« State of the Union Speech: Finally, One German Who Supports the U.S. in Iraq | Main | Just for the Record: Unemployment in Europe and the U.S. »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c42969e200d83427cc9753ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Danish Cartoons: German Journalist Association Says "No"...Make That "Yes":

» I Support Denmark from Committees of Correspondence
In it's struggle for Freedom of Speech. Sign the Petition NOW! I am #425 [Read More]

» Kampf der Kulturen!? from Küchenkabinett
Als ich letzte Woche ber den Karikaturen-Streit als Globalisierungserscheinung schrieb, ahnte ich noch nicht, wie sehr dieses Thema noch hoch kochen, paralysieren und polarisieren wrde. Zur herausragenden Plattform ambitionierter Stellungna... [Read More]

Comments

German publications don't seem too concerned when the feelings of Jews are hurt. Wonder why.

http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/politik/0,1518,398567,00.html

Here is Spiegel's line of thinking on whether or not they should print the cartoons and show solidarity with the idea of a free, unintimidated press:

“As of now, Spiegel Online has declined to show the controversial cartoons. Readers are split on this view. Still, in light of the hostage situation in Iraq and the death threats against the two German technicians, the editors do not want to do anything that could worsen the situation for the hostages. In contrast to the German and French newspapers that printed the cartoons today, Spiegel Online is immediately accessible - under the circumstances, this could have dramatic consequences for the captive Germans.”

Sounds like a good cover, except for the fact that Die Welt Online has put the drawing of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban right on their front page. http://www.welt.de/.

But the position of Spiegel Online begs the question: If the hostages are killed in Iraq, will the editors have the courage to print the cartoons then?

"SPIEGEL ONLINE hat bisher darauf verzichtet, die umstrittenen Karikaturen zu zeigen. Darüber sind die Leser geteilter Ansicht. Doch angesichts des Entführungsfalls im Irak und der Todesdrohung gegen die beiden deutschen Techniker will die Redaktion nichts unternehmen, was die Situation für die Geiseln verschlimmern könnte. Im Unterschied zu den deutschen und französischen Tageszeitungen, die die Karikaturen heute abdruckten, sind die Veröffentlichungen von SPIEGEL ONLINE auch im Irak unmittelbar zugänglich - mit unter Umständen dramatischen Konsequenzen für die festgehaltenen Deutschen."

"Still, in light of the hostage situation in Iraq and the death threats against the two German technicians, the editors do not want to do anything that could worsen the situation for the hostages"

While I appreciate that Spiegel doesn't want to be directly connected to the execution of these poor people ( fine to be indirecty connected mind you - supporting the jihadist view of the USA as the worst country on earth ) - really - what does this say

Don't want M'hmd to be so depicted - get yourselves some hostages boys

It'll be like a Noah's ark of democratic nations - 2 of every kind to make sure no cartoons of the phrophet are printed

I do understand that Islam rejects the depiction of the Allah, since this may give substance to the aim that Allah was a name of God and not just another pagan idol. But I do not understand why the Muslims chose to waive any image of Mohammed of Arabia, who, whatever one may believe of his inspiration, after all was only human. (Was he? Is it perhaps forbidden to depict him because he was a space alien?)

Have those sheep on the roof at SPON even dared to link the caricatures yet? Odd, how they've suddenly become so touchy-feely sensitive. That sensitivity has been noticeably lacking the last few years in all their furious bluster and pronunciamientos against the US. They get respectful in a hurry if they actually think there's a greater than infinitesimal chance that whoever they're insulting might just do a Theo Van Gogh on them, don't they? What a bunch of ball-less wonders!


An extremely interesting SPON article:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,398604,00.html

It says that the Danish muslim group that went on an arabic tour proclaiming their outrage at these pictures had a 43-page brochure made up that showed the actual 12 cartoon from the newspaper, but also, wait for it,

3 comparatively extreme cartoons of unknown origin.

The way they are described, it appears that these have not been shown on any of the common mirror sites ("a praying muslim shown being raped by a dog"?)

Apprently, the delegation's also conveyed that they represent 200k Danish muslims, rather than the actual 5k-10k, and the people they talked to got the impression that the newspaper in question was owned by the Danish prime minister.

SPON calls all this "misunderstandings", because the "delegates" say so. No matter whose intention it was - the arabic view of the situation was quite different from the actual situation.

(It may make the purported outrage look a little more reasonable - but it certainly makes you laugh about the western apologists who declared based ont the original 12 pictures that there was certainly reason enough to start an intifada.)

(which also claimed to represent 200k D. m., rather than the actual 5k-10k that they are)


Ignore the bottom sentence in () - a mis-edit.

It is a RIGHT to boycott. How can you call it bullying??

Wegen des Nachdrucks der umstrittenen Zeichnungen wurde nun der Chef der französischen Boulevardzeitung "France Soir" entlassen. Der Eigentümer der Zeitung ist ägyptisch-stämmig. Ich hoffe, dass dies die Diskussion hier in Europa endlich antreibt und möglichst viele AUFSTEHEN: Satire wird von Meinungsfreiheit gedeckt. Dafür müssen wir uns nicht entschuldigen, sondern darauf können wir stolz sein. Das sollten wir jedem Gewaltbereiten geduldig erklären, der uns jetzt mit Gewalt und sogar Tod (!) bedroht.

Gibt es schon eine Sammlung der arabischen "Satire" über Juden und Christen und andere Ungläubige? Das sollte man mal nebeneinanderstellen.


The French journalist from France Soir lost his job. What a shame! No European journalist has to apologize. We should be proud that we have reached this level of freedom of opinion and should explain it to everybody who is now ready to threaten us with violence and even death. Is there any collection of "satire" in the arabic media about Christians, Jews and other non believers?

Do I have to wear a headscarf because my neighbour is hurt?

Gabi,

yes you do have to wear the headscarf and you have to voluntarily submit to execution when you kill someone who was trying to rape you and your sister. Trust me, it's for the betterment of humanity. You understand, don't you? /IneedatagherebutI'mtoopissedoffaboutthis!

@Gabi

>>"Gibt es schon eine Sammlung der arabischen "Satire" über Juden und Christen und andere Ungläubige? Das sollte man mal nebeneinanderstellen."

That and a few of the countless images of these bigots burning and desecrating the American flag. I ask again: where do the SPON sheep stand on this? You remember, don't you? Those lying, canting hypocrites who have bleated so long about their noble struggle to defend freedom, human rights, and democracy by bashing the US. Where are their moralistic preening, holier-than-thou virtuous indignation, and heroic poses as defenders of liberty and justice now? The wet sheep advertisement you see when you read their coverage of this story is wonderfully appropriate, isn't it?

So far, Die Welt, taz, FAZ, Tagesspiegel, and Berliner Zeitung have reprinted some of the cartoons. Interesting alliance, there. Does anyone know how newspapers in other countries have reacted so far? What's the situation in the US?

@Helian
"What a bunch of ball-less wonders"

well at least some of those "ball-less wonders in europe, as you called them, printed those caricatures! Any links of american newspapers printed them? just wondering!

@minka

>"well at least some of those "ball-less wonders in europe, as you called them, printed those caricatures! Any links of american newspapers printed them? just wondering!"

Hmmm, let's see. CNN? Nothing! USAToday? Nothing! New York Times? Nothing! Washington Post? Nothing! No, wait, they're running an article in the Style section egging on attacks on the Christian religious right. How very odd! Isn't this the US media that's supposed to be in lock step with the Bush Administration? But wait! There's extensive coverage of Cindy Sheehan's anti-war publicity stunt at the President's State of the Union address in all four! Yet these are all tools of the conservatives. Just read it in SPON and Daily Kos! What bungling! What incredible incompetence!

All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Jylland, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Carlsberger."

>>"All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Jylland, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Carlsberger."

By the power vested in me as Helian, I hereby declare Carlsberg the official beer of the Superbowl!

Here are some examples of the kind of "sensitivity" the Islamist fanatics are frothing at the mouth about (hat tip Erik at No Pasaran!).

Helian, thank you for this link. This was exactly what I was looking for.

Now Palestinian Arabs are threatening people in the EU office because of this satire. They are with masks and GUNS! Looks like the beginning of a wonderful time. But they are at least honest, showing their real "face" and thinking. Now we should watch them and understand it.

Helian,

Thanks for the link. Ugly stuff. I wish this brutishness would get more play in the Western press.

Yet you never actually answered minka's question. Aside from articles describing the issue, I find nothing in the WaPo, NYT, USA Today, WaTimes or WSJE (hard copy), though an online search has it's limitations. Do you perhaps know a paper in America that did print the cartoons ? metacrawler doesn't turn up anything quickly.

On the secular front, this headline today, "Administration pushes military to allow prayers to Jesus"

"The White House will pressure the Pentagon into being more explicit in saying that military chaplains can pray in the name of Jesus Christ, an evangelical Christian chaplains’ group says." This fits into your meme about attacks on the Christian right. Oh, by the way, the headline comes from the Washington Times.

Regarding Cindy Sheehan, the Capitol police report that they're trying to reach her to apologize. Seems they overreacted in arresting her and denying entrance to a Congressman's wife, who also wore a T-shirt with a message (to support the troops). Guess those crazy, mixed-up lefties aren't the only ones who see publicity opportunities at SOTU. Or the President's themselves, who invite some message-of-the-day types to get a bit of camera time. But then it's their (the Presidents') political theater, so I'd say they're entitled.

Cheers,

Seeing as how this site mostly criticizes (justly) the German press, let's give it up for Die Welt, who not only printed the cartoons but called out the Islamists for their hypocrisy.

--It is a RIGHT to boycott. How can you call it bullying??--

Free speech is also a right.

As someone else pointed out on another blog:

The Palis going to give up the money from Denmark?

Rofe,

>>"Yet you never actually answered minka's question. Aside from articles describing the issue, I find nothing in the WaPo, NYT, USA Today, WaTimes or WSJE (hard copy), though an online search has it's limitations. Do you perhaps know a paper in America that did print the cartoons ? metacrawler doesn't turn up anything quickly."

I don't know of any, and none have been identified in any of the blogs I usually read. Of course, minka's remark begs the question, why would you expect to see them in the US media? In the first place, they're not nearly as obsessed with Europe as European media are about the US, and in the second, they belong to the same ideological tribe as the media types in Europe.

>>"This fits into your meme about attacks on the Christian right. Oh, by the way, the headline comes from the Washington Times."

I don't know as I have a "meme" about attacks on the Christian right, since I'm not religious myself. For that matter, the "Times" has similar stories in virtually every issue. However, it's simply a fact that it wasn't difficult to find images of Maplethorpe's cross in urine, or the dung-smeared Madonna, in the US media when those stories were in the news, and it's also a fact that the US media aren't nearly as concerned about the "sensitivities" of evangelical Christians as they are about those of Islamist zealots.

>>"Seeing as how this site mostly criticizes (justly) the German press, let's give it up for Die Welt, who not only printed the cartoons but called out the Islamists for their hypocrisy."

Hear, hear! The same goes for the now unemployed editor of France Soir, who showed us that the spirit of the Marseillaise still lives in France.


This seems to confined to Europe. It would not normally come up in the US.

The US has become a bit jaded to muslin boycotts, marching in the streets and flag burning.

This is probably why it is not a big story in the US.

Also, not a big story in the US because very few care about Europe anymore. Germans, et al, would like to think that they are movers and shakers that Americans have to take seriously, but the truth is when I ask my friends about what they think of what's going on in Europe, they rarely know about any news on ANY European subject. And some of these are people who actually travel to Europe occasionally.

It will come up in the U.S. as a result of coming up in Israel.

The story of the Koran in the toilet grew big because it carried a greater theolocical between the Christian distinction of inspiration and language, and the Islamic exaltation of a copy of a data carrier into a fetish. The story of the Mohammed in the cartoon may develop the same way, since it represents the conflict between the Christian focus of the depiction ban on God alone, and the Islamic ambition to exalt its iconoclasm into the ambition to hide every human face behind a beard or veil.

Cowardice watch:

In the greatest assault on freedom of speech and the press in the West in many years, the response in the US media is telling.

Editorials to date on the Cartoon Jihad in the New York Times and Washington Post: 0

Articles on the story in the two most influential leftist blogs, Daily Kos and TalkingPointsMemo: 0

Today the WP printed one of the most abject, groveling stories about the cartoon flap that has ever disgraced its pages. The "independent sources" it chose to quote as surrogates for its editorial opinion are telling. For example, from the article:

"Alexandre Adler, author of 'Rendez-vous With Islam,' criticized the (European) newspapers. 'We're at war,' he said, citing the Iraq insurgency and the electoral victories of the radical Palestinian group Hamas and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. 'And sometimes war demands censorship. In this context, anything that might strengthen the hate of the West is irresponsible."

Comforting, isn't it, that while the right argues that we should embrace torture, illegal searches, and imprisonment without trial to "win" the "war," the leftist news media are arguing in favor of dismantling freedom of speech and the press to win the same "war." What, exactly, will be left of our rights, our liberties, and our culture worth defending after we have won "victory" in this "war?"

Meanwhile, the abject wet sheep at SPON have gone themselves one better. In a recent article on the crisis, they criticized France Soir because of the low artistic level of the caricatures of four religions on its front page. Great reason for dismantling free speech, SPON. The low quality of artwork in tabloids!

Does anyone out there still question the need for alternative sources of information?

@myself above -"greater theolocical" - LOL, read "greater theological conflict" please ;-)

Helian,

You may be confusing "cowardice" with "disinterest."

This has been a very big news week in the United States domestically, and yet another story about Muslims chanting and burning flags is nothing new to us.

"This seems to confined to Europe. It would not normally come up in the US.

The US has become a bit jaded to muslin boycotts, marching in the streets and flag burning."

The reason why it's not a big story in the US is because the 'cartoon' rioting story is a threat aimed at Western Europe, pure and simple. And in much of Europe it's a credible threat. It is a threat of civil insurrection intended to make the French rioting of last fall appear the actions of small boys.

It is not a credible threat in the US, for the simple reason that the FBI would catch wind of it and at the first whiff of serious insurrection the National Guard, local police, etc would roll it up. Where they did not an armed citizenry would do it for them.

That armed citizenry doesn't exist in Europe except for the criminal classes, and guess which minority forms an outsized proportion of the criminal classes?

FranzisM: I think I may have noticed a common theme to your posts. You actually buy they propoganda!

The Koran in toilet thing "grew big" because it was a blunt weapon to bash America with. Of course it never happened. Was it a theological crisis when actual Korans had similar things done to them by detainees? Of course not, because that wasn't useful propoganda.

@Erich - It was just piss in the wind or was? Sorry I do not buy anything, even when you are going to tell me Hurricane Katrina did not happen. You should better spend your time listening to the Pope than digging through fairy tales.

@Helian

The concept of free speech also incorporates the responsibility for free citizens in the U.S. to not to use this freedom to perseceute the concept of freedom of any religion. Secondly, the USA actually established itself as a country on the concept of free speech or freedom of religion. Thirdly, religion remains disconnected from all politics in the States. It is not against the law but considered extremely bad taste in this still religious country, to attack or ridicule any form of our (500+) religions in public. Our forefathers fled frequently from religous persecutions and the horrible religous wars in Europe have helped us to develop a more mature and laissez fair attitude on this entire subject matter. Our administration is also very much interested to locally curb the current conflict in the Middle East by avoiding all inlammatory talk about Islam as a religion per se.

USA

FranzisM: Man, you just jump from one thing to another. Hurricane Katrina? What the heck does that have to do with anything? Or the Pope's pessimism about the possibility of reform within Islam?

Show me some credible information indicating that Americans at Guantanamo flushed a Koran down a toilet, then I'll take you seriously. And no, a discredited and long retracted Newsweek story is not credible.

The Islamic "concept of a data carrier as a fetish" is not actually taken seriously, it is only used for propoganda. Else when actual Muslims do similar things, like rip up copies of the Koran, or worse, then they would be equally castigated.

But I suppose anything can be overlooked if you hate Israel or the US.

Don't blame me that it is propaganda that works. As for what exactly happened there is on the agenda of the talks of Angela Merkel to the U.S. government.

"What the heck does that have to do with anything?"

The Holy See is the legitimate heir of the Teutonic weathergod Thor. In Germany, when it rains the kids say Saint Peter has opened the skies. The weather comes from a higher power, while your livingroom fountain is your privacy.

FranzisM: So, you admit that it's just propaganda, and (the political and religious leaders, at least) are not actually serious about the theological issues which you raised.

Oh, and about Thor & the pope. So, what you're saying is you think I (an American) am likely to believe in a conspiracy theory that Hurrican Katrina didn't happen, because of German's conflating of pagan and Christian traditions? And you think I'm a Christian? Well, I'll give you points for creativity.

Sorry, I don't base my judgement of the truth of events on my personal preference, or beliefs, or what I'd like to see happen. I try (as best I can) to judge what actually objectively happened.

@Erich - Cool down, the hurricane was only another weather event unanticipated in the flightplan, just more piss in the wind. I do not tell this to make assumptions about you, I tell it to give you some important information about Germany.

As for your question on theolocical seriousness, what you are asking is whether Allah is another name for God or whether it is a science fiction character. I can only answer that question with the statement that I am not a Muslim, but every individual Muslim carries such an answer in his soul, and each one may be different.

FranzisM: I'm not mad; I think you're mildly humorous. And I do appreciate reading the perspectives of people from around the world. I'm not sure how representative it is of Germans as a whole, but you can't have everything. By the way, it's not Erich, it's Eric! with an exclmation point. As in...well, nevermind.

Anyway, no I am not asking that. I'm saying you can't have it both ways. It's either propaganda or they are being serious; not both. You admitted that it was propaganda. I was just pointing that out, because I don't think you realize the implication of what you said.

As for making assumptions about me, you said "you are going to tell me...". I can chalk that up to your less than fluent English, it's certainly better than my German.

@Eric - All propaganda works with fetishes of one kind or another. The Guantanomo story was propagated by this Quran fetish, but you can also think of the commodity fetish as the Marxists do, or of the artificial personalities in sports and in the kulturindustrie. The nuclear weapons program has become a fetish for the Iranian regime, and their propaganda is serious. The most prominent symbiosis of fetish and propaganda is the Nazi gesamtkunstwerk. But the ideal is exactly the opposite, to strip off all the propaganda from the fetishes and turn them into harmless toys.

You point out that Muslims are not able to shrug off the things you described. If the Koran was like the Bible, nothing would stick to it. Why do Muslims relate such a treatment of the book to themselves when Christians do not? Could it be because Muslims have no other fetishes, so they use religious books in place thereof? Would Islam still propagate if its appeal has to compete with neutral fetishes and other religions? I think it can only be seen as a result of political reforms.

Franzis: I wouldn't call the Iranian weapons program 'propaganda'. I think you still don't understand that propaganda is, by definition, misleading. As in: not true, a lie, intending to deceive. The Iranians, as you say, are serious about their nuclear program. Their fetish (as you characterize it) has more to do with the evil US, and evil Israel, etc.

I don't know that *all* propaganda involves a 'fetish', and I do not agree the some Muslims aren't able to shrug off the cartoons or infidels handling the Koran, or whatever. They choose not to do so.

I can understand someone who was born dirt poor, with limited access to information, and whose only education is from the Koran. But I'm not worried about them so much, they'll come around if they get a chance to live in a decent society. And they're not the ones who make a fuss. It's the spoiled rich kids in Arabia, or the people living off European welfare state largesse that are the problem.

Would Islam still propagate? It has only done so through force of arms, when have they ever competed with other religions? You want some political reforms? Oppose sharia law, and promote democracy in places like Iraq. Let people get some self-repsect the old-fashioned way, else the resentment and hatred of the West will continue.

@Eric - You have yourself provided an example how misleading uses fetishes, had you not made the typo in that term it might not have propogated to me. The story of the Koran in the toilet propagates similiarly, it touches something in people so they pass it around without any kind of formal admission.

A fetish is not something that would be indecent per definition. It is something that can be used in an indecent way, it can be mixed with politics to aggravate their propagation. A fetish as such, like the German fetish for trees, is a neutral toy, or at least should be. The apolitical fetish is the good that Christianity has picked up from the pagan Europe.

But the Koran is not apolitical like the Bible, it is a text that is expected to be enforced by the political authorities, or by outlaw rackets that think of themselves as rivaling authorities-to-be. Since the Koran is interpreted by government, Muslims do not have any more freedom to chose than any fiction character has in its story. Their owners can play them like Hagbard or Tron.

As for the Iranian nuclear program, America and Israel are in the role of the scapegoat not the fetish. And in the case of Iran, there is some serious propaganda connected with their nuclear ambitions. There may be Iranians who do not hate Israel and in fact want nothing more than civilian toys, but whatever choices they make they cannot break out of the intellectual entanglement of these who want to use nuclear weapons against Israel. If the Security Council choses to outlaw theocracy, their geopolitical universalism is the good that can be picked up from revolutionary Iran.

New York Post columnist Ralph Peters: 'A plague on BOTH your houses!'

snip: "Now the confrontation's gone too far for either side to back down. And both sides are wrong.

First, consider the Europeans. The Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons last September was not standing up courageously for freedom of expression. The editors and cartoonists were so oblivious to any reality beyond their Copenhagen coffee bars that they just thought they were pulling an attention-getting prank.

They got attention, all right. As did the papers elsewhere in Europe that reprinted the offending cartoons last week. In the name of press freedom, of course.

The problem is that with freedom comes responsibility, a quality to which Europe's become allergic (nothing is ever a European's fault). Breaking a well-known taboo of Islam was irresponsible. No other word for it.

There's plenty to criticize in the failed civilization of Middle Eastern Islam. But the European press avoids the serious issues. They could've run cartoons about al-Zarqawi's savagery, al-Jazeera's hypocrisy or the oppression of women. Instead, they attacked a religion's heart. Gratuitously."


snip: "Wasn't it those oh-so-clever Europeans who complained about a heavy U.S. hand in the Middle East? Who made excuses for 9/11, the Madrid bombings, street murders, terrorist kidnappings and beheadings, the London bombings, French suburbs aflame and no end of hate speech? Then treated Islam the way a dog treats a fire hydrant?

That's Europe for you: A continent of cowards who start fights they can't finish themselves. Thanks, Hans. Merci, Pierre. "

snip: "Of course, the blame doesn't fall solely on the Eurotrash. The over-reaction within the Muslim world is psychotic — yet another indication of the spiritual and practical collapse of the Middle East and realms beyond. Will the Europeans figure it out this time? How many corpses, cracked heads, arrests, boycotts and smoldering embassies will it take before Europe realizes that militant Islam isn't benign?

The Arab world, especially, is a pile of tinder waiting for random sparks. And the alacrity with which regional governments and Islamist groups have moved to blow up the cartoon issue into a conflagration is as tactically astute as it is despicable.

What we're seeing in the Middle East is strategic theater, benefit performances for the Syrian government (now playing the Islam card), Hezbollah, Hamas and every tough customer in the neighborhood. "

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/63063.htm

In case any of you missed the point, the problem here is not solely Muslim intolerance It is mutual intolerance.

Europeans have gotten so used to being able to piss all over Christians and their beliefs and Jews and their beliefs (or even their right to live in peace) that they now count the right to insult religions as a fundamental right. Then they blame Bill Clinton and the Bush administration for saying the plain truth - that it was wrong to publish those cartoons.

Did fundamentalist muslims overreact? You bet they did! But - they have a point. Behave with respect. Don't defile the holy symbols of Islam, Christianity, Judaism. Behave with a meed of self-restraint for once. Try out using a little sophistication about the world - as opposed to the spurious quality which passes for sophistication in european coffee bars.

And the next time you're tempted to complain that fundamentalist Christians in the US are the worst threat to world peace - try to keep this little episode in mind. When Andreas Serrano created the *art* named 'Piss Christ' did the Cristian Coalition burn down the Spanish embassy?

Ray,

I left out the tage on the previous post. Would you please repair my omission?

European countries start wars they can't finish? When exactly does history start for Ralph Peters? There have been a couple of wars on European ground before WWII that Peters seems to have forgotten. What a pathetic, cowardly column. To quote Condoleeza Rice "When will you stop making excuses for terrorists?". The muslims overreacted and they have no point whatsoever, as Don himself pointed out by bringing up the Western reaction to Serrano's work (maybe we shouldn't mention that French dude who tried to burn down a theater showing Scorsese's Jesus film). One could also cite the New York Press article about the dying pope. Did anyone attack their offices for that? Nope. If you want to be part of an enlightened, open society, you will have to live with disagreeing views and opinions and disrespectful satire. If you can't handle that, too bad. First, the idiotic statements by Sean McCormack, and now whiney columns by wannabe hardliners who, in their hatred of anything European seem to forget what this whole thing is about: freedom of speech.

You can attack the Pope or the Ayahtollah Khomeni. Or even the Ayatollah Sistiani (as dead wrong as you would be to do so to that great leader).

There was a time when attacking Jesus would have set Paris aflame (had it become known in Paris). Try displaying 'Piss Christ' in Notre Dame circa 1200 and see what would have happened.

You can attack mullahs, or Shias, or Sunnis, or Dervishes. You can do cartoons to your heart's content.

What Peters pointed out is that the cartoons about Mohammed attacked the heart of Islam in the opinion of many Muslims.

Well, try to point out to people in 1200 that the earth is round and see what would have happened. Your point being what? It's 2006.

Peters is the same guy who wrote about "the excesses of a few renegade guards at Abu Ghraib prison" that should not be taken too seriously (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13849). How about the excesses of a few Danish cartoonists compared to anti-Holocaust conferences that are clearly not meant as satire. Peters' double standard is out of control. He has no problems excusing a few guards, but is quick to denounce all of Europe as "Eurotrash" when a Danish newspaper publishes some bad cartoons.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

February 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28