PeterDavid.net

This entire business has been revelatory. It underscores the complete Muslim disconnect between their own actions and others. Anti-semitism, anti-Americanism, insults and lambasting of others based upon race, color and creed is completely ingrained into their culture.

For once, PAD, I agree with you. Completely. Without reservation.

It is about time that the truth is told about the Islamic governments in the Middle East. This is not about whether Islam is a "religion" of war or peace. This is about tyrants who abuse their own people and who do want to impose Islam on others.

Thanks for saying what needed to be said.

Iowa Jim

Bravo.

Amen.

Your last comment reminds me of something, PAD: A line you wrote for Crusade. "Christ came to tell us to love one another and the last twenty-two hundred years, we've spent killing each other on how he said it."

I've meant to ask you for a while...did you write that yourself or take it from somewhere? Somewhere specific; it's certainly not a new sentiment, but the phrasing is specific.

The sick irony is, all this completely overblown outrage and violence on top of that is only giving ammunition to the people who created the cartoons in the first place: Look what happens. It shows we were right.

Here in Britain Muslims were protesting as well, showing posters saying "Massacre those who insult Islam" and other ones that are no better. There was a big discussion going on if the police should have arrested them straight away because here in Britain, inciting violence is an arrestable offense. Instead the police just collected evidence and might go after these demonstrators later.

It seems that was the last straw. In Britain, it had been discussed for quite a long time if a law should also be introduced that punishes the glorification of violence. It has been passed this week. About time!

I know, we Westerners should be tolerant of other religions and beliefs but on the other hand, I don`t have to like it. Most definitely, it annoys me that their values and beliefs are spilling into Britain as well which is after all not a Muslim country. An office in Britain orders all images of pigs being removed because one Muslim visitor complained. That included a tissue box with images from Winnie the Pooh cartoons.

It seems Germany is no better. My mother told me that in the school where I used to go school trips that involve over night stays in a youth hostel have been banned because Muslim parents don`t want their daughters to take place. And there is always the problem Muslims have with their precious daughters attending sports, especially together with boys.

I find this sickening. I am a woman and seeing the pictures of members of my gender treated and segregated like that makes me angry. Also here in Britain, men and women protested pretty much separately and many women covered themselves up.

If they hate the western life style so much, they should go back to their Muslim countries and live the way they want. I don`t think these cartoons are in good taste but there is no excuse for violence and threats.

"Or perhaps Muslims have yet to encounter a problem that they can't blame on the Jews."

Yeah, you quickly lost that whole "radical" adjective and went straight to sweeping generalisations there Peter.

a friend of mine argued that this isn't so much about religion as it is about power and influence - the equivalent of Cartman demanding everybody respecting his "authoriTAH!" on a bloody continental scale. It's tyranny. I refuse to cooperate and/or to kow-tow to anyone else's religious sensibilities - I don't care if you're Osama bin Laden or William Donohue. They don't respect my religious sensibilities (or lack thereof). They've stated their opinions, and now I'll state mine:

"Eat it."

If I wanted to life a life of no offense, I'd just listen to the _Delilah_ radio progam every night and start videotaping _Full House_ reruns. Screw that.

Sorry, that should read "live my life," not "life my life."

It looks like I'm going to pick up the skewed question, since none of the rest of you will. Mr. D said something about "burning down Iranian restaurants."

What do they serve in Iranian restaurants?

It'd be a little snide to answer "goat," but I can only think of the late Sam Kinison's routine. "See what this is? It's sand. You know what it's gonna be twenty years from now? IT'S GONNA BE SAND!!! YOU LIVE IN A DESERT! YOU LIVE IN A ****ING DESERT!!"

So...they serve Keebler Pecan Sandies???

(No, seriously, if anyone knows what's on the menu, let me know.)

It's nice when I can post here and say I agree with you, Mr. David.

Keep it up.:D

two questions really

1 is it right to try and seek to offend someone knowing that what you are doing will do so?

2 if you have been offended do you have the right to seek punishment from the offender or make them stop what they are doing

the original cartoons were first published last september and at the times causesd a bit of a spat in Denmark and with some middle eastern governments who demanded an apology. fair enough
that apology was not forthcoming hence the cartoons which as usual most of the people complaining have never seen were passed onto the "arab street" around the same time several other european nations decided to "defend freedom of speech" by reprinting cartoons that somebody had already lodged a formal complaint about and that led us to were we are now

the first publication of the cartoons was as far as i'm concerned legigtamet after that however it was simply an attempt to piss people off

has for the second question if someone offends you are entitled to seek that stopped well it certainly appears to be the case how many stories can we all re-count of offensive shows been pulled. In the UK their was a big controversy when the BBC broadcasted the Jerry Springer musical (something i believe not a single US network will dare show) some stores in the UK refussed to stock it due to campaigns against.

also not so long ago i remember a certain homo-erotic/christian artwork having to be removed from a new york gallary due to offence caused

it seems to me in the west people are more sophisticated in their censorship it's not a case of offend us and we'll blow you up it's more a case of offend us and we'll shut you down

marvels fear of depicting a homo-sexual relationship with an ADULT label is another recent cowering to the argument

and a final question how many people who think these cartoons should be published also support the gay jesus art/plays or the gay captain america

I was wondering when Peter might comment on this, as he always has something insightful to say. The reaction of Muslims here in Britain has been a real eye opener, the sheer hypocrisy of their protest marches calling for more beheadings, bombings and any other forms of attack just shows they have no respect or connection to the rest of the people in the country.

The only thing worse than the protests however is the total lack of action by the police. If any other group of people went on a protest march calling for the deaths of the people of this country they would be arrested on the spot. The leader of the racist BNP party was recently put on trial just for calling Islam a "vicious, wicked" faith. Yet none of the placard holders calling for bombings had been arrested for their crimes. Appeasement like this just breeds animosity towards the Muslim community who now appear to be untouchable and allowed to do whatever they like.

"and a final question how many people who think these cartoons should be published also support the gay jesus art/plays or the gay captain america"

If Christians were really as bad as the Islamic radicals, the creators of South Park would have been hunted down and killed years ago, or the stations which broadcast them picketed. At the very least. Don't remember it happening, though. It's called having a sense of proportion.

"2 if you have been offended do you have the right to seek punishment from the offender or make them stop what they are doing"

They do have a problem there. Libel laws vary from country to country, so lawsuits are iffy. Worse, their very actions give ammunition to the defense which would make such suits a bit of a problem.

Then again, if Christians can try to claim that they're under attack in the ninety-percent Christian United States, I suppose anything is possible.)

Just a brain-fart: Can 90% of pidgeons complain if the other 10% is the cat?

Or in simpler terms: Just because they're paranoid...

Just a quick comment.

I'm seeing a good deal of generalisms being used here - muslims, christians, jews, etc - and that can be a very dangerous way to see the world or view people.

Please try to remember that while all muslims may be offended by the cartoons, not all are protesting violence or encouraging violence.

Personally, I believe in freedom of the press and would defend their right to publish what they feel is necessary.

However, having been raised to respect the beliefs of others, I find cartoons such as these needlessly offensive. Is it truly necessary to show deliberate contempt for another's beliefs? I know some muslim countries do that, but do we really want to sink to their level?

Just my 2 cents...

Can 90% of pidgeons complain if the other 10% is the cat?

Not to get into THIS debate again, but when was the last time there was a Buddhist Inquisition, a Wiccan Crusade, or a slew of Jewish-backed witch trials? "The Cat" my ass...

-Rex Hondo-

I'm so happy PAD commented on this and I agree with him pretty much down the line.

Yeah, you quickly lost that whole "radical" adjective and went straight to sweeping generalisations there Peter.

Since he went out of his way to say "I'd like to think that the majority of Muslims would actually, y'know, follow the Prophet's teaching and react to criticism with patience rather than violence" I think that covers it for the rest of the posting.

1 is it right to try and seek to offend someone knowing that what you are doing will do so?

Is it right? Well, it's probably a dick thing to do in most cases. Of course, sometimes you offend by pointing out an uncomfortable truth. Telling Muslims their religion is being hijacked by an intolerant mob of violent misogunistic, intolerant humanphobes may offend some but it might also wake some of them up.

If the question was "Is it A right to try and seek to offend someone knowing that what you are doing will do so?" the answer is yes.

2 if you have been offended do you have the right to seek punishment from the offender or make them stop what they are doing

No. Take a couple of toughen ups and contemplate what it is that makes you so insecure that you musty seek to punish and suppress those who hurt your feelings.

also not so long ago i remember a certain homo-erotic/christian artwork having to be removed from a new york gallary due to offence caused

Really? When was this? "Art" mocking Christ or the Pope is so commonplace it doesn't even shock anymore. But even during the height of the "Piss Christ" debate I don't recall rampaging hordes of Baptists calling for the beheadings of gallery owners. Christians seem to believe that their religion will survive its critics. Muslims, far too many of them, seem to fear that Islam will die if it is not maintained at the point of a sword. Why else must they demand death for those who convert? (at least in Saudi Arabia).

marvels fear of depicting a homo-sexual relationship with an ADULT label is another recent cowering to the argument

Maybe they are afraid of offending Muslims--given the recent executions of gays in Iran it would seem that they have a problem with this. Why needlessly provoke them?

and a final question how many people who think these cartoons should be published also support the gay jesus art/plays or the gay captain america

Support? As in waste my money on? Or as in I won't go down to the theatre and burn it down?

Write anything you want about Jesus. I doubt he'll notice and if he does, well, that's YOUR problem. Yes, some other Christians will be far less sanguine about it and may even write harsh letters to the editor. But you'll still live to attend another cocktail party with all your avante garde friends where you can tell each other how gutsy you all are.

Gay Captain America? Wasn't Giant Sized Man-Thing enough for these people?

However, having been raised to respect the beliefs of others, I find cartoons such as these needlessly offensive. Is it truly necessary to show deliberate contempt for another's beliefs? I know some muslim countries do that, but do we really want to sink to their level?

Not all the cartoons were offensive. Some just showed his image. It's gotten to the point where any discussion of Islam's history or beliefs that is not simple platitudes will enrage some of its followers.

Not to get into THIS debate again, but when was the last time there was a Buddhist Inquisition, a Wiccan Crusade, or a slew of Jewish-backed witch trials?

Well for that matter when was the last CHRISTIAN Inquisition, Crusade, etc? If it was longer than 45 years ago, not my problem. I have a very short attention span and no desire to hold grudges. Unusual in an Irishman, I know.

The part that strikes me is that one of the reasons they claim for the offense is that you aren't supposed to show an image of the prophet, so as to not create idolatry to violate one of the Commandments. (I remember Larry Gonick having to work around this in his Cartoon History of the Universe in order to deal with Islam).

However, they don't seem to understand the concept of idolatry. The riots show me that they idolize the concept of not depicting the prophet. It's still idolatry, even if the physical object isn't there. Maybe not in the literal sense, but definitely in the concept of worshipping the "thing" more than the deity. As Peter pointed out, they aren't following the Prophets teachings, they are "saving" his image (or lack thereof).

The extremist Muslims seem to be the short kid on the playground. You know, the short kid that deliberately does things to tick the bigger kids off, so that the bigger kids will throw the first punch and the short kid can say "See? See? Everyone's out to get me!" while thinking up the next plan to cause trouble. Part of the problem is diversity and respect. Now, I'm all for both, but you know what? THERE ARE LIMITS.

So England has thrown out freedom of speech in favor of political correctness?

Proves the English are pretty stupid...

As far as these street terrorists with their protests and arson and destruction of property, stop molly-coddling these bastards and start firing into the crowd! If they want to insist on violence being the best way to make themselves heard, then lets show them just how much violence we can ladel out to lawbreakers and terrorists.

In fact, The papers that refuse to run teh "cartoons" have given in to terror, and therefore can be considered to be AIDING AND ABETTING the terrorists....

Iranian restaurants are usually called "Persian restaurants," the switch in names for many establishments coming back during the Iranian hostage crisis.

Here's the menu of a fine persian restaurant in the gaslamp district in San Diego, Bandar:

http://www.bandarrestaurant.com/menu.htm

Persian cuisine doesn't offer goat as far as I can remember but it does feature lamb, beef and chicken. My favorite persian dish is fesenjan, which is chicken stewed in pomegranate sauce. It's pretty exquisite. If you do go to such a restaurant, I'd recommend the stews and soups over the kababs, just because the taste is more extreme.

There are some 600,000 Iranian-Americans living in Los Angeles, so that's a good place to track such a restaurant down. If you like Indian or Greek food, you'd likely enjoy a Persian meal.

(Kinison told the sand joke about Ethiopians, and Ethiopian restaurants are great, too.)

If anyone's interested in looking at the original 12 cartoons, we've had 'em up since October.

http://www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/briefings/commentary/4166/

Since I actually live in Champaign-Urbana, home of the U of I, I'd like to point out that the description of angry protests and editors relieved from duty comes off as a bit overstated. I have in front of me an article from the News-Gazette (www.news-gazette.com; if you want to read it, go to the URL, click on "News" on the upper left header and choose 2-15 in the news archives).

First of all, the two editors in question have been suspended for two weeks, not fired. Here's part of the article:

On Monday, other editors complained that they were kept out of the decision-making process, in a lengthy and critical opinion piece.

The two managing editors both said they had serious issues with the way the cartoons were published.

"In my personal view, they should have never been published," said Shira Weissman, managing editor for presentation.

"The decision was made by a select few people in the newsroom. We're not going to issue any formal comments on the matter," she said.

Jason Koch, managing editor for reporting, said "my opinion was if we were going to do it, we needed to do it in a different manner" with more explanation of the context and intent.

The editor said the publication was presented to him as a fait accompli.

"The completed page was shown to me at 5 the night it was done, with the understanding it was not to be changed," Koch said.

In other words, the issue isn't so much whether the cartoons were run but how it was handled.

There's also a picture of a student protest that isn't on the online version. No one looks terribly angry, and no one's carrying signs calling for a fatwa on the editors or anything like that. (I don't know about the rally preceding the picture, but I didn't hear about anyone carrying flaming torches and pitchforks or the like; it might well have been "angry" for all I know but it doesn't seem to have been violent.)

Anyway, just thought people would appreciate having more detailed information to base their opinions on.

Not directly (well, not at all) related to this thread, but here is something interesting:

http://clancmsf.tripod.com/KlingonsForChrist.html

Can you imagine an empire full of fundamentalist christian klingons!? Hmmm, could Pat Robertson actually be one of the human/klingon augments? (mental augmentation definately didn't take, though ^_^).

Not surprisingly, there's been another call for murder of the cartoonists, this time from a Pakistani cleric.

Between the Googles and Microsofts bowing down to the Chinese government, and the rest of the world trying to appease the worst of Islam...

Are there any other planets out there worth living on?

"Not to get into THIS debate again, but when was the last time there was a Buddhist Inquisition, a Wiccan Crusade, or a slew of Jewish-backed witch trials? "The Cat" my ass..."

See, I hate this. You use 2 examples of pre reformation catholic church, and the actions of a group of so-called Christians who were soooo extreme, they were imprisoned in England for being religious extremists, and had to come to the new world to practice their viewpoint of religious extremism.... as critiques of Chrisitianity? You might as well say "Carl Marx was white so all white people are communists"...

This is the same type of ignorance of the Christian religion (and the Catholic religion) and it's history I see every day.

My sis-in-law is half Mexican half Iranian and has extended family in both countries. She and my bro (a whitey) visited Tehran about two years ago, and they both said that Iranians (though perhaps it's just the citified Tehranians) love the west and the United States. When I see stuff on the news, I figure that it's just a bunch of Muslim Pat Robertsons. If only there was an Iranian ATF organization...

Another poster above mentioned that we Westerners should be tolerant of other religions and beliefs. That's fine, but that's not good enough for these die-hard extremist types. They want us to thoroughly accept and passionately embrace their beliefs as our own. Anything less is considered a spit in the face.

And honestly, if many of today's religious leaders were asked the question 'Would you be happy if everyone in the world converted to your religion?' deep down they would be thinking 'yes', no matter what they say. In this way, religion is a game of Monopoly that no one religion will ever win. No one religion will ever be the primary religion to 100% of the world. Yet this is what these extremists in particular are striving for: There is a difference between quietly hoping that all the world shared your religion, and violently trying to make it happen, or at least eradicate those who do not see it your way.

Tolerance only works if EVERYONE involved is tolerant.

The extremist Muslims seem to be the short kid on the playground. You know, the short kid that deliberately does things to tick the bigger kids off, so that the bigger kids will throw the first punch and the short kid can say "See? See? Everyone's out to get me!" while thinking up the next plan to cause trouble.

Yeah, and one of the most extreme of the regimes wants to become a nuclaer power. And the plan seems to be (once again) let the Iraelis do the dirty work and earn stern rebukes from countries that are secretly thrilled that someone else took the heat.

At least THAT kind of heat doesn't kill a few million people.

In fact, The papers that refuse to run teh "cartoons" have given in to terror, and therefore can be considered to be AIDING AND ABETTING the terrorists....

No, freedom of the press means they have the right to NOT run the cartoons. Yes, it's cowardly. They have the right to be cowards.

As far as these street terrorists with their protests and arson and destruction of property, stop molly-coddling these bastards and start firing into the crowd!

Fire on protestors? Hello? Are you serious?

First of all, the two editors in question have been suspended for two weeks, not fired. Here's part of the article:

Suspended from the paper? Or suspended from school?

Is there any doubt in your mind that if the cartoons had mocked the Pope there would have been no suspension?

The lesson this has taught extremists of all kinds is this--if you want to be taken seriously, they must fear you. If you want to be feared, you need to spill a little blood. Better yet, a lot.

So...what do we do about this?

BTW, there's a great little editorial animated cartoon at http://www.novatv.nl/index.cfm?ln=nl&fuseaction=artikelen.details&achtergrond_id=8350&CFID=2735238&CFTOKEN=57221010

Pretty much sums it up.

Here's an interesting response from an Israeli comic publisher to the Iranian anti-semitic cartoon contest.

In brief: You think you can create the best anti-Semitic cartoons?...we'll show you...Jews themselves can create the best. So we're running our own contest.

By the way...

Editorial cartoons offend..by definition.

If there is an editorial cartoon out there that everybody in the world can read, and smile, the cartoonist should be shot (or at least peppered in the face.)

Note: Family Circle is not an Editorial Cartoon.

By definition an editorial cartoon critiques some aspect of society. If it is wrong to offend people, then editorial cartoons should be eliminated completely, as should editorial commentary, it should be made illegal to criticize politicians, and we all should be required by law to act as Thumper was told to act.

Circus. Family Circus.

I was talking about these cartoons with some of my friends, and we noted that in some cases the governments of the countries wherein protests occured encouraged the protesters. These countries' leaders were using the cartoons to distract their constituents from real problems, like schools and food.

Which, when you think about it, is an extreme example of something we don't see all that infrequently here in the U.S.

-Andy Holman

The editor of "The Daily Illini" was fired/suspended for publishing those Danish cartoons? Hmmmm.

There's a bit of irony there considering how hard the University of Illinois is fighting to keep its Chief Illiniwek athletic mascot -- you know, the guy who dressed up for every football game in feather headdress, warpaint, tomahawk, etc.

Seems to me there's a double standard of religious sensitivities here, considering how the headdress has religious symbolism to Native Americans.

I mean, if your policy is to allow freedom of expression that ignores religious sensitivities for one religion but not another, your policy is inherently flawed.

Here in Canada, Muslims are protesting peacefully. Protesting the conflict, really. Makes me happy to live here in spite of the new government.

""I mean, if your policy is to allow freedom of expression that ignores religious sensitivities for one religion but not another, your policy is inherently flawed.""

Is that policy filed under picking and choosing your battles or just blatant cowardice?

So...what do we do about this?

If the kinds of protests that are occurring elsewhere were occurring here, with people holding signs calling for murder and whatnot, I'd say deport them from the country. (And they can toss in Pat Robertson for good measure.)

We have enough bs going on in this country to have to put up with blatant calls for death & destruction, regardless of what quarter it's coming from.

"As far as these street terrorists with their protests and [/B] arson and destruction of property [/b] , stop molly-coddling these bastards and start firing into the crowd!

Fire on protestors? Hello? Are you serious?"

Learn to read Bill, if they are engaging in vandalism, arson, and commiting acts of violence, they cease being protesters and become terrorists.

"Yeah, you quickly lost that whole "radical" adjective and went straight to sweeping generalisations there Peter."

I didn't "lose" it. Having offered it up front and made it clear that I don't think extremist Muslims represent the rank and file any more than Chassidic Jews represent me or Jerry Falwell represents middle-of-the-road Christians, I didn't feel the need to keep reiterating it. I figured people would be smart enough to keep it in their head and just take it for granted that I didn't change my hand halfway through the posting. Pity that's not always the case.

"Seems to me there's a double standard of religious sensitivities here, considering how the headdress has religious symbolism to Native Americans.

I mean, if your policy is to allow freedom of expression that ignores religious sensitivities for one religion but not another, your policy is inherently flawed."

Good point. Perhaps Native Americans should go on the literal warpath against the college, if the only thing that gets response is fear of violence.

PAD

Perhaps Native Americans should go on the literal warpath against the college

Nah, some of them tried that ~150 years ago, and our military "put them down".

I don't think anyone has been speaking in generalizations here...I think we are all intelligent enough to realize that there are good people and not so good people no matter what race or religion they happen to be.

I am currently involoved with a woman who is of arabic origin and while she didn't find the cartoons particulaurly funny...she doesn't believe anyone should be executed for them either.

I am sure there are muslims on both sides of "the fence".

And anyway...HEY...wait a minute...did someone on here post a while back that Captain America is GAY...?

Cap is GAY...? PAD...tell me it isn't so...

Not that there is anything wrong with that...

Ooppss...I mean involved...I dodn't know what involoved is...sheesh...

Okay, now (thanks to Tom)I've seen all the cartoons.

In the words of that great philosopher, Bugs Bunny, "What's all the hubbub, bub?"

The one about the virgins was amusing. The others were pretty pointless, unless they were meant to illustrate some article or op-ed piece to which we were not privy. (Well, the one with the blackboard also had an interesting point to make - about the cartoons themselves, and about the publisher, not about Mohammed or Islam.)

So why should anyone publish them? Just because they're inflammatory? To seize on a comparison made earlier, were you insisting back in the day that your newspaper should run pictures of Piss Christ, rather than mere descriptions of the piece? Were the editors cowards for not running those pics - or was the story really about reactions to a crucifix immersed in a beaker of urine, rather than about the piece itself?

Had the real story been about the cartoons, they would have been published, and written about, when they first came out. The story now is about how radical Islam is reacting to the existence of the cartoons, not the cartoons themselves. Running them in a major newspaper would smack of tabloid-style sensationalism, at the very least.

Bladestar, the protestors who are committing arson are doing so in the same Muslim countries that are encouraging this. Not only are they not going to do anything of the sort, they WANT them to burn as many embassies and McDonalds as possible.

The ones in England have had loathsome sentiments displayed but I don't think it's wise to shoot people over words.

My sister is Iranian (long story) and it's true that many, if not most Iranians are pretty disgusted with the ruling old men who are intent on making Iran one of the great civilizations of the 17th century. Sadly, I don't think they have the ability to overthrow them at this time.

Jonathon, I disagree. The fact that people can't see the photos has allowed the radicals to make them sound truly twisted and blasphemous. News is supposed to inform and I can't for the life of me see how one can be informed about this controvsersy without at least seeing the photos.

And it grates that the papers claim they are doing this out of respect. No they aren't. It's fear, pure and simple.

We need a Cowboy Pete roundup of SMALLVILLE to cleanse our palettes from all the negativity in the world.

Pretty please with cherries on top.

:)

Bill wrote: "And it grates that the papers claim they are doing this out of respect. No they aren't. It's fear, pure and simple."

And that's a fact, Jack! It is fear of economic and physical retribution, pure and simple.

There are a lot of old-fashioned journalists out there whose teeth are gnashing because the folks in editorial are running away from this fight.

To take a page from our good and rationale friends, the Drazi, the fault in all this can be summed up in one word:

Green.

What the hell is it with extremists anyway that they use historical figures who preached the ways of peace to justify the ways of war?

"Extremists" or "Muslim extremists"? I think one could easily make the same arguement for Christians.

The point Bill, was that we (or the military/police of the country it happens in at the the time) should open fire into the destructive terrorists.

Be alot harder for the hardcore maniacs to hide in these crowds if the crowds that harbor them are getting mowed down when caught in the act.

If I'd intended to say "Muslim extremists" in the last sentence, I would have done so. The sentence was intended to cover extremists of all stripes.

PAD

What the hell is it with extremists anyway that they use historical figures who preached the ways of peace to justify the ways of war?

"Extremists" or "Muslim extremists"? I think one could easily make the same arguement for Christians.

Well, yaeh. That's why he said "extremists" (although the case ww are discussing here is a problem of Muslim extremists). Hell, radical Budbhists in Sri Lnaka have been huting people. Buddhists! That's like being beaten by Quakers.

We need a Cowboy Pete roundup of SMALLVILLE to cleanse our palettes from all the negativity in the world.

I need som F'n Spider-Man to take my mind off the world's negativity. According to Diamond, it's not expected next week. Which means I'll have to wait until March. (Though Diamond's 'expected' list is always shorter than it's actual list)

The others were pretty pointless, unless they were meant to illustrate some article or op-ed piece to which we were not privy. (Well, the one with the blackboard also had an interesting point to make - about the cartoons themselves, and about the publisher, not about Mohammed or Islam.)
Depends what the point was. In the case of the Danish paper, they were trying to piss off Muslim extremists - and have publically said so.

This, from the same editor who, several years back, refused to print offensive cartoons of Jesus, because they didn't want a backlash created among their readers. (Moral of the story: it's fine to piss people off if it's going to play into your stereotypes.)

Just because you can publish something doesn't mean you should publish it. And when your goal is to piss people off, you really shouldn't be surprised when you piss people off.
-K

"Extremists" or "Muslim extremists"? I think one could easily make the same arguement for Christians.

======

I think that is why Peter used "Extremists" vs "Muslim Extremists."

Marvel's website says I will get my F'n fix on 3/1...and again on 3/15. While February will have been a dark, cold month, March will be filled with F'n light and sunshine.

Maybe the light and sunshine will bring peace to the Middle East.

Hi, Jonathan (the other one):

FYI, The two of the original 12 that upset Muslims the most were the one with Muhammed wearing a bomb on his head and the one with the crack about the virgins.

There were also three other cartoons that were disseminated by Danish imams and other interested parties as if they were part of the original 12, but weren't and were likely fakes. One definitely was. They were much more inflammatory.

There's a real question about how much any of the resulting violence has to do with cartoons and how much has to do with general pressure being released, or even people agitating for some political advantage.

Even in terms groups of muslims that are upset about the cartoons, an important thing to remember is that many weren't protesting the cartoons themselves but what they perceived as an obnoxious stunt designed to rile and offend a minority group they feel is already subjected to a lot of derision and abuse. Kind of like a great number of people would logically flip out if FoxNews were to run five-minute filmed anti-gay people editorials every hour for a couple of days as a "blow against political correctness" or something stupid like that. The paper did the original cartoons to make a free speech point, which they saw as striking a blow against a climate of fear. Other people see it as picking a fight.

My own view is that the stunt was asinine but as soon it became news every paper in the world should be publishing them in the interest of reporting the news accurately. As of a couple of days ago, fewer than 20 papers in North America had run any of the cartoons. I'm horribly disappointed, and I'm glad Peter feels the same way I do about this particular interest at the U of I.

The pessimist in me is banking on WWIII in the Middle East within ten years...three, if I'm being realistic. Between the Iranian nuclear program, Hamas in Palestine, the lack of civil rights in Saudi Arabia, the terrorism camps in Syria (or whatever messes occur there...details escape me), and those Bastions of Democracy, Iraq & Afghanistan, I am glad I'm too old to be drafted.

It would be a short war. Iran drops an atom bomb on Israel, counting on Allah to keep the heathen Jews from being able to respond. Allah fails to come though.

Maybe that the route we should be taking. Appeal to their belief that Islam really is the one true way. What does it therefore mean when it is obvious that the accursed unbelievers are doing so much better than the followers of the Prophet? Why has Allah abandoned his children?

Maybe--just maybe-Allah is sending a message. It's really NOT alright to blow up busses full of schoolkids in his name! You DON'T have to kill women when they get raped! In fact, they can even be allowed to vote and drive and stuff! Allah can't believe the garbage being done with His supposed approval so he is trying to make clear his displeasure in a way that even the dimmest could see--the rest of the world is moving forward and the Muslims World, blessed with mineral wealth beyond the dreams of Croesus, falls ever behind.

I mean, what more can he do? Let a bunch of Jews take over a small strip of desert and turn it into the only decent country in the area? Oh, wait...

Time to tell the rabble--Allah has a plan and you're not in it.

Infidel! Die, in the name of the All-Merciful All-Holy dollar!

I'm jewish. I work with Israelis. My money's on us. We're outnumbered, but we are TIRED of being history's whipping post.

Oh, in point of fact, I think they'd want to minimize irradiating any oil fields. Nukes do tend to do that to the surrounding environs.

* Looks around *

* Steps away from Bill after his last post *

* Counts to 10 *

* Stands back by Bill again *

* Reset Terror Alert: Green (and funny) *

:)

More context on the Daily Illini (my previous post was thrown together before leaving for work):

Here's their website: www.dailyillini.com. The editorial page in question doesn't seem to be up there (the date was 2/9/06) but you can read the responses in the archives.

Here are some relevant News-Gazette articles:

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2006/02/15/two_daily_illini_editors_suspendedfrom/

The article I mentioned earlier, giving the editorial context.

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2006/02/10/paper_defends_decision_to_run_cartoons/

Describing the response the paper received. Note comments such as "A few Muslim students called to protest the publication of the cartoons, but were not threatening, he said."

For context:

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2004/12/11/official_to_relay_concern_over_di/

An article about concerns about anti-Semitism at the DI, including a cartoon about "big-nosed Jewish bankers" (for which the person responsible was suspended for a month, twice as long as the editors in the current case, BTW). A particularly noteworthy sentence:

"[Interim Chancellor] Herman said he had no interest in censoring the paper but was concerned that the students be aware of sensitivities and develop an institutional memory so that if a mistake is made, it is not repeated." (emphasis mine)

In other words, if you read the full story, this isn't as simple as a case of courageous journalists bringing forth important information (if they just wanted people to have a chance to see them, why not just publish a URL?) and being censored due to protests. There's been no mention of threats or violence; it's certainly not true in this case that "the only thing that gets response is fear of violence." It also seems to be a case of editors taking it upon themselves to publish sensitive material without duly consulting with everyone involved, in a context of a history of questionable decisions in this regard.

Again, I supply this information in the hopes that people can make up their own minds based on more details, rather than a quick summary.

I just want to say that I find Delilah and Family Circus grossly offensive on the grounds that they both suck.

Oh, and it's true that if we could get the insane theocratic government out of the way, would could make the Iranian people out best friends in the region.

Right now, their government is just getting even more reckless. Maybe they'll completely implode in a few years.

We can hope.

And the sad thing is, Arabs are, one on one, some of the greatest people you will ever meet, with a generosity of spirit that shames me. They will take a stranger into their home and lavish waht little they have on them. I've hardly ever met one I didn't like. I wish I could say the same for the Israelis I've known but it's been far more of a mixed bag.

That being said, there is absolutely no doubt which side I would be on. Arabs and persians are great people but they have some pretty sorry leaders and something seems to happen when they get in crowds.

Even then, though, there is that hospitality. IfBladestar's fears prove correct and someone who looks like he stepped out of a Jonny Quest cartoon comes at me with one of those big F'd up curly knife blades, I expect to hear "Now I must kill you, my friend!"

كنت أمازح

Thank you Thank you Thank you!

I had been going mad reading all of these free speech warriors who remained silent or turtled.

See Brian Wood...Neil Gaiman...Cory Doctorow...Warren Ellis(City of Silence indeed)

Bill -
That's like being beaten by Quakers.

Well, you knew there had to be a good reason for them to make the Pentagon's terrorist organization watch list.

Kelly -
This, from the same editor who, several years back, refused to print offensive cartoons of Jesus

I thought I'd read that that was, in fact, a different editor, and he no longer works for the paper.

Tom Spurgeon -
Other people see it as picking a fight.

The problem being that these extremists see *everything* as picking a fight. Just the fact that I'm living and breathing pisses some of these people off, so, I don't see why anybody should bend over to accomodate these morons. :)

Extremists are always the same. If you don't share their beliefs you're an infidel that will burn because of your sins. Doesn't matter if it's a christian or muslim extremists. On this particular case, people should put in their heads that there isn't a singlr true religion. All religions are about the same God, the only thing that changes it's His name.

What I always amazed is that we allow extremists to rant all they want, burn flags and other things and we just respect their anger against the world. Ok, it's their right to complain. Why can't we complain about their way of seeing things? "We need to respect their beliefs" is the "right" answer I'm sorry to say, but, that's just dodging the problem.

But, let's be honest: They should stop complaining about how the world is unfair to them and start to consider that maybe, just maybe, it's them that need to change? The world might be guilty on some of their problems, but they aren't the only guilty part in this. They have to acknowledge their guilt too.

Well, that's my opinion. Maybe makes no sense, but, after so many intelligent and articulated opinions, I thought shouldn't hurt if I let mine.

Maurício

Oh, by the way, I'm sorry about any grammar mistake. English is my second language and I fear I'm pretty rusty.

The problem being that these extremists see *everything* as picking a fight.

Yeah, wasn't there a story a few months ago about some guy who complained that the chocolate swirl on his Burger king ice cream cone looked like the name for Allah?

That's the difference between Muslims and Christians. If I found the image of Mary on one of my Mcnuggets I wouldn't be angry at McDonald s.

The difference between Christian and Muslim extremists is that the Muslim extremists want you to burn now while the Christian extremists are happy to smile smugly with the belief that you will burn later.

That's the difference between Muslims and Christians. If I found the image of Mary on one of my Mcnuggets I wouldn't be angry at McDonald s.

In fact, you could probably sell it on Ebay like that cheese sandwich was last year.

It pulled in about $28,000.

You use 2 examples of pre reformation catholic church, and the actions of a group of so-called Christians who were soooo extreme, they were imprisoned in England for being religious extremists, and had to come to the new world to practice their viewpoint of religious extremism.... as critiques of Chrisitianity? You might as well say "Carl Marx was white so all white people are communists"...

Not a particularly good analogy there. Marx, to my knowledge, never used his ethnicity as a justification for a communist ethos. The three groups that were mentioned were explicitly carrying out their actions in the name of their faith. You can (and most would) argue that it's a significant perversion of said faith, but that's the justification that was used.

So if you want to complain that the examples used are way out of date, that's cool. Complaining that Christianity was irrelevant to them, however, is hurting your argument a bunch.

The difference between Christian and Muslim extremists is that the Muslim extremists want you to burn now while the Christian extremists are happy to smile smugly with the belief that you will burn later.

Oh, that's absolutely beautiful. I like it much. Mind if I use it elsewhere, Den?

TWL

Yeah sure, just give me proper credit. :)

Peter, once again you’ve hit the nail right on the head.

Me, I wonder how many people who otherwise wouldn’t have cared about this have sought out images of the cartoons and/or back issues of the newspapers in question precisely because of the controversy. Me, I have to admit that I wanted to see them in order to see what the fuss was about. (Though not being able to read Danish limits my ability to form an informed opinion.)

John: Yeah, you quickly lost that whole "radical" adjective and went straight to sweeping generalisations there Peter
Luigi Novi: Not necessarily. Establishing that qualifier upfront made it unnecessary to repeat it every time he used the word “Muslim” thereafter. People who come her and have read Peter’s stuff long enough understand what his intent was. Are you new here?

Baerbel Haddrell: Here in Britain Muslims were protesting as well, showing posters saying "Massacre those who insult Islam" and other ones that are no better. There was a big discussion going on if the police should have arrested them straight away because here in Britain, inciting violence is an arrestable offense.
Luigi Novi: There are similar laws here in the U.S. I believe (Lawyer visitors like David Bjorlin can correct me if I’m wrong) criminal solicitation is one.

Peter Sutton: 1 is it right to try and seek to offend someone knowing that what you are doing will do so?
Luigi Novi: Yes.

Peter Sutton: 2 if you have been offended do you have the right to seek punishment from the offender or make them stop what they are doing
Luigi Novi: No.

Peter Sutton: has for the second question if someone offends you are entitled to seek that stopped well it certainly appears to be the case how many stories can we all re-count of offensive shows been pulled.
Luigi Novi: Just because broadcast networks or studios kowtow to public pressure does not mean that you have an “entitlement” to censor something that offends you. To argue this is to engage in non sequitur. What you’re entitled to do is to ignore them. If I’m offended by Howard Stern, Sean Hannity, or Adam Sandler movies, am I justified in trying to get them to stop saying what they feel like saying? No, I’m not.

Peter Sutton: also not so long ago i remember a certain homo-erotic/christian artwork having to be removed from a new york gallary due to offence caused
Luigi Novi: If you’re referring to the 1999 “Sensations” exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum of Art, (Chris Ofili’s contributions to it contained Christian imagery, but I don’t know if it contained “homoerotic” imagery), it was not removed. What happened was that then-mayor Rudy Giuliani threatened to pull funding for that museum. After the city did so, a judge ordered the funding restored.

If, however, you were referring to the 1990 exhibition of Robert Maplethorpe’s “The Perfect Moment” show at the Cincinnati Contemporary Arts Center, that institution was prosecuted, but unsuccessfully.

Peter Sutton: it seems to me in the west people are more sophisticated in their censorship it's not a case of offend us and we'll blow you up it's more a case of offend us and we'll shut you down marvels fear of depicting a homo-sexual relationship with an ADULT label is another recent cowering to the argument
Luigi Novi: Maybe, but what Marvel does with its own material is its business. It did not try and stop someone else from publishing such material.

Peter Sutton: and a final question how many people who think these cartoons should be published also support the gay jesus art/plays or the gay captain America
Luigi Novi: I support both.

StarWorf: They do have a problem there. Libel laws vary from country to country, so lawsuits are iffy.
Luigi Novi: Peter Sutton didn’t say “libel.” He said “offense.” Offending someone does not constitute “libel.”

Bladestar: Proves the English are pretty stupid...
Luigi Novi: Ah, there’s that intelligent insight I’ve come to expect from you, Bladestar. Judging an entire country and its people from the actions of some in its government. I wonder if “John” saw this, given his irritation at “generalizations,” since he didn’t say anything in the posts he made that followed it. :-)

Bladestar: The point Bill, was that we (or the military/police of the country it happens in at the the time) should open fire into the destructive terrorists. Be alot harder for the hardcore maniacs to hide in these crowds if the crowds that harbor them are getting mowed down when caught in the act.
Luigi Novi: Brilliant suggestion, Bladestar. Terrorists generally do not walk down the street in crowds that are labeled “terrorists.” So how precisely can one open fire into a crowd and know that they’ll only hit the terrorists, and not the bystanders?

Mauricio: Oh, by the way, I'm sorry about any grammar mistake. English is my second language and I fear I'm pretty rusty.
Luigi Novi: For what it’s worth, Mauricio, English is my first language, you have far fewer mistakes in your post than I’ve had in some of mine! (I never would’ve guessed otherwise that English was your second language.) :-)

Den: The difference between Christian and Muslim extremists is that the Muslim extremists want you to burn now while the Christian extremists are happy to smile smugly with the belief that you will burn later.
Luigi Novi: Well, not really, since there are some Christian extremists who will gladly burn you now as well.

At the risk of offending (see later comment) just about everyone, I dispair of humanity ever overcoming superstition and of individuals ever being able to think for themselves and reject the herd mentality.

First of all, I think that the notion of "blasphemy" is just about the craziest concept human beings have ever dreamt up. Think about it for a moment: Does anyone out there seriously believe that an omnipotent transcendental being who created/monitors/governs the universe/multiverse/omniverse is so bored that he/she/it is interested in what microbes would consider to be microbes are saying/thinking about he/she/it?

Secondly, this notion of "being offended". IMHO, it is impossible to offend someone if they do not chose to be offended. How can one be offended merely because someone else sees the world differently? It's just an opinion, for crying out loud, often ephemeral and usually not based on facts. More specifically, how is it possible to offend someone who purports to be a Christian - you know, that whole foregiveness and turn the other cheek thing which, IIRC, can be found somewhere in the New Testament? It seems to me that the same strictures apply in Islam, Bahai'ism and Buddhism. I don't know enough about Judaism, Hinduism or other faiths to know if that applies but if they don't, it seems to be that they should.

SERIOSITY ALERT: The above are merely opinions and the standards I apply to other people's opinions also apply to my own. Of course, since I hold them, I believe them to be correct, subject to new data becoming available.

My message to the world: LIGHTEN THE @#$%$#&^%$ UP.

P.S. PAD: Thanks for this forum and your fine and always entertaining work.

[b]It's called "SOP." [/b]

Sorry but what does 'SOP' stand for??

Sorry but what does 'SOP' stand for??

Standard Operating Procedure.

Hello. Just passing by because I'm into Marvel comics, but I'm from Denmark... So here's the story behind the cartoons:
A writer called Kaare Bluitgen (he's in a few of the cartoons wnats to make an illustrated kid's book about Mohammed, in order to increase understanding of islam -just as there are tons of like material about christianity, buddhism etc. A few illustrators turn him down out of fear of possible violent reactions from certain groups of muslims. KB complains in his newspaper of choice: Jyllands-Posten which then invites some 50 artists to make satirical drawings on the subject (not necessarily of Mohammed), offering good money. 12 of them accept.
Now JP is definitely a right-wing newspaper, supportive of our current right-wing goverment and also to some degree the xenophobic, extremist ("christian") Danish People's Party (which doesn't represent me, than you very much!) that keeps the current goverment in power. BUT: Satire is a very old tradition in Denmark, constitutionally protected since the middle of the 19th century. And I can assure you that it's far from the first time a danish artist has made a joke about Mohammed. Nothing/nobody prominent escapes that over here. Period. You should note that KB gets "victimized" by the artists in a few of the drawings also, since the story was percieved by some as a mere publicity stunt. That was before the reaction though.

A few days ago iranian bakers decided that they could no longer sell "danish pastry" in good conscience even though they are very popular. So they are henceforth to be known as "Roses of Mohammed" in Iran. We do not particularly feel the loss, since we call them "Wienerbrød" ("Bread from Vienna") anyway, but there are already quite a few cartoons about them - one of them proudly displaying a bearded fellow with a turban smacking his forehead, gritting his teeth.
Oh... I seem to remember a bunch of jokes from about five years ago courtesy of a US senator (from Ohio if memory serves)... it's "Pommes Frites" in french, by the way.

Personally I don't care one wit about religion and I'm very scared that no earthly power exist to protect common sense, logic and and the individual moral compass. I must protest against all the religious nonsense from people who have consciously discarded with all three of the above, wrecking havoc in the world I just try to live in. As Carlin commandeth: "Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself!"

And then Rahne is one of my favourite X-characters. Duh.

Thanks!!

Great article Mr David.

This reminds me of what one of their priests (is it called 'Imam' in English too? If not, the word is Dutch, just so you know ^_^)
said about gays;

It's a disease, and all gays should be dropped from the 30th floor of a building, head pointing down.
Freedom of speach he said to the judge.
And he got no nothing. Yes, amazing.

If I would have said that about Muslims, I'd be in trouble for discrimination...

Jerry Falwell represents middle-of-the-road Christians

Until they stand up and speak out against him and Robertson, they certainly do. "That's just Pat being Pat" doesn't count.

Well for that matter when was the last CHRISTIAN Inquisition, Crusade, etc? ...(don't hold grudges)-Unusual in an Irishman

SEE: Ireland, Northern, re: Catholics vs Protestants.

SEE: KKK, re: Cross burnings.

SEE: Inteligent Design re: imposing it on school children.

We're sure not going to start burning down Iranian restaurants or embassies over it.

We're not? Anyone know if you can return unused gas cans and matches?

We're outnumbered, but we are TIRED of being history's whipping post.

Darn tootin!

if not most Iranians are pretty disgusted with the ruling old men who are intent on making Iran one of the great civilizations of the 17th century.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

You use 2 examples of pre reformation catholic church, and the actions of a group of so-called Christians

And there's the rub "so-called" Christians. Exactly who's the Christian? The Catholics? The Protestents? The Episcopalians? The Baptits? Quakers? Calvanisists? 7 Day Advent Leapests?

Are the "so-called Christians" the ones that don't believe the way you do? hmmm..who's that remind me of...

"Luigi Novi: Brilliant suggestion, Bladestar. Terrorists generally do not walk down the street in crowds that are labeled “terrorists.” So how precisely can one open fire into a crowd and know that they’ll only hit the terrorists, and not the bystanders?"

If the "innocent bystanders" make no move to stop the whack-jobs among them, then tough shit. Aiding and abetting and all that.

"What the hell is it with extremists anyway that they use historical figures who preached the ways of peace to justify the ways of war?"

In the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, there are two swords used by Muhammad. They were not ceremonial and they were not used in self-defense. "Preaching the ways of peace" might apply to many religious leaders, but not to Muhammad.

"As far as these street terrorists with their protests and [/B] arson and destruction of property [/b] , stop molly-coddling these bastards and start firing into the crowd

Fire on protestors? Hello? Are you serious?"

Learn to read Bill, if they are engaging in vandalism, arson, and commiting acts of violence, they cease being protesters and become terrorists.

Dude i strongly sugest that u learn to read from a book and not from watching bush give speeches on TV. people who commit acts of vandalism & arson are usually refeared to has criminals you know the guys the police chase and sometimes catch

has for firing into the crowd well nixon did in the 60's the British did it in the 70's & the Chinese did in the 80's and broadly speaking history has not looked on any of them has been a good move in fact the word that is usually used is massacre you know like the mutant masssacre of 1988

well that's what a criminal is now what is a terrorist well wolverine once said " terrorist is what the big army calls the little army" and yes that's true but what a terrorist is depends who's side your on he's either a brave hero or an evil murdering bastard sometimes both for remember for every bin larden their is always a nelson Mandela both labeled terrorists by the world community at one point or another but these days at least one of them is seen as an inspiration has for the other well let's put it this way i'm not on his side.

According to an article in last week's NYT Week in Review, the timeline on this shows that Egyptian officials stationed in other Arab countries began pushing this at the same time of the Egyptian ferry boat sinking and the repercussions were beginnging to be felt by the Mubarak government.

And the difference between 21st century Christianity and 21st century Islam?

The Enlightenment.

(Speaking as a Jewish woman who knows only the basics but is quite aware that there is an element in this country that seeks to take us back to pre-Enlightenment days.)

>It seems Germany is no better. My mother told me that in the school where I used to go school trips that involve over night stays in a youth hostel have been banned because Muslim parents don`t want their daughters to take place.

This is where an intelligent person, with a backbone, says simply "You do not wish to come along? Fine, we respect that and won't force you. But, the rest of us are going. Bye." End of problem.

>The lesson this has taught extremists of all kinds is this--if you want to be taken seriously, they must fear you. If you want to be feared, you need to spill a little blood. Better yet, a lot.
So...what do we do about this?

"Wipe them out. All of them." So, OK, that didn't work out all that well for Palpatine in the end. But I'm wondering how long before someone suggests it for real, only to discover the hard way their armed forces are full of the 'enemy'?

Might be better to shut the door and then send any in one's country to openly Islamic nations to have them in isolated from other nations, but I don't see that happening any time soon either.

We could always try forcing the kids to go to schools where they'd be de-programmed from the more violent aspects of ... but, no, that's a non-starter.

Hmmm ... we're bloody well screwed, aren't we?

>I wonder how many people who otherwise wouldn’t have cared about this have sought out images of the cartoons and/or back issues of the newspapers in question precisely because of the controversy.

Not to mention the controversy giving rise to more of the same. Local newspaper had the Prophet (with a camel behind him and prominent scimitar before him on the table) conferring with a couple of image consultants. Next to them is a whiteboard with "PR research: Islamism" listing "Terrorism; theocratic tyranny; subjugation of women; intolerance of criticism; persecution of moderate muslims; fear of Western culture and pictures of puglet." The consultants are explaining to their client that "Frankly, Mr Mohammed ... a few Danish cartoons are the LEAST of your image problems." Too right.

>A few days ago iranian bakers decided that they could no longer sell "danish pastry" in good conscience even though they are very popular.

I wish I were there, so that I could openly stop buying from them.

> So they are henceforth to be known as "Roses of Mohammed" in Iran.

See what Shrub & co gave birth to when they renamed French Fries? Where will it all end?

> if they are engaging in vandalism, arson, and commiting acts of violence, they cease being protesters and become terrorists.

No, they become criminals. Or are you calling soccer and hockey fans - who have been known to commit just such violence - terrorists?

> As for firing into the crowd well nixon did in the 60's the British did it in the 70's & the Chinese did in the 80's

There IS a difference. China sent TANKS in against peaceful protesters. That's not exactly a proportional response. In the well-documented U.S. college case, you had inexperienced militia/reserves (who didn't have the benefit of SWAT riot gear) facing people throwing rocks at them and if someone was trying to put a rock through my skull, which has been known to cause death and other inconveniences, I'd probably shoot, too.

The Rev Mr Black: IMHO, it is impossible to offend someone if they do not chose to be offended.
Luigi Novi: In cases like this, yes. Though I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it applies in all cases. Every one of us has at some point been offended by something said to us, without “choosing” to feel that emotion.

Bladestar: If the "innocent bystanders" make no move to stop the whack-jobs among them, then tough shit. Aiding and abetting and all that.
Luigi Novi: And how precisely is someone in a crowd supposed to know if there’s a terrorist in the crowd? Mind-reading?

The Rev Mr Black: IMHO, it is impossible to offend someone if they do not chose to be offended.
Luigi Novi: In cases like this, yes. Though I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it applies in all cases. Every one of us has at some point been offended by something said to us, without “choosing” to feel that emotion.

Thanks for your insight, Luigi. I think that my problem is that I am not certain that I believe that taking offense is an emotion. I see it more as a (pseudo) analytical-intellectual process. For example, in my life, I, like everyone else, learn/adopt certain belief systems which I find appropriate (and which I try to remember to challenge at regular intervals). If I take offense at someone else's system, I have to evaluate how it differs from mine and why this is a bad thing. I always thought of being offended as a highly artificial notion, intended to demonstrate ethical/moral superiority rather than a true emotion such as anger, fear, joy, etc. Again, just an opinion.

Here is an interesting thought that just struck me (and I have the bruise to prove it.) Islam was founded in the 7th century, right? IE, about 600 AD. So that means that they are about 600 years "behind" Christianity, historically speaking. Now, if you look at Christianity 600 years ago, us Christ worshiping infidels weren't all that peaceful, and we did have little pockets of love...like say..the Completely Unexpected Spanish Inquisition.

I am not trying in the least to exculpate terrorists. However, historically speaking, they are about on schedule. I mean, looking at the Big Three (by which I mean Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) they all went through a very long period of systemic bigotry (Leviticus anyone?) and even xenophobia. It's just that Islam was started latest, so its just getting through its growing pains. I don't know, maybe this entire idea is pure BS, but it makes sense to me.

I humbly submit it to the assembled Grandees of the Most High Blog of the Great PAD for their most august approval, or most severe finger wagging.

You're welcome, Reverend, and thank you.

I must disagree that offense is not an emotion but an analytical-intellectual process. While I'm not dismissing the idea that deliberation may play some part in cultural relationships like the one we're discussing on this board, obviously, there are times when someone says or does something to you that hurts your feelings, aren't there? I think intellectualizing one's emotions at such times can help alleviate the feeling (and even then, not always), which is the opposite of the idea that it causes it.

The arguments being put forward by the Muslims who called for Holocaust cartoons in respnse, or took to the streets in violence, are so specious, that they can only have been made in the lack of any intellectual or analytical process.

James Carter: Islam was founded in the 7th century, right? IE, about 600 AD. So that means that they are about 600 years "behind" Christianity, historically speaking........Historically speaking, they are about on schedule........It's just that Islam was started latest, so its just getting through its growing pains.
Luigi Novi: The problem that I see with this idea is that it assumes religion to be some type of closed system in which social advancements are completely internal, and isolated from those experienced by people of other relgions. This is more likely in eras when societies were globally isolated from one another, but in this global information and global poltics age, it's no longer the case. The various peoples who populate this planet, particularly those in the age of industry, satellite television, wide availability of books and the Internet, all all have access to the same information, and are thus have a far greater potential to grow on parallel tracks simultaneously.

Mind you, this doesn't mean that every development in one country will be mirrored by another. If it were, the Earth would be a much freer place, and so, for that matter, would the U.S. But at the same time, I don't think people who adhere to a certain religion are not necessarily restricted to a pre-ordained historical "schedule."

Jerry, you seem to have completely missed, yet illustrated my point at the same time by automatically getting into a snit on behalf of Christianity.

Since my point may not have been entirely clear, I'll be more blunt. They were examples intended to illustrate that anybody who claims that Christians are persecuted in the US of A has ZERO fucking sense of historical perspective.

-Rex Hondo-

Well for that matter when was the last CHRISTIAN Inquisition, Crusade, etc? ...(don't hold grudges)-Unusual in an Irishman

SEE: Ireland, Northern, re: Catholics vs Protestants.
Not the same thing at all. Two tribes fighting over turf. If it wasn't about religion it would be about doo-rag colors. SEE Crips vs Bloods, Sur13 vs Latin Kings, Godzilla vs Biollante

SEE: KKK, re: Cross burnings.
Had NOTHING to do with religion, really. Class and racial terrorism. The fact they hated Catholics as well as blacks tells you more about 19th century racial politics than anything else (Irish were not always considered white, for example)

SEE: Intelligent Design re: imposing it on school children.
Ehh, well, I'm as against creationism as the next (sane) man but I wouldn't put it in the same area code as the murders of the Inquisition, Crusades, etc. I mean, let's keep some perspective here.

See what Shrub & co gave birth to when they renamed French Fries? Where will it all end?

Actually, this has a long and goofy history. Hamburgers were renamed "liberty sandwiches," and sauerkraut as "liberty cabbage during WWI.

Regarding Islam--while James makes a very interesting point, I think that there is a very real and very unfortunate difference between Islam and Judeo-Christian thought. Islam looks at the time of the Prophet as the beginning of a golden age of Muslim civilization, one which was lost when the religion failed to convert the West. If they are backward it's because they are trying to get back to that golden age. Christians and Jews have no such fondness for the Good Old Days. Yes, the Jews wanted to get their land again but they certainly did not want to live the way Moses did and I don't know ANY Christians who long for the days of Roman subjugation. Both Jews and Christians look forward to the good times to come, not the great days gone by.

It also makes it very hard to reform Islam when it is considered dogma that the Koran is the undisputed direct word of Allah. Christians have no problem accepting that the Bible was written by men--it is the inspired word of God, not Gods word as transcribed by a secretary. The new testament has what, 4 different books written by 4 different guys, each talking about the same events, each telling a different story (which should not bother the faithful overly much since that is what really happens when 4 different people describe an event). But if a Muslim Luther came around now and started making sounds about updating Islam for modern times...well, it would probably go very badly for him.

Here's one thing that should be done about this. The Turks have been trying to enter the EU for some time. They should be told that this will not happen, not so long as their commitment to the rights of other member nations to allow their citizens to live and think freely is so easily ignored. Further efforts to contain Iran would also be good (I give credit to the French for being pretty good lately in their assessment of the Iranian situation). It's time for some push back. What are they gonna do? Cut off oil? They can't afford to.

Christians have no problem accepting that the Bible was written by men--it is the inspired word of God, not Gods word as transcribed by a secretary.

Well, most of us don't, but every group has a few who end up missing the logic train... :P

-Rex Hondo

Why is it that after perusing CNN.com, my local newspaper's website, and both conservative and liberal websites that the best commentary so far on this matter comes from my favorite comic book writer?

I am what you would call a concervative. If you keep writing like this, however, you are severely tempting me to start a campaign to elect YOU to office.

Excellent article, agree with completely everything you said (and you said it much better than I could).

When I was a child I thought that the world was run by grown-ups, in, you know, a grown-up type fashion. This like this - a furore over a dozen mildly amusing cartoons, threats, riots, damage - deaths too, yes? - just amaze me. How can the world run this way?

It's a pity that extremists/power-hungry idiots can't be made to put on a dunce hat and go sit in the corner.

At the risk of offending (see later comment) just about everyone, I dispair of humanity ever overcoming superstition and of individuals ever being able to think for themselves and reject the herd mentality.

I am offended by your misspelling of "despair"! BEHEAD THE INFIDEL!!

Now I've got another question - if images of the Prophet are forbidden, how do any of these "offended" Muslims know that these images look anything like him? For all we know, Mohammed wore his hair in a crew-cut, and affected trucker caps and Hawaiian shirts. Who knows? These cartoons look like "generic Arabic Islamic guy" - how do we know Mohammed wasn't a really, really lost Viking, horned helmet and all??

How can one ban an image when one has no clue what that image in fact is?

The layers of craziness in this bizarre controversy get deeper and crazier the longer I look at it.

One of the Danish Imams who brought the Jyllen-Posten cartoons to the attention of Middle-Eastern Muslim governments claimed that what was objectionable was the conflation in the public imagination of Mohammed, and by extension, Islam, with Terrorism and Criminality.

Now, I have to think that that's not so much the cartoons' fault, but the terrorism and criminality carried out by an explicitly Muslim worldwide movement.

I also can't help but think that, if you're outraged that the world thinks of Islam and terrorism and criminality going hand-in-hand, there are better, more effective ways to express that outrage -- more convincing ways -- than to burn embassies or call for the deaths of cartoonists or indeed nations.

If you're outraged that a satirical cartoon is painting an entire culture with one brush, you seem to be on shaky moral ground calling for a boycott of anything and everything from the same nation the cartoons were first published in.

I think that the real problem Islam has with its image in the Western world, that leads non-Muslims to imagine Mohammed with his turban containing a Bomb, is that those Muslims who do not believe in violence as an answer cannot get past the notion that "Islam means Peace," and start to accept that this is as much -- or more -- Islam's problam as anyone else's. It's not just some wacky coincidence that the suicide bombers who've murdered thousands are Muslims. For better or worse, Islam is why these people kill, and it's Muslims as a whole who have the best chance of, and the biggest stake in, exposing and stopping them.

Because the journey that led, say, four young British Muslims to murder scores of their countrymen began in a Mosque, or a Madrassa. Al Qaeda did not just recruit random dark-skinned kids from in front of the Safeway.

And I think it's only when Islam wrestles with that that the rest of the world will really begin to see what Tony Blair called "the true, moderate face of islam" as the real thing.

Of course, as Dennis Miller says, I could be wrong.

--

Jonathan Andrew Sheen
Pepperell, Massachusetts

Anyone who thought it was just about cartoons...well, here we go:

From Ann Althouse
Chief Mufti Talgat Tadzhuddin approves of the decision by the city government of Moscow to reject what would have been the first gay rights parade in Russia.

"If they come out on to the streets anyway they should be flogged. Any normal person would do that - Muslims and Orthodox Christians alike ... [The protests] might be even more intense than protests abroad against those controversial cartoons."

Ah, so the cartoon violence is to work as general threat to suppress all sorts of behavior. Religious fanatics with no power to force others to adopt their religion use violence and threats of violence to force others to behave as if they were followers of that religion.

The mayor, Sergei Tsoi, defended the city's decision on the ground that the idea of a gay rights parade has "caused outrage in society." So the power of government is harnessed by the mere expression of outrage and a reminder of how badly your co-religionists behaved over those cartoons.

Will the appeasers finally wake up when they move from editorial cartoonists to gays? Or is an estimated 3-10% of the population still small enough to be an acceptable sacrifice?

I couldn't help but start thinking about the Spanish Inquisition, and wondering if most world religions go through this kind of intense, fanatical and violent period during their early teen-centuries? What I see is church sanctioned violence akin to the inquisition on a level that the Catholic Church couldn't image in the 15th Century.

This being said, history has a tendency to paraphrase itself, and any lesson a religion or religious body may learn doesn't get passed on to other religious bodies. Luigi, I feel it is unfair to dismiss the similarities in the evilution of one organization and how it compares to that of another.

Yeah, but nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition. Who didn't see THIS one coming?

"Yeah, but nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition. Who didn't see THIS one coming?"

Yes, but no one expects you to expect someone not expecting the Spanish Imquisition.

1At the risk of offending (see later comment) just about everyone, I dispair of humanity ever overcoming superstition and of individuals ever being able to think for themselves and reject the herd mentality.

I am offended by your misspelling of "despair"! BEHEAD THE INFIDEL!!

Hoisted on my own petard!!!! I am a translator and interpreter and have an unpleasant elitest proclivity towards correcting what passes for coherent writing in others. Could we plea bargain the beheading down to a mere flogging or perhaps sex with 72 virgins (see, I'm not sure my heart could take it at my advanced age and if I gotta go.....?

By the way, I always wondered about that reward for Muslim martyrs. Is the virginity of these 72 celestial bedmates automatically renewed as they service the martyr for eternity of does he get 72 new ones at regular intervals? What about female martyrs? DO they get 72 studs for eternity? Do those who merrily blow themselves up contemplate the illogic of this or is thinking not an option?

QUESTION EVERYTHING - THAT'S MY MOTTO

What if it's 72 sturgeons? Boy would THAT suck.

Yeah; 90% of the experience would be crap.

That is, after all, Sturgeon's Law...

TWL

1Yeah, but think of all the free eggs!!!

And I note a Mulligan/Lynch team-up. The heavens shake,the Internet cracks and the gods themselves quake and quail (No, Dick,put down the damn gun!!!) Oops, that's another thread. (And the nominee for the most egregiously strained non sequitur is ...

Tim and I are doing the new Hawk & Dove live action TV show. We just filmed the scene where I'm getting the holy crap beaten out of me by a gang of thugs and I'm yelling out "For the love of God, Dove, fight!" and he says, all weepy "I...I...CAN'T!"

And then I get the crap beaten out of me some more. I'm not really liking this gig.

What if it's 72 sturgeons? Boy would THAT suck.

And just once, I'd like to see a thread that doesn't eventually bring itself around to Roe.

TWL
thankyew, trytheveal

>>See what Shrub & co gave birth to when they renamed French Fries? Where will it all end?
>Actually, this has a long and goofy history. Hamburgers were renamed "liberty sandwiches," and sauerkraut as "liberty cabbage during WWI.

Live and learn, thanks. 8-)

Actually, this has a long and goofy history. Hamburgers were renamed "liberty sandwiches," and sauerkraut as "liberty cabbage during WWI.

Shows how far we've come in 90 years :(

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

What are they gonna do? Cut off oil? They can't afford to

They'll just sell it to someone else.

They'll just sell it to someone else.

Yep. Which is what it looks like Iran is going to do with China.

And the Chinese haven't shown much inclination for giving a rat's ass about the rest of the world's needs and desires.

Religon has to be one of the things mankind invented that has totally lived past its usefulness. We all die, when someone comes back to tell me what happened I will be happy to share my viewpoint.
Oh and if you dont believe me thats ok. Your beliefs are as sacred as my own. Anything else is just a degree of bullshit.

And of course I should have written "egregiously strained segue" and not "non sequitur". Hubris, once more.

They'll just sell it to someone else.

Not at these prices. I'm also not sure that the Chinese could afford to absorb the entire output of Middle Eastern oil. If they did they'd demand a big discount. Then they'd sell it to us.

My fellow Muslims, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Denmark forever! The beheadings begin in five minutes!

LUIGI NOVI: I must disagree that offense is not an emotion but an analytical-intellectual process. While I'm not dismissing the idea that deliberation may play some part in cultural relationships like the one we're discussing on this board, obviously, there are times when someone says or does something to you that hurts your feelings, aren't there? I think intellectualizing one's emotions at such times can help alleviate the feeling (and even then, not always), which is the opposite of the idea that it causes it.

Sean Archer: Luigi, I would love to get into a conversation about this, but I fear I probably won't be able to respond if you read this. That said, I'd like to address this idea. I'm with the Reverend on this. Somewhere inside anyone who has ever been offended there was a choice made. In any situation, you absolutely have the ability to let something slide off your back, and must make the internal choice to either DO that or accept the gift of someone's slight. My favorite story concerning this is about the Buddha:

The Buddha is walking along a path and he is followed by disciples. At some point a man joins the group who has heard of the Buddha. The man listens a while to the conversations, and then decides he's heard enough and begins to berate the Buddha. Buddha stops, listens to the man, smiles and continues walking, telling the man that if he has more to say he can follow. The man does. He spends an hour or two walking with the Buddha and the entire way he insults him. The Buddha smiles at every word the man says. Finally, exasperated at not getting a rise out of the Buddha, the man stops and says, "I've done nothing but berate you. Have you nothing to say to me?"

The Buddha stops, and says, "If you are given a gift, by a friend, and you do not accept it, because it doesn't fit you, or you don't need it, who does the gift belong to? Why would I get upset about a gift that I have not accepted?"

This is my point, and I think the point the Reverend was trying to make, Luigi. At every point in your life when you got offended at something someone said, you had the oppertunity(even if you didn't realize it at the time)to refuse to accept the gift. You always have a choice. Whether you accept the gift of slander, or emotional injury is ALWAYS up to you. That's a right that I'm happy to have, because it means that in any moment, I can choose peace. Which is what all those guys with the singular names like, Jesus, Buddha, Mohommed, and Krishna were all saying before they got twisted by people who write books and carry signs.

Best,
Sean Archer

Thank you, Sean. You explained what I had in mind far better than I did.

What if it's 72 sturgeons? Boy would THAT suck.

Now I'm remembering the gag I heard a few years back about Osama finally dying, and arriving at the gates of Paradise. Before he can get his bearings, he receives a roundhouse right from George Washington, then a kick in the teeth from Patrick Henry. As he falls to the ground, James Madison steps on his neck. Behind him there is a line of 69 other men, waiting their turn to beat Osama to a pulp.

To a nearby efreet, Osama wails, "What is this? Where is the reward Allah promised?"

The efreet laughs. "What are you talking about? He promised you 72 Virginians, didn't He?"

There was a Dragonbert strip that showed Atta going to Muslim heaven and being greeted by 72 comic book fans. Which probably answers the question about the female suicide bombers.

I'm dissapointed by this. I'm actually not allowed to say much on this matter, but I will say that using this situation as a jumping off point for this discussion doesn't really work (which is sad because I don't disagree with your basic point)

The editors were not suspended for running the cartoons. People might like to assume that (especially as it helps them prove their point) but actually it was something far less philosophical. Any cursory googling and research on the subject will explain what happened - I can't. Do not let yourself be spoon-fed by a quick story here and there. Take a closer look. Read a statement by the publisher, read reactions from the newsroom under the editor, and read some of the interviews with the editor himself.

I think then people would actually get a real sense of what's really going on here. Unfortunately, I cannot really editorialize on this matter and connect the dots for you.

Also, the Daily Illini is independent, non-profit and not related to the University of Illinois. So there is no hypocrisy at all with the Chief Illiniwek thing.

In any case, I understand where people might be eager to use this situation. But you might be on rocky ground if you do.

Still love Fallen Angel, X-Factor and ST: New Frontier!

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2006/02/18/publisher_blasts_suspended_editors/

Daily Illini publisher blasts suspended editor's decision in letter
By Jodi Heckel
Saturday, February 18, 2006

CHAMPAIGN – Daily Illini Publisher Mary Cory, in a letter to DI alumni, excoriated the actions of the paper's editor-in-chief in deciding to publish anti-Muslim cartoons.

Now a lawyer representing the editor, Acton Gorton, says Cory and the Illini Media Company, which owns the paper, defamed Gorton.

In her letter, Cory discussed how the independent student newspaper has handled the fallout from printing the cartoons in the Feb. 9 edition of the paper. Cory called Gorton dishonest and reckless and said he deliberately kept other editors and the editorial board in the dark about his plans to publish the cartoons.

An editorial in Thursday's DI made the same allegations.

Cory could not be reached for comment Friday.

Gorton "demonstrated a lack of respect for his colleagues and a total disregard for the need to collaborate or communicate honestly in the newsroom," Cory wrote in her letter. "His focus ... is for the media attention he is receiving personally for his courageous move ... to run the cartoons in his paper, not for the need to publish an excellent newspaper worthy of its reputation."

Gorton calls the statements by Cory and those published over the last week in the DI a "character assassination."

"I've been branded as a rogue editor, as someone who wants to usurp the newsroom to further his own agenda, and that's not what's going on at all," he said.

Gorton hired Hoffman Estates lawyer Junaid Afeef, who wrote to the Illini Media Company and Cory, asking them to stop making defamatory statements about Gorton. Afeef said no legal action has been filed, but he did not rule it out.

Illini Media Company board member Tom Costello said the board doesn't get involved in the daily operations of the newspaper, although it will discuss Afeef's letter.

"We're going to let the students hash this out," Costello said.

Gorton and Opinions Editor Charles Prochaska were suspended Tuesday, the day after the DI ran a lengthy opinion piece criticizing how the decision to run the cartoons was made. A student task force composed of newsroom staff will conduct an internal investigation.

Gorton questions whether he'll get a fair hearing.

He believes the suspension is about the publication of the cartoons, not the decision-making process.

"They say I haven't broken any rules or policies, but they want to have control over what I say," Gorton said. "That's not how a newsroom runs. The editor calls the shots."

He said he consulted a DI night editor and a longtime journalist about whether to publish the cartoons. Gorton said he chose to publish them alongside a column he wrote so he would be the one taking responsibility for them and accepting any criticism, rather than the paper as a whole.

He also said others in the newsroom knew about plans to publish the cartoons, and he had no obligation to clear content through the editorial board.

"My first concern is my readers and what they are wanting to have presented to them," Gorton said. "What I didn't want to happen was chaos in the newsroom that night. There was a potential for people to want to go crazy. What happened was every single member of my editorial board looked at the page and was fully aware of what was going on."

Gorton said if he had it to do over again, he would still choose to publish the cartoons. He said he's received more positive than negative feedback from people around campus. Josh Rohrscheib, a DI columnist and president of the Illinois Student Senate, defended Gorton in his column Monday and wrote that he would resign if Gorton were fired.

Muslim students protested on the Quad Tuesday, and UI Chancellor Richard Herman issued a statement after the cartoons appeared, saying he disagreed with the decision to publish them although the DI had the right to do so. In her letter, Cory said the UI administration has not interfered in the matter.

The DI is an independently-run newspaper and is not owned by the UI.

The UI chapter of the American Association of University Professors issued a statement Friday, saying the organization reserves judgment on the suspension of Gorton and Prochaska, but noting its policy on student rights and responsibilities states, "Editors ... of student publications should be protected from arbitrary suspension and removal because of student, faculty, administration or public disapproval of editorial policy or content."

The Central Illinois Mosque and Islamic Center, 106 S. Lincoln Ave., U., will hold an open house from noon to 3 p.m. Sunday to discuss Muslims' feelings about the Prophet Muhammad and why they are offended by the cartoons.

Not at these prices. I'm also not sure that the Chinese could afford to absorb the entire output of Middle Eastern oil. If they did they'd demand a big discount. Then they'd sell it to us.

I think you're underestimating the rapid clip at which the Chinese economy is modernizing. Just yesterday, I spoke with a guy who had visited Beijing just last year and he said it's amazing how modern Chinese cities are becoming and their standard of living is rising. For the first time, automobile ownership is within the reach of the average urban resident now. Already, China as surpassed the US in the amount of greenhouse gases generated. The sheer size of their population and the rapid clip at which their industrial base is growing has them our primary competitor on the international market for the purchase of oil and Chavez has said he'd rather sell to them then to us (no surprise there).

They are buying oil at a voracious rate and it's not to sell to us.

Sounds like Gorton is a dick, but he's a dick who did a courageous thing.

the latest move by the Daily Illini is to issue a warning to its members not to disclose any Newspaper info in blogs. Penalty; termination.

Sounds like they aren't too sure of their position.

Sounds like they aren't too sure of their position.

Or...

Sounds like their being threatened with lawsuits.

Or...

Sounds like their issuing a standard policy that won't prevent internal issues from being discussed with the public. Something nearly every professional environment is moving towards.

Well, being a fairly liberal Muslim (read: not prone to going out beheading at the drop of a hat) I actually agree with most of your points PAD. They were well thought out, articulate as always, and most importantly, were backed up by supporting arguments.

Having seen the cartoons a while back (although now they've restricted access to comics reporter in my country on all the internet servers (THAT my friends is the lack of freedom of whatever...)) I admit that other than 2 of them there was nothing all that offensive about these 'toons. Even of those 2, I find the 'vigrinal' one actually offensive. The rest are more dependent on how you read the strip than anything else. However, that doesn't stop the extremists. Currently, the main point of contention seems to be that it's offensive to Islam to allow pictures of the Prophet to be reproduced...and that's accurate. Yet, that doesn't excuse the outright, blatant destruction that Muslims all over the world are carrying out right now.

I cringe every single time I see more flag-burning on tv and at this point am waiting for the next fiasco to start so we can finally move on from this.

On that point though, I am somewhat disappointed to see the later comments on an otherwise fairly even-balanced thread spiral into generalizations and stereotypes. Is it too much to ask for to expect the discussion to stay neutral even for a 'hotbed' topic such as this? It's bordering on the juvenile and the same effect would probably be achieved if they said "Muslims bad!!" I understand that we aren't the favorite people of the world right now (or ever for that matter since 9/11...) but still...these comments just serve to inflame the extremists and disappoint people like me. Can't we all just get along? (apparently not...but I thought I'd throw it out there just in case)

Sorry to ramble like that, but much like everyone else here, this is the first chance that I've gotten to discuss this in any kind of open forum without being blasted by the extremists or the opposite end of the spectrum.

Or...

Sounds like their being threatened with lawsuits.

Or...

Sounds like their issuing a standard policy that won't prevent internal issues from being discussed with the public. Something nearly every professional environment is moving towards.

Perhaps, but if they really have a fear of lawsuits it probably comes from Ms Corey's ill advised letter to the alumni, a letter in which internal issues were discussed with the public. So...

Zeb,

Thanks for your posting. It is essential that decent Muslims like yourself be heard. I don't like it when others routinely lump all Christians in with the crazies and if I've ever done the same with Muslims I certainly apologize.

Although I think that there are certain unique qualities to Islam that may make it difficult to have the equivalent of the Reformation, the real problem lies not with Islam itself but with the countries and cultures of some of the predominantly Muslim countries. If the Saudis were Christian I suspect they'd manage to justify their despotism using the New testament.

People like Zeb are why I don't just print out T-shirts of the cartoons and wear them to express solidarity with the cartoonists. The thought is nice but the crazies won't see it, decent Muslims will think I'm attacking them, and it would therefore just be a dick thing to do. But I want to do something.

Guess I'll go drink another Tuborg beer. Hey, we have the day off, I can drink a beer at 8 AM if I want to...

I guess if you drink it with the attitude that beer is forbidden to Islam, it's a protest of sorts... :-)

If the Saudis were Christian I suspect they'd manage to justify their despotism using the New testament.

True. As I've said before, the real problem with Muslim world is that they're still trapped in a medieval-level mentality. It colors the way they view religion and politics. It's not so much the particulars of their religion as it is the way they apply it.

Maybe in 600 years they'll catch up to us, but that's hardly a consolation to the rest of the world.

Bill, the issue of Islam reformation is not that relevant for several reasons:

1) Atthe time of the reformation and many years afterwards Christianity was anything but open minded of pluralism in religion. It could maybe be said that the reformation eventually caused the christian to be more secular or to accept pluralism as inevitable, but it took a long time.

2) Islam is not like catholicism, there are many interpreters.

3) In a sense the fundementalists are the Luthers and Calvins of Islam (the early protestants were fundementalists). They in fact tend to look down on the official interpreters of Islam, the Ulama.

4) Sunni Islam does have diversity in their interpretations. There are 4 schools of interpretations. Some muslims have tried to promote ecumenicalism by refering to Shia Islam as a fifth school. /in any case there are several heretic sects that came out of islam, such as Shia, Druze etc. There are also movements, some tend more liberalism, others are like the Wahabis, very extreme.

5) There is fundementalism, i.e. wanting to return to the basics / have countries governed by religious laws and the religious establishment having more power, in Judaism and Christianity too. If there is a difference, it is maybe that when Christians look back they dream of apostles and missionaries preaching to heathens and killed by Romans. Fundementalist Jews dream of a Jewish kingdom, with a Jewish king or a council of elders, and priests etc. But when muslims loook back, they have the image of an expanding Muslim empire.

6) In Israel we do have some friction and violence because of ultra-religious extremeists, though not to the degree you see in Islam. In any case, in Jerusalem, where I live, you are less likely to see billboards with pictures of half-naked models than in the more secular Tel-Aviv.

In any case, I don't think the Muslims need the reformation. But they sure have issues they need to deal with. There is a disease inside Islam (as there was one in Germany and Japan not long ago). Let's hope they can cure themselves.

Yeah, but llook at what it took to cure the disease. Will we have to raze the Middle East to the ground to fix it?

It's interesting that you talk about disease. When you look at the virulent anti-semetism in Iran and the Arab countries it really does seem like a disease. It colors everything they do, akmost no issue can be discussed before they start blaming Jews, no matter how insane the idea is.

I don't know how easy it will be to cure. Can you imagine a leader actually coming out and saying "Hey look, we've been lying to you. The reason you all suffer and live in poverty while the rest of the world thrives is because a few of us have been living off the wealth of the land and telling you that it's all the fault of the Jews and you, like idiots, believed it. Now let's start over with a new--Urk!" (Sound of some manner of violent death. Which will later be blamed on Jews.)

Jonathon-- Tuborg is made by Denmark so drinking it is indeed a form of protest and helps negate the Muslim boycott. Legos are also form Denmark but the combination of Legos and beer is ill advised and could lead to tragedy.

"Legos are also (from) Denmark but the combination of Legos and beer is ill advised and could lead to tragedy."

Heh heh ha ha HA HA!

And, I also wanted to thank Zeb Aslam for the valuable contribution to this thread. I'm glad you still have access to THIS site, at least.

Islam doesn't so much need a version of the Protestant Reformation. All the Reformation really did was splinter Christianity to various sects and Islam already has enough of those.

What it needs is an Enlightenment/Renaissance. At one point, Islam was actually ahead of Christianity in the tolerance department, but Europe pulled ahead as a result of the new thinkings encouraged by the Enlightenment.

Yup, you're correct, I more or less confused the two, though Luther did help to get the corruption of the Church under some control (would there even have been an Enlightenment if there had not first been a Reformation? And What If Daredevil had been deaf?)

(Then again, if Christians can try to claim that they're under attack in the ninety-percent Christian United States, I suppose anything is possible.)

I thought it was a great post.... but it got knocked down into the okay category once this tired (to me) old canard got written along with it.

One can claim that implicit morals taught and portrayed in the contemporary popular media runs contrary to the teachings of the Bible and that claim would not be far off.

One can also claim that 90% of the United State is Christian but if that is really true why does so little of the contemporary popular media and popular culture reflect the teachings of the Christian Bible?

Worse off... a lot of people claim to be a Christian or claim to believe in God but why on Earth should we the philosopher or we the thinker or we the Sophist or we the Cynic or we the Bible-Thumping, Scripture-reading Christian believe that the Jesus/God character(s) that most of the people believe in remotely matches up to the Christ I read about in the Bible?

That 90% figure includes all the people who believe that Jesus isn't one who matches the description found in the Gospels.

With all due respect, I would suggest that it is time we stop saying things like "the United States is 90% Christian. I have been on this planet for over 50 years and I have met perhaps six or seven Christians. Because if you don't practice what ol' J.C. taught, you ain't a Christian. By that standard, I doubt 1% of the United States is Christian.

All hail your hero:

http://www.gortreport.com

James Carter wrote, "Here is an interesting thought that just struck me (and I have the bruise to prove it.) Islam was founded in the 7th century, right? IE, about 600 AD. So that means that they are about 600 years "behind" Christianity, historically speaking."

Err, no.

Islam was, at least for its first five hundred years, a more advanced civilization than Christian Europe. The Crusades exposed Europe to the ancient knowledge and technologies that Europe had lost in the Dark Ages.

What happened is that where Christianity had a Reformation and Counter-Reformation, Islam remained stagnant. Christianity modernized and adapted to the world, Islam hasn't.

" I have met perhaps six or seven Christians. Because if you don't practice what ol' J.C. taught, you ain't a Christian. By that standard, I doubt 1% of the United States is Christian."

Amen to that one Rev.

Ya know, so many folks out there wear the title of "Christian" like a badge of honor...but rarely practice the philosophy behind it...yes, they go to church on Sunday...but only to use the church as a social club or network system...I am not saying ALL Christians are this way...but I have found that quite a few are...have they even read the book that they preach from...? Sometimes I wonder...

Antisemitism is very much like a disease -- an especially powerful strain of racism.

One of the symptoms of the problem in the Muslim world is its suseptibility to antisemitism.

I doubt any leader in the world will admit that his government has been lying, even if the policies change drastically. But change does happen, in the Arab world too, although very slowly. Egypt has made peace with Israel, and Israeli tourists visit it, but they still promote antisemitism. It's a slow process.

I hope that antisemitism will be reduced as things change in the muslim world, the same way that racism against blacks has been reduced in the US after the changes in segregation policies. But I don't know how the Muslim world can be cured or how long it will take.

"One can claim that implicit morals taught and portrayed in the contemporary popular media runs contrary to the teachings of the Bible and that claim would not be far off."

To suggest that this is an attack on Christians is like saying that the Danish cartoons are an attack against Muslims.

"With all due respect, I would suggest that it is time we stop saying things like "the United States is 90% Christian. I have been on this planet for over 50 years and I have met perhaps six or seven Christians. Because if you don't practice what ol' J.C. taught, you ain't a Christian. By that standard, I doubt 1% of the United States is Christian."

Under this definition even during the middle-ages most people were not christian, nor are the majority of people calling themselves muslims muslim.

What are you the inquisition? If somebody calls himself a Christian, celebrates the holidays etc. you are going to revoke his christianity because he is not really really a christian according to your definition of what it really really means to be a christian according to your definition?

"One can also claim that 90% of the United State is Christian but if that is really true why does so little of the contemporary popular media and popular culture reflect the teachings of the Christian Bible?"

Even in more religious times there were secular aspects of popular culture besides he religious ones. However, American popular culture often has hidden or partially hidden Christian/religious ideas in it. I'm not only refering to the annual christmas chapter on most series, or the tendancy to view atheism as a flaw. If you look crtically on some movies you will notice Christian themes like redemption or sacrifice for the sins of others.

With all due respect, I would suggest that it is time we stop saying things like "the United States is 90% Christian. I have been on this planet for over 50 years and I have met perhaps six or seven Christians. Because if you don't practice what ol' J.C. taught, you ain't a Christian. By that standard, I doubt 1% of the United States is Christian.

While that may be true, it is also true that the vast majority (the numbers I've seen in polls is closer to 80% though) at least claim to be Christians. As a rule of thumb, I've found that the more vocal one is about their piety, the further off the mark their personal behavior is to the teachings of Jesus.

The real problem stems from the self-righteous bunch who buy into the nonsense that Bill O'Reilly and others spew out about there being an organized assault on Christmas.

One can claim that implicit morals taught and portrayed in the contemporary popular media runs contrary to the teachings of the Bible and that claim would not be far off.

Popular media, like any other business, produces what the market wants to buy. If the popular media is producing shows that run counter to the teachings of the Bible, that's not opporession of Christianity. That's simply an indication many people are entertained by watching people do things that either 1) They wouldn't do themselves or 2) Don't want others to know that they do it to. That's not an assault on Christianity. That's simply people being hypocritical.

It always amazes me how many conservatives will argue that the magic of the invisible hand of the market will give us an excellent educational system, clean air and water, and affordable healthcare, yet shriek in horror at the suggestion that the market should decide what sorts of entertainment is available to the great unwashed.

One of the symptoms of the problem in the Muslim world is its suseptibility to antisemitism.

Sixty years of living under one party systems and monarchies that "prime the pump" by blaming every one of their problems on the Jews will do that to a people.

If you look crtically on some movies you will notice Christian themes like redemption or sacrifice for the sins of others.

And here is another problem: yes, most people in this country are Christian, but by no means are such themes the domain of Christianity alone.

While there might not be any stories BC that outright use the word 'sin', such stories and themes existed long before Christ was born. The big difference with Christ is the scale. :)

"What are you the inquisition?"

Can you say gross overreaction to what was posted..?

"If somebody calls himself a Christian, celebrates the holidays etc. you are going to revoke his christianity because he is not really really a christian according to your definition of what it really really means to be a christian according to your definition?"

No, but it would be nice if more would practice what they preach to others. Don't get me wrong...the philosophy behind Christianity is fantastic...unconditional love, tolerance, acceptance, equality...but you can't shove this philosophy in people's faces when you are damn shy of being in that place yourself...like a lot of christians are...too many of them live by the do as I say, not as I do creedo. I have personally found that a lot of "Christians" out there can be the most narrow-minded, two-faced, judgemental,greedy, self-important people out there...is that true for other religions and other life styles??? You betcha...but it seems that a lot (and note that I have been saying "A LOT", not "ALL") of Christians are too high-handed about it...

"One can also claim that 90% of the United State is Christian but if that is really true why does so little of the contemporary popular media and popular culture reflect the teachings of the Christian Bible?"

Because the modern world is growing away from the parables of the Bible...that is good and bad...while the lessons it teaches us are great and more people should follow them...the actual stories of burning bushes and parting seas become harder to accept...

Den:It always amazes me how many conservatives will argue that the magic of the invisible hand of the market will give us an excellent educational system, clean air and water, and affordable healthcare, yet shriek in horror at the suggestion that the market should decide what sorts of entertainment is available to the great unwashed.

Wow. That may be the most cutting, succinct and intelligent way to sum up my problems with the uber-right.

Thanks, Den!

Micha asks if I am the Inquisition? In a sense, I am if you recognize the root of the term Inquisition - to inquire. I am a person who is almost compelled to try to understand why things are as they are and how things work, often to my own detriment. In my youth, I taught Sunday school and sometimes filled in for the local minister when needed - mighty unusual and sometimes uncomfortable sermons, I tell you. What do I remember of this? Pillars of society essentially patting me on the head and chuckling at my naiveté in thinking that these people who purported to be Christian should actually practice what their God expected them to (By the way another pet peeve of mine and general source of irritation for others - the guy's name was Yeshua bar Miriam not Jesus Christ - why not call him that? Too Jewish?) What struck me most back then and still does today is the fact that people never think about their beliefs, where they come from, what they mean or, most importantly, consider the fact that they may be wrong about something. I recognize that one could go nuts if one were to spend all one's time questioning things (analysis paralysis) but surely when one comes across a new relevant datum or unfamiliar Weltanschaung, the very least one should do is stop and contemplate the implicationsw.

I don't know. Perhaps I'm just an old fart rambling but surely, we can do and be better than this. I am reminded of a meeting we were having at the office about a major government project that had gone wrong and the boss was trying to figure out what had happened. After a half-hour of listening to project members (highly educated and trained people all) delegating blame, pointing fingers, rationalizing, etc., with no one saying, "Hey, I screwed up here", my boss turned to me (the resident problem solver) and said "The frightening thing is that we are the crême de la crême". It seems to me that until humanity in general becomes capable of saying "Hey, I screwed up here", not all the purported beliefs in wonderful religious principles is going to save us. Or to put it more bluntly, WE'RE ALL DOOMED.

End of rant. and remember the original Golden Rule : Do NOT unto others what you would NOT have them do onto you. I.E. no proselytising, he says proselytisingly.

In an unfortunate bit of timing, the Austrians just sentanced some Holocaust denying nutjob to 3 years in prison.

Obviously this man is a loathsome human being and unfit for decent company, but 3 years for having a political opinion? Even if it's wrong? It certainly weakens the Austrian government's ability to condemn people rioting over cartoons they find offensive.

You can't have it both ways. Given that, it's far better to err on the side of too much freedom rather than too little.

What are you the inquisition?

Well, I certainly wasn't expecting that!

(Come on, you know you were thinking it too...)

Obviously this man is a loathsome human being and unfit for decent company, but 3 years for having a political opinion?

I agree.

It's pretty simple: you're a historian, and you deny the Holocaust.

Well, that pretty much kills any credibility you'll ever have (same goes for the president of Iran, and Mel Gibson's father).

You should be kissing any job goodbye relating to history, but jail time? No, I don't think so.

The guy should just be reminded of his stupidity at every job interview he goes to for the rest of his life, and let him live with the humiliation. :)

"At every point in your life when you got offended at something someone said, you had the oppertunity(even if you didn't realize it at the time)to refuse to accept the gift. You always have a choice. Whether you accept the gift of slander, or emotional injury is ALWAYS up to you. That's a right that I'm happy to have, because it means that in any moment, I can choose peace."

Or, as we said when we were kids, "I'm rubber, you're glue, your words bounce off me and stick to you."

Boy...it's true. We really DID learn everything we needed to know back in kindergarten...

Can you imagine if the radical Muslim response had been, "Sticks and stones. You're trying to get a rise out of us; it won't work."

PAD

"All hail your hero:

http://www.gortreport.com"

Okay, I'm not sure what crawled up your backside and died about this matter, but I read over the blog you referenced. You obviously feel it's some sort of damning thing; it told me nothing I didn't already know. I'd already read the letter he posted. Personally, if I were editor-in-chief and were going to run those cartoons--and were thinking there might be backlash--I would very likely not tell my subordinates as well. Why? Plausible deniability. If I suspect a shitstorm might fall upon me, I'll want to provide an umbrella so the others don't get hit with it. He published them because he wanted to get attention? I fully believe that. The question is, intention for himself or for the issue. He claims the latter, others claim the former. Either way...so what? It's an issue that needed addressing, so the motives aren't that material to me.

PAD

I apologize for the inquisition reference. But the point is this: Christianity , Islam and Judaism (to a lesser extent I think, it is a little more complicated with Judaism) have been arguing since their beginning about what is really christianity/Islam/Judaism, and who is really christian/muslim/jewish, and why people who are christian/muslim/jewish are not really following the teachings of the religion as it should be. As much as I find it interesting from a historical perspective, I think for the sociological purposes of indentifying peoples' affilations etc. it is useful to refer to people who call themselves Christian as christian.

Similarly, it doesn't really matter if Islam is or is not really a religion of peace (probably both), as much as that people considering themselves Muslim promote ideas which are palatable to Muslims, that terrorism is a god idea.

One unique aspect of modern time is that secularity is accepted as a legitimate choice: there are some people who identify themselves as having no religion, although this is much more common in Europe than the US.

In my hebrew translation of the New Testament the name of Jesus is translated (from the Greek original) as Yeshua instead of Yehoshua (Joshua). Maybe the translators are playing on the hebrew word yeshuah, which means salvation. I don't know if Yashua was a different name back then. Jews call Jesus Yeshu, I'm not certain why. Presumably you use the name Jesus because that is how the name passed from the Greek of the NT to the Latin. Western Christianity is originally Latin speaking. Also, wouldn't Jesus be refered to as the son (Bar in arameic) of Joseph or god, instead of refering to his mother's name?

I read somewhere that all stories in christian society are a play on the story of Jesus (I hope I'm not misrepresenting what was said). I also read that all American movies are abot protecting the family unit. In any case, Christian themes are interlaced in western culture. For example, the movie Pass it Forward (is that the correct name?).

At this moment I am watching an argument in Israeli TV about whether it is right to have laws against holocaust denial. I favor freedom of speech. But it should be noted that Germany and Audtria have reasons to be more careul about these issues.

The idea that the Germans and Austrians have to somehow be protected from even contemplating anti-semitism is, to me, as illogical as the blood-libels against Jews. While it is amusing to joke about the stereotypes of the people of various nations, it is ludicrous to think that German's are inherently nationalistic, Italians are born good cooks and the first words out of every French baby's mouth is Je me rends!

If anything it will build resentment and make such speech more attractive. Also, it gives the Islamic hatemongers a point they can use to whip up their people--"Look, they can insult the prophet in the name of free speech but if it offends Jews! Well, THEN it's illegal!"

I have absolutely no reason to believe that if they were free to speak their minds, a sizeable number of Germans or Austrians would be longing for the good old days of 1939-1945.

Yeshua is the Aramaic form of the name. As it passed through Greek to the Latin to English, it has become Jesus in us. There's no big deal to that, anymore then Yakov became Jacob became Jacques became James as it passed through various languages.

It really only matters if you believe the path to salvation rests in knowing the correct pronunciation of Jesus' name as he would have heard it spoken in 25 A.D.

As for whether he would have been called "bar Miriam" or "bar Yosef", since Christianity preaches that he was the son of God born through a virgin, he was not the son of Joseph, so among Christians, "bar Miriam" would be a correct address. Or maybe "bar Yaweh".

However, the Israelis practiced partrilineal descent and most people in his community likely assumed he was the son of Joseph, not God. Therefore, among his community in Nazareth, he would have likely have been addressed as "Yeshua bar Yosef."

Oh, and "Christ" is derived from the Greek word "Christos" which means "annointed." So, it's a title, not a name.

Bill, you're are correct in the Austrian example and Craig is right that anyone who is a holocaust denier should not have any credibility in the field of history. But it doesn't deserve jail time.

Many European countries have definitely gone too far in trying to stamp out Nazism. It does blunt their freedom of speech position when it's permissable to denigrate an Islamic figure but not okay to deny the Holocaust.

And of course, this is all our fault, since according to many of the Muslim clerics instigating the riots, the US runs Europe.

While it is amusing to joke about the stereotypes of the people of various nations, it is ludicrous to think that German's are inherently nationalistic, Italians are born good cooks and the first words out of every French baby's mouth is Je me rends!

Don't tell my wife's family they aren't born good cooks!

I just wanted to agree with you PAD. Thanks for saying it.

Den, I am willing to entertain the possibility that your wife's family actually HAS some kind of good cooking gene since I've never met an Italian who wasn't a good cook.

I could also mention the liklihood of the Asian Bad Driving Gene but I may have said too much already.

I wasn't tryin to say that Germans are inherently antisemitic. The reason they are extra-careful is because theirs is a country in which antisemitism came to power by democratic means. This is also another major difference between the Danish cartoons and antisemitism. The problem with antisemitism is not that it offends Jews, but that it is an ideology that views Jews in a way that has often justified violence against Jews. Nevertheless, I believe that in most cases the consideration of freedom of speech should prevail. But that does not mean that antisemitism and a cartoon of Muhammad are on the same level. I think most westerners would have considered a cartoon depicting racism towards muslims as much more offensive than one making fun of its religious leader.

The word Christos means annoyted, as does the hebrew word Massiah (Mashiach). So Christos=Massiah.

I didn't know that Yehoshua in arameic is Yeshua. That explains why in my copy of the NT they translate the name Peter into the aramaic word for rock instead of the hebrew.

Den, I am willing to entertain the possibility that your wife's family actually HAS some kind of good cooking gene since I've never met an Italian who wasn't a good cook.

You'd better, because the other gene they claim to have is the "I-can-have-you-whacked" gene.

You'd better, because the other gene they claim to have is the "I-can-have-you-whacked" gene.

Luckily we Irishmen have a high tolerance for pain, though that may just be the effects of all that alcohol.

For what it's worth, I couldn't agree with Peter more on this issue.

In fact, I've already been all over this subject in my columns. (Cartoon Knocks 'em Dead and CNN Religious Hypocrisy.)

It isn't about the cartoons. (Cartoons, it turns out, that were originally posted in October 2005!) It never was. All the cartoons do is serve as an excuse for the extremists to blow things up and kill people.

RLR

It's interesting to see the freedoms that Germany elevates. I was unaware that they had laws that could get you jail-time simply for voicing anti-semitic or Holocaust-denial beliefs, but I wouldn't be surprised. On the other hand, they also have laws that permit German soldiers to refuse orders/assignments on the grounds of conscience, thus eliminating the concept of soldiers committing atrocities against their will simply because they "were obeying orders." Interestingly, there are some who assert that it's a well-meaning attitude that nevertheless is becoming a disciplinary problem because soldiers are citing matters of conscience over assignments they simply consider onerous and don't want to carry out.

PAD

What are you the inquisition?

And yet somehow I suspect everyone expected that comment eventually.

I wasn't aware of Germany's laws against "voicing anti-semitic or Holocaust-denial beliefs."

I was, however, aware of their laws against the display of the swastika and other nazi symbolism.

RLR

"it is useful to refer to people who call themselves Christian as christian."

That really seems fine and all but it is really really really in principle not useful at all. If you apply it to things that are not religion or affiliation and in some cases applying it to affiliation you get a bunch of accepted falsehoods and liars.

Or to actually apply what I am saying... there are lots of men with penises right now calling themselves women and a lot of newspapers going along with it. There women who had breast-removal operations who call themselves men.

Self-identification is not always proper identification.

"Den:It always amazes me how many conservatives will argue that the magic of the invisible hand of the market will give us an excellent educational system, clean air and water, and affordable healthcare, yet shriek in horror at the suggestion that the market should decide what sorts of entertainment is available to the great unwashed.

Wow. That may be the most cutting, succinct and intelligent way to sum up my problems with the uber-right.

Thanks, Den!"

Unless of course, the "uber-right" is Libertarian in which case this argument is full of shite.

And as a right-winger, whoever said that the invisible hand market will provide good healthcare?

"'One can also claim that 90% of the United State is Christian but if that is really true why does so little of the contemporary popular media and popular culture reflect the teachings of the Christian Bible?'

Because the modern world is growing away from the parables of the Bible...that is good and bad...while the lessons it teaches us are great and more people should follow them...the actual stories of burning bushes and parting seas become harder to accept..."

I pull this one out only as an example that a lot of people (here and elsewhere I may have or may someday raise this argument) have totally missed the point of my bitch session. I don't know what "the modern world growing away from... parables" has to do with anything. The Enlightenment period of our history had this particular feature and that was partially undone by the leading thinkers and artisans in the Romantic Period. The point is that the Gospels alone feature many different behavioral ethos that are directly contradicted or utterly ignored by the most popular programming in our culture. Seinfeld is full of fornification and even has some adultery; MASH had adultery; Will and Grace has homosexuality; little white lies probably abound on many programs I do and don't watch; hell, ER once had a Christmas Euthanasia Special. All I am saying is.... that the hypocrisy level has to be freakng jumping jumping jumping for the country to be 90% Christian and the market demanding and/or supporting programming that is most certainly not.

I mean... there's program whose merits one could debate as Christians... there are programs I watch and probably shouldn't.... and there are programs that offer value systems that are just plain not syncing up with Christian tenets. Let's put it simply this: "Popular media, like any other business, produces what the market wants to buy." How is that the United States is 90% Christian but the market isn't? If so much of my country is Christian why isn't there a larger stigma against pornography?

"The real problem stems from the self-righteous bunch who buy into the nonsense that Bill O'Reilly and others spew out about there being an organized assault on Christmas."

That statement shows a lack of perspective. Those people you describe may be deluded to a certain extent but it is certainly less of a problem than a millionaire with his own TV show saying that Ariel Sharon is being struck down by God among other wacko things.

All I am saying is that we're confusing a lot of secular humanists with Christians... and I'm not going to go into discussions between churches on whether Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mary Baker Eddy's followers are actually Christians but that controvery exists and in the minds of many Congregations it's a settled issue.

These posts almost always end up longer than I plan.

Spider, if we take a quick definition of "Christian" as "one who follows the teachings of Christ Jesus" (which seems a reasonable working definition to me), then tell me, please, what did Christ have to say on the subject of homosexuality? Not Paul, who wrote some years later; not Leviticus (because if we're using the Mosaic laws, there's a lot of Christians who are going to Hell for our cheeseburgers and lobster enchiladas); Christ Jesus, as reported in the four widely-accepted Gospels.

For that matter, what did Christ have to say on the subject of pornography? Or euthanasia?

I do recall he had quite a bit to say about those who would pass moral judgments on their fellow human beings, however...

Robert and Den, I can say that my wife's family seems possessed of some sort of genetic cooing excellence - and they're primarily of African, Scottish, and Flemish descent. (Come to think of it, maybe we should expect good cooking from an ethnic group that can take a sheep's intestines and a fistful of oats, and turn it into something edible, if not really all that tasty...)

Look, about the inquisition. I am a medieval history student. I also studied the 16th and 17th centuries. So I am vaguely familiar with the many different kind of heresies that fill Christian history, in which one side was calling the other not really christian. What was the inquisition for if not to route out these people. That is why the inquisition came to my mind.

Staying in the same era, if we were to use spider's definition of who is christian, we would probably have to assume that only 1% of people calling themselves Christian in medieval Europe were actually Christian. That would be absurd. For the intended purposes of understanding what is going on in the middle east it is more useful to assume that the terrorists who are calling themselves Muslim are muslim, although some Muslims may argue among themselves that terrorism is not true Islam. Good for them. But I am interested in giving a historical description of a time and place, not getting into internal theological discussions. Secular-humanists is a different reference than Christians who do not practice their religion diligently.

About popular culture: popular culture is different than sermons. The reason you find adultary etc. in them is because they deal with the human experience. Adultary, fornication and jokes about sex have been part of human entertainment even in more religious times than now. Look at Lancelot and Guenevere. In one of Chaucer's tales you have two students sleeping with a mother and a daughter of a corrupt miller, it is relatively graphic. In any case, there is no denying that our time period is more secular than previous ones, so it is no surprise that popular culture is more irreverant toward religious morality. In the past stories about fornication, adultary and homosexulaity were effective because they were against the accepted morality. But even now the effectiveness of these stories has something to do with the emotional conflict, which is why Lancelot and Guenevere still make a good story.

It is also interesting that PAD writes a comic called Fallen Angel -- that is a Christian theme, but the comic would not be endorsed as a Christian sermon by most I think.

Germany has laws whose purpose is to prevent somebody from using democratic means to topple democracy for obvious reasons.

"they also have laws that permit German soldiers to refuse orders/assignments on the grounds of conscience"

Israel has a similar princile in the army of commands that are "evidently illegal" on moral grounds. I also think there are laws against offending religions to a degree. But the only case I know of is when some right wing nut was distributing cartoons of the prophet Muhammad as a pig. Many years ago there was an attempt to censor Scorscese's "the Last Temptation of Jesus Christ".

Any chance anyone could put a link to those cartoons? I'd like to read them, if possible.

Unless of course, the "uber-right" is Libertarian in which case this argument is full of shite.

I consider libertarianism to be a separate school of thought from the brand of conservatism that is practices by the GOP today.

And as a right-winger, whoever said that the invisible hand market will provide good healthcare?

Umm, George W. Bush, Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Newt Gingrich . . .

That statement shows a lack of perspective. Those people you describe may be deluded to a certain extent but it is certainly less of a problem than a millionaire with his own TV show saying that Ariel Sharon is being struck down by God among other wacko things.

I would disagree and a comparison of the ratings that O'Reilly gets vs. Robertson would probably support my position. Robertson's statement about Sharon being smited by an angry God was universally ridiculed and eventually, he was forced to apologize for it. O'Reilly's monthly fabrication of a "War on Christmas" was repeated ad infinitum in the blogosphere and among others in the punditry class, who took it as gospel.

All I am saying is that we're confusing a lot of secular humanists with Christians

Well again, a lot of who is what depends on your POV. Many people who consider themselves to be Christians would be considered secular humanists by others because they disagree on doctrine.

How is that the United States is 90% Christian but the market isn't? If so much of my country is Christian why isn't there a larger stigma against pornography?

Because as I said, people don't always practice what they preach. During the Middle Ages, when the Christian Church was an all-pervasive force on people's lives, a lot of what was considered popular entertainment was considered bawdy and vulgar, even by today's standards. Pick up just about any Medieval Romance story and you'll find adultery a very common theme. Since most marriages were arranged, people didn't expect to find true love in the context of marriage, so the popular literature featured stories of illicit love affairs.

Actual church marriage among the lower class was somewhat rare because few of them could afford, so common law marriage or "living in sin" was the norm. But if were able to poll the populace of Europe, you'd probably get a response of well into the upper 90th percentile identifying themselves as Christians.

Now, if you define being a Christian as "following the teachings of Christ 100% of the time," then you eliminate a lot of people. In fact, I would say that in the whole of human history, the number of people who achieved that was exactly one. But, if you allow for the broadening of the definition to include those that are at least trying to follow those teachings or follow them as best as they can, but are still entertained by stories of people breaking those rules, then the number gets a lot higher.

Self-identification is not always proper identification.

Perhaps, but if you apply the rule that other people get to define whether or not you're a Christian, then no one is, because there's always somebody out there who will disagree with what your definition of what a "true" Christian is.

In other words, if the only criteria for going to hell is that someone else thinks you belong there, then heaven is a ghost town.

I see Micha beat me to making similar points about the Middle Ages. I should have read his first before responding. Oh well.

"O'Reilly's monthly fabrication of a 'War on Christmas' was repeated ad infinitum in the blogosphere and among others in the punditry class, who took it as gospel."

and ultimately did little in the way of negative action as a result. How was it a problem?

-----

Most simply put a lot of people identify all Godists /godists as Christians... and I think using that terminology for general statistics is stupid. That really is a lot simpler explanation than "we have a lot of Christians who don't live up to their own standards". While that sentence is true it can't accurately be used for people who don't have the specific standards to live up to.

"hell, ER once had a Christmas Euthanasia Special."

EXCUSE ME! That's "Holiday Permasleep Special" buddy. DON'T MISS THE LAST FIVE MINUTES!

Most simply put a lot of people identify all Godists /godists as Christians...

Okay, now this is simply a ridiculous redefinition of terms. I don't know anyone who counts any deist whatsoever, of any stripe, as Christian - remember, even if we keep it to monotheists, we're still looking at Christians, Jews, Muslims, and maybe the odd Zoroastrian or Mithraist.

No, the statistic involves between 80% and 90% of Americans identifying themselves as Christians, not just as monotheists - which is why the whole idea of Christianity being under attack in this country is as laughable as the idea that a few silly cartoons published in a newspaper in freaking Denmark of all places will somehow damage Islam.

and ultimately did little in the way of negative action as a result. How was it a problem?

It served it's purpose to temporarily distract the public's mind from the real wars going on in the Middle East. Not to mention pushig the bungling of Katrina off the front page.

It is reasonable to break down the total of Christians in the US into subgroups and levels of commitment (church attendance etc.). Although even then I doubt if you can break them down into levels of hypocracy. That's pretty hard to do. Anyway, for hypocracy to exist you have to assume that these people are being hypocritical about the religion they are affiliated to, or else there is no hypocracy. However, lets not cofuse not committed Christians with secular humanists or deists. These are different ideologies, with dfferent followes and probably hypocrites too.

I had thought that the cartoon controversy was being forgotten. I'm beginning to wish it had, when you see stuff like this:

http://islamabad.usembassy.gov/pakistan/h06021701.html

Remarks By Former President Clinton On Cartoon Issue During Press Availability With Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz

"Let me say first of all, when this story first broke in the United States, I believe that I was maybe the first Western leader to speak against the cartoons.

I happened to be in the Persian Gulf area at the time. I was in Bahrain and Qatar. I will repeat what I said then. I strongly disagreed with both the creation and the publication of cartoons that were considered blasphemous to devout Muslims around the world because they depicted the Prophet.

..."But I would not be surprised if the person who drew those cartoons and the newspaper publisher who decided to print them did not even know that it was considered blasphemous to have any kind of personal depiction of the Prophet to Muslims.

Ok. Clinton is either a liar or an idiot. And yes, he could be both.

First off, he's against the creation of the cartoons? Hello? Has it come to that now? I can see where Bill might have a grudge against cartoonists. Thanks in part to their efforts, he will be forever a punchline, but that's no reason to give the rabid hordes any reason to think they have the right to issue death threats and fatwas.

Secondly, if Clinton really believes that the creators and publishers did not know that the pictures were considered blaspheme by Muslims it means that Bill Clinton has no idea what he is talking about. That was the whole point, moron. Even the newspapers that would not print the cartooons mentioned WHY they were made in the first place. How could he be so clueless? And, if he has spent so little time reading about the issue, why does he keep on talking about it?

Ok. Clinton is either a liar or an idiot. And yes, he could be both.

A third possibility is that he was just trying to be polite to the largely Muslim audiance that he was speaking.

But, um, yeah. His statements are very incongruous with each other. It's typical politician doublespeak of which Clinton remains the master.

Ridiculous.

It's typical politician doublespeak of which Clinton remains the master.

I agree.

It's just Clinton getting on his knees himself for a change.

It's still pathetic, but it's no surprise.

First off, he's against the creation of the cartoons? Hello? Has it come to that now?

In fairness, I think that's probably just poorly chosen words. I suspect he meant "I think creating them probably wasn't a good idea," which isn't outrageous to say given all the subsequent events.

However, the second part is clearly wrong, and even the first part is pretty weaselly wording. I'm with you to that extent.

TWL

It's just Clinton getting on his knees himself for a change.

And Craig gets the "made coffee shoot out my nose" comment of the week.

And Craig gets the "made coffee shoot out my nose" comment of the week.

Well, it's only Monday, so I guess the rest of the week will be completely downhill from here. ;)

I don't understand what's wrong with what Clinton said.

1) It is reasonable to disagree with the way someone was using his freedom of speech without denying him the freedom. In this case, since according to many (but not all) versions of Islam you are not supposed to draw any picture of the prophet, doing so could be considered an unnecessary insensitivity on the part of the Danish newspaper.

2) I would like to believe that the Danish cartoonists were not actually trying to brake an Islamic taboo or insult or offend (as opposed to the Iranians who are trying to offend western sensibilities), but just trying to make a point. Of course, they are entitled to offend if they want. But I don't think offending for the sake of offending, especially when the target is the members of a minority religion (in Denmark) is very admireable. I expect more from cartoons.

I think Larry Gonick did the right thing in Cartoon History III when he didn't draw Muhammad. It wasn't as if he compromised his integrity by not going out of his way to offend muslims. The muslims going out of their way to take offence would have found it in his book too, but the more normal muslims could be satisfied that he was sensitive as well as funny.

It's a dangerous thing for a Western leader to say that we should not be creating certain kinds of art, especially when the critics of that art are killing people!It sends the message that the crime was the art not the killing.

I've seen plenty of offensive art, that is, art that offended me. If some nut were to kill people or threaten to kill the artist I would feel obligated to defend the artist, with nothing but contempt for the killer. Muslims are not children and should not be treated as such.

Here's the thing--they began by insisting on harsh Islamic based laws in their own countries. Ok, fine, as long as their people are willing to put up with that, it's ok by me. It's one reason they are still backward backwaters. You can't get ahead when one half of your population isn't even given the freedom to drive--Saudi Arabia, sitting on an ocean of wealth, will never amount to anything so long as half of its potential scientists and leaders are denied opportunity by virtue of their sex.

But that's their problem.

But then, not happy with brutally repressing their own people, they started issuing fatwas against the citizens of other countries. Should've nipped it right then. Iran should have been cast off from the company of all decent nations until the death sentence on Rushdie was renounced.

And the message got out loud and clear. Artists routinely mock Christianity, Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, occasionally Jews (generally in the guize of anti-Israeli commentary, and yes, one can be anti-Israel without being an anti-semite, though many are both) but very very few would dare touch Islam. Not out of respect. Out of fear.

And having been appeased did they stop. Nope. Now it has become necessary for the governments of free nations to apologize for the actions of their free people. If the Danish government had only done so it would have made it ok, I've heard Muslims say, not understanding how incredibly wrong it would seem to the average Westerner to have their governments apologizing to dictatorships. And for what? The governments of free men must apologize to slaveholders because freedom offends the slave? Did I just fall through a looking glass?

We don't need Bill Clinton or George Bush or the editors of the New York Times making excuses and apologizing for us. It's real simple. The government of Iran is free to say that their religion does not allow the portrayal of Mohammed. If one wishes to live in or visit Iran one should accept this as part of the price one pays for the privilage. The price you pay for living in America is that you will be exposed to people and beliefs that are contrary to your and which you will be unable to suppress through the law or with a club. That's OUR price and if you don't like it you can feel free to live somewhere else.

I was reading this to collegue and he told me to look up something an Australian politicain said. It's great.

"Before entering a mosque visitors are asked to take off their shoes. This is a sign of respect. If you have a strong objection to walking in your socks, don’t enter the mosque. Before becoming an Australian you will be asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong objections to those values, don't come to Australia," - Peter Costello

I like that quote from Australia, Bill.

What's telling about the cartoon flare-up vs. the Rushdie controversy from years ago, is the response from the West. When fatwa was issued to Rushdie over The Satanic Verses, most western politicians gave a firm response, "We're sorry the book is offensive to you, but that's the price a free society has to pay." Now, everyone is following over themselves to apologize for the offense part, but forgetting the second part about reinforcing freedom of speech.

The result is now many radical Islamic leaders have gotten the message that all they have to do is threaten loud enough and they will get what they want.

Bill, that post of yours may qualify as the best one I've seen on the subject to date. :)

"How is that the United States is 90% Christian but the market isn't? If so much of my country is Christian why isn't there a larger stigma against pornography?"

There is. There's a huge stigma against pornography. There's stigmas against lots of things. However stigmas don't necessarily have a thing to do with what people actually do, say, or support. It's called "hypocrisy" by some, and "the American way" by others and "being human" by most.

PAD

// "How is that the United States is 90% Christian but the market isn't? If so much of my country is Christian why isn't there a larger stigma against pornography?"

There is. There's a huge stigma against pornography. There's stigmas against lots of things. However stigmas don't necessarily have a thing to do with what people actually do, say, or support. It's called "hypocrisy" by some, and "the American way" by others and "being human" by most. //

In my lifetime, Playboy went from being sold just about everywhere, (I can remember being a kid sneaking peaks at copies in the supermarket checkstand while my mom would do her food shopping, (Very quick looks as I was always terrified my mom would catch me)), and out in the open, (I had no problem reaching and opening a copy off that checkstand when I was 11), to being sold only in select places, (It's still on newstands but I haven't seen a Playboy in a supermarket or drug store since I was a kid), and out of site, (most places I know sell it behind the counter or have it on the stands but wrapped in plastic, some places even have a peice of paper covering the covers. I feel sorry for the 11 year olds of today).

So not only is there a stigma against viewing porn, (which there always has been) but there seems to be a bigger stigma against selling it then there was when I was kid.

Thanks, Craig. :)

Bill, I really don't get it.

When you defended the freedom of speech of a holocaust denyer, you had no problem saying in the same breath that holocaust denying is wrong. In fact, the whole point of freedom of speech is defending it when the opinion expressed is one you dislike. But I think that stating at the same time that you disagree with the opinion expressed not only does not weaken your position, but strengthens it. I don't believe in apologizing to the Muslims, nor should leaders apologized for their actions of individuals. But I see no problem in saying that drawing a cartoon deliberatly or not, that goes against such a basic part of Islam is tasteless. Its like the cartoon of the British-Jewish prime-ministerial candidate as a pig, they had a while ago. Tasteless.

The Australian comment you quoted goes into the very difficult issues of immigration, multiculturalism, national culture etc. that is becoming a problem for the western world.
Arre muslims emigrating into a western country becoming part of a multicultural society? Or are they guests in a western? European? Danish? Christian society? If multiculturalism is the ideal, does that mean that there is no national culture at all, just a mixture of different cultures? How much should immigrants be required to assimilate? Are the locals correct in fearing that there own culture is being eroded? If they fear that, wouldn't it be right to reduce immigration, or are countries morally required to allow immigration, and according to what principles?

I have little sympathy for Europeans. They invited immigrants to their countries because they needed laborers, looked down on them while talking high and mighty about how enlightened they are. And now they are afraid.

Pornography is another interesting freedom of speech issue. On the one hand you have the ideal of freedom of speech, which I very much support. At the other there is feminism, which I also ordinarily support. I the middle there is also the question of whether society is better off when sexuality is more or less repressed? My impression of the attitude in the US towards pornography, based on what I see on TV half a world away, is one of greater tolerance to it. It's a kind of attitude that says: boys will be boys, watching porn is something silly but not bad that they do, like having strippers at bachelor parties. I don't know if my impression is correct, or how I feel about it. The issue has more than one layer to it.

Micha, part of the problem is that the Muslim countries latch on to any hint of appeasement--in fact, Clinton's remarks were reported initially as supporting criminalization of cartoon representations of Mohamed.

right now, Clinton's words will bring comfort to those who are threatening lives. To me, it would be like someone responding to a wave of gay bashing by focusing on how gross it is to see two guys kissing...and oh, by the way, beating them up is wrong. Whatever "wrong" the cartoonists did--and I'm not convinced they did anything wrong--is eclipsed by what has followed. there is no moral equivalence, not even close, but the constant focus on the "wrong" done to Muslims makes it seem as though there is.

I know Christians who will be offended by THE DAVINCI CODE. Should the movie studio have forgone making the film? If not, why not? (Other than the fact that nobody expects them to riot).

Muslims have every right to live their lives as they wish but they can't dictate to others that they do the same and enforce this wish through violence. What next, forced prayers 5 times a day?

Bill, if you and other conservatives subjected the current president's statements to a fraction of the scrutiny you hold the former president's to--and held him accountable to a fraction of the things that you hold Clinton to blame for--you'd all become Democratic liberals.

PAD

What do I blame Clinton for? I love the guy. The Republicans could have never captured both houses in a million years without him (Not that they've proven to be much better than the Democrats vis a vis the corruption of power but change can be good).

Seriously, I think he's a bit of a creep but if I've "blamed" him for many of today's ills...well, I must have mellowed on the guy because I mostly see him as a forgettable figure at this point. I do have some high hopes for his wife.

If I haven't been clear on this, I've found the current administration's statements on the cartoon controversy as mealy mouthed at best. But I found Clinton's to be actively unhelpful, even possibly dangerous. It's one thing to try to placate the masses (though I think what is really needed is a cold slap of reality to the Muslim countries--this is how it is, deal with it, and watch out how far you try to take it) with the usual "we must try to understand each other" platitudes but what Clinton said seems to have given hope to those crazies who actually think that they might be able to change our freedoms if they kill enough people and issue enough threats.

I'm willing to agree that his purpose was probably not to do that--indeed, his statement that I would not be surprised if the person who drew those cartoons and the newspaper publisher who decided to print them did not even know that it was considered blasphemous to have any kind of personal depiction of the Prophet to Muslims. reveals that he is woefully ignorant of the history of how this happened and was probably winging it. Given the fact that he has no small amount of credibility with these countries I think he should be very very careful with winging it.

As for becoming a Democratic liberal--it takes more than disagreeing with Bush to be a Democratic liberal, though for too many that's become the only requirement, which accounts for their having to associate with people that they would normally avoid in more rational times. My enthusiasm for Bush is much diminished, though it doesn't follow that I now find his opponents any better (I could bring up Al Gore's amazing speech to the Saudis where he seemed to suggest that Bush's problem is that he hasn't been deferential enough to Muslims but kicking Al Gore at this point is a bit like kicking Lyndon Larouch).

The danger in this kind of thinking (and I know your tongue was firmly implanted in your cheek but others take this very seriously) is that for some the opposite also holds true--if they ever agree with a policy favored by the administration they might well be on the way to becoming--wit for it--conservative Republicans! Ack! Get the crucifix and holy water! So you get knee jerk reactions based on a simple "If A proposes it, I oppose it" kind of thinking (if one wishes to be very generous with the definition of the word "thinking").

It's one thing to try to placate the masses

I think one thing that really needs to be taken into consideration here is: does our government have any other choice?

And I mean that in a serious manner.

Saudia Arabia is one of our top suppliers of oil. Countries & companies throughout the Middle East are holding tons of our debt (which Bush has been as rampant about as the USSR & USA were in the 80's).

In a nutshell - they've got us by the balls.

Couple this with the fact that our economy is also hog-tied by Asian nations, and it's no wonder that our motto is becoming "Speak loudly, but have no ability to back it up".

We went after Iraq because, on the surface, going after they would have no impact. Obviously it's not worked out that way, and for more than just economic (ie, oil) reasons.

I mean, when you look at the top five countries that supply us with oil, what do you see?
Saudi Arabia (there's a real winner)
Venezuela (Chavez = total frigging nutter)
Nigeria (has anybody seen what's going on in that country lately?)

Some of these countries could really make our lives miserable, and you know that with China being the up and comer, a Saudia Arabia probably wouldn't have many qualms about following Iran's lead in dealing with the gorilla of the East.

So, again, with the kinds of things that other countries can hold over our heads, is it any surprise our government is so unwilling to show that we really do respect our freedoms?
(Note, this doesn't even go into the issue of whether our government itself finds ways of disrespecting those same freedoms on their own.)

It seems to me that refraining from criticizing your own side (in this case the West) when criticism is appropriate, because you fear weakening your own side or seeming to appease the other side (the Muslim world in this case), is a mistake, and usually ends up strengthening the people you were trying not to strengthen, and weakening the people you wanted strong. This has been my experience.

In this case, criticizing the cartoons only highlights several critical points:
1) defending someone's freedom of speech does not mean endorsing the message.
2) The west as a whole is not looking for ways to gratuitously offend Islam.
3) The west is pluralistic.
4) There are proper ways to speak against an opinion you disagree with.
5) People in the west are not ignorant or insensitive to the importance of the prophet for muslims.

Having made these points the second part of the message, i.e. the unqualified insistence on freedom of speech, is only strengthened.

The second question is, do the cartoons deserve criticism by us? I believe yes. The insensitivity towards the Islamic Taboo against drawing the prophet seems gratuitous. It does not seem to serve any artistic or political purpose worthwhile.

Christians are quite entitled to criticize the Da Vinci Code if they find the message not to their liking. The way Jews did with Mel Gibson's movie (Braveheart -- Jews don't like men in skirts), or Munich. However, since the Da Vinci Code seems to be more an entertainment piece than a real political or theological message, criticizing it may make them look silly. But that is also part of the risk of having free speech. Sometimes you'll get criticized, at others you'd look silly.

// Pornography is another interesting freedom of speech issue. On the one hand you have the ideal of freedom of speech, which I very much support. At the other there is feminism, which I also ordinarily support. I the middle there is also the question of whether society is better off when sexuality is more or less repressed? //

In reguards to Feminism and porn, it should be noted that many of the early Playboy models considered themselves Feminist. By posing in the 50's they saw themselves as striking back against the sexually represive sociaty that repressed woman at the same time it repressed sexuality.

People seem to forget that the woman's lib movement and the sexual revolution went hand in hand for a while before the pendulum started to swing the other way.

Many of those early centerfolds were quite taken back in the 70's when they suddenly became the enemy.

So to answer your question, yes porn and feminism can co-exist, it's just that they currently don't want to.

The second question is, do the cartoons deserve criticism by us? I believe yes. The insensitivity towards the Islamic Taboo against drawing the prophet seems gratuitous. It does not seem to serve any artistic or political purpose worthwhile.

I guess part of my issue is that I fundamentally disagree with that. Only two of the cartoons seemed to me to be critical of Mohammad in any way. The only "crime" the others had was that they portrayed Mohammad at all and I'm sorry, that's THEIR taboo, not mine. Historically it's not even terribly accurate. I don't think it's in the Koran. But then, neither is murdering school kids in the name of Allah, which seems to be a lot less objectionable to the Arab Street.

I believe that saying "Jehovah" is explicitly forbidden by several groups. Should newspapers respect this tradition? If not, why not? Other than the fact that I'm not aware of any organized campaign to kill people who break the taboo.

I'm more than willing to consider the sensitivities of Muslims. But not at the point of a gun.

I believe that saying "Jehovah"

Stone him! Stone him!

TWL
(man, talk about a fat pitch...)

I knew I got that from a legit source.

"The second question is, do the cartoons deserve criticism by us? I believe yes. The insensitivity towards the Islamic Taboo against drawing the prophet seems gratuitous. It does not seem to serve any artistic or political purpose worthwhile."

I think all satire--especially cartoon satire--requires insensitivity to its subject. It's not gratuitous: It's just the nature of the beast. The subject of such satire rarely thinks it serves any artistic or worthwhile political purpose. Just ask Tom Cruise who's busy suing Parker and Stone for the "South Park" episode that depicts John Travolta begging him to come out of the closet.

In the Muslim instance, the thrust of the cartoons seemed to be that people are using the name of Mohammed to engage in barbaric and destructive behavior. The response? Engaging in barbaric and destructive behavior in the name of Mohammed. Apparently extremists make up in explosives and torches what they lack in sense of irony.

PAD

What's interesting, Bill, is that I see things from the opposite side. I've always considered myself a political moderate. In fact, until last year, I had no intention of ever joining either party. Operation Fix Daddy's Mistake was the last straw for me, and it's proven to be every bit the quagmire that I thought it would be.

But the more I see of the Bush administration, the more I'm astonded that fewer people don't see how both corrupt and incompetent they are. At the same time, I'm becoming less enchanted with Democratic side of the aisle because of their inability to capitalize on the situation. Bush hands them fuckup after fuckup, and they continue to prove that they don't deserve to run the country either.

So now, instead of feeling more supportive of them, I'm being pushed back to my previous position of total neutrality.

The only "crime" the others had was that they portrayed Mohammad at all...

Which leads back to a question I'd asked earlier, and which I haven't seen addressed anywhere, online or in print - HOW DO THEY KNOW? If the Qu'ran prohibits making an image of the Prophet, and he wrote or dictated it, then logically, there can have been no contemporary images made of him - at least, none that survived. They have no idea what Mohammed looked like. How do they know that the cartoons in question depict Mohammed, and not, say, his nephew Hussein? (And as far as I know, there's nothing in the Qu'ran forbidding depictions of Hussein...)

Are they going to arrive at the gates of Paradise after death, only to be greeted by a Prophet who bears a striking resemblance to the love child of Ariel Sharon and Mikhail Gorbachev?

And would their faith survive such a revelation? :-)

I assume they know it is Mohammad the same way you can recognize Jesus in a cartoon although there are no actual pictures of Jesus.

I think most of us agree that there are some cases in which we consider satire or other expression of freedom of speech to be too much or in bad taste or racist etc. The fact that we live in a world which respects freedom of speech enables us to have such discussions in a sane way. The Muslims undermined their own case both by their insensitivity to others and by their violent reaction. Still, like I said, we shouldn't refrain from having this discussion because of the reaction by some Muslims.

Another question is, assuming we respect freedom of speech, when is being offended justified and when it does not? When would it be better if people censored themselves? Are feminists right in being offended by Playboy (feminists in Israel worked hard to stop the playboy channel froo airing, but lost)? Are they right that the fashion industry encourages anorexia? Were Jews right to be offended by Mel Gibson's movie (the one where he can read women's minds. That was stuoid)? Or are they just being annoying?

Recently there has been a commercial in Israel that I felt was extremely insensitive. It had American POW's in Vietnam singing and dancing. I think Israelis would have been offended if you had Israli soldiers singing and dancing in one of our major wars. On the other hand, the producers opened in Israeli theaters (on stage, not the movie) without any problem.

I've read that there are feminists who are not against porn. But it is hard for me to judge. find some of the arguments by anti-porn feminists to be wrong. But I don't fully understand what women see when they see porn. I'm not sure what "being sexually objectified" means. I'm a little concerned that that glamorous image of people like Pamela Anderson or Brittany Spears might make young women think that being sexually explicit is the easy path to glory and success. However, my biggest problem with Brittany is that she is considered a musician.

Micha, it's not that people who are upset or offended by art or whatever are WRONG. There's lots of truly offensive stuff out there. Not just offensive but obvious and boring as well. In fact, I'd say most of the art I've seen that was trying to be offensive was doing so, in my opinion, to make up for the lack of ability in the artist.

I have no problem at all with someone pointing this out. the problem with the Taliban, Anti-porn feminists, politically correct leftists and Jesse Helms right wingers is not that they are offended its that they are trying to keep anyone else from being offended. A laudable goal, I'm sure, but no thanks.

Personally, I rather enjoy when people I oppose resort to offensiveness. It supports my belief that they don't have much else to work with. When some idiot burns a flag or marches with a sign that has Bush and Sharon with swastika and Hitler mustaches I'm tempted to see that they get a discount on gasoline and magic markers. They look stupid, they hurt their own cause. Bless 'em.

Den,
I don't think the Democrats are beyond hope, though the negative view of the party among Democrats is one reason I doubt I'll be signing up soon. At least you can find some Republicans who actually have some love for the party (though more and more are beginning to grumble that maybe a big loss in November might be a needed slap to the face of a party that has grown complacent in the majority).

The danger that the party is in right now is that it may go in one of two disastrous directions--a full on embrace of the Dailykos wackos which will result in a massive turn off of the sane left and moderate voters or an acceptance of their permanent minority party status as the party Powers That Be just do what is needed to keep their own seats safe. They will then have success only when the Republicans hand it to them, which will not inspire much in the way of loyalty or enthusiasm.

The hunger with which untried talents like Obama are embraced is evidence of the longing among the party faithful for an inspiring leader. The way the party leaders killed Paul Hackett's campaign tells you that they won't be passing the torch easily.

Either the Democrats will win in 2008 (following up on an almost certain win in 2006) or they will lose and in the bloodbath that follows (and it will be UGLY) there will be a purging, after which they will be well poised for a huge victory over a Republican Party that, it would seem, is no better at handling power than they are. Eventually we'll get back to the split reigns of power that are probably for the best.

Call me Nostrodumbass but if anything REMOTELY like these predictions comes true I'm gonna print these out and get a job at the National Enquirer.

The spambots aren't very creative these days.