Damn Right, Muslims are Protesting over a Cartoon...

[JCMach1]

In probably a vain effort to increase understanding, I will try to explain what Muslims are so upset about.

Muslims have the biggest problem with the cartoon which is a depiction of the Prophet with a bomb in his turban. The depiction of Mohd. alone would have been enough to get most Muslims angry. But then, there is badge in the middle of the turban covered with Arabic script (think who the audience is for this). Obviously, few in the West are going to be able to read this. It reads in Arabic, "there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet." This is the primary declaration of Muslim faith. The first pillar that a Muslim must fulfill. It is also Koranic. In this context, it is construed as a desecration of the Koran because it metonymically implies that what it means to be Muslim IS TO BE A TERRORIST.

Depicting the Prophet is just a small part. Under Islamic law (Sharia), punishment for desecration of the Koran is most harsh... i.e. death. Quite righly, many Muslims view this cartoon as a corruption, or desecration of the meaning of the Koran.

All of this takes place in the poisoned environment of an illegal war against Iraq, ghettoization violence and genocide in Palestine, racial tensions in Europe, and a growing political crisis in Iran. We shouldn't be surprised that violence happens when words of hatred fall on fertile soil.

The right wing is feeding the media the freedom of speech line. For example, there was an explanatory story on last night's 360 Degrees w/ A. Cooper on CNN. The segment ran with split screen shots of embassies burning the entire time. The only guest was Andrew Sullivan who has a column in Time this week which outlines the freedom of speech tack that the right-wing is flying about this issue. There was nothing else in this story... no further explanations and no countering analysis... PURE PROPAGANDA and RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS...

This issue is not about freedom of speech, but pure simple racist provocation. The cartoons were designed to provoke just this kind of reaction.

Having said that, provocation does not justify violence or murder. However, it should not come as a surprise. Nor, does it justify racial provocation from anyone.

Freedom of speech has never taken place in a vacuum. A Democratic society is constantly evaluating and assessing the borders of decency and morals as it relates to freedoms. For example, in the U.S. we don't allow child porn because it causes harm (tort) to the minors involved. While I will scream loudly 'freedom of speech' as a liberal, I will also say as strongly racist images and languages that provoke specific groups to do violent acts are absolutely immoral and wrong.

Harm was done by these cartoons... the only question is what do we do about it...

Right/Left

Muslims/Jews/Christians/et al

Until we lose the hate and expose the language of hate for what it is, the cycle continues...

[Behind the Aegis]

1. Protesting is fine....

...burning shit to the ground..NOT OK!

[JCMach1]

2. wasn't condoning such actions at all

But, when one provokes an angry mob... (and in the case of Syria stirrs one up) these things will happen.

The vast majority of the Muslim world is boycotting in response to this.

It is also important to note the MOBS comprise a VERY small percentage of people in these population centers.

[Spinoza]

109. As an atheist I have never given a shit

what is religiously offensive to a Jew or a Christian or a Bhuddist or even a Marxist. Why in Gods name should I suddenly give a shit what is religiously offensive to a Muslim? Why should any non-Muslim? Certainly, I don't believe Muslims, or any other faith-based group, gives a shit what is offensive to ME.

[William769]

24. Could not have said it better.

[Karenina]

27. Shock and Awe... NOT OK

Destroying heritage... NOT OK
Stealing resources... NOT OK
Poisoning an entire population... NOT OK
White Phosphorus... NOT OK
Endless demonization and sabre rattling... NOT OK
Abu Ghraib (the tip of a VERY NASTY iceberg)... NOT OK
Rape, pillage and loot... NOT OK

Please tell me again how "THEY" should react.
WHO is this "THEY" reacting violently?
How were "THEY" mobilized?
WHO is benefitting?

[QC]

31. Non sequiturs...NOT OK

Apologetics for violence...NOT OK

[Karenina]

32. Everything I've mentioned

a short list, to be sure, is relavent to putting events in context.
But I do accept your American belief that "THEY" are violent and must be countered with the greatest force that can be mustered.

[QC]

33. Straw man arguments...NOT OK.

But apparently they are the best that some people can manage.

[Swamp Rat]

85. Actually, Denmark was among the first countries to join the

"Coalition of the Willing." Karenina makes a good point. :)

[timtom]

121. Oh, please.

Are you reading this as an endorsement by Karenina for violence?
Or, perhaps, the more logical reading might be a scathing indictment of ANY violence and choosing to catalog the violence perpetrated by the United States!

It's ALL bad. And I believe that this was what Karenina was saying.

[BushOut06]

36. How many of those things are Denmark's fault?

Please - trying to tie all Islamic fundamentalist terrorism to American actions is simplistic at best.

[Karenina]

39. What I'm getting at

is WHO whipped up the first violent response in Syria and WHY? We're all being played with this "Muslims attack free speech" frame. It's quite startling how EASY it's been. Making the primary focus property damage perpetrated by a tiny minority is punching the "THEY" button bigtime. WHO mobilized the reaction and WHY???

[bunkerbuster1]

72. Rude pundit probably has it right, and I quote:

from
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/crappy-cartoons-and-burning-flames-if.html


The majority of the riots went something like this: Some idiot with a megaphone yells how everyone needs to show how much they love them some Mohammed. One guy tells another guy in the protest crowd that he loves Mohammed more. Guy 1 says, no; in fact, he loves Mohammed more. Guy 2 says oh, yeah, he'll show you how much he loves Mohammed, and Guy 2 breaks a window. Guy 1 says, fuck you, fucker, he'll show you how he loves Mohammed more, and launches a Molotov cocktail through the broken window. Guy 3 announces that there's shit to steal and all hell breaks loose, as man with megaphone looks on proudly. This is not to mention whoever sent megaphone man out there in the first place.

[Behind the Aegis]

83. ?

Your screed has nothing to do with the topic at hand. As for your "questions," you'll notice I didn't say "they," but rather in an overall generality stated that protesting is fine, violence is not...or do you find some violence acceptable?

[Karenina]

104. I abhor violence.

What I object to is the bully's provocations, having been subjected to them since childhood. I personally never responded violently to being insulted, demeaned, demonized or physically assaulted. What I object to is the bully's assumption of superiority in framing the debate.

"OH? (says the bully) Nevermind that I have been BRUTALIZING you at every given opportunity. Forget displaying those cuts and bruises. *I* say they were self-inflicted and who are they gonna believe, ME or YOU??? EVERYBODY KNOWS YOU PEOPLE ARE________. YOU DARED take a swing at ME which PROVES you are an uncivilized, vile piece of shit whose humanity needn't be considered. YOU are nothing more than an ANIMAL and YOUR reaction to being beaten, pissed on, spat at, demonized and dehumanized NOW PROVES IT. YOU should have responded in a manner *I* find acceptable. I define the TERMS."

It's called "white privilege."

[Behind the Aegis]

105. Your example is not one of "white privilege."

As I have stated, the protests were fine, the violence was not. One of the only times violence is remotely acceptable is when one is physically attacked.

Many of us have grown up being bullied, but the majority of us aren't rioting over our individual treatment or our treatment because of what ever group we may also belong.

[Karenina]

107. Thanks for defining the terms.

Ich weiss jetzt bescheid.

[Behind the Aegis]

111. Ich bin für Sie glücklich. n/t

[cantstandbush]

52. "Thous shal make no graven image..."

Christians don't even bother to respect their own prescribed religion. They waffle back and forth between the Old and New Testament when it suits their purposes and prejudices. The gospel of Christ is far far different than the evangelical movement would have the world believe. They stand starkly against "love thy enemy" "forgiveness" "reconciliation" and "justice." And forget about sharing all things in common within a nation let alone a single congregation. And they want to condemn others for their professed beliefs? Give me a break!

[leftchick]

3. thank you for the thoughtful post

I have been looking for an explanation of the cartoons and this was extremely helpful. I had no doubt it was done intentionally by the RW. What better way to foment "those Muslims are crazy" in the west?

[KittyWampus]

35. Deliberate Provocations. From LBN-Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons

Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons


Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.
The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.

In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.


Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

[MindPilot]

38. Well that kind of changes things...

What I originally thought was just a few religious extremists reacting extremely is in fact one religious group provoking another. :shrug:

[leftchick]

46. Kaiser was on c-span this morning

lying his ass off. What an asshole.

[Kellanved]

125. apple meet orange

1. It was the Sunday edition.
2. It was not even the cultural page of the Sunday edition (i.e. completely different editiorial staff)
3. It was a "No, thank you" reply for unsolicited material submitted by a cartoonist not working for the paper
4. The paper is intended for a center-right Lutheran readership. It may be bigotted, but they have to keep their audience in mind; the controversial cartoons were indeed intended to keep the readers happy in a slow-news period - a cheap and stupid decision, but one thousands of editiors do every day.

[MadHound]

4. I find these cartoons reprehensible yes

But there is still the matter of freedom of speech, even freedom to publish ignorant racist bullshit. And yes, Muslims worldwide have the freedom to protest the cartoons, but racist provacative cartoons or not, they don't have the right to be burning things.

There have been insulting cartoons and depictions of Christ and many other dieties throughout our history alone. And yes, while there has been protests and indignation, it has not turned to violence.

So use your freedom of speech to condemn these cartoons and those who publish them. But do no cross that line of violence and lawlessness.

Freedom of speech means that sometimes you hear or see things that are absolutely horrible. Deal with it, non-violently, and move on.

[JCMach1]

5. Also, remember MOST are protesting peacfully

that's the rub... The media is heavily playing the violent images... Unfortunately, that's what people will remember.

[MadHound]

6. Oh I realize that, but you're correct

The media is playing up the violence, the "scary Arab" notion, all to boost this rising drumbeat of war in Iran.

[JCMach1]

7. The CNN segment I saw was especially chilling

The images were all violent and the talking head (from one side) was presented as having the only valid view about this issue.

Sorry, but I will note cede that ground to right-libertarians and right-wingers... people who only support 'freedom of speech' when it serves THEIR purposes.

[cali]

8. I also think your OP is thoughtful

and for the most part, on the money. Unfortunately, you used the word genocide in reference to the Palestinians. That's an overly liberal use of the word. Death of of innocent civilians, including children, would be more accurate. Rwanda was genocide. Bosnia was genocide. Darfur may well fall into that category. Cambodia certainly did. I'm a stickler for careful application of language. Words mean something. And so do cartoons, alas. That's why I saw the printing, across Europe, of the Mohammed cartoons as stick in the eye provocation rather than pure freedom of expression. Like you, I condemn the violence. However, neither you nor I, have a firm grasp on whether most are protesting peacefully. Once a mob forms, it's rarely peaceful.

[danalytical]

40. Like not reporting the "good things" happening in Iraq?

Puhleease! There are at least 8 people dead so far from these protests and I know of at least 4 buildings burned. Some idiot threw a grenade into a French building as well which luckily didn't kill anybody. I have no sympathy for fanatics. To think a cartoon caused this? No I think hatred and stupidity caused it.

[liberalhistorian]

44. Thank you,

I'm getting tired of all of this apologetics for the rioters.

[Leopolds Ghost]

96. Because God Knows, if we repealed Voting Rights Act and there were riots

You'd be the first to focus on the riots as "the real issue"?

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

49. One more time, control of the media by a few ...

It's the root of Bushco being able to spy, torture, lie etc with such impunity. The media will repeat whatever lies the RW tells them to and a segment of the population will believe this, regardless of how ridiculous it is.

BTW, on this subject, I don't condone the burning of the embassy but I do understand the rage that caused it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

87. Protesting peacefully while calling for beheadings? n/t

.

[louis c]

9. I Worship Free Speech

Anyone who desecrates that inalienable right is my enemy.

Free speech is any political, social or societal expression, whether or not I agree with it.

Free Speech should be responded to with Free Speech, not violence.

[JCMach1]

12. So you support child porn?

the KKK and American NAZIS appearing on your TV every night?

err wait maybe they already are...

Anne Coulter calling for the death of liberals?

Yelling fire in a burning building?


Freedom of speech doesn't exist in a vacuum...

[MindPilot]

23. I think yelling "fire" in a burning building

would be very appropriate. More than free speech, that would almost be REQIRED speech. :D

[JCMach1]

56. oops crowded building!

:)

open mouth... insert foot

[Warren DeMontague]

119. Wow. Anyone who supports free speech supports child porn.

No. Nice try. The reasons for the laws against child porn are as clear as they are irrelevant to your seriously misguided arguments.

YES, Ann Coulter has the right to free speech. So do the KKK and Nazis (and I had relatives who died in the camps, TYVM). The answer to all of those isn't censorship, it's intelligent speech of our own. Certainly in this country we have issues with media conglomeration but that's not a question that will be solved by censorship, but rather by MORE voices being added to the mix. MORE free speech, not less. The right to free speech is only as good as the freedom of the most unpopular, noxious speech. (...And don't drag child porn into it again, because that's a crime- not speech.)

But, clearly, you don't get that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. They Worship Mohammed. Anyone who desecrates Him Is Their Enemy.

The OP also appeared to make a clear point about not condoning the violence either, however many if not most of the protests are not violent.

I also personally feel that using free speech freedom as defense for being able to say or do anything without consequence as if it reigns supreme over all other ideals is an extremely dangerous line of thinking that takes a multi-dimensional concept into a very simplistic one dimensional declaration.

Just because one could say whatever they want doesn't mean one always should. The ability to know when is simple intellect and decency.

[JCMach1]

19. i.e. a RIGHT-WING belief...

concrete operational thinking at its finest.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

20. Lack Of Respect, Responsibility and Simple Human Decency Towards Others

and their cultures? You are right. That is right-wing beliefs and their concrete operational thinking at its finest.

Agree with you there.

:hi:

[tenshi816]

117. Muslims do NOT worship Mohammed.

They revere him as the prophet, but they don't worship him. They worship Allah. I hate to sound nit-picky, but it's an important distinction.

Having said that, however, I was reading a lengthy article in last Saturday's UK Independent newspaper that was, like newspapers around the world, trying to shed some light on the uproar about the Danish cartoons. One of the things the article said was that Muslims were more prepared to hear Allah insulted than Mohammed. I wish I had saved the newspaper, and I'll check the Independent website to see if I can find a link because it was an interesting read.

On edit: Found article at this link: http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article343048.ece

It begins with: "'Say what you like about God, but be careful with Mohamed'". So goes an old maxim among Western missionaries in Islamic lands, who found that Muslims might sometimes endure insulting references to the Almighty but would rarely tolerate insults to Mohamed or his family. The missionaries couldn't fathom it. Nor, ever since, it seems, has the rest of Western society."

[rainy]

10. Don't forget that the pics actually appeared in Sept.

Wonder why the outrage now? The Saudi Mullahs are stirring it up to cover their asses for poorly managing the holy trips to mecca. I just read about this yesterday on Common Dreams. I'll try to post the link if I can find it.

[JCMach1]

15. Yes, it has been politicized

Bashar Assad is also using this to rally flagging support.

[Hamlette]

50. here's a link to a story about the Saudi manipulation

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/5/13149/60748

these people are trying my patience.

[Marie26]

101. Thanks for the link

There's this huge gap between Sept. publication & the protests in January & that diary really helps explain it. So Saudi Arabia started pushing this outrage campaign, "War on Christmas" style, to distract from deaths at the Hajj. That explains why protests would start in Saudi Arabia, but it doesn't explain the massive protests that seemed to arise spontaneously all over the world. Most of these countries are not free states, people can't just go out & protest anytime. In addition, fewer people have access to the Internet or any source of news. So how is everyone in Yemen hearing about some Danish cartoons? Are all of the Islamic governments in Lebanon, etc. also pushing the cartoons? From the diary, it doesn't sound like the protests actually started in Saudi Arabia, but in other countries. So where did the wave of protests begin? And how did it spead so quickly?

[Hamlette]

103. I thought he explained it well in the link

The Saudi influence over Sunni muslims through the clerics.

Andrew Sullivan is doing a good job of covering this. I don't think the faked cartoons helped any.

[JCMach1]

112. Sullivan is one of the chief purveyors of the right-wing take on the whole

issue.

He may be right about political complicity in this... Saudis, Bashar Assad, etc., but he was 100% wrong with the comments he made on CNN. I haven't read the TIME piece, so I will reserve judgement on that.

[Hamlette]

131. actually, his "right-wing take" on this is exactly the same as mine

I saw him last night on Anderson Cooper (who, not to change the subject, did not bash dems over the funeral, said it was wonderful). What's not to agree with? Religious people cannot expect me to hold their icons holy. And when they issue a fatwah against Osama, like they did against Rushdie, we'll talk. Or when they condemn the murder of Van Gogh. Or 9/11. Instead of celebrate those events, I'll listen.

Fundamentalists are making it tough for all people of faith. Rational people of faith need to condemn them now and loudly.

[txindy]

129. This is a very important point.

They were published in September, yet it is only now that the outrage is coming out? Someone is deliberately spreading this info. and hoping for the reaction that we're seeing. Who would benefit the most from this tactic? The Saudis and their pals.

[NNN0LHI]

11. Its not just cartoons that has brought on this anger

Flushing the Koran

Abu Ghraib Prison

Invading and occupying a Muslim country "by mistake"

Killing Muslims by the tens of thousands in Iraq

The list goes on...

[Karenina]

86. Straw men, all!!!

:sarcasm:

Let me set up some more in chronological order (sorta).

The last few years politicians and papers have been upping their circulation and popularity with Muslim-bashing themes, stuff like Muslims are a cancer on society. Even the Queen jumped into the fray. Never mind that Danish troops have been eager participants in a few "frat pranks."

September, some hateful, racist cartoons are published as a "gotcha" due to the reticence (good sense) of illustrators to depict the Prophet. The expected outcry ensues, the Danes refuse to meet with Ambassadors from the M.E. An extremely effective boycott is launched. The furore dies down after some meetings and discussions.

Meanwhile Danish companies' business completely dries up in the M.E.

Suddenly the cartoons reappear in a RW X-tian rag in Norway.

Some Imans travel to Egypt and S.A. waving them and 3 even worse counterfeits around.

With the new spark, the "free speech" meme is launched. Westerners get their knickers in a twist. Those sandn*****s are trying to come in HERE and censor US!!! Now the shit is all over the shop.

20,000 head for the Danish Embassy in SYRIA. (What percentage of a billion is 20,000 again? Who has the ability to organize this?) Remember NOTHING happens in SYRIA without official sanction. What the fresh hell?

The Lebanese Minister goes on record saying he was not prepared to order the military to turn its guns on Lebanese citizens.
The fires start burning even more brightly.

It all goes to prove that the cartoons were RIGHT!!! Damn those uncivilized Muslims and their evil religion and ANYONE who identifies with it! How DARE they riot!!! Property damage is WRONG!!! Free Speech is absolute!!! How come they're upset by "just a cartoon?" ASSHOLES ALL!!!

WE ARE ALL SOOOOO BEING PLAYED... Can somebody pull back the curtain?

SYRIA kicked off the fireworks??? Anyone else smell something funky?

[Dogmudgeon]

13. The "Freedom of Speech" argument

The Europeans are on very shaky ground when they argue the FoS point. Several European countries have laws forbidding similar insults to Christians, and most make denying the existence of the Holocaust a crime punishable by imprisonment. Many European states have decided to address the "problem" of cults simply by outlawing them, one at a time (Scientology is the highest-profile example, but hardly the only one).

For the Europeans to then turn around and lecture their Muslim citizens on Freedom of Speech is hyocritical.

The proscription of anti-Christian blasphemy, Holocaust Denial, and Cults are justified by saying "There's no right to hatred!" Which misses several points. Free Speech requires allowing everyone to say what they will, haters included. If the Europeans have decided that some topics are beyond the pale, they face criticism from groups they have not extended similar privileges to.

And, for what it's worth, the Europeans used Muslim immigration for years as a source of low-paid "stoop labor", to an even greater degree than Americans used poor Mexicans. The animosity between the groups in Europe has boiled over several times in the past decade, and led to the candidacy and assissination of neo-Fascist Pym Fortuyn a few years ago.

So, cartoons aren't really the problem. Most Muslims understand cultural differences. But these cartoons are being used to agitate Muslims and generate more conflict -- as one writer observed, the cartoons are variations of the playground bully's "poke in the eye".

For hate-mongering Europeans to hide behind the Constitution of the USA is astounding. Even our own right-wingers and hate-mongers can cook up additional excuses. Progressive Europeans certainly have their work cut out for them. Perhaps the European Union can commit itself to implementing Free Speech, AND to dealing fairly with the problem of a Muslim population that has too often been "thrown away" once the dirty work has been done.

--p!

[Kellanved]

127. Actually they are not

There are "blasphemy" paragraphs in many European countries, relics of less enlightened times. However, they were ruled to be less important than freedom of art and press. That was a hard battle, lasting decades. People now demanding to give that freedom up again because of "hurt religious feelings" are getting on my nerves.


No. Frigging. Way.



The other points you mention are not easily answered. They are among the most complicated aspects of constitutional law; their implementation is frequently misreported. Freedom of speech is protected. Even most hate speech is protected.
What is not protected are false factual statements insulting the dignity of others, calls for acts of murder. (actually even these are protected, but their protection is deemed to be less important than the other relevant aspects). Europe is not hiding behind the American Constitution; the impression is created by an appalling lack of understanding about speech issues in Europe.

Your assessment of the European immigration is a blanket statement, ignoring - especially in the Netherlands - things like a colonial past. In other cases the whole "cheap labor" immigration was a bigoted, mislead attempt to rent labor from other countries. However the "cheap labor" immigration is largely unrelated to the problems at hand; those problems were created in the 80s and 90s under totally different conditions.

Scientology is, to my knowledge, not banned in a single European country.

[KnaveRupe]

14. The reaction is similar to the LA riots after the Rodney King verdict.

When the police officers were found "not guilty" in the Rodney King beating, something snapped. A bunch of bad actors took to the streets and engaged in unspeakable acts, yes, but there was a feeling of frustration and rage in the black community building up to a head for a long time. The actions of those rioters who nearly killed Reginald Denny at the corner of Florence and Normandy were symptomatic of the rage felt throughout the community, but were still the actions of individuals. Most African-Americans were just as horrified by the rioting as everyone else, even as they understood what drove those people to take to the streets.

Similarly, the violence that is erupting in response to the cartoon is not about repressing free speech. It is about a religion whose members feel (rightly so?) that the Christian West is gearing up for another Crusade. When a community is intentionally provoked (as was the case here, I believe), there is always the risk that something is going to snap, and that some bad actors are going to engage in activities that are extreme. Those actions should not be construed as reflective of the community as a whole.

The reaction of some extreme muslims in response to this cartoon should not be used as justification of further hatred of Muslims in general any more than the LA riots should be used to justify the stereotype of all African-Americans as violent, riotous thugs.

IMHO, of course!

[CJCRANE]

16. RW blather about "freedom of speech" is BS...

because most of the time RW commentators tell liberals to "shut up" whenever they criticise Bush or the Iraq War.

[JCMach1]

17. Exactly, it is time to see some thoughtful analysis of what is going on

Oh... wait a minute, you can't scare anyone with that.

[redirish28]

21. My wife has been trying to explain the same thing to people she knows

and she starting to believe that the Burning and Rioting/violence isn't a small group of radicals egged on by someone...or some group.

[MindPilot]

22. Excellent well written explanation, but I have a question

You seem to be using race and religion interchangeably. Now as an atheist, I don't have a dog in this fight; I think any and all religion is open to question, criticism and even ridicule. But racism of course is a whole different animal. So were those cartoons offensive because they fed into racial stereotypes or because they made fun of a particular aspect of a religion which is admittedly a bit over the top when it comes to rigidly enforced dogma?

[Bridget Burke]

25. In Europe, must Muslims are Arab immigrants--or children of immigrants.

In the US, the face of Islam is more diverse. But there's racism in Europe focused on their Muslim minority. A minority that continues to reproduce when many Europeans can't be bothered.

In the Middle East, Europe is linked to Western Imperialism. Of course, the USA has been the villain recently & as most of Europe stayed out of it. But history is long & there are those who are taking advantage of the brouhaha to protest against the USA.

Yes, there is racial stereotyping. Most Muslims/Arabs are NOT violent bombthrowers.

A religion which is "admittedly a bit over the top"? Who admitted this? Anyone with any knowledge of Islam would realize that any depiction of Mohamed is frowned upon. Using that portrait to further the equation of Muslims=Bombthrowers is an insult--not a clever editorial comment. If the artists are "free" to express themselves, their targets are also "free" to do the same.

[MindPilot]

37. I confess, I admitted it.

Thanks for the historical perspective, that clears up a lot. But you say the muslims are reproducing faster than the Europeans. As I recall that was one of the issues the Germans had with the Jews. Do you think we're looking at the same sort of anti-Semitism welling up to a head again?

From what I understand images of Mohammad are not frowned upon, they are downright forbidden. By "over the top" I'm talking about praying five times a day on a special rug, burkas, dietary rules, prohibition of music, not allowing women any rights, and all the other restrictions that make the Sunday rite and rituals of Christian sects look positively liberating.

Of course the Muslims are free to respond to the comments that they feel insulted by, but burning down buildings and calling for slaying and butchery are not how civilized people respond to mere insults. There have been some threads with cartoons published by Muslim papers and they are not kind to the Jews and Christians of the west.

This is the kind of shit we have to deal with when our leader runs off and invades a country that's never done anything to us.

[Bridget Burke]

42. Do you actually know any Muslims?

Few Muslim women wear the burkha. Many have rights. Music is generally allowed--or actively encouraged. You find daily prayer "silly"? How does this particular practice harm you? What do you think of people who meditate? I'm sure you do things that some of us would find ridiculous.

Not all the Muslim protesters are violent. Yes, the situation is being used to protest against Our President.

Here's a report on anti-Muslim feeling in Europe. It's easy to blame a "different" group for a society's problems. And many of these countries just don't have as many Jews to blame as they used to.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4325225.stm

[MindPilot]

54. If I do know any, I don't know they are Muslims.

Which is why I'm asking these questions. Maybe burkha was not the right word, but almost every picture I see of people--women--in a Muslim context are completely covered with a robe and scarf except for part of their face. I also understand that Islam runs on a continuum just like Christianity from mild to extreme. So it's simply restating the obvious that "Not all the Muslim protesters are violent."

I think all prayer is silly regardless of the schedule and of course it doesn't harm me; I never said it did.

I took a meditation class once; it just seemed like a bunch of metaphysical mumbo-jumbo to me. As I sat there with my legs cramping up and my eyes closed trying to find my "center" all I got was dizzy. So my only opinion of the people who do it is good for you.

[KFC]

71. "Music is generally allowed"

That is flat out funny. Props to a culture that will generally allow music - or actively encourages it. And it is nice to know that many of the women have rights. Sweet.

[JCMach1]

74. However, right now, during the first 10 days of the Islamic New Year

music is frowned upon...

Although, I don't anywhere in the Muslim world that is STRICTLY enforced. Perhaps in Iran... they are quite big on Ashurah ...

[Kellanved]

126. I beg to differ

The "minority that continues to reproduce " is nothing but racial stereotyping, as it is in fact not backed up by the statistics. Those do not show a significant difference in the birth rate.
It is a popular part of right-wing fearmongering, by now almost as frequently used by the certain factions of the left.

[JCMach1]

57. Not just making fun.... +racism and religion

are conflated in this piece...

[Maru Kitteh]

26. It's the VIOLENCE not the protest, mmmmkay?

It's simply NOT justifiable. Protest yes - killing no.

[NNN0LHI]

28. Perhaps we should be more concerned with the killing and torture...

...America along with its allies such as Denmark are doing to the people of Iraq in an attempt to control that countries natural resources. Have you ever considered that? Or is that violence OK?

Don

[mondo joe]

133. How about being concerned with BOTH? Okay?

Or can you only think about one thing?

[izzie]

29. Not really shocked as things like this have gone on all of history

What does make me wonder is that I have read the cartoons were in the papers in Oct. Why are they just getting mad about them now? Are we (Bush war group) pushing a pro-Iran war thing so we must hate that religious or what? We are pouring the money to the military and one has to face the fact that Congress does not think but just rubber stamps anything the Bush group wants. I think their is some thing else behind all this than just drawings.I hate to feel like this but some thing else is up on this I think. You must know that RR 'City of the Hill' has not left Bush's thinking.

[BushOut06]

30. So is anything that depicts Muslim fundies completely off-limits?

My take on most of the cartoons was that they weren't targeting Muslims in general, but those that wrap themselves in Islam to commit acts of terrorism. Is this any different than using political cartoons to satire Christian fundamentalists or Jewish extremists?

I'm sure there are some cartoons out there that insult Islam as a whole, and those could be considered hate-speech (but still protected by free speech). But most of what I have seen so far doesn't seem to fit that bill.

[JCMach1]

58. It was aimed at everyone that's was one of the main points of my post

that's why so many people here are angry.

The Arabic writing was a VERY specific message to Arabs-- one that most Westerners would not know or have any clue about because it is in Arabic script. EVERY Muslim is going to know this however.

[danalytical]

90. Which one

The ones I saw were in English. Maybe they are being translated depending on your location. How did those cartoons get spread around the middle east? I think the fundies passed them out to stir up a frenzy. These cartoons are 6 months old you know.

[DemExpat]

142. A Danish Iman gathered these cartoon along with others that were

more offensive and took them to the Middle East to gather support.

I agree with you that I believe this crisis is more of a fundy Islamic attempt to stir up trouble than an orchestrated anti-Islam action in Denmark.

DemEx

[texanshatingbush]

34. Kinda reminds one of burning a flag in the USA

Burn a flag in certain quarters here in the USA will get your ass kicked and your house burned.

[niallmac]

41. Sounds very similiar to me also. As monkeys go we

do seem to get tripped up by our competing superstitions more often than not. Oh well. kill kill kill.
http://www.ernestcline.com/dmd/

p.s. - this post is not intended as a slur against any one group of monkeys. This post is all inclusive. I'm a monkey too!

[danalytical]

45. The US flag is burned every single day in a foreign country

Yet we Americans aren't burning down embassies and attacking UN offices. Do we as Americans get to declare the right to attack random muslims everytime an islamic fundie burns the flag or incites violence against the US. It seems like it's OK for them to treat us horribly while Americans are supposed to suck it up and ignore it, yet it's OK for them to react violently when they percieve an insult. Why? Because they are already angered and inflamed by our actions? What about them inflaming our population through bombing cafes, beheading people, flying airplanes into buildings, and generally terrorizing the west.

Why shouldn't we be treated the same? Shouldn't we be classified as an agitated state because of 911 or any of the other terrorist attacks. Can we claim it's their fault and declare war on their countries, because a few people incited violence against us? The dutch didn't incite violence, they merely criticized. Yet we get bombed and beheaded and remain relatively calm. That's a double standard.

We watched some of our citizens heads being cut off on television by islamic fundies, did the US population go around burning foreign embassies? No we didn't. These people need to learn to live in the world responsibly like the rest of us.

[gordianot]

48. Absolutely correct

They can burn flags and fundies can put Jesus on a trailer hitch. Rushdie can write a book that asks some profound questions and not have to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life. I should also be able to post on DU without my service provider trying to create a key log and transmitting it from LA to Virginia (according to my firewall blocker alert and ping).

[JCMach1]

60. the U.S. has remained relatively calm>?

What planet were you living on after 9/11?

[NNN0LHI]

65. 1,600 percent increase in reported hate crimes against Muslims after 911

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/11/26/MN224441.DTL

FBI sees leap in anti-Muslim hate crimes

9/11 attacks blamed for bias -- blacks still most frequent victims

Hate crimes against Muslims soared after Sept. 11, according to an FBI report released Monday that also shows that most hate offenses in 2001 were committed against African Americans.

The FBI's annual statistical report showed that hate crimes in the United States increased 21 percent from 8,063 in 2000 to 9,730 in 2001. Most of last year's hate crimes were motivated by racial bias (45 percent), followed by biases against ethnicity or national origin (22 percent), religion (19 percent), sexual orientation (14 percent) and disability (0.3 percent).

The most dramatic change noted by the report was a more than 1,600 percent increase in reported hate crimes against Muslims -- a jump from 28 hate incidents in 2000 to 481 last year.

The report, however, showed that African Americans -- with 3,700 victims of hate crimes counted in 2001 -- were by far the largest group of victims, as they have been since the FBI began gathering hate crime statistics from local law enforcement in 1992. Hate crimes against African Americans rose slightly, from 2,884 incidents in 2000 to 2,899 incidents in 2001.

[JCMach1]

66. Two days after 9/11 they were hanging Muslims in effigy outside

of bars in North Florida where I lived at the time...

My posts about this are archived on DU somewhere...

Calm is NOT a word I would use...!

[danalytical]

70. First of all

there were no burning embassies from my recollection. There weren't massive riots in the streets calling for the massacre of all muslims? And on top of all of that 3000 people were killed within about 2 hours. There is a marked difference in the level of violent outrage and also of the acts committed. I think you aren't being honest about the situation and how it compares to 911. The fact is there is a larger outrage over these cartoons in the muslim world than there was in this country over mass murder. It is inexcuseable, yet here you are excusing it. Poor poor fundamentalist muslims. They were insulted by a cartoon so we should justify committing massive acts of viloence resulting in multiple deaths. What is this all about? Defending their religion? Defending from what? A cartoon half a world away? Calling for jihad because of a cartoon? If you believe that is justified, then you are a nutcase. This whole situation symbolizes perfectly what is wrong with the fundamentalist mentality within the muslim world. It is perfectly acceptable to protest something you dislike, but both the cause and the reaction in this case are so radical that it's absurd. A cartoon a world away, and burning embassies, calling for death to all infidels, and rioting????

[JCMach1]

73. Who exactly is saying what you state? And, who is publishing

such information? What agenda do they have? Do you trust them?

IT is clear you didn't read the initial post very...

It also clear you haven't been paying attention to the TOTAL 911 bodycount which is ongoing...

Death enough to go around regardless of your religious beliefs.

What I am talking about is something different.

Do you actually want perspective? Or, do you want to maintain your myopia...

[danalytical]

75. What in the world are you talking about?

Are you suggesting that I am posting prescribed opinion from elsewhere?

Explain to me what the total body count of 911 has to do with extremist whackos killing people over a cartoon.

I don't give a damn if their religion was insulted, all religions get insulted on a daily basis. That is no excuse for murder and riot.

WHo do I speak for you ask? Who do YOU speak for? I am an American Democrat and I believe in my constitution, I also believe in ethics and logic. All of that before any religion. What do YOU believe in? Excusing extreme overreaction including murder and the burning of embassies because of a religious insult in a cartoon?

Do you think we should censor ourselves here in the states and bow down to sharia law? Not me. I'll fight against that as much as I fight against the war in Iraq or spying on American citizens without cause.

[JCMach1]

80. Precisely, quit decontextualizing the cartoon

Yes, the cartoon has a CLEAR and provocative message...

Radicals in the Muslim world (the minority) are pissed and some are doing stupid things.

The vast majority of Muslims are pissed to some degree and most are doing constructive things such as boycotting.

The poster who mentioned the LA riots hit the nail on the head. No one condones such violent acts. However, in the face of violence, racism, and an empire running rough-shod over perhaps your own or a neighboring country no one should be at all surprised this happened.

Why so much media attention to this issue in this U.S.?

There were HUGE demonstrations in Pakistan against the missile attacks on Pakistan's territority two weeks ago. How much coverage did that get in the U.S. press. Some, yes. But an equivalent amount... Isn't violating another countries sovreignty and murdering people as important as a question of free speech...

It was not just an insult, but clear provocation on the part of the cartoonist. And, the Bush administration and right-wing elements in Europe will use this to their advantage. Take it to the bank on that one.

[danalytical]

84. The Pakistan missle protests

were all over the news. The reason this is bigger news is that these protests are actually riots, and they are happening by my last count in about half a dozen countries. Maybe even a dozen countries. We are getting reports of deaths all over the place, and rioters are burning embassies. It's a much larger story.

I think this is more propaganda for the muslim world by fanatics than it is by the RW groups and governments of the Western world. BTW: I thnk the LA riots in the 90's were unjustified. Did you see the tape of Reginald Denny being torn from his truck and beaten to the brink of death? They smashed his head with a brick. Why? Because of something some other people did? Was that justified because of the Rodney King verdict?

[JCMach1]

89. Violence is NEVER justified, but we must understand

what creates it.

Once violence is set in motion, it rarely reacts with anything like rationality.

But, in that case (for many Americans) it was easy to see why people were angry with the police and the justice system (whether you believed it was justifified or not). Watch the tape and you understand. For this cartoon it is the same-- look at picture and KNOW how the West thinks of you AND your religion.

[danalytical]

91. One instance in a hemisphere containing

a billon people? No I don't think it's that simple. There obviously is stereotype view of the muslim world and violence. So one man creates a cartoon depicting that, and then some people get ahold of it and spread it to purposely invoke a frenzy, then the people react how? VIOLENTLY! This stereotype is based in truth and it plays itself out on the world stage for all to see. It's terrible, it's a setback for the whole regions image. There is a lot of violence in the arab muslim world, this isn't news. Even if you believe every person deserves his own judgement it's hard to look at this violent overreaction and see rationality. All I see is chaos and anger. It saddens me to see them perpetuate the stereotype. I would rather see disagreement and understanding. Boycotts are great, but riots and murder are unacceptable.

[Karenina]

135. You're being played.

"There obviously is stereotype view of the muslim world and violence."

And this view is clearly being exploited with GREAT SUCCESS.

[Marie26]

97. Honestly, I'd like to be able to talk

to one of those rioters. (Probably not at the time...) And ask them exactly why that cartoon was so offensive, or what they are angry about. Is it the cartoons, is the Iraq War, is it Israel, what? Is this being fed by church leaders, or political leaders, or who? How do they feel about western democratic values - do they really want free speech or only speech that favors their side? Can women participate in society or is that also blasphemous? Would they want to live in a country where other religions are permitted, or not? Do they want a democracy? And that classic - Why do they hate us? I'd like to really understand what's motivating these violent protests. Cause right now I don't get it. I truly do not understand what's sparking all this anger, but there might be more to come.

[TygrBright]

92. May I Offer an Analogy, Here...?

Let's say you have a guy who got bit by his cousin's nervous, overbred cocker spaniel when he was an obnoxious, hyperactive kid, and ever since then he's had a real hate on for dogs, all dogs. Hates & fears them, wants them not just on leashes and behind fences, but utterly banned altogether from his city. He grows up and gets himself elected to the City Council.

Let's say lately there's been some controversy at City Hall about ordinances banning certain breeds of dogs that are frequently abused and/or misused-- rotties, amstaffs, etc. A puppy-mill dobie mauled a toddler and the media is up in arms about it, and the proposal is raised to ban half a dozen breeds of dogs within the city limits, but there isn't enough support to pass it.

'Ah!' thinks our dog-hater, 'Here's my chance... thin end of the wedge, hmmm...?' And he scouts around until he identifies a park in a neighborhood where a lot of people own dogs of the 'offensive' breeds, and walk them regularly. Out goeth he to toss several hunks of rancid meat onto the playground in the park, carefully calling the local papers to send photographers around to view the resulting carnage.

The next day, with the headlines and gruesome photos on every front page, he again offers the dog-banning ordinance for the City Council's consideration.

NOW do y'all get it?

helpfully,
Bright

[Igel]

134. To argue that someone else is decontextualizing

the cartoon is a bit of silliness that can't go uncontested. There's a passle of on-line sources discussing the events and motives from last summer. Salon slighted many in the article written by someone whose bias was stated right up front, as fair warning.

The context for the cartoons vary according to who's doing the perceiving. The newspaper and the illustrators' whose cause the newspaper claims to have taken up, unasked, have claim to the governing context. Nobody in America, Indonesia, or Turkey has a right to impose his or her context on the cartoonists or newspaper. To understand the cartoons, one does not inquire of the Qur'an, nor of the price of arrowroot powder in New Zealand. One inquires of the mindset of the Danes involved, and their perceptions. This does not imply that they weren't offensive--the most deeply offensive and troubling, IMHO, is the one showing a Danish cartoonist furtively drawing Muhammed, in fear. Moreover, one does not say that a different person spouted hate, so therefore the editors must have been doing so as well: generalizing racism over an arbitrarily large set of Danes in a self-serving way is intellectually dishonest.

Now, it is easy to snag the appropriate bit of Arabic text--that one is particularly widespread in calligraphic form--and takes no great art or technique to blaspheme and use it to create provocation. One embassy was reported to have been burned with that particular bit of Qur'an being yelled over the violence, along with the insidious "Allahu akbar". To understand why that was said, one shouldn't simply take my Houston, middle-class non-Muslim context as decidinig: that would yield "Islam = hate", since I'm vaguely aware of the importance of those quotes, and find foundational texts of a religion being used in a mini-orgy of violence troubling. Moving slightly past that, it strikes me that this would be grounds for claiming the perps defamed Islam, denied the prophet, and defamed him: he's apostate. But again, that's me imposing my sense of what's proper. I suspect that their fidelity to their religion will not be called into question, and no Salafist or moderate will deem their blood to be permitted.

One must learn to accept that there are contexts and perceptions outside one's own (brain)box. We routinely do this is many contexts, seeking root causes outside our own preconceptions and beliefs. In this case, some people reject that very idea. Since the artist of the bomb-in-turban drawing has, to my knowledge, not interpreted his drawing, all interpretations that are equally plausible are equally sound and worth of being asserted. This includes one that "*This* is the Muhammed that Muslim extremists claim is the prophet and the messenger of Allah. Show me wrong." Or, "My perception of Muhammed is that he is a terrorist." Where this perception came from is the proper subject of inquiry if understanding is the goal; dutifully ignoring this question furthers the compulsion of submission.

[Leopolds Ghost]

98. Well, I Hate to Break It to you, danalytical, But...

Us Americans used to LOVE to riot. We would riot all the time at the
least provocation...

Sam Adams was known as the godfather of Boston rioting. And don't think
Gangs of New York is complete fiction, either...

and the government could not control us as well as they can now, due to
our "primitive, tribal" behavior, such as a tendency to hit the streets
and protest, sometimes riot.

Protest without the threat of rioting is mere kabuki theater. The govt
understands that. It's basic sociology.

[danalytical]

110. good point

I like it and accept the comparison, but it doesn't change my view of these particular riots.

[liberalhistorian]

43. Oh, give me a fucking break!

There's a difference between being upset and protesting, which they have every right to do, no question, and going batshit, apeshit crazy, rioting, burning, surrounding buildings with armed men, threatening lives, making people go into hiding, etc., etc., and for over a WEEK. For God's sake, it's a fucking CARTOON! And in countries where Muslim law has no rule.

AND, why don't I ever hear any condemnation from these same protesters of the horrendous anti-semitic cartoons and commentary that appear almost daily in a lot of Arab newspapers? The kind that makes these cartoons pale by comparison. But, I guess that doesn't matter now, does it?

[WinkyDink]

47. What he ^^^^ said. WORD.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. Lisa, there is strong evidence that extremists are deliberately

getting their countries' equivalent of freepers riled up. It's by no means the majority of Muslims who are rioting.

[liberalhistorian]

77. OK, I'm very open

to seeing any of that evidence. You may very well be right, but I'd like to actually see some of it.

[JCMach1]

61. DAILY in Arab newspapers? I challenge you on that point

because it is categorically wrong...




anti-semitism does exist... but I suggest you might want to contextualize that within over 50 years of conflict with the Israeli state...

[Behind the Aegis]

81. Hyperbole

"Daily" would not be accurate..."monthly" might be more accurate. But, it is certainly more than the number of times that anti-Arab/Islamaphobic cartoons appear in mainstream media in Denmark!

Your last sentence is nothing more than excusing/apologetics for anti-Semitic cartoons. How does this read to you: "islamaphobia does exist... but I suggest you might want to contextualize that within over 50 years of conflict with the various Arab and Muslim states..."?

[JCMach1]

88. Actually, that would be fair to say as well...

That's why context IS important.

I don't think there would have been the same outcry had this been published in Tel Aviv.
Muslims understand the context and it tied to such.

Muslims in Europe are tired of being an excluded underclass.
Muslims in the Middle-East are tired of many things... take your pick.
Anger... most definitely.

The Palestinian/Israeli conflict is a politcal issue I do not argue about. I have no horse in that race... only sorrow. I sympathize with the Palestinians because I know and work with many of them. I empathize with the Israelis (especially the left) because I understand the political and historical contexts that created Israel. There is valid hatred well-earned on both sides of the conflict...

In Islam Jews are to be treated as people of the book and worshippers of God. It is largely the history of the 20th and 21st century that mars that belief. And, of course, much anti-semitism has risen from that nightmare.

[Codeine]

116. Preach it!

I'm never going to buy the notion that I'm required to respect *anybody's* religious beliefs, and even more so when that idea is backed up with threat of violence.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

51. Now that makes sense

Yes, I can see how it would be very inflammatory to imply that terrorism is a a tenet of Islam, especially in countries where Islam is so closely interwoven with daily life and thought.

The fact that most Danes don't read Arabic strongly suggests that the cartoons were intended to be a slap in the face to Muslims everywhere.

This is the kind of thing that needs to go to your hometown paper.

[NNN0LHI]

55. It doesn't help that the Danish military is currently occupying 2 Muslim..

...counries along with the USA and killing them by the thousands under the guise of "helping them" while back home the Danish newspapers are insulting their religion.

Don

[JCMach1]

63. Precisely...

[Kellanved]

130. actually reading Arabic is not necessary: the meaning is common knowledge

I believe there are very few Europeans (at least in the mid-brow readership of such conservative dailies) unable to understand the symbol of the Islamic credo. It is a common symbol and covered in High School.

It is about as cryptic as using the cross for christianity.

[Beelzebud]

59. Just more religous whackos that hold us all back.

I'm an equal opportunity religion basher.

In my view, the extreme muslims are no different than the extreme christians.

Both should be irrelevant in the modern world.

[Arugula Latte]

95. I'm with ya, Beelzebud

A pox on all religious nuts -- Christian, Muslim, Jewish, what-have-you.

And I agree with people who say "It's a frickin' CARTOON." They should get over it. If they're as religious as they're depicting themselves, their faith should not be threatened by a cartoon.

[Leopolds Ghost]

100. So their deaths in Iraq should be irrelevant, and the beliefs of the

Jyllands-Post should be irrelevant since they requested anti-Mohammed drawings out of a wounded religious distrust of all Muslim immigrants in their "Christian" nation? Or perhaps you are not familiar with right wing Danish press? (the same paper refused to print similar cartoons of Jesus Christ.)

[Arugula Latte]

106. If these protesters were rioting over the Iraq war, I would understand it.

But to riot over a cartoon (yes, an offensive one at that, but still ... it's ink on paper, not human flesh and blood) is an entirely different thing.

[AzDar]

62. Fanaticism...dangerous abroad, dangerous here. PERIOD.

[JCMach1]

64. Yes fanatics... CNN reported a large demonstration in Peshawar

Pakistan saying it was the largest yet... There were 5,000 demonstrators.

The population of Peshawar is almost 2 million people total.

CNN didn't tell you that last part.

[Auntie Bush]

67. It all boils down to Bush's fault for establishing an atmosphere

of hatred between Muslims and Christians. He's the WORLDS GREATEST DIVIDER! If this cartoon had been published when CLINTON was president and we didn't have all this built up anger between religions...THERE NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN RIOTS. Anger yes...riots, NO! Bush has got to go!

[danalytical]

76. As much as I dislike Bush

Don't forget Iran 1979. Don;t forget the Cole bombing. The original WTC bombing. The millenium plot. The embassy bombings in Africa. Etc etc... This is by no means a Bush only problem. There has been tension for a long time.

[centristo]

78. if that's correct than explain the USS Cole bombing

or the 1993 attack on the WTC.

No, that is a simplistic view of a VERY complicated issue. No question Bush has not helped Muslim/non-Muslim relations though.

[Bill McBlueState]

93. Bush enables it, but he didn't start it

The Bible and the Qu'ran are both full of statements encouraging their readers to engage in violence against people with different religions. *Those books* are much more responsible for the hatred than Bush, although he'll use it to his advantage whenever he can.

[Throd]

94. Simplistic at best...

This crap has been going on for centuries...The Muslims invaded Christian Spain in the year 711 and were not evicted until 1492. The Christians have had various crusades resulting in the massive slaughter of "heathens" in the "Holy Land". The Serbs are still pissed about a Turkish invasion fr4om 100's of years ago like it was last week. Armenian genocide? It is the endless "My god is better than your god" cycle. Bush is a total douchebag, but amazingly, sometimes stupid shit happens independent of him.

[efhmc]

68. Hate and murder are done daily in the political name of

this "religion". I wish the same type of cartoons were shown daily about the religious right in America. There should be a way to show the difference between the political and religious aspects of these cults. I find any religion which denies my entire personhood as a female offense and not humanly spiritual.

[Marie26]

69. Thanks for explaining

what the Arabic meant in the cartoon. That does make it seem more deliberately provocative. What I thought was interesting was the Arabic translation of a different cartoon (the one with the boy standing in front of a blackboard w/Arabic). It apparently says, "These editors are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs"! Sounds about right.

[elperromagico]

79. The problem is this:

When Muslims -- or any group -- react to this kind of provocation with violence, it only serves to reinforce the stereotype which created the provocation in the first place.

Therefore, we end up with the vicious cycle of provocation, violence, provocation, violence... until somebody gives up or everybody's dead.

[JCMach1]

82. I agree and I think

that's where I ended up...

:)

[Leopolds Ghost]

99. Can Anyone Tell Me the Proximate Cause of the English Civil War, or

the American Revolution?

The English Civil War under Oliver Cromwell started when a nobleman slashed a page on his cheek with a sword.

[rucky]

122. Exactly! The boiling point is rarely a major injustice...

It's usually symbolic gestures that do it, as well.

[incapsulated]

102. My argument with your take on this

Imagine, just imagine, what a dignified and peaceful protest by Muslims insulted by this cartoon would have accomplished. They would have shamed the peddlers of intolerance and contradicted the insinuation that Muslims are all violent extremists.

But what did they do? They did exactly what those who published the cartoon hoped for, exploded in rage and violence, reinforcing every negative stereotype that exists. Which naturally upset those who want to live in a society which supports the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means not living in fear of violence or persecution because of what you say or think. It's something we defend every day here on DU as this right is increasingly under attack by the Bush cabal.

You say that the violence wasn't surprising. When violence and setting buildings on fire isn't surprising from Muslims in reaction to a stupid cartoon, then you have a serious problem that cannot be dismissed with excuses about the war in Iraq. This truly is a test of whether they, this group who are doing these things, really can live with a Western culture that has it's own beliefs and principles, or they cannot. Freedom of speech means you will inevitably be insulted by someone, somewhere, about your most cherished beliefs. When being insulted in this way translates to being "provoked" into violence, that is an unacceptable reaction.

Not to mention it is hypocritical in the extreme, given the penchant for antisemitic cartoons in some arabic newspapers.

[Karenina]

108. What percentage of a billion

is 20,000? By WHOM were they mobilized? (In Syria yet where NOTHING escapes the watchful eye of the authorities.) For WHOSE agenda are these people, a minority who have NOTHING but radical religion, being used?

Do you even realize the bigotry in your post? NO?
Well, do enjoy your country's impending adventure to tame the savages. Coming soon to a cable channel near you. :puke:

[incapsulated]

113. Get hysterical, much?

Did I say they were mobilized by anyone? What the fuck are you talking about? Enjoy the invasion of the savages?

I'm a bigot? Back the fuck off.

[Karenina]

128. Sexist too, eh?

YUP! I freely admit to the truth in your steroetype. I absolutely do get hysterical seeing 2 bullet trains headed toward each other on the same track! Where's the damn brake switch? Who can get to the signals, QUICKLY??? INCAPSULATED!!!

Yes, Im hysterical having not felt such Angst since my childhood "duck and cover" days. Indeed, it's worse this time around due to the technological advances. The media has proffered this "clash of civilizations" meme, hyped it no end and I watch with an increasing sense of helplessness and doom as intelligent, usually thoughtful folks turn into stampeding rhinosceri before my eyes (see: Ionesco).

"Did I say they were mobilized by anyone?"

Incapsulated, you referred to "what did they do?" I'm asking, what did WHO do? The Danish Muslim community is NOT a monolith and has not reacted violently, although I did read that the son of an Iman there who publicly accepted the paper's apology got beat up. I'm not clear on by whom.

"This group who are doing these things..."

The "they" who spearheaded the violence live in State/Police/Iman-controlled SYRIA. The Danish Muslim community-at-large does NOT have influence there. WHO whipped up the fear, fury and MOBILIZED THAT particularly easily-led monolithic group and to what end? It would seem there are multiple agendas behind the curtain, do you not smell the stench?

Can "they" live in Western culture? Millions of Muslims from hither, thither and yon live in Western culture with ease. Millions have been BORN, raised and educated in Western culture. Millions are bi- and tri-lingual. Again, WHO is this "they" you speak of??? Clearly Syrians from cloistered communities would be in for a large culture shock were they to be plunked down in the middle of Amsterdam. But then again, so would someone from London, Kentucky.

Interestingly, you just got me thinking... I don't know ANY Syrians. I live in a multi-culti quarter of a small city, we've got Turks, Moroccans, Iraqis, Iranians, Albanians, Croations, Indians, Ethiopians, Nepalese, Congolese, Brazlians, Italians, Cubans... I've never met a Syrian that I know of. Hmmmm...

"I'm a bigot?"

I realize all too well that making bigoted statements in the U.S. is less of an offense than being called on them. However, in spite my abrupt manner, it IS my sincere desire to communicate a central issue that fuels this situation.

Please go back and read your post. Make a note to yourself how many times you use "they." Note also how seamlessly you go from "the groups doing these things" without much interest in defining WHO they are, to a more general "they" encompassing Muslims in general. Therein lies the rub, dear Incapsulated. I hope I haven't pissed you off TOO MUCH, rendering you unable to consider the finer issue I've brought up. :hug:

[Karenina]

141. Think about

Balance of power much?

[The Magistrate]

114. The Problem, Mr. Mach, Remains

It does not matter a tinker's damn to me whether defaming the Prophet or descrating the Koran are grave offenses and harshly punished under Moslem law. Moslem laws cannot be binding on non-Muslims, and beyonmd that, laws against blasphemy and desecration are, to me, in and of themselves inherently offensive. They strike me as serious blemishes on any culture that maintains them.

[DemExpat]

144. This is the problem.

DemEx

[renate]

115. just wondering... is there ANY religion that says it's okay to get violent

I know that members of the more fundamentalist religions, whether Christian, Muslim, whatever, think it's perfectly okay to get violent when they are personally offended--whether bombing family planning clinics or rioting around embassies, etc.

But I am seriously asking of anyone who knows more about the tenets of these religions than I do: is it ever okay to get actually violent about it? Yeah, jihad, etc, but over a cartoon?? I've gotta think that Mohammed had better things to do with his time--I'm pretty sure Jesus did.

Reading this thread has been instructive and my thoughts so far are that:
1) The cartoonist and the original publishers of the cartoon appear to probably have been deliberately insulting. This is not cool or nice.
2) Most of the readers of the newspaper in Denmark, and the cartoonist for that matter, are not Muslim and are therefore not subject to the tenets of the Muslim faith.

I don't like it when Western Christians try to shove their version of Christianity down my throat. By the same token, I don't like it when Muslims of whatever nationality try to enforce their beliefs on me, either (and hey, guess what--except for these guys on TV, they don't! Cool). I am subject to no sanction against any depiction of Mohammed--I don't think it's particularly nice to make a cartoon out of him, but I don't think non-Muslims are bound by the rules that Muslims are. duh.

I hope that most Muslims roll their eyes at this kind of freaking out by the fundamentalists, just like I as a Christian roll my eyes whenever I see Pat Robertson on TV. He does not speak for me and I suspect that the rioters don't speak for most Muslims, who realize that the rules of Islam do not and should not apply to those of other faiths.

In other words--Can't we all just get along? (Evidently not.)

[Warren DeMontague]

118. You're comparing these CARTOONS to CHILD PORN?

Give it a fucking rest, pal. Sure, under "Sharia law" this that and the other thing is punishable by death. So is adultery. So is homosexuality. Same with certain Christian Fundamentalists' interpretation of "Biblical Law". That's why I don't want "Biblical Law" and I don't want "Sharia Law".

You know, every time someone here wants to justify censorship, they will pull some line like "Free speech has never taken place in a vacuum" out of thin air. Sorry, chum. Free speech DOES take place in a vacuum. Once you start defining which kinds of speech should be free, as opposed to the kind that pisses you, personally, off, then it's NOT FREE SPEECH ANYMORE.

The images didn't "provoke" anyone to "do violent acts". The rigid fucking fundamentalist dogmas rattling around inside these people's HEADS did that. And that's NO ONE'S FAULT BUT THEIR OWN.

Child porn is illegal because it involves non-consensual, horrible criminal acts against children. That you would even think to compare that to a cartoon -any cartoon- just boggles my mind.

Freedom of speech is not a "right wing tack". It's a CORE FUCKING PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM. Sorry to hear that it bugs you so much.

Just answer one question. Do you understand the difference between the statements "I don't eat pork because of my religion" and "YOU don't eat pork because of my religion"?

...Do you?

[Behind the Aegis]

120. Your 'bumper-sticker' says it all.

I guess what I am so stymied by is if the rioters were Christian fundamentalists burning shit to the ground over some insulting Jesus cartoon, we would not see the number of people "rushing" to defend them, as we have seen with these yahoos. :shrug:

[Warren DeMontague]

138. To be fair, the majority opinion around here

seems to support free speech -- and roundly condemn the rioters.

[Behind the Aegis]

140. I agree...

...however, if my analogy were to come to life, I doubt we'd see any "understanding" of the rioting or "demanding apologies from the source paper." But, that is just my opinion.

[NewDemocrat92]

123. Religion ripping world apart

This just shows how religion, particularly fanaticism, among various religions is the center of most of the worlds conflicts. If it is not a primary reason, then it is always the underlying reason from strife around the world. Just look at most of the major conflicts.

I think Americans (& the wider Western world) would be just as upset if something offensive was done with the image of Jesus, or the Pope.

There are nuts in all religions. It just so happens that radicals are coming to power in many of these countries with opposing religions and they are coming to power at about the same time. A recipe for conflict, which will unfold pretty soon. Radical Muslims across the Islamic world are coming to power (largely sparked by U.S. policy), radical Christians run things in the U.S., radical Jews are in and out of Power in Israel and are close to power once again...the recipe is coming together for more war. And all these religious nuts believe that God is on their side. The German people of the 1930's and 40's thought God was on their side. Constantine & slaughterers in the Crusades thought that God was on their side, Bush, dropping bombs on thousands of civilian men, women and children thinks that God is on his side... Jews, in their slaughter of Palestinians believe that God is on their side...and the same is true for the Palestinians... It's an endless cycle of madness, spurred by religion.

The planet would be better off with no religion... IMO. As long as there is religion, particularly radical religious followers, there will always be war sparked by religion.

[Kellanved]

124. A Danish regional paper with a circulation of about 120,000 - 130,000

should not be able to cause that unrest. It was a cheap page for the benefit of the Lutheran readership; it was also insensitive. But the paper had every right to print them; freedom of the press supersedes blasphemy. And while the editors insulted their islamic readership, they were not the people turning it into an attack against the freedom of the press in Europe. It was not the international herald tribune; it was not the BBC, it was not the Deutsche Welle, who published the cartoons - those now crying loudest were not the people addressed.


It was artificially bloated to serve as the occasion for an instigated clash of cultures, which can only worsen the situation of muslims throughout Europe. It was also further bloated to make it seem bigger than it was; rumors were circulated to artificially create even more unrest.
With both sides increasingly resorting to broad brushed statements, the outcome is clear: the European left will back the hard-earned freedom of the press - no matter what. The right to make fun of religion was hard won during the 60s, 70s and 80s.
The conservatives will fearmonger about other parts of the islam, it is already starting: "next they will try to stop us from eating pork".
And from the European perspective, it seems rather counterproductive to torch embassies and kill people to prove that one's religion is not one embracing violence.

[DemExpat]

143. I agree with your assessment. The Dutch left defends freedom of speech.

the European left will back the hard-earned freedom of the press - no matter what. The right to make fun of religion was hard won during the 60s, 70s and 80s.

The Dutch Socialist Party are is backing freedom of the press unequivocally.

http://www.janmarijnissen.nl/weblog/2006/02/06/over-vrijheid-en-geweld/
This party leader concludes (last paragraph translated roughly) "although the cartoons were offensive to Muslims, Muslim extremists have taken them to further the divide between them and modernity and to encourage violence".

[mondo joe]

132. Bullshit. Fuck them, and fuck Fred Phelps too.

If you don't like what someone ELSE does because of YOUR religion, mind your own damn business.

And your comparison to child porn is appalling -- children are violated in the production of child porn.

Who was violated by the cartoon?

[JCMach1]

136. So promoting racial/religious hatred is benign then?

???

[Karenina]

139. Did you see this thread???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2089742

:yourock: and so does Iverglas.

[mondo joe]

147. How does a political cartoon promote racial hatred?

Are political cartoons of G W Bush promoting hatred?

For fuck's sake, the violent response is just proving the cartoon to be accurate.

[benEzra]

137. There was a furor some years ago when the late Robert Mapplethorpe

used an NEA grant to fund a depiction of the crucified Jesus floating in a jar of urine, as I recall.

Was that deeply offensive to Christians? Yes. And Christians of all political stripes were deeply offended by it. But I don't recall any museums being burned over it, or anyone being killed. Mapplethorpe expressed his opinion (albeit abrasively and without regard to the feelings of others), and Christians expressed their disapproval, peacefully.

I fully understand how offensive the cartoons would be to a Muslim--I'm a Christian, and I know the Mapplethorpe thing really bothered me, too. But being deeply troubled NOT justify killing people and torching buildings to express one's feelings of hurt and anger. I think that is what many of us are disagreeing with here--it's OK to be upset and deeply offended, but violence is not the way to express ANY level of being offended. (And it should be said that those rioting and acting violently in response to the cartoons represent only a tiny minority of Muslims.)

Freedom of speech does inarguably come with the responsibility to use speech in the best way. But if speech is to be free, then governments cannot dictate what that best way is.

[truth2power]

146. The "Jesus floating"...was Andreas Serrano. ...

Not trying to be picky... :)

Of course, the Mapplethorpe exhibition did appear in my city, and the fundies has a field day over that. ...for different reasons, of course.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

145. I don't need to be killed to increase my understanding

Sorry, I don't give a shit their issues of understanding while we are trying to put out the fires and bury their victims.

Does it really make sense to protest a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in in his turban, by throwing a bomb at building?

Are they trying to prove the cartoon right or wrong?

I whole heartedly recognize their right to be offended and protest the cartoons. However I take a very dim view of killing as a means of protest.

Finally, NOBODY can effectively control what others say. One can only control your reaction to it. This is a lesson that Islam really needs to learn.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

148. kick

:kick: