Have you seen these caricatures that are causing the uproar in the ME?

[Squatch]

Poll question: Have you seen these caricatures that are causing the uproar in the ME?

Die Welt

Click on "Die umstrittenen Karikaturen"

Fixed bad grammar

[BushOut06]

1. They react the same way RWers do when it's their icon being portrayed

God forbid anyone portray Jesus with anything but the most reverence. The only difference is that in Islam, I believe it's offensive merely portraying Mohammed, whether it's done offensively or not.

[Squatch]

3. The "same way"?

How many armed Christian fundamentalist hoardes do you see closing foreign embassies in this country?

[BushOut06]

9. Well, maybe not exactly the same way, but still...

The RWers do get quite pissed off at anything they find disrespectful. They don't have to use bombs or violence to get their way. They've found that boycotts and letter-writing campaigns can be just as effective.

[formernaderite]

31. I'm okay with boy cotts and letter writing personally

I've done it myself against them. Violence is ignorant regardless.

[Cobalt Violet]

82. This sparked the con's drive to the elimination of the NEA.

Andre Serrano's Piss Christ.


You got to take away all funding for the arts if you hate one piece. That's the mentality.


Over-reacting by religious zealots is over-reacting by religious zealots.

[marions ghost]

86. thanks for posting that

in the early 90's when I heard that everyone in a small rural town on the East Coast was up in arms against "artists" because of the venomous bile being spewed by their preachers, I knew it was all over for any innovative or even slightly difficult art in America being publicly funded. Jesse Helms' flying monkeys were incredibly successful in their arts killing missions. There has been very little public support at state or federal level for cultural activity ever since. Recently the Governator successfully eliminated the arts budget for California ($17 million) which was trying to pick up the slack in that state. Most other states have had nothing to work with. And I wouldn't expect the private sector to do anything at all --they haven't done so in the last 10 years. (These public funds were used to support performance, dance, writing, etc in addition to the visual arts).

Religious zealots have killed funding for the arts.

[democracyindanger]

12. How many death threats

did Sinead O'Connor get for ripping a picture of the Pope in half on live TV?

[LoKnLoD]

2. But imagine

the uproar of our christian right if they made cartoons like that of "their" Jesus?

[Squatch]

4. You mean like the uproar that accompanied this page:

Dance, Jesus, Dance!

[Lost-in-FL]

5. I see nothing wrong with this page.

As inmature as I might sound I have to say that Mohammed pic was funny as hell... :rofl: I just wonder why they are so mad about it besides the fact he looks like Osama.

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. Because its forbidden to present images of people, much less the Prophet

Ever wonder why Islamic art is full of incredibly intricate designs, but no paintings of fucking PEOPLE?

[CJCRANE]

85. I think the problem is that they're racist caricatures

obviously intended to offend.

If a well-meaning European scholar had done a graphic novel about the life of the Prophet based on historical facts - I doubt many muslims would have complained.

[formernaderite]

32. they're very mild and mostly funny cartoons

I found a quick loading site for viewing the cartoons. Wikipedia has them as well, but to view the larger individual ones you need to go to another busy site...so here it goes:

http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Cartoons_Jyllands_Posten.html

Could someone load them up to DU? I don't know how, but it would certainly further the discussion to post them.

[Leopolds Ghost]

43. Some of them are mild, none of them are particularly amusing

But that's true of most European political cartoons. They are about the same as New Yorker cartoons -- mostly pretentious and unfunny, with some ham-fisted axe-grinding thrown in for good measure.

I think the very idea of portraying Mohammed in a "sympathetic" light is ridiculous when the (non-expert, European) cartoonist has no idea what Mohammed looks like. So even the non-negative portrayals resort to stereotype. I'd have the same complaint about (non-political) attempts to portray the "real" Jesus (if it weren't for the fact that there is already a stereotypical image of Jesus.)

I think it would be interesting if the US papers commissioned a series of cartoons showing Jesus. Half would be "positive" portraying Jesus as a light-skinned, noble Aryan; the other half, from the more militantly secular cartoonists, would be "negative" portraying Jesus as a hairy, sweaty Slav/Jew archetype straight out of the 1930s to show how unworthy of worship he is... This shit is hard-wired in our brains, it ain't just about religion, it's about millenia of tribal warfare.

[Leopolds Ghost]

44. Except for the "bar / no bar" cartoon. THAT would be hilarious

and memorable, with the women's eyes uncovered, if it weren't for the fact that Mohammed is portrayed as a stereotypical hook-nosed Semite wielding a dagger straight out of Gunga Din.

[Leopolds Ghost]

39. WTF makes you think he looks like Osama? In this case secularism = racism

They are using secularism as a front for right wing, CHRISTIAN fascist ideology. Read the articles by the Danish RWers who sponsored the contest. This is no different than the 1880s - 1930s when Jews and Slavs were portrayed as heavily bearded, greasy, bomb-throwing anarchists. It is something in the water that leads people to continually reinvent the same stereotypes, just like Americans stopped believing in leprechauns and started believing in little green men, according to many psychiatrists. They need a supernatural enemy to survive, mentally.

[dandylion]

77. hahahahahahaha ..........

LMAO! :rofl:

[many a good man]

6. Its no worse than "extreme Jesus"

Free speech. They should try it some time.

[sam sarrha]

7. i cant read One F'n word of the page...

:shrug: what are you talking about..

[Squatch]

8. That's why I said "click on..."

Only a couple cartoons have any words on them, but the message is clear.

[TahitiNut]

36. Here're the 'toons ....

[Jacobin]

10. the link doesn't seem to have the cartoons, now

I tried it and nothing.

I've been looking for the toons all day, hopefully with a translation to english that I could read.

Anyone?

Anyone?

(Ferris Bueller's teacher said)

[Squatch]

11. Just hit refresh a couple of times in the popup window.

[formernaderite]

33. better link to the cartoons

http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Cartoons_Jyllands_Posten.html

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Well, them folks should just be more open minded about racist cartoons.

[cali]

14. No. That's not the point.

It really is about a free press. It's about a secular culture not giving in to religious belief. Are the cartoons racists? That's debateable. I don't mean that snidely. It's about ideas, good, bad, offensive, uplifting, banal. Certainly the cartoons are offensive, but kidnapping and violence because you're offended is not justifiable. Life in a secular, multicultural world, with a free press, comes with the risk that you're going to offended.

[Squatch]

15. To be offensive, somebody has to take offense.

[Hatalles]

23. Freedom of speech, my ass.

Have we lost all decency and respect for others? These cartoons are attacks. Were the NY Times to publish these cartoons (http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/cartoons/homepage.htm ) there'd be outrage as well. The "free speech" card is the same argument that is used to attack minorities in the US today. I wonder what would happen if the Times published a series of cartoons on their front page of civil rights leaders like MLK and Rosa Parks in leapord skins, big lips, bones through their noses, the whole Jim Crow caricature... all in the name of "freedom of speech" -- because they can.



EDIT: I voted "other," BTW. No excuse for the death threats, violence, etc... but the anger and outrage over the cartoons is perfectly in order. I won't play apologist for these insensitive and belligerent editors/cartoonists either.

[Nutmegger]

24. Totally agree with you

[Wordie]

27. I voted "other" too.

It's a dilemma. Does one support the idea of respect for all religions, or the idea of freedom of speech/expression? The issue over these cartoons seems to put these two worthy goals in stark conflict. There are just some of these sorts of questions that don't seem to have a good answer.

I don't, of course, support violence in support of either of the above.

[Leopolds Ghost]

42. Some naive people think this is about ALL religion should be DISrespected

In a "secular state" that has "freedom of speech".

In other words many secularists here and in Europe believe "free speech" and "freedom of religion" is incompatible with religious expression.

They're wrong, of course. The Jyllands Post and the people flogging
these cartoons as some sort of artistically meaningless, latter-day
"Piss Christ" are doing so out of conservative, religious sentiment --
"Denmark for the Danes."

They would be the first people to object to freedom of expression on the part of Muslims in Denmark or France: That's dangerous and would embolden those savages. Give a ---- an inch and he'll take a mile is what they believe. It's purely an effort to foster animosity. The folks rallying around these cartoons as if they need to be defended are doing so to score points with the conservative anti-semitic, anti-black and anti-immigrant "Christian" Europeans -- not because they want to institute the First Amendment in the EU. They do not.

[Wordie]

67. Informative post. Thanks, Leopold's Ghost.

Looks like this is another one of those issues that isn't quite what it seems at first.

btw, ghost of which Leopold? Bloom? (You don't have to answer if you don't want to...I have too much curiosity!)

[Leopolds Ghost]

69. Actually, it's fascinating... King Leopold of Belgium, Ruler of the Congo

Listen to the yell of Leopold's Ghost
Burning in hell for his hand-maimed host.
Hear how the demons chuckle and yell
Cutting his hands off, down in hell.

There's also a good book by this title, and I would
also recommend _The Scramble for Africa_ a great history read
about Stanley, Leopold, Mutesa, and other infamous characters...

[Marie26]

72. Why are all the pictures of Turks?

I think it's telling that all the cartoons seem to depict Turkish or Moorish culture. Complete w/the stereotypical costumes, knives, turbans, buildings. While actual Muslim terrorism mostly arises in the Arab world. This seems to show the underlying racism behind these cartoons, IMO. Turks might not be a majority of terrorists, but they are a sizeable majority of the Muslim immigrants in Europe. And Denmark recently had riots as well by young Muslim immigrants. When asked to illustrate the "threat posed to the West" by Muslims, the Danish cartoonists instinctively chose the imagery of the resented Turkish immigrants; not the image of terrorism. These cartoons seem to really be about an anti-immigrant agenda rather than an anti-Islamic one. And the group's "contest" seems to be more about finding the scariest depiction of Muslim immigrants rather than furthering a real debate on the issue.

It's interesting how differently some simple cartoons can be interpreted - the Danes see it as anti-immigrant issue, the Islamic world sees it as an anti-Muhammad issue, Americans see it as an anti-free speech issue. Each culture frames the debate completely differently, based on its own values & experiences. No wonder no one can agree.

Thanks for your post - you've completely changed my mind on this issue. I saw it at first as a free-speech issue (how dare they try to censor this!), and also saw the cartoons as some sort of comment on terrorism (But not one single cartoon depicts a terrorist). Most people on this thread have framed the debate in the same way (seeing the cartoons as Bin Laden, etc). That's cause if you ask an American about the "Muslim threat", a terrorist springs to mind. If you ask a Danish person about the "Muslim threat," a Turkish immigrant springs to mind. You're right that the intent was probably to deride poor Muslim immigrants in Denmark. But Americans perceive this whole controversy through a 9/11 filter - my own first paragraph just assumed that the cartoons must be depicting terrorists w/o any evidence. It's a little scary how much our culture influences our perception of things w/o us even knowing it. OK, I'll stop rambling now.

[rinsd]

47. How did you feel about Piss Christ and the Virgin Mary smeared with dung?

Were you supportive of efforts to have their support taken away? (Piss Christ was made with an NEa Grant and Guilliani tried to cut the funding for the museum showing the Virgin Mary).

As insulted as I was by those depictions as a Catholic, I still defended the artist's right to their art.

[nychaser]

68. Interesting thought, however on the piss Christ

Isn't there a fundamental difference between an artist having the right to be offensive, and the artist having the right to be offensive at taxpayer expense?

Suppose that the artist had, as suggested above, depicted racist art with MLK as the main subject. Or how about a showing glorifying anti-semetic NAZI "art". I suspect that the reaction would have been entirely different than it was to piss Christ.

At the end of the day, it always matters whose ox is being gored.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Was the Volkisher Beobachter just being "secular" when it attacked Jews?

Complete with cartoons.

[Leopolds Ghost]

40. "It's about a ssecular culture not giving in to religious belief."

1. YOu're wrong. Freedom of religion does not mean elimination of religion. YOu're spouting a hateful, anti-religious ideology.

2. YOu're mistaken. The "Jyllands Post" that commissioned this cartoon series did it to "illustrate the threat post by Islam to the West" according to the website above.

3. While not all the cartoons are offensive, most are, and that disturbs me to realize there is such a depth of Anti-Semitism still in the nordic countries.

4. You're also mistaken because the defenders of the cartoon series are NOT going on about FREE SPEECH. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH IN EUROPE. Unfortunately. There is only Ideology, and the Ideology they CLAIM to be attacking by commissioning this series of Cartoons is the "secular Western governments" who seek accommodation with Islamic people living in Europe. They want to restore Denmark to old-fashioned Christian values of the 1930s... They are part of an assimilationist movement that essentially is saying "Convert or Leave".
In France, it masquerades as a violently secularist movement that seeks to deprive Black North Africans of jobs and prohibit women from wearing headscarves in public. I'm sure you would approve, no? Again, THEY DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT FREE SPEECH. EVERY LIBERAL SECULARIST I'VE MET, OR READ, FROM EUROPE QUESTION'S AMERICA'S "obsession" with freedom of offensive speech. They just don't "get it". They want to fight speech that is offensive to THEM with speech that the other side will find equally offensive, i.e. racial attacks, just like in India/Pakistan and the Middle East, where speech is also limited to that which favors one side over the other.

5. In AMERICA, this shit would be considered offensive and the paper's "right" to publish it would be a NON-ISSUE. Of COURSE they have the right to be offensive in America. Western European governments are not disseminating this shit in an effort to prove the cartoonists have "free speech". They're doing it to endorse the message -- Muslims Not Welcome In Europe. If the majority disagreed with the message it would be banned with not one howl of protest by militant secularists in Europe, because, again, they don't give a shit about our Bill of Rights. In England they don't give a shit about the right to privacy either... although they have retained some aspects of common law rights that are equivalent to Bill of Rights. Rest of Europe doesn't have that. Show me one country in Europe where the people, not the state, has ultimate sovereignty. That is not the way the law is set up in France, or England.

[Marie26]

66. So these cartoons are really just propaganda. nt

[CJCRANE]

83. Bingo!

Just the fact that the caricatures have semitic features should be the giveaway.

[bobbieinok]

70. fundamenalist Muslims, fundamentalist Christians DO NOT want to live

in a 'in a secular, multicultural world, with a free press' and intend to create a world in which they will not have to

[tabasco]

26. Oh yes, and all of us should be more open-minded about threats

of violence, insane jihads, murder, and religious fanatics telling us what we can print in our newspapers.

There is a world of difference between a controversial cartoon and threats of and actual violence. If you can't see that, I'm afraid we live on different planets.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Tell it to the Jews in Germany in '36. It's about racism not religion.

[tabasco]

30. That's baloney.

The only ones threatening violence against other people are the ones protesting the cartoon.

Is Denmark ready to launch a pogrom because of the cartoons?

What do you consider more likely today?:

1) An anti-Islamic pogrom in Denmark, or,

2) A terrorist strike on a newspaper that printed a controversial cartoon.

I think you need to analyze who are the real bad guys in this scenario.

A newspaper has a right to print controversial material. An offended party does not have the right to do violence because of that material.

edit typo

[Leopolds Ghost]

41. Both are likely.

In France, Muslims (i.e. black citizens of France -- the overwhelming portion of the Black population is Muslim and vice versa) are essentially restricted to ghettoes by unspoken hiring and housing covenants in that militantly "colorblind" state. (Black) women are prohibited from wearing headscarves in school. They are essentially taught that their religion is false in the name of "secularism", much as happened to the Ghost Dancers in the American West.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT FREE SPEECH. IT IS AN ATTEMPT BY A CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVE NEWSPAPER TO PROVOKE A VIOLENT REACTION IN ORDER TO SELL PAPERS.

[formernaderite]

35. all religion is useless....

some I'm beginning to believe more useless than others. Wow...do you think the Asian Buddhists would be threatening violence?

[rinsd]

46. Oh the irony considering the depiction of Jews in the Arab press (nt)

[Warren DeMontague]

56. Oh, Bullshit. This isn't about "racism". It's about out-of-control fundies

Who don't understand that outside reality doesn't need to be sanitized to match what is inside THEIR heads.

When the religious right in this country burns books and works for censorship, we roundly condemn them. At least, I do. I don't see why Muslim fundamentalists get a free pass for going ape-shit, inciting violence, threatening publishers, etc. over depictions of Muhammad.

It's distressing that some members of the so-called 'left' seem so willing to embrace censorship when they're talking about things that they, personally, find offensive. And don't you dare try to drag Nazi Germany into this- I had relatives who died in the camps, and I was maybe 10 miles from Skokie when the Nazis marched there in the 1970s. Guess what? They have the right to free speech, even when their speech is offensive and noxious. The way to PREVENT totalitarian abuses is to protect free speech- ALL of it- particularly the most offensive and noxious parts. Do I think Ann Coulter is a dangerous, raving lunatic who needs to stop doing meth, or whatever drug it is that is eating big holes in her brain? Yes. But censoring her isn't the answer. ANSWERING her with speech of our own is the answer.

Even if these things were 'racist', and I'm not sure they are- the proper response would be to counter them with education about Islam. By starting riots, issuing fatwahs and death threats, and intimidating publishers, I don't think Islam is putting its best face forward.. (Just like every time Pat Robertson gets on tv and opens his mouth, I don't think "Christianity" is putting its best face forward)


It's very simple, but some folks still don't get it. Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Don't like porn? Don't look at it. Think making graven images of the prophet is a sin? THEN DON'T DRAW PICTURES OF THE PROPHET.

But I think the planet would be in much better shape if folks everywhere would stop trying to enforce THEIR PERSONAL Belief System (or BS, for short) on everyone else.

[pitohui]

61. best. post. ever.

hear hear for impeachdubya, i think that sums it up v. nicely

[woo me with science]

63. excellent post nt

[Erika]

16. Mohammed was a prophet of Allah

Much like the Jews believe Jesus was only a prophet of God.

What would be the reaction if the Iranians or Saudis did a similar cartoon of Jesus?

[eggman67]

17. Certainly not this reaction n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

45. What reaction would that be, sir? Cite specific actions. n/t

[eggman67]

49. Closing Embassies for one n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

55. If they started closing embassies to protest *'s immoral actions

There are many folks in the US who would be the first to cheer.

So dealing with different moral standards is in the eye of the beholder.

As for individual, violent acts, or kidnapings by terrorist groups that are already at war with Israel / US, they need no excuse. Who said that legitimate spokespersons for Islam were threatening random acts of violence? Should legitimate spokespersons of Islam be held accountable for the actions of nominally religious "fundamentalists" with an axe to grind? There's no sense in treating random violent actions as part of the dialogue, but rather, as an expected consequence of the political tensions in the world that people are going to have to live with.

Cutting off free speech is not the answer. Neither is promoting these drawings like a latter-day "Birth of a Nation" (which was similarly pimped by the entire US power structure as the First Great American Movie, in response to requests by black intellectuals that it be condemned... very similar to the cartoon controversy.)

[eggman67]

57. Comparing Bush's immoral actions to publishing a cartoon is

ridiculous.

Secondly the original question was what would be the reaction if they published a similar cartoon about Jesus.

I'm pretty certain that we wouldn't close an embassy over that.

[Leopolds Ghost]

71. Did I say we should be like Pakistan? Bush seems to like it, tho.

Some Republicans in the US even seem to think he's the antichr- er- messnger of Jesus.

So rephrase the question, what would we do in a few years when Bush starts acting like Emperor Augustus and prohibit the disrespectful treatment of his own image? ;-)

[CJCRANE]

84. Jesus is also a revered prophet in Islam

so muslim countries en masse wouldn't support denigrating him.

[Spider Jerusalem]

18. Allah = (Judeo/Xian) God; and Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet...

(although not the son of god) and they accept the Pentateuch and the Gospels as divinely inspired...so their reaction to such a depiction of Jesus would likely be similar, though not as extreme.

[Erika]

19. How would western evangelicals respond? n/t

[rockymountaindem]

37. Jews do not believe Jesus was a prophet n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

54. Oh, give me a break.

Right wing fundies DO go berserk when Jesus is portrayed in ways they don't like- but they're wrong, too. At least when they cross the line into advocating censorship.

And you obviously don't know diddly about the Jewish religion. Judaism doesn't confer any special status onto Jesus at all. AFAIK, he doesn't even show up on the radar screen.

[jim3775]

21. Here is a better link

http://cryptome.org/muhammad.htm

[Disturbed]

22. I found the one about the virgins amusing.

;0)

[Harper_is_Bush]

25. Other. What IS the reaction of the ME?

Is it; in truth, the over-reaction of the WEST to a reaction in the ME?

I never know anymore. The media hypes shit so much.

[NoPasaran]

34. They're nuts

It's not like it's John Stewart making a Cindy Sheehan joke, after all!

[kentuck]

38. Here's one of them:

[ck4829]

48. I'm a Muslim, the uproar is over the top

Geez, you don't need to be chopping off heads and such.

Reply with your own caricatures, insult them, call them names, make fun of the RW'ers doing it, but inciting violence is wrong and not necessary, and it makes them look good in a way.

[The Stranger]

50. BIGOTED CARICATURES get ANGRY RESPONSES.

Imagine if a U.S. newspaper ran a bigoted cartoon of an African-American in the form of a known racist, hate-filled stereotype? Now imagine that the newspaper did it for a week?

[KFC]

51. No excuse for violence

Only idiots react to cartoons with violence.

[The Stranger]

52. Then run the cartoon in a U.S. paper.

Walk outside and tell them what you are telling me.

[deutsey]

53. Not to mention that Muslims abhor any representation of Muhammed

even one that was complimentary.

[Yollam]

58. My answer is no, but...

...not being able to read the captions, it's a little hard to be sure.

But no matter what they say, I think the whole flag-burning, screaming thing is a bit over the top.

They are just cartoons.

Bush is murdering people, for chrissakes.

[pitohui]

59. if they're freaked out by those, they're pretty lame eom

.

[ecstatic]

60. I didn't see the cartoon, but where do non-Muslim people get off

telling Middle Easterners how to feel about their prophet/ God being defamed? I just don't get it. If there is a hint of irritation in my post its because it seems the feelings of minorities are always brushed aside when its convenient (by both parties).

[pitohui]

62. the middle east don't rule the world quite yet thank you

you have it in reverse

the middle east is trying to tell europe what to put in their own newspapers and they are shutting down embassies and issuing death threats in a teeny tiny temper tantrum to get their way

if that is their religion i sure as hell can't respect that, it's contemptible, to threaten to cut off people's heads over some damn scribbles on a piece of paper in another freakin country

[ecstatic]

64. ok i guess you're right :-) nt

[bloom]

65. Other - the uproar was planned - the desired result. n/t

[Karenina]

73. Bingo!

Stir the pot, get a few grease pops and voila! The stage is set. This is just a rehearsal.

[Marie26]

75. Right

They're pulling the strings for the culture war, and we're all obliging. The cartoons were designed to anger Muslims, and spark further protests and outrage in the Islamic world. Then, in turn, Europeans would react by bemoaning the fanaticism & intolerance of the Islamic world; and wonder if they should really should be so sensitive to Muslim concerns. It creates more intolerance & mistrust on both sides. They're trying to spark more violence & succeeding.

[Solar]

78. its only shows the fanaticism and intolerance thats already there

Fred Phelps tries to provoke the gay and lesbian community with his 'god hates fags' campaign. Is it offensive, even hateful? Yes of course it is, but you don't see me droping death threats to random people from Kansas now do you?

I'm willing to concede to you, just for the sake of the arguement, that these cartoons are racist/intolerant. I don't think they are, but I'll say to prove my point. Nobody has the right to not be offended. Fred Phelps offends me, but guess what? He has the right to say it and I can't stop him no matter how much I get my knickers in a knot. Even with all the hate and garbage he spews, I don't have the right to respond with violence. The only way his free speech can be limited is if he threatens actual violence.

Lets go back to the current situation, this cartoon offends people. BOO-fucking-HOO. They should do what I do when Fred Phelps starts talking: IGNORE IT. The right to free speech doesn't end when things become offensive, it starts there. Cry all you want, thats your right. But I will not ever condone it when people start throwing punches.

A short review: Is it ok for gays to go on violent rampages when Fred Phelps spouts his drunken slurs? NO. Is it ok for the French military to invade the US when a random American teenager makes the 'French military victories' joke on Google? NO. Is it ok for the freepers to firebomb Cindy Sheehan's house when she critizes Bush? NO.

If all of this is obvious, then why is it ok for Muslims to riot over a few cartoons?

[Marie26]

79. It isn't

In no way should people be threatening violence or riots because they are offended by something. In a free society, people should be able to express opinions, even racist opinions, w/o being arrested or persecuted. That's what free speech is all about - and it's something we take for granted as Americans. But this isn't an American newspaper, and this isn't about free speech. That's where I think we're misinterpreting these cartoons. It's not some cartoonist's own original work, instead the works are basically propaganda and were created to further a specific racist agenda. The Danish newspaper that published them did it as a slap to Muslim immigrants, not an expression of free speech. And European newspapers are reprinting it to reinforce that anti-Muslim message, deliberately offend people, and create further racial tensions.

The riots & violence are the point. They purposefully chose the image that would be the most offensive possible to Muslims based on their religious beliefs. The images themselves don't really work as propaganda towards Europeans; the images were instead aimed at Muslims in order to provoke the response they got. The reaction itself is the propaganda. Once Europeans or Americans see the reaction in the Muslim world, they're even less inclined to favor Muslim causes, and more inclined to take a rigid stance against Muslim immigration/religious practices. It's a two-fer - anger Muslims, & increase anti-Muslim feelings all with the same image. You're thinking exactly what they wanted you to think. I had the same reaction - that the Muslim reaction is intolerant & fanatical, and felt bothered that protestors were trying to censor the media. But then I realized I was being manipulated into feeling that way; and that negative reaction by Westerners towards Muslims was the whole point of the cartoon "contest".

You argue that Muslims should have been able to let it go, ignore it, live & let live, & allow free speech. I agree completely. But I think the editors knew that would not be the reaction - hoped that wouldn't be the reaction. By reacting w/violence, Muslims have fallen right into the newspapers' plan, & the Western counter-reaction against Muslims has followed the plan as well. They've succeeded in polarizing the debate. The sad thing is that all sides are so easily manipulated.

[Karenina]

80. Great insights, Marie26!

:yourock:

[Yupster]

74. I voted other because I believe

the best thing that could happen would be for there to be similar cartoons published over and over again for the next couple of months all over the world.

People get used to things, and I think in a little while even the protesting people will see that the world hasn't ended, Islam hasn't been toppled, and they can go right on with their lives and just not look when they see something they don't like.

I don't think it would take very long.

[Mr_Spock]

76. They need to get over it...

Like the first poster said - they react like RW'ers - I'm sick of religious overreactions to their "idols" who have been turned into unrealistic inflations of who they really were when the existed here on earth, thus they are open to ridicule IMO.

[zippy890]

81. bingo

what you said