Jay, (In a perfect world warning!) Publish and be damned in my opinion. Yes, the cartoons were crude and quite possibly racist, and the editors of the French paper should perhaps have shown more discretion, but I think once we get into the position of basing editorial policy on whether it’s likely to cause “offence” or not we’re on thin ice. Papers, as private bodies, should have the right to publish what they wish, as long as counter-positions and arguments are also allowed to be heard. Freedom of expression should be the cornerstone of any liberal society, which is why I oppose censorship in any form, whether in the form of laws or public pressure. I don’t agree that Islam is a religion of hate and violence, but I’m interested to hear such a position argued, if only so I can refine my position on the subject. I don’t agree with a number of people on this site, and in the past I’ve encountered attitudes and posts that I’ve considered offensive. I’ve never wished to have them silenced though. Smacked around the head with a hefty wooden plank perhaps – but never silenced. You argue that the Danes should have realised the furore the cartoons would cause. And I agree. However, those currently chanting “War on Denmark” and looking for Scandinavians to kidnap should have realised that such an over the top reaction would turn it into a worldwide issue and do nothing to challenge the view of Islam as violent and reactionary. Personally, I want to see the damn things in all the British newspapers, followed by a real debate about them and the issues they raise.

Matt, One good also argue that Theo Van Gogh's decision to make a movie criticising Islam was "poor judgment". Or that Salman Rushdie should have known better. I have to admit that I have never seen Van Gogh's work, nor did I ever read "The Satanic Verses", but perhaps since Van Gogh is dead, and Rushdie still has to look over his shoulder, perhaps it was poor judgement. I don't think the Arabs have ever put a death threat on anyone that criticized Arab society or government, but Islam appears to be an entirely different thing. Maybe some things actually are sacred to certain backward types, and we should learn to respect that. For example, have you ever heard the phrase "Don't mess with Texas"? That is another one you might want to take seriously.

I am surprised at the emotional response here. The support of Free Speech is so reflexive, that people are not looking at the actual argument being made (From page 1 of the thread): I don't think the Arabs have ever put a death threat on anyone that criticized Arab society or government, but Islam appears to be an entirely different thing. Maybe some things actually are sacred The Arabs are always condemning Western "decadence". Perhaps what they mean by that is that not only do Europeans fornicate with strangers in the bathroom stalls at the friday night disco, but they also are the type of morally loose barbarians that would actually make fun of the prophet Muhammed. They are insisting that they do not wish to become like Europeans, and that concept is too difficult for Europeans to comprehend.

Matt, Perhaps in your insistence that this is a question of Free Speech and not one of respect, you are trying to impose your beliefs on them.

Matt, Certain Muslim organisations are, however, trying to dictate what I am and am not allowed to publish. The Muslims hardly understand the concept of Free Speech, so you are arguing apples and oranges with them. They have been known to kill people for their opinions, or even their mere nationality. They are speaking of something entirely different. The Muslims feel that they are obviously not being taken seriously, and they are tired of it. They had been quiet for the last couple of hundred years, while we colonized them, plundered their resources, and set up a hostile foreign state on their land, but they have grown impatient and are making a stand. Many of their actions and atrocities are intended to been seen as highly symbolic, yet we are taking them literally. For example, the Arabs want to make it clear that if the Carthaginians were to suddenly reappear and request a homeland at the United Nations, they have set a precedent that carving out a piece of North Africa, in what is now an Arab possession, would not be a good idea. Matt, please save some cheese for others. (Insert smiley face here.) Message was edited by: jayfromtexas

All right you bunch of cheesebiters. I need to go to work. Here is an article written for my previous web site, with an American audience as the primary readership: (Alan read it long ago.) The Dangers of American Arrogance. by Jayhad from Texastan While visiting America to deliver a series of lectures on the Islamic world, I was invited to dinner by an American couple, and had a uniquely American experience. It was a young, married couple with one child. The gentleman had converted to Buddhism in college, and his wife had followed suit after they had begun dating, even though she had only recently converted to Islam. In a compromise with both sets of their parents, they were raising their child Episcopalian. Their parents were devout Catholic and Protestant, and raising a child Episcopalian seemed like an enlightened solution that would appease pressures for a Christian grandson while still exercising the American obsession with researching and electing options. (“Women can be ministers”, it was explained to me.) The religious cacophony was quite entertaining, and then the food arrived. A plate the size of a Roman Centurion’s battle shield was set before me. A surprisingly festive and ornate arrangement of food items stared back at me proudly, as if waiting for a round of applause. There was a cut of meat centered in the plate, atop a mound of something, and a black liquid intersecting wildly and semi-artistically across the entire presentation. I had allowed my hosts to order for me, and was forced to ask them, “What is this?” They couldn’t remember, or, to be more precise, it was too complicated to remember. The waiter intervened: “That is the blackened jerk lamb with wilted endive over sun-dried tomato basil pineapple cous-cous, an orange-currant demiglace, and garnished with a white truffle and ground squab mango chipotle chutney empanada.” I was confused and somewhat aghast, but managed a quick social recovery, “What a country!” I answered with smiling gusto. However, what I could not mention to my gracious hosts, was that that plate of culinary nihilism offered a glimpse into American society itself. It is a culture without a center of gravity; a culture with a constant identity crisis that makes it forever unsure of itself and its direction; a country at war with the world and with itself. That dish, just like America, was only interested in presenting itself as beautiful, something new and unique, without even a footnote of acknowledgement or respect for all of the cultures that it had taken from. It was an edible version of the American triumph of form over substance, and arrogantly demanded to be appreciated for such an accomplishment. The conflict with America can best be described as a cultural clash. It can be said that the essence of that clash is that the Americans hold nothing sacred. Other nations have something of a national character, defined by a specific people, from a specific homeland, with specific traditions and culture, a long and specific history, all of which combine to distinguish a people and give them a certain worldview. These are things that other nations hold sacred. America, by its very eclectic nature, is intrinsically incapable of appreciating and respecting the fact that some nations are happy just as they are, however imperfect be their ancient ways. The global chorus that “This is our country, and these are our ways” seems to fall on deaf American ears. This is the definition of American arrogance, as America assumes that it has the right to change what has been for a thousand years. A headline in a newspaper is all that is required for Americans to demand “reform” in a country that they had previously never knew existed. America seeks to remake the world in its own image, and they refuse to accept the fact that the majority of people on this globe do not want any part of “The American Way of Life”. The idea that humanity would not jump at the first chance to be an American is simply a concept that, for whatever reason, they refuse to consider. If I have the opportunity here to enlighten some Americans, I will do so. Americans must understand that on many levels they are at philosophical odds with the rest of humanity, and that this philosophical difference is both the reason for their unparalleled strength in the world, and the reason that they are so despised. This difference is the source of the economic and cultural imperialism that the world is rebelling against, and it is this: America is interested in quantity, while the rest of us appreciate quality. It is an understanding of what is required for quality of life—and the willingness to afford others a quality of life—that makes people happy. Americans have different values. The globe works to live, while Americans live to work. It is thus no surprise that the Americans invented the assembly line and the multi-national corporation, and all of the social ills that they have foisted on humanity. Americans are not satisfied simply with the modest means to raise a happy family. (In my experience, many would rather be working than spending time with their families, and often know their families only casually. Family gatherings are a nuisance in the US.) It is the American obsession with material wealth that truly sets them apart. There is no sense of “enough”. It was America that gave us Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Walton and Gates. These men grew their businesses and their wealth beyond any comprehensible human scale. In their wake were the destroyed lives of more modest men who were simply not ruthless enough or greedy enough to compete with them. In their view, a neighbor selling the same wares is not simply another man trying to earn a living, but competition that must be destroyed. While most would consider these men to be dangerous, Americans, on the other hand, admire them and seek to emulate them, and thus we see the dangers of the American mindset. If this were confined to America, the world would pay little attention. However, American corporate culture has infected the entire world. It not only destroys the lives of those who directly compete with it, but entire cultures as well. Lives are transformed because the American corporate juggernaut forces the world to play by its rules if it has any chance of competing. The generous welfare benefits that Europe worked so hard to develop, and which made the lives of Europeans quite comfortable and leisurely, are now on the chopping block as American-style “cost cutting” is proving unavoidable. The Spanish “siesta” is now considered a waste of productivity. Just because Americans have but two weeks of vacation a year and eat their lunch on their desks, they assume that the rest of the world should also. America must understand that we do not wish to live like that, and we ask that they do some soul searching and prevent their economy from overwhelming ours. When a Wal-Mart opens in a quiet Mexican town, there are dozens if not hundreds of enterprises that are run out of business for miles around. These once proud business owners are then forced to put on a nametag and go to work for “The Man”, American style. The economic argument against the “American Style of Life” is extensive, but far more important to Muslims is the cultural imperialism. America broadcasts a shallow but seductive message to the youth of the world who are not yet fully capable of appreciating what is important in life. For people who are trying to raise their children to be humble and pious, the sight of brash children from America riding skateboards while wearing a bikini is not only offensive, but detrimental to the values that have nurtured our societies for centuries. America must understand that we are very conservative and very devout. The Koran is our “self help book”, and it is the only one we have ever needed. It enforces our values and our traditions; it tells us who we should aspire to be and how to reach that goal. Our ways are ancient, but they give us our identity. We ask that we--and only we--be the ones to judge them. For Muslims, it is the pinnacle of American arrogance that our religion be called “backward”, and that our women are described as “oppressed”. Such statements are made in ignorance, and to judge out of ignorance is the very core of American arrogance. Americans must realize that they are very isolated, so far from the rest of the world. They have little experience with--and hence appreciation for--foreign cultures. They merely assume that everywhere should be like it is in America. America, we do not want to be like you; we want to be like us. While you may be happy upgrading your religion, or your job, or your customs as if they were nothing more than the latest copy of personal identity software, we prefer to stay with the traditions that have carried us through a millennia. We have no need for psychiatrists or credit card companies to ease our restless souls, and you should remember that for all your wealth and supposed happiness, you are still a nation embedded in debt and therapy. Your way of life is not worthy of export, so please keep it to yourselves. America, you have made your jihad just as we have made ours against you, yet you still do not listen to what motivates Muslims to attack you. Americans like to justify their actions by stating that their way of life is being threatened, and never does it occur to you that it is you who threaten ours much more so. You lack the power to win this battle, simply because you do not understand what you are fighting for or against. Message was edited by: jayfromtexas

I'm new to these discussions, but I think I may have a view that might help. The reprintings of the cartoon by a French paper need to be seen in their proper light. As a journalist I would suggest that the decision to do so had less to do with any real concerns about 'free speech' and more to do with the real issues which concern newspaper editors - how to sell many many copies. Reprint the 'notorious' cartoon, and many people who want to see what all the fuss is about may buy. Admittedly it is freedom of speech that allows this, but I doubt it was a major consideration in actually doing it. As for an "American's work" never being done, I would respectfully suggest that the idea that your nation has any real role in 'getting' other nations to develop 'better' ideologies is misguided. It smacks to me a little of boorishness and intimidation. The US does not have a moral mandate any more than any other nation, but if you want to lead, you should do so by example which means respecting absolutely the rights of others to hold differing positions to your own.

Oops, I mean “he’s just a pussycat”. How careless.

Write one to me. if it's large enough, I may shut up...

My, this thread rumbles on at a fair old pace. It brings to mind fond memories of the legendary Power of Nightmares thread, or The Behemoth, as it became known. Let’s hope no wheels fall off the wagon as we thunder down the hill. If we’re talking about respect and deference to feeling, as Jay has done, I think we have to consider the nature of any alleged grievance and the reasons for any feelings of outrage and resentment. As several examples have shown, these feelings cannot always be taken at face value. The swell of discontent can have multiple causes with various degrees of credibility, ranging from some to none at all. Given the cartoons are just the latest in a long line of feather-ruffling incidents, one cannot avoid the pretentious and dishonest nature of many complaints, and the dubious motives involved. Whatever one’s view of the intention behind the cartoons, or their artistic merit, they are not the only cause of umbrage. Nor will they be the last. Legitimate journalism and scholarship have ‘provoked’ equally violent and unthinking reactions. As I’ve shown, even the stating of historical fact can – and does – lead to preposterous indignation and seething resentment. The Palestinian scholar Suliman Bashear was thrown from a second-story window by “outraged” students, simply for asking them to think about the Qur’an in a different way. And the legitimacy of a religious grievance must depend in very large part on whether that claim of grievance is based on factual truth, or merely on pride and dishonesty. If I were to list the incidents of cruelty, bigotry and narcissism in Mohammed’s life, as recorded explicitly in Islamic texts, many believers would be irritated and possibly embarrassed. Past experience has shown that a typical reaction is to deny those events ever happened (despite being written in the ‘infallible’ texts the believer is supposedly obliged to study), or to claim some conspiratorial intent to “defame” Islam. But the stating of facts and the quoting verbatim of Mohammed’s own words cannot be defamatory. The Qur’an and Sunnah were not written by ‘Islamophobes’ or Zionists, or NeoCon spies armed with a time machine. They were written by devout Muslims. And when the content of those texts and the example of Mohammed is dramatically at odds with the rudiments of contemporary morality, this mismatch requires elaborate mental contortions on the part of the believer. And the more literally-minded the believer is, the more contorted and evasive their position tends to be. And when a person is identified so intimately with a set of contradictory and dissonant ideas, any reminder of those contradictions, however well-intended, is unlikely to be welcome. But egotism and denial do not constitute a credible basis for outrage, or the projection of blame, or claims of recompense. And being “offended” by historical record and unrefuted facts is no more meaningful than being offended by the laws of gravity or the fact the sun rises in the morning.

I am walking through a village in Pakistan. I see a tea shop, and walk in for a spot of tea. I share a table with a Pakistani fondling his prayer beads. We begin to talk, and the conversation turns from "are you enjoying our country?", to politics. I pull out my photo from the Austin Chronicle and show him. I explain what the picture represents, and the Pakistani is confused. I have to explain that a gynecologist is a doctor that specializes in the reproductive tract of the human female. (Remember where I am. Most women that I have met in the third world have never been to a gynecologist.) He asks if the woman is accompanied by a male relative while the doctor examines her fanny. (Americans, I think that means "cunt" to the British.) I tell him "no", but there is often a nurse present for purposes of malpractice liability, but that we won't go into that right now. "Why would the Christians show their holy book between the legs of naked woman? Is this not grounds for jihad?" I try to explain that Westerners are different. That we are more secular, and that fact paired with the fact that we are densensitized to such images because of the legacy of Free Speech makes us more tolerant of something that is obviously intended to offend. "But where is the respect? For the woman being photographed naked, and for God? Do you not fear the wrath of God?" I explain that, no, for whatever reason we do not fear God. Many of us no longer believe in God, and those who do think of our God as a loving God that forgives us our trespasses. We do not so much believe in blasphemy anymore. "Well then, what do you fear, and what do you respect?" I say that there is no unity in our beliefs. We all believe in whatever we choose. We only fear the loss of our freedom to believe as we choose, and we respect the beliefs of others to believe as they choose. "Well then why is there a copy of your holy book between that woman's legs? Is that not disrespectful to other's beliefs?" Now I find this question fucking annoying. Here I am taking time out of my busy day trying to educate this goat-herding moron, and he check-mates me like that. Out of a childish sense of spite, I decide to push the envelope. I pull a small, rectangular piece of paper out of my pocket, and place it directly on top of the Holy Bible in the photo, where it fits perfectly. It is a green piece of paper with the words "Holy Koran" written on it. The Pakistani stares in disbelief, and double checks to see that he is actually seeing what he is seeing. He looks at me, and then rises out of his chair and begins to beat me to a bloody pulp as if I were some mangy cur that rushed into his yard and bit his child. And you know what?: I would have deserved it. Some things are sacred to some people. It is not our right to defile what is sacred to others out of some abstract defense of some abstract concept which has arisen from our unique experience on this planet, and which only makes sense to us. "But they do it too" does not make it right. If we had demanded that the Arabs apologize for the cartoons that they had drawn of Jews, they might have done so. They are now demanding that we apologize for the cartoons of Muhammed. This has been going on for months and they are frustrated. They do not care that our governments do not control our press, they want an apology from the highest levels. They want us to prove to them that we understand that this is unacceptable to them. Is that so much to ask? How many people will die today defending what is sacred to them, while you British twads argue over angels and pinheads?

Jay, “I think this photo crosses the line. It trivializes and ridicules the beliefs of the opposing side… [It is] obviously intended to offend…” But I don’t see that at all, and therein lies the rub. How can the law deal with something so subjective and dependent on any number of intangible factors? And is it a good idea to create new legislation in areas where no sufficiently clear boundaries and causal links exist? How does the law deal with metaphysical issues, like blasphemy or any other irrational taboo? “It only appeals to people who are already on that side of the fence.” This may apply to some extent in the matter of abortion, where some objective variables exist and a rational discussion may be possible. But in matters of literalist religion, what "other side of the fence" is there? By definition, an absolute belief in the abomination of depicting Mohammed is non-negotiable. There is no ‘other side of the fence’, nor any great hope of objective discussion. “…and we respect the beliefs of others to believe as they choose.” We may respect a person’s right to believe in divine beings and any number of baroque and antiquated taboos (provided those beliefs don’t involve violence towards others, etc). But we have no legal or moral obligation to respect the particulars of those beliefs, especially if those beliefs are clearly bonkers, wildly impractical or self-serving. And what if those cherished beliefs are at odds with the beliefs of another, equally adamant, tribe? How does 'respect' work then? Should we coyly ‘respect’ the claims of Creationism or voodoo? And how, on this basis, does one distinguish between Islamist ideology and voodoo? What criteria would one use?

Thompson, David. You did not answer my final question. Actually, it was the only question that I wanted to ask of you, and the entirety of my last post was just leading up to it. I would have to say that I agree with Maz in a sense. You do seem to have a personal crusade. You have put far to much effort into researching a personal bias, and I think that you may have researched yourself into a corner. I am not getting into that right now, I want to know about this thing. Please answer this question for me. You are far too intelligent to ever "lose" an argument. You can think up any number of overwhelming responses riding on the wings of stubborn conviction and infinite vocabulary. It would be pointless to try to "win" a debate with you, even though I honestly feel that you are quite wrong here. I am most interested in why you choose to advance and defend this particular viewpoint. Here is my question again, with the preamble intact: I think that a person who attacks another person simply because he does not like that person's ethnicity, religion, gender, or nationality is a particular type of mind which is set apart from the motivations that normally inspire criminals, such as an expedient access to material rewards. If someone is a crackhead and resorts to assaulting a black man to support their habit, I am far more tolerant of that than I am of a person who assaults a black man simply because he wants to crack the head of a nigger. (Emphasis required. Advance apology submitted.) There are two assaults here, but in both a black man was assaulted and a wallet was taken. In the first, the wallet was the motive. In the second, the wallet was taken as an afterthought. The same crimes were committed in the eyes of the court, which are assault, battery, and robbery, but there is a huge difference between the scenarios, and I think they deserve different levels of punishment. Do you disagree here? The question is, do you disagree with my belief that motive in this instance draws a distinction between the nature of the crime and the severity of the punishment in their respective cases, or do we just try them both for assault and burglary?

Aha. We’re back in business. Returning, at least briefly, to the cartoon jihad / free speech debate… On last week’s Moral Maze programme, Tariq Ramadan described the ongoing arson, abductions, beatings, death threats - and now arbitrary murders - as being “too excessive” a reaction to the cartoons. (I’d have thought that arbitrary murder and the phrase ‘too excessive’ scarcely belong in the same sentence, but there you go.) Ramadan went on to say: “Freedom of speech must be used in a reasonable way” and insisted “insulting the Prophet” would only embolden extremists. (How, exactly, does one 'insult' or 'humiliate' a dead person?) And short of libel or incitement to violence, who is to determine what is “reasonable”? Brother Tariq, perhaps? And isn’t it possible that pandering to threats by reactionary figures, as if they were the sole voice of Islam, may undermine the hopes of moderate reformist Muslims? And without the right to risk offending, even inadvertently, the freedom to test ideas becomes largely theoretical and almost worthless. If one is continually fearful of upsetting anyone, how is one to examine the loaded nature of the reaction – the assumption of entitlement to rage? The fundamental premise of the current collective grievance was never addressed in the programme. The passive-aggressive psychology of hysterical indignation and its social and political ramifications went entirely unexplored. A common reaction of those speaking was to act as if criticising Islam or Mohammed was somehow intrinsically a terrible thing, and that to question the motives behind the fury was somehow even worse. Surely it is legitimate to ask why an illustration that associates Mohammed with violence should cause such indignation? The association isn’t libellous or without basis in reality. Jihadists regularly claim to be doing as Mohammed would, and to be acting in his name, thus the association has already been made. Anyone who reads the Qur’an and Sunnah must know of Mohammed’s own paramilitary expertise and the repeated exhortations to homicidal martyrdom. It is simply a matter of historical record. Indeed, for some, it is a self-declared article of faith. As when rioters in Tehran ominously chanted: “We are willing to sacrifice our lives for the Prophet Mohammed”. This, after all, was the ‘outrageous’ point made by some of the cartoons. So presumably this willingness to commit homicidal martyrdom is only ‘outrageous’ when non-Muslims refer to it. And isn’t that a dishonest double standard, not to mention bonkers? And doesn’t it reflect the lack of moral reciprocity I mentioned earlier, and to which some here took exception? Freedom of expression is not merely an important part of Enlightenment values; it is a cornerstone of them, without which all other rights can become academic. If one cannot freely challenge ideas, possibly to destruction, then all of the other liberties we take for granted can be compromised dramatically. And if certain assumptions cannot be challenged for fear of violence, how is progress to be made? Again and again, mainstream commentators have simply repeated an assumption that the irrational taboos of Islam now apply to non-Muslims in secular societies. Do rightwing Creationist Christians enjoy this indulgence? Should nobody mention evolution? And if you oppose the latter, shouldn’t you also oppose the former?

Joeanna, So, if you all could just say what you have to say...it would make it easier for me to skim over your posts. Cartoons = bad Freedom of expression = good Protests = work of a few extremist groups and corrupt Middle Eastern governments

“I can only conclude that you… are deliberately misrepresenting David in order to stir up violence and hatred against him and those associated with him.” Sorry, I just had to post that again. [Wipes tear from eye.]

Chris, Would you please stop acting as David's spokesperson he seems capable enough. I started another thread for this type of thing...

Chris, “You still didn't relate to my 18:08 post.” Sorry, I didn’t realise it was addressed to me. Erm, on second reading, I still don’t relate to it. Maybe I’m just tired. How does one ‘insult’ or ‘humiliate’ a dead person? What umbrage can a dead person take?

Chris, Hell, you don't even have to be a person as you can insult a country, a flag, etc. Actually, I'm pretty sure that the flag doesn't give a shit. It's more the people that invest it with some symbolic importance that are the problem. As you insult them by association. Which is really the issue here, right? It's not that the Prophet Muhammed is insulted, but that a lot of Muslims who view him as the messenger from God are. Earlier you mentioned that there should be limits on freedom of speech. I'm in two minds about it. An ideal society would obviously rely on the intelligence and sensitivity of it's citizens to regulate speech without need for laws, but obviously such a society doesn't exist. So the real questions are: what are the limits of free speech, and how do we enforce them?

Matt/David Do you guys always travel together? Do you do kids parties? My boy is turning 4 and I need someone to play a clown, and someone to do magic tricks. Pays fifty Canadian dollars...hey, hey, hey.

Waiver: My post was being typed as Matts made it on first! Damn you girlie man! Oh, hey is that a lunar moth? You know, the great big flourescent green ones?]:) Okedokee...this thread has really degenerated. Here's an idea that might get back on track: Due to either willful/unwillful breakdown in diplomacy, not just in the west, but world wide, we all have an accountability in the break down and eventual polarization of two ideas. One being ideological and the other being theological. Anger is a secondary emotion brought on by fear. We fear what we do not understand. Both sides seem to be steadfast on not wanting to see the other for what it may or may not truly be, resulting in escalating aggression. Message was edited by: Joeanna Nee