Lessons from the Mohammad Cartoon incident

[Jim]

Since then newspapers in a number of European countries - such as Spain, Germany, Hungary, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Italy - have printed the cartoons, often as a gesture in defence of free speech.

 

In the most controversial episode so far, the managing editor of France Soir was sacked after the paper printed the drawings in yesterday's edition, using the defiant headline, "Yes, we have the right to caricature God."

 

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1700798,00.html

 

"Any insult to the Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) is an insult to more than 1 billion Muslims and an act like this must never be allowed to be repeated," Afghan President Hamid Karzai said in a statement. http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/02/cartoons.wrap/

 

This is turning out to be a very revealing incident and I think the lessons learned are going to take a while to digest.

 

My initial reaction is that in any free country people have the right to protest and to boycott any paper which offends. If someone dips a crucifix in urine, that is intended to provoke a reaction, and the artist cannot complain if Christians react lawfully.

 

What I'm trying to guage is how widespread are the threats of violence. I can't help but hope that this religion does not flourish. One billion seems quite enough. They seriously need to unclench.

[Bettina]

After reading about Islam, I would say that it is the most violent and scarry religion of all of them and I fear it's going to get much worse. If there was ever an ideology that should be buried, its this one.

 

Bettina

[AL]

I'm still upset about the death of Theo van Gogh.

That was more brutally ironic than the reaction to this cartoon. Well, at least so far. Maybe heads will start rolling and things will start blowing up in a few days....

[In My Memory]

Question: should newspapers be publishing those cartoons?

 

On the one hand, they have free speech, they even have the right to blaspheme other religions, and their cartoons have a serious message. And by publishing the cartoons, they are showing that they will not be pushed around by Islamic bullies.

 

On the other hand, Islamic fundamentalists are INSANE and will murder people for those cartoons being published.

 

 

What to do?

[Aardvark]

Question: should newspapers be publishing those cartoons?

 

On the one hand' date=' they have free speech, they even have the right to blaspheme other religions, and their cartoons have a serious message. And by publishing the cartoons, they are showing that they will not be pushed around by Islamic bullies.

 

On the other hand, Islamic fundamentalists are INSANE and will murder people for those cartoons being published.

 

 

What to do?[/quote']

 

You don't give in to blackmail and intimidation. You print what you want to print and stand up for the rights of others to print what they want to print.

[Jim]

Question: should newspapers be publishing those cartoons?

 

On the one hand' date=' they have free speech, they even have the right to blaspheme other religions, and their cartoons have a serious message. And by publishing the cartoons, they are showing that they will not be pushed around by Islamic bullies.

 

On the other hand, Islamic fundamentalists are INSANE and will murder people for those cartoons being published.

 

 

What to do?[/quote']

 

I would like to see the papers publish the cartoons continuously until Muslims understand free democracies will not be cowed. I quoted one Muslim saying their objective is to ensure this never happens again. The point has to be established that they will not set up a global standard of censorship. This is a culture which issued a death edict for Salman Rushdie and this is a battle worth fighting.

 

A harder question is whether the cartoons should have been published in the first place. Generally, we should not try to provoke using religion. OTOH, if Muslims do not want to be lampooned, or have their religion lampooned,they need to clean their own house.

[Severian]

There seems to be a lot of bigotry of people on this site, and while I defend the right of people to be bigots, I would try to discourage them from it.

 

Not all (or even most) muslims are foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics twitching for the chance to blow themselves up in a busload of schoolkids. Most muslims are constructive members of their society who want to live their lives peacefully and without violence. They are as appalled by the terrorists' acts as you or I.

 

However, they care deeply about their beliefs (who doesn't?) and are offended when people make fun of them, or call their beliefs evil. When you draw this sort of cartoon, you offend lots of people, and potentially drive them towards your enemies. Why can't the west understand this?

 

So while I would defend the newspaper's rights to print this cartoon, I think it is irresponsible and bigotted. Wouldn't it be better to write an article pointing out the common values that Islam and the west share, and try to bring them together rather than drive them apart?

 

If there was ever an ideology that should be buried' date=' its this one.

[/quote']

 

Statements like this about Islam are no better than an islamic fundamentalist declaring that western capitalism should be wiped out.

[Jim]

There seems to be a lot of bigotry of people on this site' date=' and while I defend the right of people to be bigots, I would try to discourage them from it.

[/quote']

 

You shouldn't throw out the bigot label without dealing in specifics. I certainly never said that all Muslims are terrorists. You have presented the ultimate strawman.

 

However, I do think Muslims have a responsibility to clean their own house. When the South was burning crosses on African Americans' front lawns, many southerners were not of that ilk; however, they still had a moral obligation to stand up and speak out for civil rights. The south was rightly judged as a collective, not for all participating in lynchings, but for not taking care of the problem earlier.

 

In the same way, right now, there should be a furor among Muslims about this attempt to infringe our freedom of expression.

 

I also said that I would like for this religion not to grow. As an agnostic, I'm entitled to that view point and, given their recent attempt to restrict our freedom of expression, I particuarly like for Islam not to grow. As I said, one billion throwing a fit at once is quite enough.

 

For the record, I'd like for Christianity not to grow too. My personal view is that it's time for such superstitions to be put aside. However, at least Christianity was started by a leader who said "turn the other cheek" and "render unto Caesar" rather than someone who was a military commander. So, again to be honest and direct, I would prefer that Christianity spread more than I would Islam. This view is being validated in my mind by this furor.

 

If we can't have such free discussion on a science forum in America, we can't have it anywhere.

 

 

However, they care deeply about their beliefs (who doesn't?) and are offended when people make fun of them, or call their beliefs evil. When you draw this sort of cartoon, you offend lots of people, and potentially drive them towards your enemies. Why can't the west understand this?

 

You understand none of us here drew the cartoon? The question was whether we should be cowed in the face of this furor. The answer is simply, no.

 

So while I would defend the newspaper's rights to print this cartoon, I think it is irresponsible and bigoted. Wouldn't it be better to write an article pointing out the common values that Islam and the west share, and try to bring them together rather than drive them apart?

 

I sure wouldn't try to say what is the best way for a journalist to write every article about Muslims. I do question the initial publisher but not the republishers.

[Pangloss]

Not all (or even most) muslims are foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics twitching for the chance to blow themselves up in a busload of schoolkids. Most muslims are constructive members of their society who want to live their lives peacefully and without violence. They are as appalled by the terrorists' acts as you or I.

 

However' date=' they care deeply about their beliefs (who doesn't?) and are offended when people make fun of them, or call their beliefs evil. When you draw this sort of cartoon, you offend lots of people, and potentially drive them towards your enemies. Why can't the west understand this?

 

So while I would defend the newspaper's rights to print this cartoon, I think it is irresponsible and bigotted. Wouldn't it be better to write an article pointing out the common values that Islam and the west share, and try to bring them together rather than drive them apart?[/quote']

 

That's the same reasoning that *should* have been applied by the Washington Post's cartoonist the other day, when he depicted an American serviceman in a quadraplegic state with Donald Rumsfeld hovering over him saying that he was now "battle-hardened". Sensitivity may be a weakness of our society, but it serves a purpose, and I find it hard to understand what great gap in people's understanding of the present situation was filled by either that cartoon or any of the ones we're discussing here.

 

That having been said, even though it's a two-wrongs argument, I noted with interest Der Spiegel's editorial position that the Mullahs were being hypocritical, given the way Muslim papers often depict Jewish religious figures, which apparently can be quite nasty.

[Severian]

You shouldn't throw out the bigot label without dealing in specifics.

 

I can't get much more specific than actually including a quote!

 

However' date=' I do think Muslims have a responsibility to clean their own house.

[/quote']

 

So, were you partially responsible for the non-theist killings of Stalin and Mao? Are you responsible for the rantings of anyone who is an atheist or agnostic generally?

 

When the South was burning crosses on African Americans' front lawns, many southerners were not of that ilk; however, they still had a moral obligation to stand up and speak out for civil rights. The south was rightly judged as a collective, not for all participating in lynchings, but for not taking care of the problem earlier.

 

No, the US was rightly judged as a collective and responsible for the problem. Similarly, any individual country who has citizens who perform terrorist acts should try and prevent them. But you should not make an entire ideology responsible for every person who claims to believe in it.

 

I also said that I would like for this religion not to grow. As an agnostic, I'm entitled to that view point and, given their recent attempt to restrict our freedom of expression, I particuarly like for Islam not to grow. As I said, one billion throwing a fit at once is quite enough.

 

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but in that case they are entitled to their opinion that you are evil.

 

I sure wouldn't try to say what is the best way for a journalist to write every article about Muslims. I do question the initial publisher but not the republishers.

 

The publisher was at least trying to make a point. The republishers were just being deliberately provocative.

[Jim]

I can't get much more specific than actually including a quote!

Your initial post spoke to a "lot of bigotry" yet you only cited to one poster. I'll let her speak for herself but you seemed to be attempting to tar more than one person. If that is your intent, have the guts to be specific.

 

 

So, were you partially responsible for the non-theist killings of Stalin and Mao? Are you responsible for the rantings of anyone who is an atheist or agnostic generally?

 

There is a question of where you draw the line. I would draw the line based on the ability to influence. I had no ability to influence Stalin or Mao.

 

No, the US was rightly judged as a collective and responsible for the problem. Similarly, any individual country who has citizens who perform terrorist acts should try and prevent them. But you should not make an entire ideology responsible for every person who claims to believe in it.

 

The south was judged more harshly than the US but whatever. Responsibility should be based on ability to influence.

 

If Christian fundamentalist churches in the united states had a contingent that started bombing abortion clinics and left wing journalists, the leaders of those churches would have a moral obligation to speak out and do everything in their power to stop the violence. I'm not convinced that Muslim leaders have made such an effort.

 

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but in that case they are entitled to their opinion that you are evil.

 

I guess they should come over and kill me then. I'd be in good company if I were a target. http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/rushdie.htm

 

 

The publisher was at least trying to make a point. The republishers were just being deliberately provocative.

 

I think the publisher was making the point that you were condemning in your post. The republishers were reacting to the attempt to cow freedom of expression.

[bascule]

However, they care deeply about their beliefs (who doesn't?) and are offended when people make fun of them, or call their beliefs evil.

 

Maybe they wouldn't be so offended if their beliefs were based on evidence and logic instead of superstition.

[Jim]

Maybe they wouldn't be so offended if their beliefs were based on evidence and logic instead of superstition.

 

The reaction does seem deeply defensive:

 

Whoever defames our prophet should be executed,” said Ismail Hassan, 37, a tailor who marched through the pouring rain along with hundreds of others in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

 

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

 

An imam at the Omari Mosque in Gaza City told 9,000 worshippers that those behind them should have their heads cut off.

 

“If they want a war of religions, we are ready,” Hassan Sharaf, an imam in Nablus, said in his sermon. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11097877/

[Bettina]

There seems to be a lot of bigotry of people on this site' date=' and while I defend the right of people to be bigots, I would try to discourage them from it.

 

Not all (or even most) muslims are foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics twitching for the chance to blow themselves up in a busload of schoolkids. Most muslims are constructive members of their society who want to live their lives peacefully and without violence. They are as appalled by the terrorists' acts as you or I.

 

However, they care deeply about their beliefs (who doesn't?) and are offended when people make fun of them, or call their beliefs evil. When you draw this sort of cartoon, you offend lots of people, and potentially drive them towards your enemies. Why can't the west understand this?

 

So while I would defend the newspaper's rights to print this cartoon, I think it is irresponsible and bigotted. Wouldn't it be better to write an article pointing out the common values that Islam and the west share, and try to bring them together rather than drive them apart?

 

 

 

Statements like this about Islam are no better than an islamic fundamentalist declaring that western capitalism should be wiped out.[/quote']

 

Severian, I believe in the "now" that I'm living in not the someone else's "now" or what happened years ago. All I know is what I read and what is reported along with actual photographs.

 

Other religions don't kill, kidnap, behead, or blow up children for making a cartoon. I stand by what I said about the Islamic religion.

 

Bettina

[bascule]

Go US!

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020301577.html

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Washington on Friday condemned caricatures in European newspapers of the Prophet Mohammad, siding with Muslims who are outraged that the publications put press freedom over respect for religion.

 

By inserting itself into a dispute that has become a lightning rod for anti-European sentiment across the Muslim world, the United States could help its own battered image among Muslims.

 

"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question. "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."

 

"We call for tolerance and respect for all communities for their religious beliefs and practices," he added.

 

Major U.S. publications have not republished the cartoons, which include depictions of Mohammad as a terrorist. That is in contrast to European media, which responded to the criticism against the original Danish newspaper that printed the caricatures by republishing the offensive images themselves.

 

Also here are the original cartoons, along with an assortment of others which have been done in response:

 

http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/

 

I really got a kick out of this one:

 

[Tiger's Eye]

I'm in full support of freedom of the press, however, I think that this wasn't really a smart move on the part of the newspapers. In my opinion, I think what upset pple more was not so much what the cartoon portrayed, but rather WHO was portrayed in it: Islam forbids the images of any religious figure, especially of Allah or of the Prophet (it's supposed to prevent idolatry, so I'm told). While the press should be free to express it's opinions about Islam, it should still respect the beliefs and customs of the religion as well. I mean, this is and is becoming a VERY serious matter, and now pple's lives are in danger...

 

Severian, I believe in the "now" that I'm living in not the someone else's "now" or what happened years ago. All I know is what I read and what is reported along with actual photographs.

 

What makes you think that the press gives you all sides of the "now"?

[ydoaPs]

wow, fighting the stereotype by being the stereotype they are fighting.....

[Aardvark]

While the press should be free to express it's opinions about Islam, it should still respect the beliefs and customs of the religion as well.

 

You are contradicting yourself.

 

Either there is freedom of the press or there isn't. Stating that you support freedom of the press, but the press must 'respect' the beliefs and customs of Islam in its reporting means that there isn't freedom.

 

Muslims are grossly overreacting and giving us all a very useful lesson in the aggressive bigotry that is mainstream in Islam.

[Severian]

You are contradicting yourself.

 

Either there is freedom of the press or there isn't. Stating that you support freedom of the press' date=' but the press must 'respect' the beliefs and customs of Islam in its reporting means that there isn't freedom.

[/quote']

 

Would you regard this site as being censored? Do you feel unable to express yourself? Probably not, but you will get banned if you flame and insult people.

[swansont]

I do think Muslims have a responsibility to clean their own house.

 

 

I was thinking along these lines earlier today. It would be a lot easier to be sympathetic with the furor if Muslim populations burned fewer US flags and were more vocal in denouncing and fighting extremism and especially the associated terrorism. I read the occasional claim that Islam is a religion of peace and not violence but it's hard for that to sink in when one keeps learning of things blowing up, killing innocents, and hearing chants of "Death to America!" on the evening news. I know it's extremists doing the bad things, but I don't see any action on the part of the moderates to rein things in.

 

Are these instances of someone being deliberately provacative? Yes. Sometimes that's the only way to bring attention to the issue. The US has a PR problem in the middle east, but Islam likewise has a PR problem in the west. If they expect tolerance of their views, they must also exhibit tolerance of others' views.

[Aardvark]

Would you regard this site as being censored? Do you feel unable to express yourself? Probably not, but you will get banned if you flame and insult people.

 

You are the one calling for that censorship.

 

People should be allowed to express their opinions, even if some other people find those opinions offensive. The fact that Muslims don't like drawings of Mohammed and don't like him being mocked does not mean that people should be prevented from drawing and printing cartoons of Mohammed. Muslims should not be able to impose their beliefs on others.

 

Part of living in a free society is the freedom to mock and satirise. Preventing that under the guise of enforced 'respect' means the erosion of liberty.

[Pangloss]

I don't think that deciding not to run something because it's insensitive necessarily equates to censorship. I feel free to run down the street yelling obscenities, but that doesn't mean I'm going to do it.

[Severian]

You are the one calling for that censorship.

 

No I didn't. Go back and try again.

 

Part of living in a free society is the freedom to mock and satirise. Preventing that under the guise of enforced 'respect' means the erosion of liberty.

 

Part of living in a civilized society is learning to be civilized.

 

I don't think that deciding not to run something because it's insensitive necessarily equates to censorship. I feel free to run down the street yelling obscenities' date=' but that doesn't mean I'm going to do it.[/quote']

 

Exactly! Thank you!

[bascule]

I read the occasional claim that Islam is a religion of peace and not violence but it's hard for that to sink in when one keeps learning of things blowing up, killing innocents, and hearing chants of "Death to America!" on the evening news.

 

That reminded me of this:

 

 

(Note: This is a photoshop job. Here's the original)

[Tiger's Eye]

You are contradicting yourself.

 

Either there is freedom of the press or there isn't. Stating that you support freedom of the press' date=' but the press must 'respect' the beliefs and customs of Islam in its reporting means that there isn't freedom.

 

Muslims are grossly overreacting and giving us all a very useful lesson in the aggressive bigotry that is mainstream in Islam.[/quote']

 

There is a difference between giving your negative opinion about someone's beliefs and being outright disrespectful in doing so. Are you saying that people, namely the press, should be an exception to this? People probably would have been less angered by an article or editorial expressing the same opinion towards Islam. Like I said before, Islam FORBIDS the portrayal of religious figures. I figure that the artist himself as well as the people of the newspapers aren't Muslim, but seriously, is it too much to ask for SOME decency (decency not only on the part of the press, but on the part of all the pple who continue to encourage the publication of this comic strip)?

 

I agree with the US on this one: freedom of the press goes hand in hand with press responsibility and this was a screw up.