Cartoons Republished, Muslims Reoffended
By Callimachus | Related entries in Cartoons, In The News, Media, Religion, The WorldThe Guardian offers a reaction to the Muhammad cartoon furor that is fairly typical of what I’ve read from the self-described liberal-left.
It’s mainly a reasoned and tempered — “conservative,” you might say — enunciation of the responsibilities of the free press to be, well, “responsible” in what it publishes. It’s a familiar argument, and I’ve used it myself in many cases: It boils down to, “Just because you can say anything doesn’t mean you ought to.”
But no two will think alike about where the line is drawn between “ought” and “ought not,” except in the “shouting ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater” cases which are already covered by the law. What I think is beyond the pale of decency is what the next fellow thinks is essential for the public to see and know: aborted fetuses with recognizable human features, U.S. servicemen bloody and dead in war, child pornography.
You make judgment calls based on relevance: A politician gets in hot water for telling an ethnic joke and people call for his resignation: Do you print the words he said that were offensive? If so, you spread the offense. If not, you rob the reader of an essential bit of the story that he or she needs to make an intelligent conclusion about it.
[As an editor, I always tend to come down on the side of giving people too much information rather than too little. And I always get punished for it by my bosses. So I've learned to be over-cautious.]
The “Guardian” itself, of course, is proudly provocative against certain targets. American soldiers routinely appear as crude criminal animals in Steve Bell’s cartoons. Condi Rice gets called a “monkey on a chain” on the paper’s Web site. In the run-up to the last U.S. presidential election, the “Guardian’s” election preview column solicited the assassination of President Bush:
On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod’s law dictates he’ll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?
So it’s no surprise that it’s leader on the Muhammad cartoons opens with a tepid defense of the press’ duty to publish and be damned:
If free speech is to be meaningful, moreover, the right to it cannot shirk from embracing views that a majority - or a minority - finds distasteful, even on occasions bitterly so. All those considerations point towards a case for wider publication of cartoons which, even though offensive and provocative, say something about uncomfortable issues that are central to the modern world and have triggered an anguished debate in Europe and elsewhere.
Which is followed by the quick back-away from all that, in the name of taking the high road and being sensitive. “There are limits and boundaries - of taste, law, convention, principle or judgment. All these constraints matter and cannot be automatically overriden by invoking the larger principle.”
One is almost tempted to feel sorry for the poor “Guardian” editor trying to squirm through this assignment. Nothing so unpleasant as confronting the irreconcilable contradictions in the bedrock of your political philosophy. Multicultural tolerance is good; but here’s a religious culture with intolerance in its core. Free speech is good and the right to offend is essential to our mission. But somehow that only feels right when we’re slagging on the Americans as fat, violent, Chimpler-loving racists.
Especially after the “Guardian” has opened its columns to the fierce defenders of offensive artistic expression — so long as those suffering offense were U.S. fundamentalist Christians:
We have another choice. We can accept that artistic freedom of expression is so intrinsic to our national life that we can never tamper with it, just as with press freedom. That as long as artists remain within the law, they are free to shock, disturb and to offend any group without fear or favour.
There is simply no third way here. You either censor or you don’t. Once you’ve censored one thing, you set a precedent to use again and again.
So on what basis are the Muhammad cartoons inapproriate, in the “Guardian’s” view? The leader never quite says, but it holds up several examples. I suppose that’s an excuse for proof.
It would not be appropriate, for instance, to publish an anti-semitic cartoon of the sort that was commonplace in Nazi Germany. Nor would we publish one which depicted black people in the way a Victorian caricature might have done. Every newspaper in the country regularly carries stories about child pornography, yet none has yet reproduced examples of such pornography as part of their coverage. Few people would argue that it is essential to an understanding of the issues that they should do so.
OK, wait a minute. By now, most of us have seen the cartoons. Most of them are pretty benign. Some remind me of illustrations of Jesus that you’d see in Christian literature. Very few have the faintly offensive quality of “Little Black Sambo,” much less the cringe-making quality of child pornography, which is offensive to the whole mass of human beings except the few sad people who have a pathological twist in their sexuality that makes scenes of sex with children the height of desire.
This is not about pathology. This is about millions of people who have dedicated themselves to a religion that prohibits any image, insulting, benign, or even worshipful, to be made of a certain historical figure. It is not enough that they forbid themselves from doodling a picture of Muhammad on their sketchpads: They forbid you to do it, too. And they loudly proclaim their intention to kill you for it. And the “Guardian” all but says you deserve it.
As for comparisons to the vile anti-Semitic artwork of Der Stürmer, that one backfires pretty quickly, because the same people who have burkas in a twist about Danish pictures of Muhammad walking in the desert are the world’s leading purveyors of Jew-baiting artwork today.
And we’re not talking about demonization of Muslims — who are not a race. Comparisons to racist literature are completely off the mark. We’re talking about mere pictures of a man (Islamic theology insists on the entire humanity of Muhammad).
The “Guardian” knows all this of course, yet it makes a pathetic attempt to weasle through the loophole it imagines it has discovered:
It is one thing to assert the right to publish an image of the prophet. As long as that is not illegal - and not even the government’s amended religious hatred bill makes it so - then that right undoubtedly exists. But it is another thing to put that right to the test, especially when to do so inevitably causes offence to many Muslims and, even more so, when there is currently such a powerful need to craft a more inclusive public culture which can embrace them and their faith.
Please! Wasn’t it the anti-war left that perfected the retort about, “what good is the right of free speech you claim you’re fighting to give me if you ask me to muzzle myself from criticizing the conduct of your war.” Instead, the “Guardian” advocates self-censorship in the name of building a culture “inclusive” of people who would censor others. Good luck with that.
By the time it peters out, the “Guardian’s” attempt to think its way through this matter is paralyzed by the tangle of contradictions.
That is why the defiant republication of the cartoons in some parts of Europe (some of them with far less good histories of intercommunal relations than this country) is more questionable than it may appear at first sight.
Translation: Britain is more sensitively multi-cultural than Denmark, France, etc.; therefore it is morally superior and the press in those other nations has less right to publish provocative matter than the British press does.
But the British press is right to not publish the cartoons. Huh? The “Guardian” reserves to itself, in its leftist purity, the right to publish what it is too sensitive — I won’t say “cowardly” — to publish. Free speech only for those too tender to use it, eh? Imagine what you’d be hearing if a right-wing media outlet pontificated in that vein.
There has to be a very good reason for giving gratuitous offence of this kind.
That presumes the only motive of the papers that picked up the cartoons was to give offense. It seems never to have occurred to the “Guardian” that those brave editors and publishers were standing up for the right of free speech itself, under direct death threat from Islamist thugs. In the famous World War II story (alas, apocryphal, but certainly illustrative of the point) the king and people of Denmark, under Nazi occupation, all wear the yellow star that the Nazis have assigned to the Jews as their badge of infamy. To the “Guardian,” I suppose, the only point of doing that would have been to give “gratuitous offense” to Hitler.
“Comments” for me no longer function on this site. But sit back and watch as commenters slam me for slamming the “Guardian” for slamming the Danish media for slamming European self-censorship, which is all so much easier than standing up and saying something forceful and meaningful about the “Muslims” who are parading through London right now with signs that read “butcher those who mock Islam” and “Prepare for the REAL holocaust.” [Or, as one Photoshopped version reads, "Behead those who say Islam is violent."]
This entry was posted on Friday, February 3rd, 2006 and is filed under Cartoons, In The News, Media, Religion, The World. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 4th, 2006 at 11:58 am
Great post.
February 4th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
I think perhaps if the Muslim reaction was to call for boycotts of the papers and even march in peaceful protest (without the violent signs), then the rest of us would be a lot more respectful of their complaints. The cartoons were drawn intentionally to provoke and that’s not a particularly noble endeavor and one I would normally say crossed the line. But how can we even focus on the cartoons when the reactions to the cartoons show such uncivilized instincts. I mean, I could say you were wrong to swat the nose of a dog, but if that dog rips your arm off in response, I don’t think we’d be talking about the swat.
February 4th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
“The cartoons were drawn intentionally to provoke”
Wrong. The cartoons were drawn intentionally to defy. Remember the context - Theo van Gogh’s murder, Pim Fortuyn’s murder, the Salman Rushdie affair - There is either a concerted effort or a general mindset among many Muslims that Europeans have no right to commnet on them or their religion even in these Europeans’ home countries. That attitude is grossly offensive. Period. Tough shit if it offends these Muslims that they are not going to get away with it.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Jim is absolutely right. The nation of Denmark has constantly been provoked by muslims over the past several decades of unfettered immigration. Ghettos of unassimilated muslims have been propping up all over europe, which is not a problem in and of itself (from a racial or ethnic perspective) as much as the honor killings, increases in youth violence, calls for jihad from the local mosques, death threats to people like the MP Hirsi Ali, culminating in the murder of Theo Van Gogh.
This is a case of the Danish standing up for themselves and reponding to this cultural assault using peaceful and morally acceptable means of protest against radical Islam. The subsequent embassy burnings, death-threats, mob violence ect… are not purely a response to the drawings. They are a heightened and focussed contiuation of the assault on Danish culture by fundamentalist Islam.
February 5th, 2006 at 2:44 am
From what I’ve read, I do believe the purpose for publishing the cartoons was to provoke. That in no way justifies the response from the Muslim world, or even the underlying idea that we’r supposed to moderate our behavior in accordance with Muslim law. The equivalent would be Orthodox Jews going around and killing everyone who had the temerity to work on the Sabbath. But I don’t think the motives of the publication were entirely pure, and nor they’ve got to reap the whirlwind, so to speak.
What I do find particularly hypocritical is the contrast of the Right’s response to this affair, as opposed to the Newsweek story about the Korans on Guantanamo. In that case, the general reaction from the Right was that big bad anti-American Newsweek was responsible not only for publishing an erroneous story, but for the violence that followed. I saw more than one commenter say that the blood of the dead was on Newsweek’s hands. There was much less emphasis on how ridiculous and inappropriate the Muslim response was.
February 5th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Chris -
Yes, yes - the real problem in this situation is that the Republicans are hypocrites.
A Roman catholic priest was just shot and killed in Turkey over the cartoons, but hey - let’s focus our attention on the evil Republicans.
Good grief.
February 5th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
The funny thing is that, having seen the cartoons, they’re not that provocative. Nowhere near as offensive as say, Piss Christ. Nowhere near as offensive as blowing up centuries old Buddahs. Yet noone got killed over either of those.
Sadly, there is a vocal fraction of middle eastern culture that has no sense of proportion whatsoever.
February 5th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
You’re absolutely right. Instead of how we focus on dealing with these issues in the US, I should be on the next plane to Turkey.
The way the Republicans deal with this issue is emblematic of the way they deal with a lot of things, which is why my comment was relevant. As one who is on the receiving end of a lot of the vitriol, I can tell you that the way the Republicans try to paint their critics, in this case Newsweek, as traitors has poisoned the discourse in this country. Virtually no one supports the mobs buring embassies, so how much ink do you think needs to be spilled repeating that fact? Pardon me for looking at the bigger picture.
February 5th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Chris -
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Are you saying that the real issue here is the Republicans? And if so, can you explain to me how that is the “bigger picture” in this situation?
Personally I see this cartoon issue as a potential problem for Western civilization, which to me is a bigger deal than Dem/Rep bickering.
Personally, I believe we have the right to ridicule all religions without fear of death or riots. The reason people are drawing cartoons showing Mohammed as a terrorist is because people are killing themselves and others in terroristic acts in the name of Islam. These cartoons are a reflection of what is happening in the world and we should be able to debate them without fear.
How Republicans being hypocrites is a bigger story than that I will never understand.
February 5th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
I think Chris does make a valid point here. If it is in fact the case that a publication of the cartoons in an American newspaper would inspire muslim riots in Iraq or Afghanistan, whereby american soldiers would be at even greater risk, then it may be unwise to publish for practical reasons only.
There is a “soft bigotry of low expectations” towards muslims that is totally justifiable, considering the asinine displays of violence everyday in the muslim world over trivial matters. Its like the retarded kid who is required to be in the same class as the normal kids; for soome reason, he will always beat you up when you wear colorful shoes. Since you can’t kick him out of school, and since he is retarded after all, just don’t wear the stupid shoes, its not a big deal.
However, a newspaper or any kind of privately owned enterprise that offends Islam through a cartoon is not the same as repoting on something the U.S. armed forces did during wartime (like abu-graib), considering it is the soldiers themselves that are in harms way.
Second, the demand that the west must refrain from violating islamic laws, else face violent retribution is rediculous and an affront to everything we stand for. Should we now require our women to dress like garbage bags so as not to offend the religious sensibilities of muslim immigrants who gaze upon our gals?
I have no problem if CNN doesn’t want to reprint the cartoons our of respect for muslim traditions (its obvious by now that the MSM doesn’t care about the practical considerations of the lives of soldiers overseas). But they certainly don’t care about christian sensibilities when they reprint “the passion of Kayne West” or “the Madonna with elephant dung.” Its politically incorrect to offend poor brown people, but bourgeoise white people are fair game.
February 5th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
My point is a simple one. While we can condemn the way the Muslim world is reacting to this, there’s only so much we can do. How many different ways can you say they’re wrong? But it is relevant to look at the way we deal with our own culpability in these issues. I thought at the time of the Newsweek incident it was amazing how the magazine was being blamed for the reaction in the Muslim world, which was every bit as excessive as in the current case. Yet now that the offending publication isn’t part of the MSM, and there’s nothing to be gained by trying to intimidate them inot toeing the line and eliminating criticism of the administration, the focus is wholly on the Muslim reaction. How we deal with these issues in this country is of as much importance to me as what takes place in the Arab street. And as one who has been accused of disloyalty many times, I find the hypocrisy revolting.
This isn’t like the knee jerk comparisons of what Clinton did to what Bush did. These are very similar circumstances, taking place within a very short time frame. And the inconsistency in the reaction is part and parcel of the kind of thinking that has fractured the political discourse in this country.
February 5th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Its the MSM who are being hypocrites in this case. They refuse to reprint the cartoons out of “respect for the religion of Islam,” yet publish a bulls**t story about a koran flushing incident with complete disregard for the safety of American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The cartoons were drawn by citizens of europe and published by a privately owned journal with a small Danish readership. the MSM prints photos of military secrets carried out against muslim terrorists by American troops on the ground in Iraq in the middle of a war. There is a rather substantial difference there.
Besides, the cartoons were first published a month ago, and the muslim response is not a boycot of the Jyllands-Posten, but death threats, embassy burnings, and a demand for laws against blasphemy. It is a protest against free speech itself. This did not happen after Abu-graib, or the newsweek article at the behest of conservatives and Bush supporters.
February 6th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Most people have to realize that Mohammond was a terrorist and know 1000 years later muslims are still terrorist. Its a shame though, that they have to send their children to blow themselves up, since they are too coward to kill themselves. There should be a cartoon published showing Mohammond with his 72 virgins asking if one child has their 72 virgins.
February 6th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
“Yet now that the offending publication isn’t part of the MSM, and there’s nothing to be gained by trying to intimidate them inot toeing the line and eliminating criticism of the administration, the focus is wholly on the Muslim reaction. How we deal with these issues in this country is of as much importance to me as what takes place in the Arab street. And as one who has been accused of disloyalty many times, I find the hypocrisy revolting.”
The cartoons are ‘political commentary’ by a newspaper and the Newsweek article was supposed to be ‘news’ being reported as fact which turned out to not be true, it was printed as ‘opinion’ like a cartoon is, it was reported as news…. I don’t find them at all equal or alike in any way.
When Newsweek made the erronious report they put our troops in a precarious position by fanning the flames of idiocy against our troops simply by printing a false story claiming abuse by our troops…. completely different than drawing a political cartoon that shows opinion commentary…
February 6th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Don’t say negative, if you dont know what Islam really is!!!!!!
Most of the Non-muslims have never tried to discover what Islam really is and then they claim negative things about Islam.
Are you a Muslim? Do you have any Islamic religious experience? If you don’t have any experience with Islam, how can you tell me about Islamic ,Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him).
February 6th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Maria, We all have Islamic religious experience. 9/11 was our Islamic religious experience, but there is much more - oppression, enslavement and extermination campaigns against Christians in Africa, death threats and murders in Europe against writers and film-makers - we know you and your religion very well. If you think this is some ignorance on the part of Westerners, talk to Hindus. Do you wonder why Muslims in India are keeping quiet? They know how stupid they would look in India crying about beiong oppressed, when they ruled that country and did everything the could to wipe out a culture far more advanced and spiritual that anyhting they had. Most non-Muslims don’t have to discover what Islam really is; we have the stink of it shoved in or faces.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Hey Maria,
What do you think about the several Hadiths that chronicle the assasination of the poetess Asma bint Marwan on the orders of Mohammad himself(pbuh) because of her mockery and criticisms of the prophet, circa 627 A.D. ?
for example, Ibn Ishaq writes (pp675-676):
According to accepted Muslim scriptures, Mohammad (pbuh) ordered the assasination of at least 22 poets, artists, and pundits simply for their mockery and criticism of the early Islamic movement.
I don’t think the riots and embassy burnings and death-threats are anything more than an interpretation of sacred religious duty by traditionalist muslims.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
Maria, Jim’s post was tactless, but it does bring up a good point. For the majority of non-muslims, the face of Islam today is the terrorist. How can it be otherwise when muslims who oppose terrorism and oppression don’t get out there and educate others about their religion? Where is the moral outrage of the moderate Islamic community in response to the acts of violence committed by Muslims? Where are the voices condemning these acts as not representative of “what Islam really is”?
Christians, Hindus, etc. have committed atrocities, but the acts and those who perpetrated them have been condemned by their religious community as a whole. So far, that hasn’t happened with the Islamic community, and until it does (and loudly) most will continue to equate Islam with terrorism and oppression. Can you blame them?
February 6th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Why was my post tactless? You make the statement about the lack of self-criticism amongst the islamic community as a whole but you don’t seem to wonder why. I argue that there is something about the ideology of Islam itself that is different from Christianity, Hinduism ect.. that lends itself to the justification of violent acts, the lack of free speech, misogyny ect. even in the 21st century.
The paradox is, the only way for muslims to cure the pathology that is the lack of self-criticism…is to be self critical. They must look at the hadiths like the one I mentioned and say, “you know what, Mohammad was not a good guy by today’s standards (or even by medeival standards!)” or “God, that Koran has some awful stuff in it!”
Religious muslims cannot do that because it is the basic tenet of Islamic theology that the Koran is the direct, uninterpretable, undenyable word of God, spoken to the prophet (in arabic!) and is a covenant (set of laws) for all mankind throughout all ages.
Also, Muhammad is the al-insan al-kamil, or the perfect man, and an example for all men. When the most perfect role model of all time killed those who blasphemed him, what are devout muslims supposed to do about these cartoons?
February 6th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
oops, I just noticed the post by “Jim,” I just realized you were talking about him.
February 7th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
How hypocritical…the same newspapar that printed offensive cartoons in the name of the “freedom of speech” refused to print the cartoons of Jesus because they said it would be offensive to Christians and were not funny.
Muslims everywhere demonstarated when the movie “Passion of Christ” was shown. They would have demonstrated if the newpapers had printed cartoons of Jesus.
I think the protest is fully justified but it should be peaceful one. If any body exercise evil rights to ignite one big community the responsibility lies with him. If I know that if I put my hand in the fire it will burn then should I put it there. The cartoonist knew that there would be reaction but he did it. So reaction is normal expression of Muslims.
I think this cartoon should never have been published. Everyone has freedom of speech but publishing this cartoon was not about freedom of speech it was about offending. There is a limit to everything. Some non-muslims think we are over-reacting, well how would they feel if we did this to someone that was this special to them in their religion or family. They have no idea about our religion what gives them the right to mock and abuse our prophet like this?We have every right to be angry.
The philisophy of every religion is ‘live and let others live’. Unfortunately, the world is messed up in religious war these days. Publishing such cartoon in national newspaper in the name of freedom of speech is in itself an irresponsible behaviour.
with all this talk abut freedom of speech, why dont the newspapers print cartoons offending other religions ( jews, christians, buddists etc). But the newspapers int he west wont, they wiil only print cartoons offending islam and not any ither religions.
Has anyone else noticed the double standard of many western people over freedom of expression? When the western media publishes an extremist, islamaphobic cartoon and muslims object, they claim that it is their right under freedom of press/expression. But then, when Islamic extremists express their views in the protests in London and across the Islamic world, the west is up in arms. I do not condone or support either of these things, but I think it is clear that there is hipocracy here.
Freedoms bring responsibilities, and while I do support free speech, I can only think that publishing such cartoons is really unwise, irresponsible and stupid. People saying publishing these cartoons is good should learn why muslims find them offensive. If free speech means the right to cause offence, then people too have the right to be offended. It works both ways.
February 8th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Funny how so many followers of a “peaceful relegion” could incite and participate inviolence over a cartoon.
February 10th, 2006 at 10:35 am
You said: “Publishing such cartoon in national newspaper in the name of freedom of speech is in itself an irresponsible behaviour.”
No it isn’t - the extreme reaction to these cartoons is irresponsible (and borderline uncivilized) behavior - most people in the western world don’t burn embassies and don’t organize demonstrations inciting violence when they’re offended.
You also said: “…why dont the newspapers print cartoons offending other religions ( jews, christians, buddists etc).”
They do. All the time, - the reason you don’t know about this (or pretend not to) is that most people of these religions don’t freak out on the same scale as muslims do.
BTW, In your 5 or six paragraphs you said nothing to refute the points brought up by jimmy the dhimmi and other posters about mohammed… I wonder why?
February 10th, 2006 at 11:49 am
Hi
your website very good
February 10th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
First of all muslims are not happy with all the flag-burning and property burning.
Now I will try to tell you why we love our prophet and why you don’t understand our anger….I clearly say to the West, you have a problem. You cannot comprehend how much the Muslims love Prophet Muhammad (SAWS). You are still unable to understand this point. If you had really encompassed its significance, you would never have accepted what happened. The West, in general, governments and people, does not apprehend that Allah’s Messenger (SAWS) is dearer to us than our parents, dearer to me than my father and dearer than my mother.
you will realize how true what I am saying is. Ask any youth, be he heedless or pious; ask any Muslim anywhere, in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Yemen or in Egypt or any part of the world where Muslims are Living . Ask any Muslim in any village regardless of how religious he is, be he an obedient Muslim or not, a drug user or not, successful in his life or a failure, old or young, ask them, what does Allah’s Messenger (SAWS) mean to you?
February 11th, 2006 at 1:00 am
hi be peace upon all of you!!!!!
dear
islam does not give us right to kill even an insect or animal ,non muslims ,muslims .
prophet mohamad (SAW) SAID “IF YOU KILL ONE MAN IT WOULD BE CONCEDERED THAT YOU HAVE KILLED ALL HMANITY”
we muslims have not the right even to think to kill non muslims ,but i think we have”nt practiced islam in real way .
but americans and all other nations have not the right to kill 2 lake iraqis and 1 lake afghans in the name of freedom ,
what u westners think of freedom is!! killing them and giving them freedom from life ??????
February 11th, 2006 at 10:41 am
Koran 5:32
The very next line, 5:33:
February 12th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
cartoon is very good please publish more cartoon
February 14th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
How hypocritical…the same newspapar that printed offensive cartoons in the name of the “freedom of speech� refused to print the cartoons of Jesus because they said it would be offensive to Christians and were not funny.
How hypocritical…the same newspapar that printed offensive cartoons in the name of the “freedom of speech� refused to print the cartoons of Jesus because they said it would be offensive to Christians and were not funny.
How hypocritical…the same newspapar that printed offensive cartoons in the name of the “freedom of speech� refused to print the cartoons of Jesus because they said it would be offensive to Christians and were not funny.
How hypocritical…the same newspapar that printed offensive cartoons in the name of the “freedom of speech� refused to print the cartoons of Jesus because they said it would be offensive to Christians and were not funny.
February 18th, 2006 at 3:29 am
“Now I will try to tell you why we love our prophet and why you don’t understand our anger…”
Honestly, the thing is - I understand your anger, and I understand why many muslim *fanatics* in the arab world react the way they do. However, the incident occured in a civilized European country with its own laws. Denmark and countries as such can’t be expected to pander to every minority group that is welcomed and then DISRESPECTS the local customs and way of life, which in this case allows for the publication of said cartoons.
And to all the protesters in Europe: Honestly if some muslims feel they are treated worse in Europe than wherever they came from, by all means, go back and live in an islamic society which for some reason you got the hell away from in the first place… You hate it when the US tries to impose its world view on you - so DON’T try to impose yours.
February 20th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
How hypocritical…the same newspapar that printed offensive cartoons in the name of the “freedom of speech� refused to print the cartoons of Jesus because they said it would be offensive to Christians and were not funny.
How hypocritical…the same newspapar that printed offensive cartoons in the name of the “freedom of speech� refused to print the cartoons of Jesus because they said it would be offensive to Christians and were not funny.
How hypocritical…the same newspapar that printed offensive cartoons in the name of the “freedom of speech� refused to print the cartoons of Jesus because they said it would be offensive to Christians and were not funny.
How hypocritical…the same newspapar that printed offensive cartoons in the name of the “freedom of speech� refused to print the cartoons of Jesus because they said it would be offensive to Christians and were not funny.
How hypocritical…the same newspapar that printed offensive cartoons in the name of the “freedom of speech� refused to print the cartoons of Jesus because they said it would be offensive to Christians and were not funny.
February 20th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
How hypocritical…the same newspapar that printed offensive cartoons in the name of the “freedom of speech� refused to print the cartoons of Jesus because they said it would be offensive to Christians and were not funny.
How hypocritical…the same newspapar that printed offensive cartoons in the name of the “freedom of speech� refused to print the cartoons of Jesus because they said it would be offensive to Christians and were not funny.
March 1st, 2006 at 3:03 am
Maria, I am a christian and believe in Jesus Christ just as much as you believe in allah. But one thing is for sure, we would never get an apology from anyone about a cartoon written about Jesus Christ and our nation is supposed to be built on God, the Son and the Holy Spirit. But, anyway, I never heard you respond to any of the things that were said about your allah. Such as him praising the man that killed marwan’s daughter and mahammad being a terrorist himself. Or, about all of the Islam people that have killed our people in the name of Allah. I would not be part of a religion that stood for killing people in the name of my savior. But of course, Allah can’t be your savior because he has never died for your sins. Think about that. But what do you have to say about all of these comments? I don’t want to hear your lines about how hypocritical because you would never protest against a cartoon about Jesus, no more than I would about allah.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:32 am
During the greater part of last week, Slate’s sister site On Faith (it is jointly produced by Newsweek and washingtonpost.com, both owned by the Washington Post Co., which also owns Slate) gave itself over to a discussion about the religion of Islam. As usual in such cases, the search for “moderate” versions of this faith was under way before the true argument had even begun. If I were a Muslim myself, I think that this search would be the most “offensive” part of the business. Why must I prove that my deepest belief is compatible with moderation? Read more: Why are we so scared of offending Muslims? - By Christopher Hitchens