1

I really was upset about the cartoons. Why make such cartoons when they are infactual and false?

If people really read about the prophet peace be upon him they would realise he was a mercy to mankind.

Moreover, as Muslims we aren't allowed to draw pictures of Prophets, furthermore, we aren't meant to disrespect someone elses religion. We respect all prophets, Moses, Abraham, Jesus, so why not respect our dear Prophet?

2

Thank you for standing up to defend this great nation and even the morons we have who do not deserve to be defended :-) . However, you are one of the few who seems to be fair. Others are being hypocritical. Please read:

http://www.imran.com/media/blog/2006/02/lets-make-new-cartoons-of-prophet.html

regards

Imran

3

Although many non-Muslims, like myself, including our State Department, find that publishing the Mohammed cartoons in the Jyllands-Posten and republishing the cartoons in other European papers is certainly in poor taste, the extreme overreaction of those offended could make their response bigger news than the original offense, and thus, causing a shift of sympathies. They should register their protest and calm down.

4

Joe,

I have a few problems with your reasoning here.

The West is at war with terrorism, not with Islam.

It is impossible to be a war with a type of fighting. It's like saying, "We are fighting blitzkrieg" or "We are fighting crossbows." Neither defines who the enemy is. In this case, we are fighting, at a minimum, a specific type of Islamic belief and the people who follow it.

But is has become increasingly difficult determining which side of the Islam/Islamicists divide many Muslims are on.

The reason that it is difficult is because there is no distinction. Many muslims, while not violent themselves, approve of the actions taken by their brethern.

The Muslim protestors and the European journalists disagree about where that line should be drawn. But no one seriously argues that such a line doesn’t exist.

You are close to the heart of the matter here. Let's say that all newspapers decided they would not offend Muslim sensibilities. Where does that leave us? Are you offending muslims if a woman writes the article? Are muslims offended if a reporter questions the role of women in society (a reporter in Afghanistan was arrested for an article calling for women to have more rights)? How about an article that state that the Koran is false due to historical evidence? Saying such a thing is an insult since muslims consider the Koran itself to be holy and the words of Allah. Is the line based on muslim standards or the standards of a free society?

But while equating the two would be an embrace of moral relativism, we should not overlook the fact that both are morally tainted.

The cartoons were offensive, but pretty mild, especially when compared to anti-semitic cartoons in the muslim press. The newspaper's point wasn't to offend per se, but to highlight the self-censorship imposed for one religion that is not imposed on other religions. And based on the Islamic reaction, they have shown the censorship has more to do with fear than any respect for Islam. Remember, Theo Van Gogh was killed for making a movie about Islam.

We not only treasure the “right to blaspheme” but mock and deride the very idea that anything can be considered sacred.

Multiculturalism pretty much destroys the concept that anything can be considered sacred. Since all cultures are considered equal, nothing about them can be considered safe from ridicule. Otherwise, we shouldn't be eating cows so as not to offend the Hindus, drink beer in public so as not to offend the Muslims, create art designed to offend Christians, etc. It is impossible in such a massively mixed society not to offend someone's religion, so all must be offended.

5

The West is at war with terrorism, not with Islam.

Not to pick nits, but this statement is only half true. We are at war with that small, but significant portion of Islam that promotes the use of terrorism in furtherance of their aims. There are a lot of terrorist groups that don't even register on our national radar screen, let alone have had war declared on them by us. While there are diplomatic reasons to gloss over this reality, I think we ignore it tactically at our peril.

6

Spot on, Chris.

7

"But is has become increasingly difficult determining which side of the Islam/Islamicists divide many Muslims are on.

The reason that it is difficult is because there is no distinction. Many muslims, while not violent themselves, approve of the actions taken by their brethern."

Doesn't the third sentence contradict the second? It seems to draw a distinction between those who attack, those who approve, and an unnamed minority (in the poster's opinion) that do neither. Perhaps he meant "Any muslim not violent..."

Great post Joe. I especially like the closer.

8

Thank you, Joe, for standing up for freedom of the press. We all need to show solidarity with the cartoonists and newspapermen who have been threatened with violence and death.

I don't understand, however, why you characterize the cartoons as blasphemous or base. Are you relying on second-hand descriptions of the cartoons, or have you eyeballed the cartoons yourself?

Here's a link to the twelve offending cartoons:
"Support Denmark: Why the Forbidden Cartoons Matter"

Can you tell me which cartoon or cartoons you find offensive, and why?

They all seem very tame to me -- they are offering low-key criticisms of Islamist-inspired violence and censorship. Nothing a mature person would get in a tizzy over, much less feel compelled to march in the streets.

We're not talking transgressive art here, just some simple political commentary.

9

Stephen, I assume you are referring to this sentence:

In this case, we are fighting, at a minimum, a specific type of Islamic belief and the people who follow it.

In an attempt not to be incendiary, I tried to make my statement based on the distinctions that some apply to Islam (i.e. radical, moderate, etc.) The third sentence doesn't make that distinction. So yes, there is some negation between the two. The third sentence is more along the lines of what I believe. I do believe we are at war with Islam and that war has been continuous since it's inception. Islam wars with anything that is not Islam.

The response of the ambassador of Tripoli when asked by Thomas Jefferson and John Adams why American shipping was being attacked when the U.S. had never done anything to Tripoli.

That it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as risoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.

10

Thanks for the post, Joe.

I think there is a broader issue here that is getting missed. John Piper made this interesting comment in an e-mail to Justin Taylor (theologica.blogspot.com):

"Am I missing it, or is there an unusual silence in the blogosphere about the Muslim outrage over the cartoons of Mohammed. To me this cries out for the observation that when artists put the crucifix in a flask of urine, Christians were grieved and angered, but not one threatened to kill anyone. Our longing is to convert the blasphemers with the Good News of Christ's death and resurrection, not kill them. Our faith is based on One who was reviled not just in cartoons but in reality and received it patiently for the salvation of the cartoonists. These riots are filled with intimations about the glorious difference between Christ and Mohammed, and between the way of Christ and the way of Islam. And the cowing of the press around the world and the US government is ominous for the fear we are under of Islam--not just extremist Islam. I do not respect the teachings of Islam which when followed devoutly lead to destruction. So I have been pondering which will take me out first, Islam, Uncle Sam, or cancer. No matter, all authority belongs to Jesus. I just want to bear faithful witness to his glorious gospel of peace to the end."

It seems far more likely to me that Islam, faithfully observed, leads to Muslims burning down the Danish embassy over some cartoons and attacking the owners of a sunken ship than to think that this is just the work of "a few extremists."

11

Joe, I don't think the cartoon flap tells us much that is new about our Muslim neighbors (except, perhaps, that they REALLY mean it when they call it "blasphemous"), but I have learned a lot about my Western secular friends.

The cartoons have reveared a new strain of "Islamophobia." No, it's not the old-fashioned "visceral and irrational hatred" version. It's a FEAR of Islam that induces otherwise principled people to jettison their commitment to the First Amendment.

"Fear of Islam" is not necessarily irrational. After all, the "terrorists" are doing everything they can to INDUCE a fear that paralyzes the unbelievers. Only an IRRATIONAL fear deserves the name of phobia, and I argue that only an IRRATIONAL fear would drive one to preemptive surrender.

12

Although many non-Muslims, like myself, including our State Department, find that publishing the Mohammed cartoons in the Jyllands-Posten and republishing the cartoons in other European papers is certainly in poor taste, the extreme overreaction of those offended could make their response bigger news than the original offense, and thus, causing a shift of sympathies. They should register their protest and calm down.

What is extreme though? The massive protests or the violence and calls to violence? I have one title for you, The Last Temptation of Christ. When it came out there were massive protests and even calls to violence (in the US, though, most such violence is committed thru anonymous death threats and such but thankfully such people usually never go beyond that).

When people's religion is insulted I don't expect them to be rational. A few years ago I remember Hindu's in India engaged in a massive riot burning down a mosque (I don't recall if any Muslims were killed) because even though it was centuries old it had been built on the supposed 'birthplace' of one of their gods.

The cartoons were offensive, but pretty mild, especially when compared to anti-semitic cartoons in the muslim press. The newspaper's point wasn't to offend per se, but to highlight the self-censorship imposed for one religion that is not imposed on other religions. And based on the Islamic reaction, they have shown the censorship has more to do with fear than any respect for Islam. Remember, Theo Van Gogh was killed for making a movie about Islam.

It's interesting to note that some right wing Christians were sympathetic to the calls for Rushdie to be killed for writing The Satanic Versus, particularly Pat Buchannan. Which leads into:

We not only treasure the “right to blaspheme” but mock and deride the very idea that anything can be considered sacred.

And why should this be a bad thing? Muslims have been treated a bit like the Amish. The Amish are often considered 'cute' people with a quaint religion and to challenge their beliefs is considered rude & boorish. Likewise act in a similiar manner towards Muslims, Hindus and others with religions that are unusual in the West. But people part of a mature society is being constantly attacked (verbally, not physically) and having to justify and defend your beliefs against skeptics. Muslims cannot have it both ways. They cannot be protected as a 'pet' by Western society and also be full participants in a democratic country and have their beliefs given a respected hearing.

This means they are going to have to confront people who do not see good reason why their prophet should be 'respected' like Moses or Jesus (and Christians and Jews...even on this blog...have to deal with those who question whether their prophets were even real let alone worthy of respect!). If the Danish press opened up this debate by violating a taboo that was inhibiting it then it is probably a good thing!

13

Thought-provoking post. I agree with most of Chris Lutz's comments, although I think CL's first criticism could be averted by saying we're in a war on terrorists rather than terrorism.

Boonton: The key is that it was "some" right-wing Christians. Were hundreds of thousands marching in the streets over TLTOC? I would argue that many Christians were upset, but a tiny minority supported calls for murder. These Muslim protests are widespread and worldwide. It's like comparing grapefruits and cloves.

14

The West is at war with terrorism, not with Islam.

Gonna have to disagree here. Terrorism is merely a tactic. Both the IRA in Northern Ireland and the Basque separatists in Spain have resorted to a form of terrorism.

No, we are at war with a particular interpretation of Islam. And even if the vast majority of Muslims do not subscribe to this Islamo-Fascist worldview, it has the ability to cow the majority into submission. (I used the word "fascists" advisedly, too, as that was how the Nazis were able to take a minority party and turn it into the state religion, as it were.) Look at the Drudge Report this morning; there are pictures of Muslim protesters carrying signs reading "Freedom Go to Hell" and "Europe Take Some Lessons from 9/11."

I find it ironic that the Muslim protesters are bothered by a pen-and-ink drawing but not the slightest bit bothered that civilians around the world are slaughtered in the name of the prophet they seem to care so much about.

Just once I’d like to defend a freedom that wasn’t vulgar, degraded, and profane. Just once I’d like to defend freedom that aspired to the ideals of Thomas Jefferson ...

But there has never been such a time. Read the some of the pamphleteers from Jefferson's time; they could be as shocking and rude (though, granted, not as profane or obscene) as today's free-speech advocates.

15

It's a pity that some exercise their freedom of expression in deliberately provocative ways. Even more offensive than the cartoons, however, has been the ironically violent response to them.

I essentially agree with Joe's post; ain't that a hoot? ;-)

16

Good job, Joe.

17

Are we at war with Islam? Do we want a war with Islam?

Hugh Hewitt posed these questions on his website on Feb. 6, 2006. His answer to both questions was “no” and “no”. Joe, you are in agreement with him.

I would like to agree with Hewitt. I am a Westerner (Europe and the United States), raised with all of the sensibilities of liberal western socialization. I believe in the basic freedoms of the first ten amendments: speech, religion, association, press, and so on. I also believe in some of the rights of those amendments that are not considered so liberal, such as the right to keep and bear arms.

I believe that all faiths have the right to view God or gods as they see fit. I also believe in the right to believe in no God or gods, as a person would see fit. I believe in the right of any in those religions or non-religions to be offended by any and all religious observances, cartoons, beliefs, whatever. When it comes to the basic freedoms, I paint with a pretty wide brush. No, my brush is not so wide as to include those who seek to outlaw all public displays of faith, but I believe in their right to complain about it. Having said that:

I think that the question, and therefore the answers, have been framed incorrectly. Wording the questions and answers in this way leaves the impression that the choice for a war with Islam is for us to decide. That is incorrect. A war between Islam and the West depends on Islam as much as it depends on us. And the evidence seems to point to the fact that Islam has declared war on the world, particularly the U.S. The cartoons in Europe do not represent an offensive against Islam, but a backlash against Islam for the terror that they have inflicted on the West.

One thing that we, all Americans, need to admit up front is that our government WILL NOT frame the war as one between Islam and Western sensibilities. Our government realizes that pushing too hard in the war of words will alienate those people we need. We need Middle Eastern oil. There is no alternative, now or in the near future. Even if the weasels in Washington opened up ANWR, and we found the single, largest oil deposits, capable of supplying the world until the 22nd century, we won’t have any oil from it for years. We still have to live in the present. Therefore our government will refer to Al Qaeda, or the insurgency, or the Taliban, anything except blaming the whole thing on Islam.

Westerners have a concept of religion that does not fit Islam. Westerners view religions as monolithic. The Catholics have a Pope, who provides the spiritual, moral and/or political direction for all Catholics. The Presbyterians have synods, the Anglicans have their hierarchy, and so on. The idea is that all religions must have this structure. It is not true, which has created misunderstanding of faiths or denominations about how these groups function. Jews do not have an authoritative body that governs the faith, nor do Baptists, Pentecostals, or Hindus.

And neither does Islam. Anyone with the right “credentials” can set up a mosque, or start a movement, or call for the destruction of the West. Which they have apparently done. Large numbers of them. Credentials such as education, training, etc. seem to be more important to Muslims than to Baptists or Pentecostals, but philosophical correctness does not seem to be a requirement. But our concept of religions seems to lead us to some fuzzy idea that Islamists who do things like destroy the World Trade Center must surely be working outside of Islam. This is not true.

The fight was started by Islam. Khomeini succeeded in building a movement in Iran based on strict Islamic tradition and nationalism. Now other clerics are trying to go forth and do likewise. Nothing succeeds like success. What we are now seeing is the success of this new effort by Islamic leadership. Apparently, any cleric can issue a fatwa, and any Muslim who chooses can follow it. The more successful clerics seem to have built followings based on their rulings against the West, its money and its corruption, particularly the corruption of Arab societies. Osama has declared war on corruption in Saudi Arabia as much as on the United States. Oil money finances many clerics who have decided that the destruction of the West is the will of Allah. The most barbaric methods are acceptable to these people. At this point, there seems to be little that is beyond the pale for these people. And there is little in the Koran that outlaws their barbarism.

But do these people represent Islam? I would suggest that these people are the most active participants of Islam. There is no meaningful religious opposition to them. The governments of Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, et al, oppose the radicals in their countries for reasons of self preservation, NOT for religious reasons. The preponderance of Islamic spiritual leadership has aligned itself with terror and destruction, not with peace.

The evidence strongly points to the fact that Islam is poised for new territorial expansion, and they have declared war. There are governments that agree, or at least have been willing to exploit that movement: Syria, Iraq, Iran. Opposition to Israel is the flashpoint for these governments. More importantly, Israel is the flashpoint for most Islamic governments, for self preservation if nothing else. If the governments of Pakistan, Egypt or Saudi Arabia fall to the Islamic radicals in their borders, the war becomes more than terrorist acts, but rather full fledged national aggression rising out of religious fervor. If Iran gets the bomb, the issue becomes even worse. They will probably blackmail their Islamic neighbors first, and then focus on the West. It is also likely that there will be widespread support among the citizens of those neighbors, since the public will correctly view Iran as the strongest enemy of the West.

The problem for the West is that we are unwilling to believe that there are still people and governments that are hungry to expand their influence. These people are also able to hide behind the Western virtue of reasonable doubt for their motives. At this point, the West is unwilling to face up to the fact that we are under attack from Islam, not Al Qaeda or Hamas. It is a religious war, and the West is ill-equipped to wage it.

A question that should be considered for the U.S.: If some large number of Muslims in this country decide to join the international jihad, what will our response be? The Muslim population in the U.S. was estimated at more than 5 million in 1991. Surely this number has grown in fifteen years. Suppose that 20% decide to join the radicals. One million. Actually, even 100,000, or 2%, can do overwhelming destruction. What would we do? Wring our hands that we can’t do anything, since apparently the Constitution gives everyone the religious freedom to destroy America? Who will we trust? What will we do with those we do not trust? And finally, can we really trust any of them? How will we know?

The fact that the cartoons are stupid is beside the point. There could be no cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb as a turbin if Muslims were not blowing us and themselves up. Right or wrong, pointing out the hypocrisy of a faith is considered a strong defense against it. But the war did not start because of the cartoons. The cartoons are a response to the war.

18

"Right to blaspheme" ... I wonder what would happen if these same Islamists decided that calling these protests abhorrent was itself a blasphemy. Would you then alter your post in deference?

The cartoons may be offensive. But the question of whether the Danish government should force retraction or apology should be easy to answer, and the question of whether or not a responsible press would print such things in the first place is essentially moot.

You may not want to be on the side of the paper that published the cartoons because they are offensive. Just once you’d "like to be called upon to champion speech that is true, honorable, just, and pure". However, as a poster at Redstate.com pointed out:

"We must go to this war with the cartoons we have, not the cartoons we want; if we wait for free speech to produce perfected fruits before we go forth to defend it, we will find that it has already been taken."

19

One thing that we, all Americans, need to admit up front is that our government WILL NOT frame the war as one between Islam and Western sensibilities.

That is why I was pretty upset that many American leaders' response to 9/11 was to ... go to a mosque!

20

Scott, that's a nice post. I pretty much agree with everything you say. I believe the solution to this is that we must start a net emmigration of muslims out of the West. We can simply achieve that by stopping all muslim immigration, deporting all non-citizen muslims, and revoking citizenship and deporting any muslim supporting through words or actions jihad. It seems that once the muslim population reach a certain percentage of the total population, problems start to appear.

Once we have our own countries under control again, we can look at containing muslim countries to their existing geography.

We need to realize that our values our incompatible with Islamic values and the best and least bloody way to handle this is to divorce ourselves from muslims and Islam. Continuing to intermix is going to end up very bloody.

21

We can simply achieve that by stopping all muslim immigration, deporting all non-citizen muslims, and revoking citizenship and deporting any muslim supporting through words or actions jihad.

That is never going to happen in Western Europe. Those nations, through abortion and contraception, have been depopulating themselves at frightening rates and rely on Muslim immigration to maintain their welfare societies. There's an excellent article about this by Mark Steyn in the January The New Criterion magazine. (Alas, I can't find an online link to it.)

22

It is probably too late for that to happen peacefully in Western Europe. But it could still happen. I've read Mark Steyn, sure, but I also read Victor Davis Hanson. There is a large difference between what europeans could do, and what they seem likely to do.

23

Here's a version of the Mark Steyn article as picked up by The Wall Street Journal's opinionjournal.com.

"It's the Demography, Stupid"

It's scary reading.

24

I really have to respectfully disagree with you on this one Joe. I have, and will continue to post on this issue, at SmartChristian.com.

I suggest everyone read Victor Davis' recent article which I have linked. Is he naive?

Joe it is really hard to believe that you hold this premise: "The West is at war with terrorism, not with Islam." The West is clearly at war against "state sponsored Islamic terrorism," and of course not all individual Muslims.

It would also be insightful for many Christians to travel through or live in a Islamic nation for a while. Something I have done for close to 20 years now. I think this might help the tendencies to argue "intellectual abstractions" like:

"Let us also dismiss the silly notion that this conflict is about “free speech” or “freedom of the press.”

We are going to have to part company on this one Joe, or maybe we balance each other out.

25

Muslims are not allowed to draw pictures of The Prophet. Others are. Non-Muslims are not bound by the rules of Islam.
I understand that the cartoons are offensive, but a crucifix in urine is too, but Christians do not burn and destroy over the insults to them and their God.

26

Boonton: The key is that it was "some" right-wing Christians. Were hundreds of thousands marching in the streets over TLTOC? I would argue that many Christians were upset, but a tiny minority supported calls for murder. These Muslim protests are widespread and worldwide. It's like comparing grapefruits and cloves.

Hundreds of thousands in the streets? No but still a highly significant number. Additionally don't forget the influence of Western secular culture. For example, I recall one person asked about freedom of expression. I remember him saying that yes we have freedom of expression but not slander and this was slander etc. Of course I would have liked to have asked him how he could presume to speak on behalf of someone else (specifically Jesus) but looking back it seems a telling ancedote about our culture. Our first instincts when offended are to think of how we can sue someone rather than to find something to throw!

I see two issues here. One is the painful process where Islam is starting to be taken seriously in democratic societies. This is painful because Muslims are starting to learn that in free soceities as Islam grows up there is no longer any teacher who will protect it from playground bullies. Like Jews and Christians, they will have to accept their religion being contemplated by the popular culture and its ideas spit back at them in ways they probably will not like (anyone want to place bets on when someone will make a movie depicting the life of the prophet?)

Another is a cultural difference between third world countries and the US. It is not unusual for these countries to host heated, over the top protests. Look at what happens with soccar where a bad call or a losing team can spark full fledged riots! Many Arab countries like to encourage protests when its against something other than their gov't & also like to baby the religious leaders...protecting their religious beliefs from any 'offense' real or imagined. A bad combination.

27

anyone want to place bets on when someone will make a movie depicting the life of the prophet?

Already been done.

"Lion of the Desert"

28

Oops. Wrong movie. Here's the correct link.

"The Message"

29

Joe writes: "The jihadists and the cartoonists, however, are not equally culpable. Drawing offensive cartoons and bombing embassies are not only not equivalent, they are not even in the same ethical realm. But while equating the two would be an embrace of moral relativism, we should not overlook the fact that both are morally tainted."

I'm not a moral relativist, but I think Joe is unfairly casting aspersions here on moral relativists. A moral relativist need not, and in all likelihood would not, see these two actions as equivalent. In my experience, religious absolutists are the ones who are more likely to equate two very different behaviors as equally sinful. It is a common belief among evangelicals that committing a "small" sin, like stealing the proverbial piece of bubblegum, separates one from God just as much as raping and murdering children. The lesser offense sends one to hell just as surely as the greater offense.

Relativists are more likely to differentiate between lesser and greater evils.

With regard to the violent response by Muslims to the cartoons, I think it is helpful to compare their actions to those of Christians prior to the Enlightenment. Christians in Europe, as well as Puritans in Massachusetts, prior to 1700 would probably have reacted just as violently to perceived blasphemy. I think we need to remember that many Muslims (not all) are still in a pre-Enlightenment mindset.

30

Rob Ryan

It's a pity that some exercise their freedom of expression in deliberately provocative ways. Even more offensive than the cartoons, however, has been the ironically violent response to them.

With all due respect sir, but what the hell are you talking about?

We (you, me, Boonton, et alia) say things every week at the Evangelical Outpost that are at least 100 times more provocative to Christians, Muslims, and other religious types. How is it a pity that the twelve offending cartoons were meant to be a little provocative?

Let me paraphrase my earlier question to Joe: which specific cartoon or cartoons do you believe to be a pitiable exercise in freedom of expression? And why do you think that cartoon or those cartoons go beyond the pale of proper political commentary?

Boonton

This is painful because Muslims are starting to learn that in free societies as Islam grows up there is no longer any teacher who will protect it from playground bullies. Like Jews and Christians, they will have to accept their religion being contemplated by the popular culture and its ideas spit back at them in ways they probably will not like...

There is some truth to what you say, but I have two problems with it.

First it is too patronizing to Muslims and Islam: Islam was the faith and ideology of mighty empires for over a millenium -- it is hard to imagine a way of "spitting back" the ideas of Islam that should be truly disturbing to someone well-versed in Islamic and world history.

Second, it is laughable to describe, even hypothetically, the offending Danish cartoonists as "schoolyard bullies".

If some intellectual young person in your middle school tried to goad an aspiring gang member into overreacting by drawing a mildly satirical doodle, whom would you have characterized as the bully?

31

Joe speaks twice of embassies being bombed. It is my understanding that the embassies in Damascus and Beirut were set on fire (while empty) and were not bombed. I'm not saying that this makes it okay, just that we should be careful to be accurate in what we say.

32

The West is at war with terrorism, not with Islam.

Joe,

The problem with that statement is that the majority of terrorists in the world are Muslims.

You may choke on your coffee when you read this, but I don't think that all religions and ideas are equal in worth. Christianity IS a better religion than Islam. Western cultural values, still for the most part based on the Bible and the Enlightenment, ARE better than Mid-Eastern cultural values, based as they are on Islam and old Beduin tribal culture.

This is a clash of civilizations. And I'm not afraid to say that ours is better. If even I, whom as you know do not hold Christianity in high esteem, can see this, you should be able to as well.

33

With regard to the violent response by Muslims to the cartoons, I think it is helpful to compare their actions to those of Christians prior to the Enlightenment. Christians in Europe, as well as Puritans in Massachusetts, prior to 1700 would probably have reacted just as violently to perceived blasphemy. I think we need to remember that many Muslims (not all) are still in a pre-Enlightenment mindset.

You are making a lot of assumptions here that really make your conclusion doubtful. First, Islam has none of the thinking that Christianity developed (way before the Enlightenment) that separated actions into the sphere of God and the sphere of Man. This gave Western societies the ability to develop within a framework of morality but still have flexibility.

What is written in the Koran is the word of God. It is unchangeable and immutable. Talk to a devout muslim and they will tell you the Koran and Hadiths tell you everything you need to know about living your life (what to eat, how to go to the bathroom, sexual positions, etc.) There isn't any wiggle room. That is why the book itself is holy. Therefore, Islam doesn't even have a foundation on which to reinterpret some of it's beliefs.

Secondly, no other religion, that I can think of, has the concept of warfare against non-believers so completely integrated into it's sacred texts. If you throw out the jihad portions of Islam, you throw out about half the Koran and a large portion of the Hadiths. Christianity didn't have to throw out huge portions of belief.

Finally, who says that muslims want to change? You sentence implies that Islam will change in time. I don't know of any reason to expect such a thing to happen. The reverse seems to be happening. The more contact Islam has with the West, the more violent it becomes. Along the lines of what someone stated above, Christians and Buddhists are called to act in a peaceful manner to those who disagree with them. Muslims are called to wage war against those who refuse the call of Islam.

Even if you are correct and Islam will moderate (disgard jihad, allow equal rights for women, disgard Sharia law, allow people to leave Islam peacefully, etc.), how long is that going to take? Are we supposed to let these people move freely in our societies hoping that they finally become enlightened before they decide to strike the necks of the infidels?

34

According to the news I read, the Danish "schoolyard bullies" are in hiding, along with the "bullying" Dutch filmmakers. With bullies like that in the schoolyard, even the milquetoasts are swaggering.

Noted in the blogs this morning: have you checked out the local mall lately for a Danish flag? They seem to be readily available in some of the more sophisticated capitals of the world, like Damascus. Amazing, that globalization stuff, ain't it.

Look, if Muslims want to tear down Muslim cities and get all bent out of shape, I see that as their problem, not mine. With all that oil, you'd think they could afford adult supervision.

In my opinion, Islam is a murderous religion. Did the Muslims not invent suicide belts? I'm sorry, folks, but I don't find people who desire to shred unsuspecting civilian bystanders and children with ball bearings and nails to be "religious" in any sense that has useful meaning, unless it is a religion of death.

The world would be a better place if people would respect other people's religion. But that's never happened and I don't see the dawning of the Age of Aquarius around the corner. Hence, if one is a religious person, as I am, you quickly learn to knock the dust off your sandals and move on to the next village with a different idiot.

I don't have a problem with Rushdie, and Iqbal likely doesn't have a problem with McNally. I'm willing to call it even, but if Iqbal wants to burn down Cairo there's not much I can, or care to, do about it.

35

As a Christian, I do think that Islam is a dangerous heresy that is prone to violence and death. However, I agree with Joe entirely that it is not necessary to offend Muslims just for the sake of offending them.

People and newspapers in the US self-censure themselves all the time. No serious paper in the US would likely publish articles mocking racial groups, gays, handicapped people, etc.

Joe's point about a 'line' is totally appopriate. Someday we may have to resort of violence or all-out war to preserve real freedoms that everyone cherishes. However, I don't support accelerating that day by advocating that anyone should be encouraged and cheered for being offensive because it is there right to be so.

36

First it is too patronizing to Muslims and Islam: Islam was the faith and ideology of mighty empires for over a millenium -- it is hard to imagine a way of "spitting back" the ideas of Islam that should be truly disturbing to someone well-versed in Islamic and world history.

so was Christianity yet pop culture is a force unlike any other in the world. Look at the ideas being spit back. Some of them are interesting, others are probably silly and offensive (see Joe's recent post on rappers using Christ imagy) & others are something else entirely (The Da Vinnci Code, for example, which some take seriously).

This process, IMO, is greatly speeded up in modern free societies especially with the rise of the information revolution.

Second, it is laughable to describe, even hypothetically, the offending Danish cartoonists as "schoolyard bullies".

If some intellectual young person in your middle school tried to goad an aspiring gang member into overreacting by drawing a mildly satirical doodle, whom would you have characterized as the bully?

Very true it is only an analogy after all! But look at my comparison to the Amish. Does anyone bother to complain that the Amish codes are stupid? That they are ditching good things for society and they are quite frankly wrong? No because the Amish are for the most part a 'pet' in US culture. Their ideas do not seem to carry much weight so they are usually overlooked & the few times when they are not they are romanticized rather than examined seriously. If the Amish ever became a serious political force, though, then it would happen to them as well. In this way the cartoons can be read as a compliment to Islam....it's being taken seriously as a religion rather than just a 'cute' little individual eccentricity or 'ethnic custom'. The gist of my point is that you have to be careful what you wish for. Many immature Muslims are probably thinking maybe having their religion taken seriously is not such a good thing after all.

I agree with you, though, that Islam is a serious faith that has ruled might empires for over a millenium. It should be more than capable to respond to serious critics.

37

According to the news I read, the Danish "schoolyard bullies" are in hiding, along with the "bullying" Dutch filmmakers

Were that only true for the Dutch filmmaker, Theo van Gogh, who was murdered a year or so ago. The note justifying his murder in the name of Islam (his throat was cut so deeply he was nearly beheaded) was pinned to his body with a knife.

38

You are making a lot of assumptions here that really make your conclusion doubtful. First, Islam has none of the thinking that Christianity developed (way before the Enlightenment) that separated actions into the sphere of God and the sphere of Man. This gave Western societies the ability to develop within a framework of morality but still have flexibility.

I agree and disagree with Chris. It's a bit too simplistic IMO opinion to assume Islam is just going to go through a Reformation and become a nice peaceful mellowed out religion like Christianity. Major religions develop each in their own way and they have to be understood on their own terms, not trying to force them into the mold we happen to be most familiar with.

That being said simply having an authoritative text does not make a religion unchanging and unchangable. Not that long after its founding Islam had a major rift between Sunni and Shi'ite. There are numerous disputes over doctrine & simply reading the Koran does not 'answer all questions' for the faithful Muslim anymore than we can shrug and say all Christian writing is bunk since we can just refer to the Bible. No the immans have not talked themselves out of a job!

Secondly, no other religion, that I can think of, has the concept of warfare against non-believers so completely integrated into it's sacred texts. If you throw out the jihad portions of Islam, you throw out about half the Koran and a large portion of the Hadiths. Christianity didn't have to throw out huge portions of belief.

Again it depends on how you read its sacred texts. It clearly says that Islam is better than the other major religions. On the other hand it also says no one can be forced to convert to Islam but much accept it freely & non-converts have to be treated with respect (which is why Jews fared better in Muslim countries than Christian ones in the Middle Ages).

Patrick:

The problem with that statement is that the majority of terrorists in the world are Muslims.

Perhaps but the problem with your statement is that only a trivial portion of Muslims are terrorists. This is a serious problem for the "Islam must equal Terrorism" crowd. After 9/11 I and a lot of other people I know spent a lot of time imagining how terrorists might attack again. Rolling along the highway we'd see hundreds of 'unprotected targets'. Just a simple example. Take a propane tank that you can buy from Wal-Mart for backyard cooking for about $15-$20. That tank will blow up a house easily. Put three or so around each entrance of a shopping mall and you'll probably level it. You don't even need suicide bombers to do it. A terrorist organization could have its non-suicide inclined members simply hid them in bushes and stuff at night and time them to blow up in the morning.

After a while it was somewhat surprising that nothing much happened. No major attacks or even attempted attacks. Yes the gov't did do a good job, I suppose, watching intelligence traffic and disrupting networks but you don't need a big network to launch a potent attack. Tim McVeigh proved you could do it with two or three people and not even $500. There are millions of Muslims in the US. Millions. If the religion itself was prone to terrorism we should at least see an Israel-Palestine level of terrorism. In fact the only thing we mostly see is 'big stuff' like the Spainish bombings...carried out by true international networks operating with a high degree of secrecy. But if the rank and file Muslism was inclined easily to terrorism its only a trip to the hardware store away.

Chris:
Even if you are correct and Islam will moderate (disgard jihad, allow equal rights for women, disgard Sharia law, allow people to leave Islam peacefully, etc.), how long is that going to take? Are we supposed to let these people move freely in our societies hoping that they finally become enlightened before they decide to strike the necks of the infidels?

If this blog and its commentors have shown anything its that one need not be enlightened to move about freely. The fundamental premise of our society is that we will 'let' you do or believe whatever you want until you violate the rights of others. You are perfectly free to propose that women's rights be repealed, that religious freedom be ended. The line ends with, though, when you take it upon yourself to force your will.

Along these lines I think the cartoons are indeed a good thing. They clarify exactly where we should stand as a society. I thought it was sad and outrageous that many on the right and left ignored Iran's death sentence on Salman Rushdie back in the 80's.

39

Perhaps I am overly optimistic, but I think that the vast majority of Muslims, especially those living in Western countries, are peacable and tolerant, fully capable of living in a democratic society.

As I recall, after the London bombing, a poll showed that the overwhelming majority of British Muslims condemned terrorism against civilians (a sizeable number thought that attacking foreign troops in Iraq was not terrorism).

Signs of optimism below.

- - - - - -

From the Christian Science Monitor:

"Moderate voices have emerged amid the debate and the violence. Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Saniora said Sunday that "this is absolutely not the way we express our opinions." And Mohammad Rashid Qabani, Lebanon's top Sunni Muslim cleric, said Muslims must exercise restraint. "We don't want the expression of our condemnation [of the cartoons] to be used by some to portray a distorted image of Islam," he said.

The world's leading Islamic body also rejected the violence. "Overreactions surpassing the limits of peaceful democratic acts ... are dangerous and detrimental to the efforts to defend the legitimate case of the Muslim world," said the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference."

- - - - -

From Syria:

""The foreign ministry expresses its regret over the acts of violence which accompanied the protests yesterday, which caused damage to embassies in Damascus," the ministry said in a statement.

"We understand the popular anger over the offences against the prophet but it is unacceptable for law and order to be violated in the country."

The ministry's statement echoed comments by the country's top religious leader, grand mufti Sheikh Ahmed Badreddine Hassun.

"It is regrettable that certain people have poorly expressed their protest against the publication by European newspapers of images that are offensive to the prophet," he said.

Sheikh Hassun, whose comments were carried by state media, accused "elements who do not believe in dialogue who were introduced among the demonstrators" in Damascus.

"We are sad about their actions which harms our dialogue with the Danish and Norwegian people," Sheikh Hassun said."

40

On the other hand it also says no one can be forced to convert to Islam but much accept it freely & non-converts have to be treated with respect (which is why Jews fared better in Muslim countries than Christian ones in the Middle Ages).

No, but they will force you to as dhimmi which makes you a third-class citizen at the whim of your muslim masters. And yes at times the Jews were treated better and at other times the Christians treated them better. Using the Jews as a guide those is pretty worthless since neither really treated them well. Of course, they are called pigs in the Bible. So, in the end, Islam forces you either submit to Islamic rule as a dhimmi, convert, or die. I'll take none of the above.

While there are Sunni and Shia differences, on a lot of the major items, such as jihad and treatement of infidels, there is significant agreement. Most of the disagreements are over things that non-muslims would find baffling. For example, Baptists and Lutherans may disagree on points about baptism, but still agree on the major point of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ.

The fundamental premise of our society is that we will 'let' you do or believe whatever you want until you violate the rights of others. You are perfectly free to propose that women's rights be repealed, that religious freedom be ended. The line ends with, though, when you take it upon yourself to force your will.

Sorry, but that is wrong. Certain rights are inalienable and therefore not open to even discussion. For instance, if muslims somehow were able to amend the constitution to state that Sharia was the law of the land, just because it was voted on does not deny my rights. Instead it allows me to attempt to impose my will to regain my rights even with force it necesary.

From a practical standpoint, does it make sense to allow people in the country who follow a religion that is opposed to many of the freedoms we cherish? Hoping that they somehow "get the picture" seems like wishful thinking.

If the religion itself was prone to terrorism we should at least see an Israel-Palestine level of terrorism.

That is not necessarily true. The life Muhammed is often used as an example of how to wage jihad. The first phase is when Muslims are weak. They are to be peaceable and not cause a stir. As their numbers increase, they will fight but only when attacked while working on truces and agreements to increase their power. Finally, when they are strong enough, they exert their full power to implement an Islamic state.

Right now, Islam in America is relatively weak although growing in political power. If there were terrorists bombings of a continuous nature, you would see a mass expulsion of muslims from this country. That would defeat the purpose of spreading Islam to the US. Therefore, it is better to wait.

Show me a country with a 20% or more Islamic population that doesn't have trouble.

41

Today's opinionjournal.com has an interesting discussion (midway down the page) about the double standard when it comes to insulting Muslims and Christians in the popular media.

42

"Show me a country with a 20% or more Islamic population that doesn't have trouble."

Define "trouble"

How about Turkey?

Are you saying that Bush's goal of establishing liberal democracy in Iraq is futile?

43

Let me clarify my statement. Show me a non-Islamic country with a large Islamic minority that does not suffer some sort of ongoing problems with that minority.

Turkey does everything it can to suppress Islam. It doesn't let Islam run free, so to speak. It is slowly succumbing to Islamic influences.

Yes, Bush's goal of bringing democracy to the Middle East is futile. It will only result in another truly Islamic state like Iran. You can't give freedom to people who don't have a culture that supports it.

Qabani in your other post is speaking out of both sides of his mouth most likely. He would like to see Israel disappear.

http://crossfirewar.com/index.php?m=200508

Most of the call for peace are along the lines of "You're making us look bad." I've yet to see a major Muslim group state that Denmark had every right to print the cartoons. This is a typical pattern. There's the insult, the violence, and the calls to end the violence because we look bad, not because we are wrong.

44

Sorry, but that is wrong. Certain rights are inalienable and therefore not open to even discussion.

Errr, I doubt Jefferson or anyone other important person who talked about inalienable rights would agree that it's 'not even open to discussion'. I'm not exactly sure how the Constitution would handle an amendment that would violate the First Amendment. The closest case I can think of is the flag burning amendment but that has yet to make it. Anyone have any sources that discuss the issue of what would happen if an amendment passed that violated the Bill of Rights or even repealed them?

That is not necessarily true. The life Muhammed is often used as an example of how to wage jihad. The first phase is when Muslims are weak. They are to be peaceable and not cause a stir. As their numbers increase, they will fight but only when attacked while working on truces and agreements to increase their power. Finally, when they are strong enough, they exert their full power to implement an Islamic state.

Then why so much Palestinian terrorism. Palestinian Muslims (believe it or not there are non-Muslism Palestinians...even Jewish ones!) are quite weak relative to Muslims just about everywhere else yet perform quite a bit of terrorism. On the other hand Egypt is quite strong as far as Muslims go (don't expect Coptic Christians to sweep elections there any time soon) yet doesn't seem to enjoy terrorists very much.

Let me clarify my statement. Show me a non-Islamic country with a large Islamic minority that does not suffer some sort of ongoing problems with that minority.

Well yea a statement that will always be true. There will always be 'some sort' of 'ongoing problems' with any minority. Look and ye shall find.

Yes, Bush's goal of bringing democracy to the Middle East is futile. It will only result in another truly Islamic state like Iran. You can't give freedom to people who don't have a culture that supports it.

Interestingly Iran is remarkably free when compared to most other Muslim/Arab countries . While I don't think Iraq is going well I don't think the people there generally have a bottled up desire for an Iranian style theocracy.

Most of the call for peace are along the lines of "You're making us look bad." I've yet to see a major Muslim group state that Denmark had every right to print the cartoons. This is a typical pattern. There's the insult, the violence, and the calls to end the violence because we look bad, not because we are wrong.

Perhaps that's because they do not think there is a right to print offensive cartoons. This is hardly surprising. Even many democratic nations have various laws on the books that prohibit direct mockery of religious and ethnic groups (I remember reading a while ago that some French TV show got in trouble for 'insulting Catholicism' when they did some type of satire on the Church's sex scandels). In this regard the US is kind of rare in accepting ACLU style free speech (I think the UK might be too, but probably more on the fact that they value wit rather than principle).

45

Interestingly Iran is remarkably free when compared to most other Muslim/Arab countries.

I am not sure I agree with the statement (Kuwait, for example is relatively free and safe.), but even if it were true, you've set the bar remarkably low. How about compared to non-Arab Muslim countries, like Malaysia or Indonesia?

46

How about compared to non-Arab Muslim countries?

Iran is a non-Arab Muslim country. They're Persians, not Arabs.They speak Farsi, not Arabic.

47

Just a random thought here, but doesn't Germany outlaw the display of the Nazi flag or any pro-Nazi publications? Does that mean their culture is opposed to freedom of speech? Interesting that Germany, ASAIK, hasn't published the cartoons in question.

48

I would say Germany doesn't respect freedom of speech in that respect. Again the ACLU philosophy of free speech is better IMO but very few 'free' countries follow it.

49

Joe:

You have put your finger on a key to understanding why there is a three-way contest for the global mindset, and associated with that is a three-cornered geostrategic contest, which too often has become bloody:

(1) the "wanna-be post-Christian" West,

(2)The Christian Faith [especially in the forma associated with the 100+-year long revival and reformation sweeping the S of the planet,

(3) in feasful -- and too often hateful -- confrontation with both: radical Islamism.

No prizes for guessing which one I think will win in the end.

Now on a few points:

1] One key point you raised that has touched a nerve is the sadly mistaken notion that there is a "right" to be blasphemous.

--> Not at all. There is a right to have and express one's opinion, but there are in all cultures -- and properly so -- lines of respect for others beyond which decent people will not cross. In another context, these are called, "fighting words," i.e. words so calculated to be offensive that there is no justification for the resort to such.

--> Indeed, that is the grain of truth behind political correctness -- but of course the radical PC crowd has gone on to use this to censor out OPINION with which they disagree. In short, freedom of expression is freedom to propogate IDEAS and discuss issues, not to say any and every thing heedless of results or respect for other people.

2] Marking the line of respect:

--> The surest sign that one has crossed the line of respect is the classic Golden Rule test: would one wish to be spoken of int he same way one is now about to speak?

--> An excellent example is the clash between evolutionary materialism and design thought, where were darwinists to be treated as they treat design thinkers we would hear nno end of howls of protest -- and rightly so. Judge Jones' decision and the aftermath is an excellent case in point, including as came out in this thread, where without justification I was called a nazi and/or a Christo-Fascist [by obvious but unwarranted analogy of contempt with Islamofascist].

--> Similarly, Honest Reporting has hit home hard with this article, which illustrates by specific example the sort of antisemitic rants [including some eye-opening cases of cartoons that propagate the horrid blood-libel against Jews] that are all too common in the Arab world's press, without protest in ths muslim world.

--> Just as telling is a case HR notes, of a cartoon published in the Independent, an allegedly high-quality UK newspaper:

A political cartoon published in The Independent in 2003 depicted Ariel Sharon biting into the flesh of a Palestinian baby. The background shows Apache attack helicopters firing missiles, and blaring the message "Vote Likud." Sharon is saying, 'What's wrong, you never seen a politician kissing babies before?" The government of Israel lodged an official protest to the cartoon by Dave Brown. Yet no apology similar to the many we are hearing from around the world today was forthcoming.

Not only were no apologies forthcoming, but the UK's Political Cartoon Society awarded it first prize in its 2003 "Cartoon of the Year" competition, choosing it over 34 other entries. When Honest Reporting wrote to protest the award, the reply we received was:

"You have all taken this award completely out of perspective and context. Shame on you! We do so much good."

--> Now, the image of the Israeli PM biting off the head of a baby is a gross allusion to the blood libel, which has cost thousands of Jews their lives, and surely any educated newspaper editor knows that. Ans even more plainly, one may protestt he tactics used by the Israeli army in its attempts to suppress a terrorism surge without resort to such implications. [BTW, it may also be worth taking time to balance out views on the underlying Arab/Israel dispute before proceeding further, by pausing and looking at some notes on often overlooked facts and issues here.]

--> In short,there is a clear and operationally definable line between disagreement and merely being spitefully disagreeable or offensive.

3] Moral equivalency?

--> The "you're another"/ [im-]moral equivcalency argument is often the first resort of those who wish to insist on doing ewhat they know is wrongful.

--> It should be plain that there is no moral equivalency between the restrained and generally non-violent protests by Christians and conservative [generic sense] Jews in the W over the continual streams of blasphemy and obscenity coming from secularist quarters, and the sort of orchestrated violent rioting and terroristic acts that have arisen over this cartoons issue. While this is plainly from a minority of the Islamic world, unfortunately that is the minority that is now threatening global peace and possibly survival.

--> Similarly, by and large Christians in the contemporary world have not been doing the equivalent of the infamous picture of a crucifix dipped in a beaker of urine, entitled P+3 Christ. While of course extreme cases [including, sadly, violence] can be cited, that is precisely the point: they are extremists and are repudiated by the responsible leadership ofthe Churches.

--> In this regard, it is highly significant that the allegedly incitatory Passion of the Christ provoked waves of PENITENCE across the Christian world, rather than antisemitism, including at least one case of confession to murder.

--> By sharpest and saddest contrast, while there are exceptional voices of correction and repudiation [I was listening to one last night on BBC short wave,]we precisely do not see that consistent, widespread denunciation of and dissociation from violent extremism coming from Islamic quarters. That is a major part of the now common observation that Islam needs to be reformed from within, NOW.

--> Similarly, we too often do not see an equivalent sensitivity ont he part of the Western secularists when it comes to offensiveness regarding Christians and Jews. This too needs to be corrected: there is no right to be disrespectful, crudely obsecene, hateful in speech or inflammatory. After all, we can disagree, even forcefully, without becoming disagreeable.

++++++++

Grace to all

Gordon

50

Then why so much Palestinian terrorism.

Strategy. The Palestinians, with the tacit support of almost every Islamic country are waging a war of attrition on Israel. Militarily, they know Israel could wipe them off the map any moment they wanted. Yet, they also know that politically, Israel is constrained from taking such an action.

On the other hand Egypt is quite strong as far as Muslims go (don't expect Coptic Christians to sweep elections there any time soon) yet doesn't seem to enjoy terrorists very much.

First, we pretty much pay to keep a dictatorship in charge in Egypt. If they ever had free elections, the Muslim Brotherhood would probably sweep into power and you would see an Islamic state. Right now, the secularists manage to remain in charge through repression and using Israel to target frustrations. Plus, there is the every so often slaughter of a group of tourists on a tour bus. Also, I believe there was a terrorist bombing last year. The lesson seems to be that to control muslim populations, you have to deny freedoms.

If you want to see what it is like to live as a dhimmi, look at the Copts. Girls are regularly kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam. You can't fix a toilet without a government permit. And, don't irritate the local muslims or your church and neighborhood will get burned down.

Interestingly Iran is remarkably free when compared to most other Muslim/Arab countries . While I don't think Iraq is going well I don't think the people there generally have a bottled up desire for an Iranian style theocracy.

Yet, it is also a huge supporter of terror. So, we seem to be facing a choice between having free muslims who support terror or semi-dictatorships that suppress, at a minimum, religious freedom and speech to keep those populations in check. That relative freedom doesn't include freedom of religion or true freedom of speech.

The most recent Iraq elections showed the religious parties gaining power. That does not bode well. The only bright side is that the religious part are split between Sunni and Shia. Plus, look at the Palestinian elections where Hamas won.

Anyways, is it a success if we bring democracy to the Middle East and end up with every one of them being an Islamic state based on Sharia? I say it is a failure.

Perhaps that's because they do not think there is a right to print offensive cartoons...

That is my point. If you can't recognize the right to print those cartoons, then the calls for quiet are really more PR stunts than an actual understanding of how freedom of speech works. Europe is a poor example now-a-days. They are regrettably descending into censorship.

There will always be 'some sort' of 'ongoing problems' with any minority. Look and ye shall find.

I'm not talking about general societal problems. I'm talking about insurgencies and terror, like in Sudan, Phillippines, and Burma. You're right, minorities always have some problems with the majority. Yet, muslims seem to have a harder time integrating and relating to the majority population. The problem, IMO, is their religion in the way it looks at non-muslims.

51

Iran is a non-Arab Muslim country. They're Persians, not Arabs.They speak Farsi, not Arabic.

Technically true. I should used non-Middle Eastern Muslim countries as a point of comparsion.

52

Chris It is impossible to be a war with a type of fighting. It's like saying, "We are fighting blitzkrieg" or "We are fighting crossbows."

Well, not exactly. A blitzkrieg is simply a sudden military offensive while a crossbow is a type of weapon. Terrorism, by definition, is the premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents. The act requires an actor. To say that we are at war with terrorism means that we are at war with terrorist groups.

Let's say that all newspapers decided they would not offend Muslim sensibilities. Where does that leave us?

I certainly don’t think that we should let Muslim’s have the final say in where the line is drawn. But I think that mocking a person’s religion for no other reason than to provoke outrage is simply childish and unworthy of mature adults.

Matthew We all need to show solidarity with the cartoonists and newspapermen who have been threatened with violence and death.

While I would defend their right, I certainly don’t intend to show “solidarity” with them anymore than a cop who protest Klansmen at a rally are showing their “support” for the bigots.

I don't understand, however, why you characterize the cartoons as blasphemous or base. Are you relying on second-hand descriptions of the cartoons, or have you eyeballed the cartoons yourself?

I have seen the cartoon and what most offends me is their complete lack of artistic talent. But then, I’m not a Muslim. Whether I think that they are blasphemous has no bearing on whether they are allowed to think that.

Chris I do believe we are at war with Islam and that war has been continuous since it's inception.

If we are a war with Islam then I assume we have the right to shoot male Muslims and intern all woman and children. If we are really at war then let’s really act like we are at war. Wouldn’t you agree?

Matthew Thought-provoking post. I agree with most of Chris Lutz's comments, although I think CL's first criticism could be averted by saying we're in a war on terrorists rather than terrorism.

I don’t want to get too nit-picky in defending my use of the phrase “war on terrorism” but I do think it is applicable. Terrorists are both those who are members of terrorist organizations and those who commit acts of terror. This means that the term “terrorists” is not used in, say, the way we’d use the term “soldier.” To be a soldier requires joining an Army before combat can occur. The same doesn’t hold for a “terrorists.” We are, I believe, not only at war with a group (i.e., terrorists) but with an abstract idea of how to achieve one’s objectives (e.g., terrorism).

ex-preacher Relativists are more likely to differentiate between lesser and greater evils.

Anyone who makes distinctions about greater and lesser evils is not a moral relativist. Making such comparisons requires an objective standard about what is good.

53

#5 said "We are at war with that small, but significant portion of Islam that promotes the use of terrorism in furtherance of their aims."

It is naive to think that we are at war with "a small but significant portion of Islam..."

War is a cultural phenomenon and has a whole range of supporters from media to monetary sponsors to equipment providers. When you wage war against any group, you also must counter-attack the supporters of the enemy soldier on the ground.

It is extreme wishful thinking to think that the vast majority Islam is not supportive of their Islamic leaders.

Wishful thinking might not make you a "bad" person, but to misjudge the malignant intent of the enemy will mean western civilization deaths just the same.

One question: If Islam was removed from the face of the earth today, would we be better off, worse off or the same?

I say we would be better off.

54

all this uproar over these cartoons got me thinking: if someone had received a grant from the NEA and attempted to display these cartoons in an art gallery would the phiilistines of culture be rushing to defend the "right" of the artist as they did when Andres Serrano displayed his "Piss Christ"?

somehow i think not. the defilement of symbols sacred to the christian faith is "art" but satire or ridicule of things held dear by muslims is "hate speech". such is the convoluted logic of unregenerate men and women. we should not be surprised.

55

Joe,

I have seen the cartoon and what most offends me is their complete lack of artistic talent.

Joe, you didn't write this post because the cartoons lacked artistic merit. You wrote it because they used blasphemy (pretty mild blasphemy) to make a political point about censorship and about Islamist violence. You wrote it because Muslims around the world were upset with both the blasphemy and the political message of the cartoons.

(Do the cartoons lack artistic merit? Some of them are better than others, but I think they're pretty well done on the whole. For example, the bomb-in-the-turban cartoon is quite artistic.)

I myself prefer another grouping of “us and them.” I do not support the cartoonists nor do I support the violent Muslim protestors. Like Milton, I prefer to stand with the good men who “love freedom heartily” (unlike the jihadists) and apart from those who embrace license (as the cartoonists have done).

You see Joe, it's not about "artistic merit", is it? It's about "embracing license".

Well you know what Joe, you still haven't explained how the cartoonists were embracing license. Is it embracing license to protest violence done in the name of Islam -- because that's exactly what the cartoonists were doing, protesting violence and intimidation.

If they had chosen to protest Islamist violence without the blasphemy, you wouldn't have had a problem with it. But of course the blasphemy is what got people's attention, and what forced the Muslims in Denmark and around the world to take sides. So a little blasphemy here seems amply justified (although arguably imprudent).

For you, an online magazine editor, to characterize these brave journalists as "embracing license", is shameful to me. You are not just being unfair, you are actually slandering them and their intentions.

Thank you for protecting all our rights by serving in the Marine Corps. But please re-consider your harsh judgement about the honorable behavior of the persecuted cartoonists.

56

Joe,

We are not at war with "terrorism". That is a politically-correct slogan.

According to Pres. Bush's SOTU, we are at war with Radical Islam. This is a fact.

The regrettable fact that some in Europe want simply the right to blaspheme doesn't diminish the fact that the original Danish cartoonists were indeed making a statement about increasing Islamic threats to freedom.

And Islamic radicals are doing just that.

You, as much as any one else should know, that we cannot in this world defend only that with is perfectly pure and good. Freedom necessarily entails that fallen men will use it for excesses.

And then the totalitarians will make sure that we have no more excesses.

Here, though, I fail to see what is so offensive. People like you keep saying the cartoons were "offensive". How so? Because militants are bombing embassies? Frankly, the cartoon about running out of virgins was on point and funny. So, now this is blasphemy?

Recall, too, that many Muslims say that any depiction at all of Mohammed, an historical figure, is blasphemous.

So, do the totalitarians then set the rules for our freedoms?

I am hardly advocating license, but there is indeed a clash of cultures going on. That's what the president says. That's what Robert Spencer says.

Where are the moderate Muslim counter-demonstrators, by the way?

Semper Fi,

57

Joe Carter writes: "Anyone who makes distinctions about greater and lesser evils is not a moral relativist. Making such comparisons requires an objective standard about what is good."

It is my understanding that a relativist makes comparisons based on a relative standard. For instance, a relativist can hold that a cup of hot coffee is hotter than a glass of cold milk without believing that there is such a thing as absolute hot or absolute cold. Thus a relativist could judge one behavior to be worse than another. He's just using his own (or his culture's) standard, rather than relying on an absolute standard.

(Any relativists out there are hereby invited to join in and clarify your position.)

58

I certainly don’t think that we should let Muslim’s have the final say in where the line is drawn. But I think that mocking a person’s religion for no other reason than to provoke outrage is simply childish and unworthy of mature adults.

Joe, I think that misrepresents the motive for publishing the cartoons. As reported in Denmark, the newspaper asked illustrators to make the cartoons after reports that artists were reluctant to illustrate a book on Mohammed for fear of Muslim retribution. The daily's editors said the cartoons were a test of whether the threat of Islamic terrorism had limited the freedom of expression in Denmark. The editor of the paper said, “Satire is accepted in this country, and you can make caricatures. Religion shouldn't set any barriers on that sort of expression. This doesn't mean that we wish to insult any Muslims.” He has a point. The issues spotlighted in some of cartoons – terrorism, women’s rights – are valid.

59

--> An excellent example is the clash between evolutionary materialism and design thought, where were darwinists to be treated as they treat design thinkers we would hear nno end of howls of protest -- and rightly so.....

No no no no not again.

-> In this regard, it is highly significant that the allegedly incitatory Passion of the Christ provoked waves of PENITENCE across the Christian world, rather than antisemitism, including at least one case of confession to murder.

Actually it did provke some antisemitism in Muslim countries where the film was viewed for its anti-Jewishness but a valid point. As for double standards all major religions should be mocked. Any idea that wants to be taken seriously should be able to withstand mockery and if it can't then it is worthless. A larger idea that deserves to fall down here is 'offense' as in we shouldn't have 'offensive cartoons'. Joe and Gordon stand squarely on the side of anti-offensiveness but the politically correct debate has demonstrated that making a taboo out of offensiveness simply creates zones of 'intellectual affirmative action' where ideas are not honestly challenged out of fear of 'offending' the faithful.

--> Similarly, we too often do not see an equivalent sensitivity ont he part of the Western secularists when it comes to offensiveness regarding Christians and Jews. This too needs to be corrected: there is no right to be disrespectful, crudely obsecene, hateful in speech or inflammatory.

Again I call attention to the Amish religious beliefs. No one in the West mocks them and if they do it is largely viewed as being mean, nasty, a bully etc. I don't know if the Amish appreciate this 'hands off' position but whether they do or not it comes at a cost. The Amish ideas are marginalized and they become a 'pet people'. Appreciated in a condescending way for their 'quaint' beliefs but never to be taken seriously. They might feel fine with that. After all they do not seem big on converting or expanding their group so they may very well feel content to let the world go by and ask only to be left alone and treated fairly.

Muslims however are a growing portion of the population in many countries and it is healthy and fitting that their faith is part of the conversation rather than marginalized as some type of exotic 'pet people' or written off as nothing but hate and terrorism. Christopher Hitchens is one of the better writers on topics such as this since he will actually go thru the trouble to speak with and understand the people he writes about. He also has the respect to see them as individuals rather than variables in some simplistic model of society. He also is honest enough to call the chips as he sees them rather than inclined to excuse what is wrong.

He makes some excellent points about the cartoon debate on http://www.slate.com/id/2135499/.

The question of "offensiveness" is easy to decide. First: Suppose that we all agreed to comport ourselves in order to avoid offending the believers? How could we ever be sure that we had taken enough precautions? On Saturday, I appeared on CNN, which was so terrified of reprisal that it "pixilated" the very cartoons that its viewers needed to see. And this ignoble fear in Atlanta, Ga., arose because of an illustration in a small Scandinavian newspaper of which nobody had ever heard before! Is it not clear, then, that those who are determined to be "offended" will discover a provocation somewhere? We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt.

Second (and important enough to be insisted upon): Can the discussion be carried on without the threat of violence, or the automatic resort to it? When Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses in 1988, he did so in the hope of forwarding a discussion that was already opening in the Muslim world, between extreme Quranic literalists and those who hoped that the text could be interpreted. We know what his own reward was, and we sometimes forget that the fatwa was directed not just against him but against "all those involved in its publication," which led to the murder of the book's Japanese translator and the near-deaths of another translator and one publisher. I went on Crossfire at one point, to debate some spokesman for outraged faith, and said that we on our side would happily debate the propriety of using holy writ for literary and artistic purposes. But that we would not exchange a word until the person on the other side of the podium had put away his gun. (The menacing Muslim bigmouth on the other side refused to forswear state-sponsored suborning of assassination, and was of course backed up by the Catholic bigot Pat Buchanan.)

It's good that America's secular gifts to the world has created an ethic among its religious to value tolerance and rediscover the emphasis placed on peace in the Gospels (something that has unfortunately been backpeddled throughout much of Christian history, especially when religion was mixed with political power). But there's a subtle connection running between the ignorant Muslim who screams a whole nation has to be blown up over a cartoon and the cult of the 'offensive taboo' that many religious unfortunately seem inclined to revert back too here.

60

Matthew Joe, you didn't write this post because the cartoons lacked artistic merit.

I was being facetious.

Is it embracing license to protest violence done in the name of Islam -- because that's exactly what the cartoonists were doing, protesting violence and intimidation.

No, actually that wasn’t what they were doing at all. I’m not sure how familiar you are with the story, but the cartoonists weren’t asked to do the drawings as a protest of violence. The pictures accompanied an editorial criticizing self-censorship after Danish writer Kare Bluitgen complained that he was unable to find an illustrator for his children's book about Muhammad. The culture editor of Jyllands-Posten simply asked them to draw the founder of Islam as they saw him. It wasn’t necessary to denigrate a religious figure held in esteem by over a billion people but that is what the Danes chose to do.

So a little blasphemy here seems amply justified (although arguably imprudent).

I’m not sure I see how it’s justified. The cartoons weren’t a protest of anything. They were a cheap attempt at being provocative for the sake of provocation.

But please re-consider your harsh judgement about the honorable behavior of the persecuted cartoonists.

If the cartoonists had intended to unnecessarily provoke people by providing racists caricatures would you also consider their behavior to be “honorable?”

61

This is a great Board. It's been a joy to read.

Here's my take: We are at War w/ Islam, like it or not. I never did like the phrase
glodbal war on terrorism/terrorist. I prefer Gobal War on Jihad. Since jihad cannot be separated from the dictates of the Koran, it is a war w/ Islam.

Joe, I understand your desire to prefer to fight in defense of the speech of a Thomas Jefferson as opposed to the speech of a Larry Flint. But you don't get to make that choice. Protecting freedom of speech means protecting the good and the bad regardless of how distasteful that may be. Islam wants to take the choice away from us. I resent an alien culture telling us what we can and cannot do in our society. I don't wish to live in a society whose values are dictated by Shari'a Law. I don't think you do either.

I think Mr. Hewitt links to your post above in support of the position he has recently taken on this issue. He's rarely wrong on issues, but this time he is. Big time.

I think Mr. Hewitt is very much concerned that this cartoon issue will harm US efforts in the War (let's call it the LONG WAR ala Mr. Rumsfeld). He may be right to say it will hurt the War effort on the ground. But let's not mince words. We're bringing democracy to alot of people the vast majority of whom do not yet truly believe in the eqaulity of sexes, or equality of faiths, or the equality of mankind, per Koranic scripture. Maybe the people on the ground the US military is helping NEED to undertstand that US troops don't think or believe that religious sensibilites trump freedom of expression. If the people we're trying to help believe islamic sensibilities trump freedom of expressin then they can "freely" set their soicety up for that. It doesn't mean we have to believe them right or correct in doing so. It's their choice, not ours. Just please don't ask me to sit back and expect to be dictated to by islam.

62

Strategy. The Palestinians, with the tacit support of almost every Islamic country are waging a war of attrition on Israel. Militarily, they know Israel could wipe them off the map any moment they wanted. Yet, they also know that politically, Israel is constrained from taking such an action.

Yea that war of attrition is really going well. Why look at all the impoverished Isrealis and those rich Palestinians! BTW, when you say Israel could wipe them from the map are you talking about the Palestinians or other Islamic countries? Yea technically Israel could commit mass genocide slaughtering tens of thousands of Palestinians to 'cleanse' the land of them and then move in settlers but I would hope they are constrained from that by more than just politics. How about ethics and morality as well as the rather distasteful image of a nation founded as a response to a European genocide performing one of its own? Thankfully I think the Israelis are typically better people than that and their 'restraint' is based on a lot more than just bad PR and the loss of some foreign aid.

The most recent Iraq elections showed the religious parties gaining power. That does not bode well. The only bright side is that the religious part are split between Sunni and Shia. Plus, look at the Palestinian elections where Hamas won.

Religious parties, though, does not equal theocracy. In the US religion is relatively divorced from politics but in Europe it is not uncommon to have 'Christian Democrat' parties that incorporate a religious base yet no one thinks they are hostile to non-religious or other types of religions. The election of Hamas, which has been greeted with little surprise and little concern by Israel, is the result of the gross graft and mismanagement from the PLO and its Fatwah party. Among the Palestinians there was great tension between so-called "Tunis Palestinians" (the 'leaders' who spent much of the time 'exiled' in places like Tunis, Beruit and other exotic locals pretending to be army generals) and those who spent the decades trying to live under Israel's occupation listening to people tell them that liberation first had to come to Lebanon before they could enjoy it. The 'secular' party meant less 'secular' in the ACLU sense and and more 'secular' in the sense of worldly, corrupt, brought and paid for, etc. Michael Young has a good article on this in Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2135429/)

63

Thank you, Joe, for expressing what I could not.

I knew there had to be someone else out there who saw this in more than black and white terms.

God bless.

64

Joe,

I was being facetious.

Thank you, I'll bring my facetiousness meter in to the shop for a re-adjustment :)

"... because that's exactly what the cartoonists were doing, protesting violence and intimidation."

No, actually that wasn’t what they were doing at all.

Joe, why was Kare Bluitgen unable to find an illustrator for his children's book about Muhammad?

Wasn't it because of Islamist intimidation and violence? Wasn't it because Theo van Gogh (a relative of the late artist Vincent van Gogh) was brutally murdered by an offended Islamist on a street corner in Amsterdam for making a ten-minute film about violence against women in Islamic societies? Wasn't it because there are millions of Muslims living all across Europe, many of whom would love to see sharia (Islamic law) adopted in their European homes by any means necesssary, including violence and terrorism?

Joe, don't let your respect for religion and religious icons blind you to what the cartoonists were doing. They were taking a stand against Islamist violence, and they did a damn good job of it too.

"So a little blasphemy here seems amply justified (although arguably imprudent)."

I’m not sure I see how it’s justified. The cartoons weren’t a protest of anything. They were a cheap attempt at being provocative for the sake of provocation.

More slander. Shame on you.

If the cartoonists had intended to unnecessarily provoke people by providing racists caricatures would you also consider their behavior to be “honorable?”

Well if the cartoonists were "unnecessarily" provoking anyone, then I wouldn't think they were being honorable, racist or not.

But "unnecessarily" is not defined as "Joe Carter doesn't like it". "Unnecessarily" is actually rather hard to define, but if the Danish cartoons were "unnecessary", then every political cartoon (and every weblog for that matter) are just as unnecessary.

If the Danish cartoonists had in fact been racist, then I would not have judged them honorable. But even "racist" is a term that can be abused. Many otherwise intelligent people have tried (and sometimes succeeded!) in bannning Huckleberry Finn from American classrooms and school libraries on the grounds that it is a racist book.

The culture editor of Jyllands-Posten simply asked them to draw the founder of Islam as they saw him. It wasn’t necessary to denigrate a religious figure held in esteem by over a billion people but that is what the Danes chose to do.

Joe, I'd say that you're being as dense as a post for believing this, but that would unfair to most posts.

"It wasn't necessary"? -- no, Joe, the reaction of the Muslim world proved it was necessary. The only real question is whether it was wise.

Why is that? Because the Danes had been self-censoring themselves out of fear, and this was the only forum in which they could express themselves with even a hint of how they truly felt. If they had chosen to eschew blasphemy, then the self-censorship would have won, and the whole point of the