Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JimH]

I don't know if you've been following the story, but a Danish paper published a series of cartoons that depicted Mohammed.  The Muslim community has reacted negatively (understandably) but they are pressuring the paper and now Denmark to apologize.

I believe in free speech and that it is even more important than religious views.  So here is one of the cartoons.  I hope this cartoon will be posted all over the world, in support of both free speech, the newspaper, and Denmark.



Here's a link to the news today:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060203/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings;_ylt=Aj00j7QSqvv6Kkn2XOxhztN34T0D;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

No offense meant to Muslims or any other religion, but nobody has any right to force their views on anyone else.

[pank2002]

Danmark HAS NOT apologized!!! And we wont! Some fractions doesn't understand that the market economy means that the news paper of Denmark has nothing to do with the state. We have a free press. The prime minister (not Denmark) did, however,  dissociate himself with the cartoons. He didn't apologize.
 
 Jyllands-Posten, the paper which published the cartoons in the first place, did apologize, however. Yesterday our prime minister was on Arabic TV and explained it from the Danish point-of-view. Unfortunately I was not able to see it. Others thought he did do well, though.

This whole case is  marked with misunderstandings. I heard Muslims were demonstrating in front of a Danish embassy. However, when the ambassador invited the leader in and told him how the case has progressed the demonstration went off. 

A consequence of the drawings and the attention they have gained is that Danish products have been boycotted.

I wrote a larger paper on the issue when the cartoons was published in september or so. Really, it's old news.
Personally, I find the cartoons unnecessarily provoking and tasteless but I will defend JP's right to publish them to the day I die! It was tried in court and according to Danish law they are legal. The laws of Islam isn't the laws of Denmark, and as Luther argued God's laws should be very separated from the laws of society.

When I get around pages such as this one I get rather annoyed. I hope it's fake. Otherwise it's really bad taste!

-Rasmus

[hit_ny]

Freedom of speech or Incitement to public unrest. Thing is, all the public unrest so far has been happening in less free countries than where this strip was printed.

Only casualty i know of so far is the Editor of France Soir got sacked.

In an editorial defending its decision to publish the cartoons, France Soir asked Thursday what would remain of "the freedom to think, speak, even to come and go," if society adhered to all of the prohibitions of the world's various religions. The result, the newspaper said, would be "the Iran of the mullahs, for example.

This has arisen in the past in regards to national security, security won.

[Mr ChriZ]

It's kind of sad really.  No matter how much
we embrace other cultures, they may never understand ours.

I also see this as a problem with Religion in general.  Each religion
uses a brainwashing technique which passes down through each
generation, and then once brainwashed each person is too close minded
to see that they are being closed minded. Convinced that they're
right because their parents + friends told them the "truth", and
it's written down in a book.

All this worrys me though.  Relations between Muslims and the
rest of the world only seem to get more and more taught....
and the people that are going to take the flak are the innocent.

[hit_ny]

When I get around pages such as this one I get rather annoyed. I hope it's fake. Otherwise it's really bad taste!

That page is in arabic, any idea as to what is being said ?

[pank2002]

That page is in arabic, any idea as to what is being said ?

No. The picture-text is quite English, though.
edit: i.e. you have to scroll down, if you didn't notice.

[bob]

It was interesting to see what happened here in Minnesota, a supposed bastion of liberalness when in about 1980 the student newspaper from the University of Minnesota, the Minnesota Daily (which had about 50,000 students at the time) did the yearly humor issue with a focus on spoofing the Catholic religion and particularly Jesus. The uproar locally was unbelievable, legislators were intent on pulling funding for the paper, the church was in outrage. The fallout lasted for years! One couldn't even imagine that happening here again the the "capitol of free speech", it would be quickly crushed by the american version of the taliban.

[Matt]

Should we also propagate Jerry Falwell's "Mohammed was a terrorist" comment in the name of promoting free speech?

Offensive idiocy only serves to promote the notion of the other.

[JimH]

Should we also propagate Jerry Falwell's "Mohammed was a terrorist" comment in the name of promoting free speech?

Offensive idiocy only promotes the notion of the other.

I'll defend anyone's right to be an idiot.

[pank2002]

I'll defend anyone's right to be an idiot.

Surely. There are restrictions of speech in every country, but in general one should be able to say what you want. Afterward people may use the court.

It is, however, not illegal to think. As argued by many in Denmark, one should think before publishing things such as these drawing. Do they improve the world? Are they necessary? What will the consequences be? Self-censorship can be a good thing, but in general the state should not execute censorship in most cases.

-Rasmus

[EpF]

If you think you know better than someone else, I think that the proof of that is whether you use that knowledge to make a situation better or worse. In this context, did the caricatures of Mohammed serve such a purpose? They created a lot of bad feeling: 'tens of thousands of protesters', according to the article linked to in JimH's post. It takes an awful lot to get tens of thousands of people protesting on the streets of Dublin - it rarely happens.

I don't support censorship, and I don't believe in cowing before religious fervour. However, we all employ self-censorship in our lives in the interest of good relations and other motivations - it's usually called 'tact', 'sensitivity' or 'understanding', and I think that the same principle could apply to political/philosophical relations.

There are also times when you have to have to take a stand/position and tough it out; times when you have to be brutally honest with people for their own good as well as your own, and in that context I think that there could be times when lampooning religious fanaticism is appropriate, and you just have to weather the storm. The only criteria are: that the goal is to improve the situation for everyone, including the people you are antagonising, and that you have genuine cause to believe that your actions actually can achieve that goal

[KingSparta]

When I Was Listening To Neal Boortz (A Nationally Syndicated Radio Show) this morning on Talk Radio 640AM Fayetteville, NC 28303

Muslims are outraged!  No, it's not about Muslims shooting school children in the back.  It's about cartoons of Mohammed.  Outraged!  What a shame!  Would I dare to show one of these cartoons on Nealz Nuze?  Well ... there's one way to find out.

http://boortz.com/

I heard About It

If the cartoon is illegal or not may depend where you live.

But if my short memory serves me ABC has cancelled two shows about "Jesus" the last one only last month and people were up in arms about "Jesus" being a party dude.

Should we also propagate Jerry Falwell's "Mohammed was a terrorist" comment in the name of promoting free speech?

If the Shoe Fits, But I would not have said it

People say foolish and incentive things everyday.

The Muslim Religion degrades Women and their rights As Part Of The Human Race.

Most of the time I feel people have a right to speak out.   There are however Limits to where and how it is done within the law.

I do not see where The cartoon Violates any US Laws.

What should be in the headlines is "Ferry With 1,300 Aboard Sinks in Red Sea" (This is almost the same amount of people as was on the titanic) No matter what the Religion of the passengers.

It will be interesting to see how it sank and if it was a terrorist.

[pank2002]

If you think you know better than someone else, I think that the proof of that is whether you use that knowledge to make a situation better or worse. In this context, did the caricatures of Mohammed serve such a purpose? They created a lot of bad feeling: 'tens of thousands of protesters', according to the article linked to in JimH's post. It takes an awful lot to get tens of thousands of people protesting on the streets of Dublin - it rarely happens.

I don't support censorship, and I don't believe in cowing before religious fervour. However, we all employ self-censorship in our lives in the interest of good relations and other motivations - it's usually called 'tact', 'sensitivity' or 'understanding', and I think that the same principle could apply to political/philosophical relations.

There are also times when you have to have to take a stand/position and tough it out; times when you have to be brutally honest with people for their own good as well as your own, and in that context I think that there could be times when lampooning religious fanaticism is appropriate, and you just have to weather the storm. The only criteria are: that the goal is to improve the situation for everyone, including the people you are antagonising, and that you have genuine cause to believe that your actions actually can achieve that goal

The original purpose of the drawings was to start a debate on freedom of speech. A guy had written a children's book about Muhammad and the guy who illustrated it felt compelled to appear anonymous. 
A Danish comedian said that he was afraid of makeing fun with the Koran when his shows was transmitted on TV.
In general a lot of people are afraid of the Islamist's reaction on event/publications  etc which threat Islam critically.

Jyllands-Posten  didn't like this development, and thus they published the drawing to start a debate and to go against the self-censorship they think influence Denmark at the moment.

Edit:

The Muslim Religion degrades Women and there rights As Part Of The Human Race.

It's called Islam and in general it doesn't "degrades Women". As far as I understand it's partly a survival from the nomad-society which Islam builts upon. Back in the days around 600-700 (Christian calendar system) when Muhammed was around, Islam was more liberal concerning Women's right than Christianity. Unfortunatly they haven't had the same cultural development as Christians experienced in Europe from the Renecanse and onwards.   

[hit_ny]

No. The picture-text is quite English, though.
edit: i.e. you have to scroll down, if you didn't notice.

Oops, i see now. usually browse without images and activex off

But that's the other end of the freedom of speech argument isnt it

[Mr ChriZ]

What should be in the headlines is "Ferry With 1,300 Aboard Sinks in Red Sea" (This is almost the same amount of people as was on the titanic) No matter what the Religion of the passengers.

It will be interesting to see how it sank and if it was a terrorist.

Agreed.

[JaredH]

Should we also propagate Jerry Falwell's "Mohammed was a terrorist" comment in the name of promoting free speech?

Offensive idiocy only serves to promote the notion of the other.

Personally, as a Christian, I dispise being lumped in together with those of his ilk. The Robertsons, Falwells, and Dobsons of the world are the ones that make those thinking followers of Christ look like fruitcakes. Whether or not I believe Islam or any other religion to be false, the same is still true for them. It's the Talibans, Qaedas, and Bin Ladens of the world that make those who are functional, thinking members of the Islamic faith look like fundamentalist zealots.

I guess im probably treading on thin ice when I say this, but if it meant propagating the rediculous garbage that regularly flows from the mouths of Robertson and Fallwell, I don't know how far I could support free speech. Perhaps I'm a bit scorned. I'm a student at Liberty University, so I have to hear Fallwell speak every week. I thank God that I am only here for one semester. I don't know if I could deal with his mouth for the rest of my undergraduate career.

In an ideal world, free speech would be reserved for those who had the common sense to say things that were beneficial to society.

[GHammer]

Well, I'll wager that no "mainstream" publication in the west will ever print such cartoons again.

I'll also say that I support your right to say what you will and let the truth and or best ideas win.

It seems strange that the most intolerant societies are insisting that others tolerate their intolerance.

I wouldn't cross the street to listen to Falwell. But I also wouldn't want to listen to the "Peace Mom".
Both though should be able to put their ignorant views out to whoever wants to pay attention.

As for the cartoons, they are no different than other editorial cartoons in papers. I for one didn't like the recent amputee soldier cartoon. But I'm not gonna shoot the editor for printing it either.

[TimB]

Each religion
uses a brainwashing technique which passes down through each
generation, and then once brainwashed each person is too close minded
to see that they are being closed minded. Convinced that they're
right because their parents + friends told them the "truth", and
it's written down in a book.

You're painting with a pretty broad brush here!

-=Tim=-

[Mr ChriZ]

You're painting with a pretty broad brush here!

-=Tim=-

Maybe you should start a campaign with guns outside the British Embassy
demanding Tony Blair gives an apology 

[TimB]

Maybe you should start a campaign with guns outside the British Embassy demanding Tony Blair gives an apology 

Huh?

-=Tim=-

[Michael Horton]

Thanks for taking this stand, Jim.

[LonWar]

, but nobody has any right to force their views on anyone else.

I wish everybody thought that.!

[pank2002]

Well, I'll wager that no "mainstream" publication in the west will ever print such cartoons again.

I'm sure somebody said something similar when Time Magazine was forced to give an apology in 2001 when they had published Muhammad-drawings:). They will come back, don't you worry...

[richard.e.morton]

A little off the off-topic...

I believe in free-speech; "I don't agree with what you're saying but, I'll defend your right to say it 'til the day I die"; however do you support the right of a person who actively tries to get other people, through words alone, to start violence?

On the other hand, the Islam nations are hypocritical, if I were to go to their country and try to set up a christian church I'd be arrested and probably imprisoned (or worse).

Free speech is great, unless the following you gain creates pain (not just temporary emotional pain) for another.

Most Islamic nations (I don't know if they're all like it) don't have free speech (state controlled media, etc), it's not in their culture, just like democracy isn't, unfortunately they don't seem to have tolerance either (at least on some subjects - like religion).

I have many friends who are Muslim, they are caring and peaceful people. However it is amazing how the media can skew our view, just imagine what the media said to whip up the unrest in those poor people.

R

[breadfan]

again, Neal Boortz:

Muslim outrage huh.  OK ... let's do a little historical review.  Just some lowlights:

    *  Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City.  No Muslim outrage.
    * Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed.  No Muslim outrage.
    * Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia.  A Christian school.  No Muslim outrage.
    * Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq.  No Muslim outrage.
    * Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt.  No Muslim outrage.
    * A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India.  Kills six.  No Muslim outrage.
    * Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia.  Muslims shoot children in the back.  No Muslim outrage.
    * Let's go way back.  Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics.  No Muslim outrage.
    * Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel.  No Muslim outrage.
    * Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses.  Over 700 are injured.  No Muslim outrage.
    * Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder.  No Muslim outrage.
    * Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali.  No Muslim outrage.
    * Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons.  No Muslim outrage
    * Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world.  No Muslim outrage.
    * Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge.  No Muslim outrage.
    * Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed.  Muslims are outraged.

Dead children.  Dead tourists.  Dead teachers.  Dead doctors and nurses.  Death, destruction and mayhem around the world at the hands of Muslims .. no Muslim outrage ... but publish a cartoon depicting Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and all hell breaks loose.

[KingSparta]

I were to go to their country and try to set up a christian church I'd be arrested and probably imprisoned (or worse).

It would be the worse. That is a death penalty and it has been enforced since about 2 years ago when they killed 2 females for teaching the christian belief.

Maybe more since then

[sdgrizdan]

Well Said Breadfan. Well said.

[technobarbie]

Why do they care what is printed in a magazine?  Freedom of speech never hurt anyone - bullies with guns have.

[breadfan]

Why do they care what is printed in a magazine?  Freedom of speech never hurt anyone - bullies with guns have.

Freedom of speech has its limits of course. In the American Legal System the "Yelling fire in a crowded theater" is the most commonly used example but there are many others (libel, slander, ordering a hit on an enemy). In general, as long as you are hurting someone else in a material way (offense is not an injury) it's quite legal.

[alanl]

On the other hand, the Islam nations are hypocritical, if I were to go to their country and try to set up a christian church I'd be arrested and probably imprisoned (or worse)

Not quite true.  One of the oldest Christian churches is in the centre of Cairo, and I've lived and worked in Arabian states which had several Christian churches.  In fact it's not the countries that pose a problem but the radical elements within them, including our own,  be it the US, UK or wherever.

[GHammer]

I'm sure somebody said something similar when Time Magazine was forced to give an apology in 2001 when they had published Muhammad-drawings:). They will come back, don't you worry...

Naaah, first it took 4 years. Second that was an inadvertant display. Lesson learned and not repeated.

In advance of the State of the Union address, the Council on American-Islamic Relations issued an ultimatum warning President Bush to "avoid the use of hot-button terms such as 'Islamo-fascism,' 'militant jihadism,' 'Islamic radicalism' or 'totalitarian Islamic empire'" in his speech -- in other words, advising Bush not to identify enemies for the sake of tolerance and diversity.

A blurb from the CNN website:
'CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons in respect for Islam.'

Diversity and multiculturism. Self-censorship. Sissies one and all. And I'd thank the US State Department NOT to criticize the cartoons on MY behalf.

I think I'll go buy something Danish this weekend even at horrendous cost here in China. A reverse boycott if you will.

Finally, for those who always make amends and talk of the "Religion of Peace" where are the religious leaders contradicting this sort of 'peaceful' chatter?

Early Friday, Palestinian militants threw a bomb at a French cultural center in Gaza City, and many Palestinians began boycotting European goods, especially those from Denmark.
"Whoever defames our prophet should be executed," said Ismail Hassan, 37, a tailor who marched through the pouring rain along with hundreds of others in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

"Bin Laden our beloved, Denmark must be blown up," protesters in Ramallah chanted.

In mosques throughout Palestinian cities, clerics condemned the cartoons. An imam at the Omari Mosque in Gaza City told 9,000 worshippers that those behind the drawings should have their heads cut off.

"If they want a war of religions, we are ready," Hassan Sharaf, an imam in Nablus, said in his sermon.

About 10,000 demonstrators, including gunmen from the Islamic militant group Hamas firing in the air, marched through Gaza City to the Palestinian legislature, where they climbed on the roof, waving green Hamas banners.

"We are ready to redeem you with our souls and our blood our beloved prophet," they chanted. "Down, Down Denmark."

[JimH]

And I'd thank the US State Department NOT to criticize the cartoons on MY behalf.

Yes, please.

[GHammer]

A long, but interesting read:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760

[JimH]

breadfan, a long brutal list, but you omitted the murder of the Dutch film-maker, Van Gogh:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3974179.stm

[alanl]

A long, but interesting read:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760

As you say, interesting, and also thought provoking for a European liberal like me.   May have to consider this.

Alan

[richard.e.morton]

Hi,

Just a small comment, Egypt although prodominently muslim is not in the middle east, is much more western, has massive influence over many years due to tourism (hey, well the pyramids are _fairly_ impressive).

It takes time for a society to change, long term exposure to better ideas is what it takes; it'll happen, but god help the hell storm in the mean time.

(anyway, I wouldn't say democracy and captialism are perfect, they just happen to be the best we've discovered so far)...

Rich

[JONCAT]

I support Jim here & see a very obviously fallacious argument from Breadfan.

Every one of his claims should start "A terrorist, who practiced an extreme form of Islamic fundamentalism, ....."

The distinction is essential, and your argument might be worthy of Fox news or like, I'd support your voice being heard because it would harden my resolve and distinction of what a truer perspective is. Your claim implies that...."An Christian (say in America) kidnaps a young girl, rapes, & kills her in Florida....no Christian outrage." Like Christians are going to rise up and hunt down the militia and the like who brought down the fed. building. Your obviously not a Muslim, so your information is gathered from Western news outlets, is your perception of the Muslim world accurate. How many Muslim families do you know? Outrage doesn't always make to the street, I suspect that the MILLIONS of devout & peaceful Muslims of the world spend their frustration with prayer in their Mosques....and hoping people like you someday see reason and logic as a tool for enlightenment.

I, myself, not big on the god thing as put forth so far, but I believe it's of dire consequence to be heard; "marketplace of ideas".

"But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of opinion is, that it is robbing the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation; thise who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception & livlier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."

John Stuart Mill from "On Liberty"

there are limits to our opinions he claims, and would agree...but we ALL have to agree that our right to safety is threatened or protect those who can not protect themselves.

The cartoon seems to be in bad taste, but I found it remarkable how dangerously violent people become over religon, such a terrible irony.

Jesus cried, Socrates laughed.

Dr. Cilantro

[Pink Waters]

Well,
I'm a muslim, and proud to be to,..
but this is not the case here (if iam following right) !

Christinty, Islam, even whatever... are religions; a road to pay some attention and respect to God (Based on your beliefs)
"attention and respect" equals: living, earning, getting in situations, playing a game, ...etc, according to your religions limits (what is allowed and what is not)

for me for example iam not allowed to tweak any phisical/mental property (of one who don't what to "copyrights for example" ) to suite my needs... so i dont download p2p music .. not because its right/wrong, but because of religion..

one is free to choose which religion to follow... as much as he is convinced of a proof making him comfortable... but this is not the issue here too..

In my religion it is forbbidin for one to simulate or figure any messenger of god.. (we believe in all messenger in islam till jesus and last but not leased mohammed)..

so what is happenning in those things JimH related to.. is too much lack of respect to a relegion which ends to worship on God..

maybe the west is getting some wrong/bad images of muslims or islam itself... and who doen't ?!..

hope i didn't take any chances to feel anyone uncomfrtable here,... when i saw a related thing to me, i wanted to comment..

[hit_ny]

Just a small comment, Egypt although prodominently muslim is not in the middle east, is much more western, has massive influence over many years due to tourism (hey, well the pyramids are _fairly_ impressive).

Old school Churches exist in the middle east (Kuwait, S.Arabia & the gulf states), they won't be very numerous as these countries are predominantly muslim. Islam does not forbid practice of other religons by their followers. Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Palestine have had churches since time began.

Evangelising is what they (middle east) are less tolerant of, ie religons created less than two centuries ago. Muslims can't convert to any other religon without being pretty much rejected by their community. So you may find non-practicing ones, but i have yet to find one that converted to another religon.

Boortz' comments are well...boorish. He's describing the troublemakers and saying all muslims are like that. Yeah it's only the extremists that make the news. So why should Bush lump all muslims into that same category.

A lot of what's happening in the muslim world has nothing to do with religon. Just politics as usual and primarily targeted at western influence in the middle east since oil was discovered. They just abuse religon to rally the masses for this purpose.

[GHammer]

Somehow this got warped off the original point.
Which is why Islam thinks it should be able to censor anything anywhere.
Why various goverments pander by apologizing and saying the images are horrible terrible.

I will ask why if Islam is so tolerent there have been no rejection of terrorism/terrorists.
You can't say it is the work of a few radicals when the group at large either approves or is silent.
Because what they have been asking is for western goverments to punish/speak out/prevent
more 'offensive' images.

I'd ask the same of them.

[hit_ny]

I will ask why if Islam is so tolerent there have been no rejection of terrorism/terrorists.
You can't say it is the work of a few radicals when the group at large either approves or is silent.
Because what they have been asking is for western goverments to punish/speak out/prevent
more 'offensive' images.

I'd ask the same of them.

There was pretty much universal condemnation for 9/11 amongst arab govts, cept for maybe libya(?), Iraq & Iran. I don't think any condone terrorist activities at all, since they have been on the receiving end way before 9/11 even happened. Most of those attacks were aimed at the current govt. whom the perps alleged were propped up by the west. Many of these govts. are brutal and ineffective in providing jobs to youths. So a lot seek solace in religon, the more ignorant end up as cannon fodder for the more extreme. Many developing countries have ineffectual govts, which is a major reason that religon isgrowing the fastest there. Any perceived slights against this, result in the usual flag burning, demonstrations, threats etc.

Islam does not have the christian equiv of the pope. It's more autonomous with regional religous bodies. There has been increasing commentary in the moderate arab press (Bahrain, Qatar, UAE) about this very cancer you point out.

But like everyone else, it's hard to prevent, just like in more free countries.

That could be a good reason to limit erosion of civil liberties in the name of increased security, on the grounds that less free countries are just as powerless in preventing terrorism.

[stefansmith]

Iran condemned the 9/11 attacks, by the way, and cooperated in the ouster of the Taliban and setting up of the Karzai government. But that's another story altogether.

Freedom of speech? We in the West have it, should cherish it and should also use it responsibly.
We all know that these cartoons are offensive to Muslims, so why provoke them?
Sadly, many Muslims already of the view that the white western world is engaged in a war against their faith. There is also a war in Iraq that is going very badly. There is a crisis over Iran. A mess pretty much everywhere else in the Muslim world. So why throw oil on the fire? Is it really necessary to add insult to occupation? I don't think so.
The problem, in my view, is that this whole issue is destined to follow a course of events that are entirely predictable. Muslim feel obliged to react angrily. Their governments feel obliged to react. The West then feels obliged to react, and so on.
Extremists on both sides of the divide are being empowered. The Muslims on the one side can argue that the West is disrepectful, insulting. The West can argue that Muslims are opposed to free speech.
So, would it not be better to leave it at that, stop reprinting these cartoons and try to calm the situation?

And is it really necessary to reprint the cartoons on a forum for people who like to listen to music on their computer, thereby insulting J River users of the Muslim faith who were otherwise enjoying this forum and minding their own business?
Because if I posted a insulting cartoon of Jesus here, I would be expected to be thrown out for 1) being unnecessarily off-topic and 2) being disrepectful.

Freedom of speech and respect for others are values that are not mutually exclusive.

[hit_ny]

So, would it not be better to leave it at that, stop reprinting these cartoons and try to calm the situation?

Which is what the debate and indeed the cartoons themselves are about.

Now is there is a second item (after "fire") to the can't say list ?

[richard.e.morton]

Hi,

I for one have enjoyed this debate. I don't think that re-printing something for informational purposes (hey, no-one I know have seen these "distasteful" images - so we can make up our own mind.

In any case, the population of many countries who support free speech also are also moving away from religion as science allows us to better understand life, the universe and everything (to quote Douglas Adams).

In any case if a picture of Jesus carrying a bomb was published somewhere, a) it wouldn't be blown up out of all context, b) it would be reprinted world wide - so we'd all have seen it anyhow, c) wouldn't have people burning flags d) I would seriously doubt that even if it did create an uproar, a whole country would be wouldn't be held responsible, e) news papers wouldn't be apologising, etc etc

Yes, they are distasteful, the furor 'caused by Muslims (probably whipped up by local press) is so far out of proportion it'd be humourous if it wasn't so crazy.

Rich

[GHammer]

I'll just sum up the last few posts. Feel free to correct me where wrong.

The west should censor itself because muslims will get their feelings hurt and that's a bad thing.
Muslims should be free on the other hand to celebrate 9/11 (I watched the video of the celebrations and few would be asking their hero Bin Laden to bomb Denmark if they were so upset/sorry for the planes), teach hate in their schools, publish the same type of cartoons and TV shows featuring rabbis and christian clerics.
The west is basically at fault for not providing gainful employment to the youth of these countries. Though the London bombers had every advantage of employment and/or goverment support thus negating the "poor people in third world countries who have no hope do this" arguement.
Iran 'helped' the US after 9/11 out of conscience, not out of fear that being on the wrong side at that time would send them off with the Taliban.

You know folks, when you join the KKK, nobody is gonna think you stand for integration.
You fly Angel's colors, nobody thinks you and the 200 other friends are in town to have an ice cream social.
Shave your head, get a swastika tattoo, goosestep around the town square and nobody is gonna invite you to synagogue.

Why then is it so hard to say that by and large, for whatever reason, Islam is not a friend of democracy, not 'tolerant', not very peaceful.

If you support "terrorists", if your religion is involved in war anywhere it bumps up against any other society (democracy, buddhist, jews, christian), well, I'm going to not want to give you the benefit of the doubt. Sorry, I'm kinda old fashioned.

Here's one I feel strongly about. Yet I'm not going to call for anyone's heads to be cutoff, and I'll keep the AK in the closet instead of running down to the local newspaper stand to fire off a few hundred rounds. It's how it's done in the west.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/01/AR2006020102098.html

[RoadKill]

I had a heated argument yesterday with someone about this topic, because I personally don't believe religion is justifiable for any reason.

However they seemed to think false hope was better than no hope, which I do not believe. If the only thing you have left is belief in something that isn't real, then you don't have anything at all.

The cartoons were stupid. Yeah, they were dumb and I don't agree with their message.

But wanting to kill people over them, burning flags, wanting to bomb a country because of some stupid ass cartoons?

You've got to be kidding.

[JimH]

Well said, ghammer.

In fact, well said, most everyone.

Thanks, Pink Waters, for sharing your views.

If only the world were so civil.

[Pink Waters]

By the way if I missed that:

As an egyptian; the whole concept and the floating ideas of the U.S (specially) about muslims as terrorists is coming from 1 thing.. and i admit it which is:

Iraqi People defends their own land?
Palastiniens defend their own land too? and some arabs from here and there trying to help them ?

well put yourself in their shoes and try to ride the game!

2nd point:

london and 21 sep incidents ?? ... come on people get real (no one could pass to the commercial store to get it done without U.S help

but the bad part is:
as in any religion some people take advantage of beliefs and surround 'em with false goals... and make use of the young people to acheive some non pleasant goals..

and to admit it, this happens here very much (sometimes)... some people pretend they are too religous who can decide what god wants.. and take in young poor, non well religous and fool people and persuade them that putting a bomb in their belt and destroying theirselves (like the jeep in sharm incident) will give them a fast ride to paradise (and some cash for the poor family too)..

[JimH]

and to admit it, this happens here very much (sometimes)... some people pretend they are too religous who can decide what god wants.. and take in young poor, non well religous and fool people and persuade them that putting a bomb in their belt and destroying theirselves (like the jeep in sharm incident) will give them a fast ride to paradise (and some cash for the poor family too)..

I imagine that others find it difficult to speak out against such manipulation of the poor and weak.  It would take courage to oppose this.

[JadeSaphire]

Hi,

Okay, so I have a statement and a question... I think the later may be a bit more controvertial, but it is not meant to be inflamatory, just a means of generating debate (much like the cartoon some may say 

I agree with those who perceive the reaction to these cartoons as excessive, but I think we need to be carefull in judging others by our yard stick.

Each religion has a different level of sensitivity or laws regarding images of profits, dieties etc.  Some may brush it off, as I expect many politicians do when they end up as cartoons in a newspaper. Some may not.

Therefore just because most Christians might not react in the same way to an equivalent cartoon, is it fair to expect another religion to react in the same way.

That said, I've got a genuine question, that I'm hoping I can gain some insight on. All religions have their extremists, both on the left and right, however in this day and age...

Although most Muslims are not terrorists,
most terrorists are Muslims.

Would you agree? If so, is it due to socio economic reasons, religion, both?