Someone will probably show me my ignorance and provide a link to show otherwise but I honestly believe that laughter is something sorely lacking in the Muslim areas of the World.
Learning to laugh at ones self is liberating.

[redherring]

85. I see them dancing

when something bad happens to USA or Israel. I guess that's fun....!

[CJCRANE]

102. Gimme a break.

Have you been "over there"?

Your assumption is the same as arabs assuming that all Americans are kidnappers and torturers and bomb innocent civilians just because that's what see they on al-Jazeera.

The world is a bigger place than what we see on cable TV.

[Karenina]

103. Dearest Ksec, please permit me to say

that your kool-aid has been spiked with the default template of bigotry in which you've been raised. I mean that NOT as an attack, as I realize you are not likely conscious of how you've been poisoned, but rather as an appeal to you to deeply examine your assumptions.

I grew up in the 50's watching Popeye cartoons. I clearly recall some that portrayed "bad guy Bluto" as an Arab. Popeye simply ate his spinach (geld?) and beat the shit out of him.

Many decades later, I am surrounded by Muslim neighbors, invited to dinner, weddings, concerts, engaging in street talk. Ahmed can cook. He was the only male child in his family of 7 kids and HE was SERIOUSLY taught to COOK! Monday, after having been sold more meat by the halal butcher (biz as usual, HE decides what I buy! Wraps it up and gives me a good price. LOL!!!) than I in a timely fashion could eat, I called Ahmed's German wife and told her what I had. Exhausted as he was, having just gotten home from 12 hours of construction work, he said, JA. She and I were delighted (AND well-fed!). OH, the culinary delight of it all!!!

Ahmed was a throwaway kid, stateless in France for YEARS. Yes, he's bitter. Understandably so. But I WISH you could somehow get an international translator chip implanted just long enough to join us one evening, drink some beer, eat some vittles and hear his THIRD language rant on "the base." (Al-Q) I laughed so hard and so long, I could barely farkin' breathe. My sides ached the next morning.

The very idea that "THEY" are "OTHER" and not like "US" is, on its very face, a grotesque, pernicious, destructive LIE.

[Nye Bevan]

104. I think you have a point

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,,1701299,00.html

Muslim women should not work with men or go shopping in areas where they could mix with strangers of the opposite sex, according to an edict issued by the influential All India Muslim Personal Law Board, which claims to represent the nation's 140 million Muslims.

Maulana Syed Nizamuddin, the board's general secretary, said the decision to ask Muslim women not to work in call centres and avoid any kind of job which involves interacting with men was part of a package of "social reforms we advocate".

He said that women were also dressing in western clothes, especially in the country's new shopping malls, and these often were "too revealing". "Men will gaze on them if they visit the market. It is extremely essential to cover their entire body. Better such errands are left to the men in the family," said Mr Nizamuddin.

He doesn't exactly sound like a fun guy.

[Igel]

90. Yes, but you have to remember that

their Jesus, from even a remotely traditional Xian perspective, is rank heresy and blasphemy. And so Orthodoxy decreed Islam: a Xian heresy.

Similarly, the Xian Jesus is also considered blasphemous and false in Islam, and spreading the New Testament version of Jesus too publically will get you arrested in some Islamic countries. Not just that bastion of tolerance and peace, Sa'udi Arabia.