Cartoons Cause Death Among Muslims

[Jayhawker Soule]

That article focuses on India. That's not where the problem is.

Read the article.

 

[dan]

In this country, you're also responsible for the forseeable outcome of your actions.

No one could have foreseen this. No one. I don't care how you feel about Muslims, these deaths were completely unexpected. They are the result of the inciting of protestors by Islamic Extremists bent on the downfall of western civilization. Every single one of the accounts of those riots mentions that certain extremist groups were present and manipulating the crowd. You're saying every single statement made in public must take into consideration the agendas of every front and interest group in existence and anticipate every single course of action that they might take in every single social circumstance that might arise as a result of your cartoon! That's freaking ridiculous.

 

[dan]

There is no more a right to be irrational than there is a right to rape and pillage.

Are you out of your mind?

Irrationality is a natural right granted me by the Constitution of the United States of America, and protected by the government of said Republic as long as I do not infringe upon the natural rights of others.

That statement is 100% constitutional, and is the very founding principle upon which this entire nation was founded. You need a history lesson, son.

 

[jamaesi]

Something I'm starting to notice is people are acting like current Middle Eastern culture is the same thing as Islam. There are 1.3 and not even close to all of them are Middle Eastern or live in the Middle East. I condemn the current Middle East culture. It needs to be said that the "honour" killings, FGM, stoning, and repression are no where in the Qur'an and are condemned by Islam.

 

[jamaesi]

Read the article.

I did, and any "good" it mentions it has done for other countries, directly, was only said to be in India by that article.

 

[gnostic]

Blaspheme is to be irreverent. It has more to do with sacred principles than with God himself. No one is elevating Mohammad to godhood, they just find it disrespectful to insult their prophets in such a way.

The whole reason Muslims are upset is because of a tradition in their faith that forbids depictions of holy people, because it could lead to idol worshipping (much like praying to statues and little saint playing cards, and even praying to a human being).

But those pictures couldn't possibly make people worship these cartoons like idols.

What the violent protesting Muslims are doing now is considered idol-worshipping. They have elevated Muhammad to the level of godhood, when they considered satires to Muhammad as blasphemy.

As long as I could remember there have been satires of Adam, Noah, Moses and Jesus in cartoons and movies, but not one single voice were heard from Islam, and they considered them all to be their prophets too. Even you may hear protests from Christians or Jews about these depictions, from time to time, they were never violent ones. This hypocritical coming from Muslims, that they would stay silent about other prophets, but resort to violence when it is about their prophet.

Prophets and saints are public figures, just like any other celebrities or politicians, and are fair game of satires. Nothing should be censored or held sacred of another public figures. I have seen far worse depictions of Christian/Jew prophets in cartoon illustrations, in arts, and in movies.

Yes, the reaction by Muslims isn't good. Its a completely wrong approach. The perception of Muslims have been one of violence and terrorism. Unforunately, people associate Islam to be about violence and terrorism.

I agreed with you that the whole Islam is tainted by those violent tens of thousands, or hundred of thousands of Muslims, or even millions of Muslims, but those majority peaceful Muslims are not doing enough to educate those ignorant ones. They are not doing enough to prevent those violent outbreaks.

I keep hearing Muslims saying that we in the West (both secular and religious) should understand and respect their positions, but Muslims should understand that decades, hundreds of years, thousands of years to reach the point of free speech and freedom of expressions. It took a long while to separate State or secular from religion.

In the West, we don't resort to violence over some stupid cartoons. Only communist and military dictators would tried to censor and squash free speech, and rid of cartoons and satires that are directed against them. In China and many other countries, the government control the media. Government should be able to control free media. If government should control the media, then why should religions, such as Christianity, Judaism or Islam, receive special treatments.

The problem is that moderate Muslims are less vocal than those of radical or fundamental elements, which do shine distorted Western images of Islam. I know that majority are peaceful, but they should do more if they don't want to see their religion marred by violence. I wished the moderates could deal with the extremist elements, but so far they have been ineffective.

It also doesn't help when the Hamas are elected to government in Palestine, and that the new Iranian president is in power. Why would a majority moderate people would elect these leaders and think that they could help their nations? I think that part of the problem is that the majority of Muslims can't separate religion from political and social affairs.

 

[wmam]

There were twelve illustrators, and I don't think they are at all responsible for the deaths. These were radical muslims consciously taking the law into their own hands. I don't know about you, but I live in a country where I'm responsible for my actions and my neighboor is responsible for his. There is no part of the Koran that says it's blasphemous or even prohibited to draw Mohammad. It's a tradition, like Christmas, so the reactions of the Muslims that rioted were unwarrented. This is exactly what the founders of our country were trying to avoid with the Constitution - someone excercising a natural right and getting a hail of crap dumped on them for it.

If this was directed at me..... If you read my post carefully you will see I was being sarcastic and I do agree with you. On this.

 

[Karl R]

No one could have foreseen this. No one. I don't care how you feel about Muslims, these deaths were completely unexpected.

Once upon a time, there was this little fellow named Salman Rushdie who wrote a book called "The Satanic Verses"....

And if you publish a set of cartoons under the premise of, "Can we commit blasphemy and get away with it?" you might want to consider what happens if the answer to that question is "No."


The United States and most European nations place a lot of emphasis on Freedom of the Press. It is important. Democracy depends upon it.

But my entire life I was taught, "With freedom comes responsibility."

With Freedom of the Press comes the responsibility to use that freedom wisely.

It's an unfortunate reality that the press doesn't see any responsibility beyond sales and ratings. (If you believe otherwise, attend a journalism class on what is "newsworthy". It will be a real eye-opener.)

This "publicity stunt" wasn't wise or responsible. As a direct result, two European countries have passed laws outlawing blasphemy (placing additional limitations upon the Freedom of the Press).


Western culture practically worships freedom. It's easy for us to overlook that there are many people from other cultures who value other ideals much more than freedom. It's easy for us to place the entire blame on the fanatics whom act in a way that seems completely unwarranted by the situation.

Take the difficult step. Try looking at our culture with the eyes of an outsider. Try to see the high cost we pay for some of our values.

 

[dan]

In the West, we don't resort to violence over some stupid cartoons. Only communist and military dictators would tried to censor and squash free speech, and rid of cartoons and satires that are directed against them.

It seems like that, but that's only because we rarely hear about it here. I have received death threats because of my editorial cartoons, and so has pretty much every other cartoonist in the U.S. I recently drew a cartoon about evolution and had the entire biology department at BYU jump down my throat. Some professors forced the editor of my paper to run a long editorial explaining how I'm stupid and don't understand what I'm doing. I drew a cartoon to make fun of myself and clear up the misconception responsible for all the anger, and my editor wouldn't run it because the professors were threatening the paper. My right to express myself was denied me because someone scared someone else. That's called terrorism, and we're all members of the same faith. It happens all the time in the states with stupid issues like that, but you never hear about them.

 

[dan]

And if you publish a set of cartoons under the premise of, "Can we commit blasphemy and get away with it?" you might want to consider what happens if the answer to that question is "No."

Can I stick my tongue out at a guy and get away with it? What if he belongs to a religion that feels that's blasphemous and then he kills someone? You probably think that's a ridiculous situation, but in our country it's not the rights of the majority that are considered, it's everyone's rights, and if a religion decides seeing someone's tongue is blasphemous, then (by your rationale) the government must respect that and pass a law making it illegal to stick out your tongue. You see where your logic is taking you? If you say, "You're not allowed to blaspheme this religion or this religion or this religion, but these others you can," then you get preferencial treatment of certain churches by the government. That can't happen. It only takes a handful of people to start a church, and then you could decide that having a mustache is blasphemous. Then you could kill someone, and everyone wearing a mustache must be arrested for murder.

Blasphemy is commited every single day in every single town in every single state in the country. No one on this planet is free from it. I don't accept that I must accept blasphemy from everyone that comes within earshot of me on any given day, but I have to treat one faith with kids gloves just because they tend to kill people when you offend them (and I'm responsible for it) If you say you can't blaspheme Mohammad, then you have to say it for Christianity, Judaism and every other religion on the planet. That would change a WHOLE LOT in our country. Read the Maryland Toleration Act. Tell me what the difference is between that and what you propose.

Side note - We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic. Big difference. An interesting thing about our constitution is that it has nothing to do with morality. It has only to do with protecting the rights of the people. Freedom from blasphemy is not a natural right. What was done by the cartoonsits was in no way shape or form illegal. People are now making it illegal because terrorism has defeated them.

Side, side note - The Koran does not ever teach that depicting a prophet is prohibited. Neither did Mohammad. This means we have to pander to other people's interpretations of their religions in order to make laws about blaspheme. I hope you see where you're going with your logic.

 

[dan]

If this was directed at me..... If you read my post carefully you will see I was being sarcastic and I do agree with you. On this.

Right on.

 

[Karl R]

Can I stick my tongue out at a guy and get away with it? You probably think that's a ridiculous situation,

Actually, I think it's a perfect example.

I grew up in Detroit. In Detroit, people occasionally get killed because they flipped somebody off (made a rude gesture). It wasn't a violation of the other person's religious beliefs. It just happened to p**s them off.

I grew up realizing that being rude could get me killed. I'm still rather rude, but I always assess the personal risk before shooting off my big mouth.

An interesting thing about our constitution is that it has nothing to do with morality. It has only to do with protecting the rights of the people. What was done by the cartoonsits was in no way shape or form illegal.

What the cartoonists did was legal. It was within their rights.

But I'm reminded of proverb about driving (taken from a roadside advertisement):
"He was right, dead right, as he sped along,
But he's just as dead as if dead wrong."

Showing disrespect to others is well within your constitutional rights, but it also may have the consequence of making you very, very dead.

You have the right to drink a gallon of whiskey with every meal, but I don't recommend it.

You have the right to humiliate your spouse in public. Again, it's not recommended.

You have the right to gamble your life savings on one spin of the roulette wheel in Vegas. Not highly recommended, however.

You can insult and offend a billion people ... and then expect the governments of every western nation to protect you from the consequences of your actions.

In the first three cases, we laugh at the fools as they pay the consequences for their actions. In the fourth case, we act as if what they were doing was good and necessary.

if a religion decides seeing someone's tongue is blasphemous, then (by your rationale) the government must respect that and pass a law making it illegal to stick out your tongue. You see where your logic is taking you?

I didn't say that the anti-blasphemy laws were right. I merely pointed out that they happened as a result of the cartoons and the uproar.

Freedom from blasphemy is not a natural right.

Why is freedom of speech a natural right? Because the Bill of Rights says it is. The western nations all practice this philosophy, and now we act like it's written into the very fabric of nature.

But it is just a philosophical belief (albeit one that I also happen to believe). The rest of the world doesn't automatically share our philosophy. There are other philosophies that hold other beliefs. Buddhism, for example, advocates a form of self-censorship. Speaking in an offensive manner is morally wrong from their perspective.

Islam is another belief system. We feel that our philosophical beliefs should trump their religious beliefs. They feel their religious beliefs should trump our philosophical beliefs. Instead of approaching this rationally, we have agitators on both sides feeding the flames.

The Koran does not ever teach that depicting a prophet is prohibited. Neither did Mohammad.

Does the bible say we have freedom of speech? Does "The Book of Mormon" say we have freedom of speech?

We've taken one of our cultural traditions (Freedom of Speech) and elevated it above our own religious beliefs. Why are we so apalled when muslims do the same thing?

 

[dan]

I agree with most of what you said. I'm not sure I understand your initial asserion, though. I was under the impression you felt the cartoons were (or should be) in violation of some law. Perhaps I got mixed up.

The Book of Mormon, by the way, does say we have freedom of speech, and Christ did teach the same principle.

 

[Ody]

Cartoons don't kill people; religious fanatics kill people.

Agreed, and its debatable if they really are religious

 

[Karl R]

I'm not sure I understand your initial asserion, though. I was under the impression you felt the cartoons were (or should be) in violation of some law. Perhaps I got mixed up.

My initial assertion was that I thought the cartoons were created by people with the primary intention of offending others. The continued reprinting of the cartoons was also intended to offend. The majority opinion among the posters is that the cartoonists' actions were legal, and therefore they shouldn't be subject to any unpleasant consequences.

I feel that speech is only protected from legal consequences, and people have to be willing to take some responsibility for any other consequences that occur.

If someone's sole defense is, "We knew you'd get mad, but we had no idea that you'd get this mad," then it's not exactly mitigation.

Even though we have the right to free speech, we're not obligated to excercise that right in every situation. If I'm considering saying something that will have unpleasant consequences, I'm going to make sure that it's important enough to warrant facing those consequences.

 

[Darkdale]

Even though we have the right to free speech, we're not obligated to excercise that right in every situation. If I'm considering saying something that will have unpleasant consequences, I'm going to make sure that it's important enough to warrant facing those consequences.

I think these cartoons served a fundamentally important role; showing how far their mass hysteria can go. If they will go this nuts over a cartoon, what happens if we do something like not obey their religious laws?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My initial assertion was that I thought the cartoons were created by people with the primary intention of offending others.

According to Wikipedia

The drawings, including a depiction of Muhammad with a bomb inside or under his turban, were accompanied by an article on self-censorship and freedom of speech. Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of the conservative daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten, contacted approximately 40 cartoonists, and asked them to draw the prophet as they saw him. He eventually received twelve cartoons from different cartoonists for the project and published the cartoons to highlight the difficulty experienced by Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen in finding artists to illustrate his children's book about Muhammad. Artists previously approached by Bluitgen were reportedly unwilling to work with him for fear of violent attacks by extremist Muslims.​

If you have some further information concerning "the primary intention" of the cartoonists or the newspaper please feel free to share it.

The continued reprinting of the cartoons was also intended to offend.

I suspect that the principle intent behind reprinting the cartoons was show solidarity in the face of a perceived asault on freedom of the press.

The majority opinion among the posters is that the cartoonists' actions were legal, and therefore they shouldn't be subject to any unpleasant consequences.

What do you think about Ibn Warraq's Democracy in a cartoon?

 

[dan]

I think it's an excellent article. It wears a hint of resentment, but echos a powerful truth: tens of thousands of Americans died in the name of free speech. Are we to forfeit that most precious of rights because more lives are lost as an indirect result, especially when the deaths come because of irrational, violent behavior?

Self-censorship may be a virtue, but standing up for what you think is just is also a virtue.

 

[Karl R]

The drawings, including a depiction of Muhammad with a bomb inside or under his turban, were accompanied by an article on self-censorship and freedom of speech.

An exerpt from the original article:

The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule....

And this was accompanied by several examples of mockery, just to get muslims accustomed to the idea.

It's possible that the article wasn't intended to be racist, but it's easy to interpret it as racist.

If you put an ugly spin on what Flemming Rose is saying, you could paraphrase it as saying, "If you muslims want to live in a democratic country, you need to get used to being ridiculed. And let me start by ridiculing you right now." Sure, you need to read between the lines to get that meaning out of it ... but you also need to read between the lines to see this article (with accompanying pictures) being about self-censorship, and that alone.

What do you think about Ibn Warraq's Democracy in a cartoon?

Interesting article, but I don't agree with all his points.

The great British philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty, "Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being 'pushed to an extreme'; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case."

The cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten raise the most important question of our times: freedom of expression. Are we in the west going to cave into pressure from societies with a medieval mindset, or are we going to defend our most precious freedom -- freedom of expression, a freedom for which thousands of people sacrificed their lives?

As I stated before, Freedom of Expression protects us from legal consequences. It doesn't protect us from any other consequences.

If this is truly an extreme case, and self-censorship is threatening to disrupt our democratic way of life, then it's also worth paying the ultimate price for.

How can we expect immigrants to integrate into western society when they are at the same time being taught that the west is decadent, a den of iniquity, the source of all evil, racist, imperialist and to be despised?

We certainly won't integrate them by demonstrating our iniquities, evil and racism. We have to show them the parts of our society that are virtuous, good and tolerant.

How do you teach a child to swim? You begin by making them feel safe in the water. You coax them in. People aren't anxious to enter a hostile environment.

How do you teach a child how to learn to laugh at themselves? Do you laugh at them until they finally get the point? Or do you demonstrate how easy it is for you to laugh at yourself, until they learn to emulate you?

Only Nixon could go to China.

Perhaps Jyllands-Posten weren't the right people to try to take on this task of enlightenment. While they claim to have the noblest motives, they certainly chose a stupid way to try to accomplish them.

 

[dan]

As I stated before, Freedom of Expression protects us from legal consequences. It doesn't protect us from any other consequences.

If that were true then the government would not protect the illustrators. They are currently under 24 hour police protection. Your assertion would mean the govenrnment should tell them tough noogies.