News Caricatures AGAIN Was it really free speech?

[Moonbear]

Ahem, back to the topic...

Freedom of the press means you can publish any biased rag you want to publish; if it didn't, then we probably would have seen The National Enquirer put to an end a long time ago!

 

[Astronuc]

I disagree here. Freedom of speech does not protect you from punishment from the general public. If a store puts up a sign depicting hitler as some sort of god, that is their right and if the public decides to punish the store by refusing to shop there or staging protests (non-violent of course), the store shouldn't expect any help under the guise of protection from freedom of speech.

I should have clarified the statement. By punishment, I mean one cannot be 'legally' deprived of one's liberty or life, i.e. one cannot be 'legally' detained or killed for expressing one's opinion, idea, thought, belief, etc. Certainly the public is free not to engage in commerce or social interaction with one.

On the other hand, certainly one could be murdered or severely beaten or illegally detained for expressing one's opinion to the 'wrong' people.

 

[Astronuc]

Somewhere I read an editorial concerning the fact that what we are experiencing is a collision between cultures. In Europe and the US, one is free to criticize, and even disparage religion, whereas in the Islamic countries, such criticism and disparagement is taboo.

Then how will people from the two cultures accommodate those from the other culture.

I am also more concerned if the Danish paper(s) refrains from publishing cartoons critical or disparaging of Jesus (or Christianity) while publising critical or disparaging cartoons of Islam. I would prefer none at all.

On the other hand, I am a big fan of Alfred Newman (http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/webpics/Alfred_E_Neuman.jpg) and MAD magazine. http://www.dccomics.com/mad/

 

[Orefa]

I am also more concerned if the Danish paper(s) refrains from publishing cartoons critical or disparaging of Jesus (or Christianity) while publising critical or disparaging cartoons of Islam.

I only share your concern if a media outlet holds a monopoly. But different sources of information with different biases tend to balance each other so everyone is free to present their own take on an issue, pro and con. I cannot expect a newspaper with human beings at the helm to be completely neutral on all topics.

 

[Art]

Has the west under reported muslim condemnation of the violent protests and in so doing affected our perception of the muslim attitude to free speech?

But, contrary to Hurd's suggestion of the unanimity in the Muslim world, many of the religious leaders and government officials who represent the world's more than 1 billion Muslims have condemned the widespread rioting that followed publication of the cartoons. Muslim leaders including the chairman of Britain's Muslim Public Affairs Committee, America's Muslim Public Affairs Council, Germany's Central Council of Muslims [Agence France-Presse, 2/6/06], Azerbaijan's Board of Muslims of the Caucasus [BBC Worldwide Monitoring, 2/7/06], Lebanon's senior Shiite cleric Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, scores of Muslim groups and community organizations in Ottawa and Montreal, leading imams in Kosovo [Agence France-Presse, 2/7/06], top Iraqi Shiite leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, and the international Organization of The Islamic Conference have all expressed displeasure with the cartoons but have nonetheless called for an end to the violence and urged protesters to employ peaceful means.

Officials from many governments have joined religious leaders in appeals for calm, including King Abdullah of Jordan, Saudi Arabia's U.S. ambassador, Prince Turki bin al-Faisal, a spokeswoman for Pakistan's Foreign Ministry, Kuwait's parliament, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602090009

 

[Cyrus]

I’m glad this thread has been restarted:

To continue from the last thread, the question here is not about the cartoon per se. The cartoon was merely the straw that broke the camels back. In Islam, the drawing of the prophet Muhammad is not allowed. By making this cartoon, it was a slap in the face to all practicing Muslims around the world, and transcended all Muslims of all varying levels of belief. To make such a cartoon shows a fundamental lack of knowledge about the religion of Islam or the prophet Muhammad. The prophet was a non-violent man. He is prided for his forgiveness to those who harmed him and did injustices to him, so to make such a cartoon is a deep seeded insult to Islam itself. Russ, will argue that the point of the cartoon was to show the hypocrisy that prophet Muhammad would not do such a thing. While this is a correct assertion of the cartoon, it fails to see the greater implications. In a global society, we are all interconnected around the world; therefore, it is the responsibility of parties to heed respect and civility when talking about other countries, cultures and religions. In this case, the newspaper in Denmark showed no respect or regard towards the Islamic society. I heard one man eloquently sum the cartoon on the radio today as follows: this cartoon was not a drawing, it was a bomb. It served no other purpose other than to inflame the tension between the two societies. For this reason, it was no better than a person strapping a bomb on and blowing himself up. In this regard he is exactly correct. If Denmark, or any free speech country for that matter, wants to print and put forth information that is seen as highly insulting and disrespectful to Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or any other people, they better realize the consequences of their actions. I cannot understand how the people from the newspaper in Denmark were so surprised it would cause such an outrage. They must lack any good judgment or foresight. This cartoon really served no other purpose other than to insult and ridicule another culture where tensions were already running high. In conclusion, freedom of press does not imply freedom of accountability. As I have said in the last thread, and has Art shown up above, it is a small group of the radicials who are doing the voilence, and not the majority, but look at the media attention the minority are getting. This is part of the reason why you see such reactions to these types of things. There is a constant lack of understanding and respect towards the Islamic culture.

 

[Orefa]

[the cartoon] was no better than a person strapping a bomb on and blowing himself up. In this regard he is exactly correct.

I think one is somewhat worse than the other.

 

[Cyrus]

That is the crux of the matter Orefa. In Islam, what the cartoon did was far worse than someone blowing themselves up. This is what you think, but that is not how the middle east thinks. If you do not understand how the middle east thinks, then you do not yet understand how to respect middle east culture, and tensions like these will never end.

 

[Orefa]

Bridging a cultural gap is better done through communications than through explosions. Towards this goal as well, one is somewhat worse than the other.

 

[Cyrus]

This is off topic and is not my point Orefa. Perhaps you do not see what I am saying, so I will clarify it for you.

Bridging a cultural gap is better done through communications than through explosions.

In Islamic culture, this cartoon is a nuclear bomb set off by the west. Do you understand my point now? This kind of cartoon is as bad to Islamic society as is suicide bombers to the west. This is what the west needs to learn and to respect. They can say whatever the want to; however, they better wake up and realize that not all cultures are the same. If the west pokes and prods at Islam with blatantly disrespectful cartoons that insult the culture, they are going to see repercussions. Just because you can say anything you would like, does not mean the people you insult will take it sitting down. This is why I do not understand the surprise by the Danes with reguard to this cartoon. Are they delusional?

Communication is a two way street. When Islam is portrayed in such a manner, there leaves little reason for Islam to communicate with the west.

 

[Orefa]

This is off topic and is not my point Orefa.

This thread is about free speech. I claim that free expression is better than bombs. Why do you call this off topic?

In Islamic culture, this cartoon is a nuclear bomb set off by the west.

I must have told you a million times not to exagerate.

So your point is that the freedom of expression we consider normal and casual is just as bad as sending bombs to islamic nations. With respect, this is also your personal point of view.

 

[Cyrus]

This thread is about free speech. I claim that free expression is better than bombs. Why do you call this off topic?

I don't see how your equating free speech to bombs makes any sense. Can you clarify what your trying to convey?

So your point is that the freedom of expression we consider normal and casual is just as bad as sending bombs to islamic nations. With respect, this is also your personal point of view.

When did I say that? You did not pay attention to a word I said... I said putting out blatantly disrespectful images of the prophet Muhammad is as bad as sending bombs to the Islamic nations. Please pay more attention to what I write.

With respect, this is also your personal point of view.

This, as I have said, is a cultural view held by the middle east that you don't yet seem to recognize. If you want to understand what I am telling you, I would suggest that you go find a person who follows Islam and see what they have to say. Islam is their religion, to them, this cartoon ridicules their religion and is seen as a slap in their faces. When you have a culture that is soo deeply rooted in their religion, a cartoon like this is as offensive as dropping bombs on their homes.

I must have told you a million times not to exagerate.

A million times, now who is exaggerating?

 

[Pengwuino]

I fully agree with cyrusabdollahi. If the environmentalists were larger in number in the US, you would be reading about riots and protests and bombs going off if someone shot a duck on NBC. To us its normal yum delicious food but to the culture of environmentalists (and really, to be fair, its extremists in both cases that do the violent things), its as if someone planted a bomb in some ELF or EFL or whatever member's house.

The only thing seperating western mainstream cultures and values is that we are slightly less violent. Everyone goes wacko over certain things and just because what we go crazy over isn't the same as what someone else goes crazy for doesn't mean anyone elses culture is insane or barbaric or whatever in most cases.

 

[Cyrus]

God, why don't people just call me Cyrus, that's so annoying... Change it to cyrus so I can delte this post.

 

[Orefa]

I don't see how your equating free speech to bombs makes any sense.

You first said that the cartoon, which I may point out was drawn through the exercise of the right to free expression, "was no better than a person strapping a bomb on and blowing himself up." You said that, not me. Now you say "I don't see how your equating free speech to bombs makes any sense." So when you compare them it's ok, when I take you up on it it makes no sense. You're not being consistent here.

You did not pay attention to a word I said... I said putting out blatantly disrespectful images of the prophet Muhammad is as bad as sending bombs to the Islamic nations.

So your point is that the freedom of expression we consider normal and casual (like the cartoon) is just as bad as sending bombs to islamic nations. Isn't it exactly what I said you said? Why do you now claim that I don't pay attention? Again, you're not being consistent.

With respect, this is also your personal point of view.

This, as I have said, is a cultural view held by the middle east that you don't yet seem to recognize.

Since you are not the spokesman for the middle east, as far as I know, I have to assume that it is your personal point of view. But I submit that if you give the average Muslim the choice between receiving a bomb on his head or receiving an offensive cartoon of Muhammad on his head, the bomb will not be his first choice.

A million times, now who is exaggerating?

Hmmm, my joke is less funny the second time around.

 

[Pengwuino]

Orefa, I think what he's trying to say is that the PRODUCT of someones free expression created the same RESULTS of someone planting a bomb in a mosque down in Tehran. I don't bleieve he is trying to say that blowing yourself up is a product of free expression.

 

[Cyrus]

You first said that the cartoon, which I may point out was drawn through the exercise of the right to free expression, "was no better than a person strapping a bomb on and blowing himself up."

Yes, I said that (I said the cartoon, not free speech in general, pay more attention). It is no better, in the eyes of Muslims in the middle east. They are both equally offensive, but as I say, you have shown me that you are lacking the ablitity to recognize this cultural difference.

Now you say "I don't see how your equating free speech to bombs makes any sense." So when you compare them it's ok, when I take you up on it it makes no sense. You're not being consistent here.

Yes, I am. Becuase I have shown you the impact these cartoons have when they ridicule a culture. It is viewed as being that bad to them. When you stated:

Bridging a cultural gap is better done through communications than through explosions.

I don't see what you are getting at. I did not say to bridge the gap with explosions, you did not mean that explosions is how Islam is trying to bridge the gap. I still don't see your point in this comment, Explain.

So your point is that the freedom of expression we consider normal and casual (like the cartoon) is just as bad as sending bombs to islamic nations. Isn't it exactly what I said you said? Why do you now claim that I don't pay attention? Again, you're not being consistent.

This is getting ridiculous. I have already explained this to you. I am not going to waste any more of my time explaining this, it was very clear cut the first time.

But I submit that if you give the average Muslim the choice between receiving a bomb on his head or receiving an offensive cartoon of Muhammad on his head, the bomb will not be his first choice.

You still demonstrate a lack of understanding of Islam.

 

[Orefa]

I still don't see your point in this comment, Explain.

...and you say I'm the one who is not paying attention. Flashback:

Cyrus: [the cartoon] is no better than a person strapping a bomb on and blowing himself up.

Orefa: I think one is somewhat worse than the other.

Cyrus: If you do not understand how the middle east thinks, then you do not yet understand how to respect middle east culture, and tensions like these will never end.

Orefa: Bridging a cultural gap is better done through communications than through explosions. Towards this goal as well, one is somewhat worse than the other.

And in case you still don't see my point, this last post reiterates my contention that bombs are indeed worse than free expression: if we hope to bridge the cultural gap, bombs will not work. Free expression and free exchange of ideas will work. Bombs are worse any which way you look at it, for pretty much all purposes. I cannot believe Islamic nations prefer to receive bombs instead of just insults. Both may be unwelcomed but you cannot find them equal without exageration.

 

[Cyrus]

Both may be unwelcomed but you cannot find them equal without exageration.

And exactly how is it that you know what another culture views? The Japanese would rather die than surrender without honor in WW2. Do you think that you know everything about every culture Orefa? You need to stop imposing your cultural views on others cultural views. That’s my point, and you have failed horribly to see that.

Perhaps you should read all the sentences before and after the quotes you cut out my my text Orefa. Then you can get some context into what I am telling you.....


Lets please keep this discussion meaningful.

 

[Art]

In support of Cyrus' argument it is worth noting that 15 muslims have died so far in protests about this cartoon. Evidently this must have been a risk they knew they were undertaking but they decided to protest anyway which suggests that as Cyrus says this is something some muslims at least feel so strongly about it carrys more priority than death.

 

[Orefa]

And exactly how is it that you know what another culture views?

People are people regardless of culture Cyrus. We all value life dearly. I think you are generalizing the actions of a few extremists to a whole population.

The Japanese would rather die than surrender without honor in WW2.

Yet they surrendered rather than die. People value life first and the rest later.

Do you think that you know everything about every culture Orefa?

I never made this claim. I will thank you not to accuse me of saying so.

You need to stop imposing your cultural views on others cultural views.

Impose? Everything I say is my own opinion. I impose nothing on anyone.

Lets please keep this discussion meaningful.

By all means, and let's stop exagerating and generalizing.

In support of Cyrus' argument it is worth noting that 15 muslims have died so far in protests about this cartoon. Evidently this must have been a risk they knew they were undertaking but they decided to protest anyway which suggests that as Cyrus says this is something some muslims at least feel so strongly about it carrys more priority than death.

What happened during these manifestations is not representative of the population as a whole. People die in riots after sporting events. Surely you won't conclude that people value sport more than life.

This is a debate on free expression. I hold free expression dear as an essential pillar of the democratic process. Occasional flare ups with religion and other groups are not new. Christians were in a similar situation fifty years as Muslims are today. Scandalous portrayals of Christ and the Pope appeared in newspapers. But people have learned over the years not to take these too seriously. This century, it's the turn of Islam. This is new to them, but they will also learn in this century not to take it so seriously, like all other groups have learned before them. Infuriating as the slow process may seem, kinks may be unavoidable before different cultures learn to deal with each other in peace. I guess we are part of this process.

 

[Hurkyl]

I cannot understand how the people from the newspaper in Denmark were so surprised it would cause such an outrage. They must lack any good judgment or foresight.

I suspect that it was because the response has been so ridiculously out of proportion. The very thought that a whole region of the world would sever diplomatic ties with a country because some independent entity published a cartoon there is utterly alien to the Western world.

It should be very easy to understand that they were surprised. The entire Western world was surprised.

And the whole issue that started this affair was that they should not have even had to expect serious death threats... it's utterly ridiculous to think that they should have expected this.

And besides, the whole thing has the hallmark of being a manufactured crisis. (And I really hope that's true) So how were they to see that coming?

In conclusion, freedom of press does not imply freedom of accountability.

Of course not. But there are two important things you're overlooking:

(1) When no law has been broken, accountability should be entirely of the form of (legal) civilian response.

(2) The Middle Eastern nations are trying to hold Denmark accountable, not the newspaper.


Even if we ignore the violent reactions, the entire situation is unacceptable because of (2).

And exactly how is it that you know what another culture views?

Well, they do keep claiming that all the violence is due to a small, extremist minority.

Are you claiming that Muslims have a culture of violence?

 

[Cyrus]

The pope and Jesus appearing in the newspaper are two different things Orefa. I don't think Christians would take cartoons of ridicule from the Middle East or any other non-christian culture with a happy face.

People are people regardless of culture Cyrus. We all value life dearly. I think you are generalizing the actions of a few extremists to a whole population.

People are people reguardless of culture? If that were true there would be no such thing as culture. I am sorry Orefa, you really are missing the point of my posts. They were very clear, and to the point. You are equating them with a viewpoint I did not put to them, and I think this is silly. You are clearly imposing your own view points on other peoples cultures, and I see no reason to discuss this with you anymore until you stop doing so.


EDIT: On the issue of people are people. You are half way right, so I will help you take your argument the rest of the way. People are people, yes. What does that mean? It means that they fundamentally do not want war or violence. HOWEVER, that does NOT mean that all people have the same values, moral standards, or ethics. BUT they do have the SAME basic principles for peace. Conflict arises when these differences are not RESPECTED amongst differing people, who are, by nature, inherently good.

 

[Cyrus]

The very thought that a whole region of the world would sever diplomatic ties with a country because some independent entity published a cartoon there is utterly alien to the Western world.

It is alien because the western world does not take the time to respect the culture of the Islamic world Hurkyl.

And the whole issue that started this affair was that they should not have even had to expect serious death threats... it's utterly ridiculous to think that they should have expected this.

THAT was something that went too far. But the boycott and protests were NOT going too far. In fact, I think they were correct in speaking out the way they did. If the Middle East had published a cartoon of Jesus in a repugnant manner, I promise you all the news media would plaster that around the entire world with outrage, and the military would flex it's fist in Iraq towards the Iraqi people. What’s with this double standard? The Middle East has to sit back and shut up when the west ridicules their religion? I think not. Also, it has been said that the President (or prime minister, whom ever) has been slow in response. I think the country owes an apology to the Middle East no different than a company would apologize to a customer for poor behavior on an employee’s part. A newspaper is supposed to have credibility and uphold some level of cultural respect. To say that this newspaper had no clue that it was crossing the line by insulting the prophet of a major religion is simply asinine.

(1) When no law has been broken, accountability should be entirely of the form of (legal) civilian response.

Yes, and there clearly has been this.

2) The Middle Eastern nations are trying to hold Denmark accountable, not the newspaper.

Yes perhaps, but as I said before, the slow response on Denmark’s part has not helped the issue.

Are you claiming that Muslims have a culture of violence?

I have already explained that Hurkyl……….Muslims have a culture where they do not, I repeat, they do NOT tolerate ridicule and slander against their holy profit Muhammad. Poke and prod them on this issue, and you have seen for yourself the response. This is exactly what I have explained to everyone in here already. There are some things that they hold sacred, and this cartoon ridiculed that. To understand that they were surprised shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the Islamic culture on the part of the western world, which is part of the reason why the Islamic world has tension with the western world. The west does not take the time to learn anything about the history or culture of the Middle East, and is at the core of the problem.

 

[Hurkyl]

I have already explained that Hurkyl……….Muslims have a culture where they do not, I repeat, they do NOT tolerate ridicule and slander against their holy profit Muhammad.

People overlook the usefulness of a simple yes or no answer. You've managed to write over a hundred words without saying anything about violence.

I'm beginning to suspect that you are equating all forms of protest:

If the Middle East had published a cartoon of Jesus in a repugnant manner, I promise you all the news media would plaster that around the entire world with outrage, and the military would flex it's fist in Iraq towards the Iraqi people. What’s with this double standard?

There is no double standard. If an Iranian media outlet did so, even if we go with your assumption that it would be plastered across the Western world with outrage, we would not see a boycott on, say, Iranian textiles, nor would we see embassies being closed out of protest.

And this is all despite the fact that the Iranian media IS controlled by the Iranian government.

It confounds me that you do not seem to distingush the mere fact that they are protesting from their vehicle of protest.

I think the country owes an apology to the Middle East no different than a company would apologize to a customer for poor behavior on an employee’s part.

One of the whole issues is that this circumstance is exactly the opposite of what you describe.

The employee of a company is, well, an employee of the company. The Danish newspaper is not a branch of the Danish government.

It goes against the very definition of the word "apology" to think that the Danish government can apologize for the newspaper.

To say that this newspaper had no clue that it was crossing the line by insulting the prophet of a major religion is simply asinine.

The Christian faith, for example, is regularly, and directly ridiculed in the Western world... not just indirectly through the symbols of that faith.

I cannot fathom why you cannot understand how people would not have thought that something that wasn't even meant an insult would be crossing the line.

And even still, crossing the line is one thing. Expecting the severing of diplomatic ties of their home country is something entirely different.


Again, this goes back to how you seem to confuse all forms of protest with one another. It is clear they should have (and did!) expect to anger some people. They should not have expected what has happened since.

 

[Cyrus]

Read post #54 Hurkyl. I clearly objected to it when I stated they went too far. Perhaps this was not clear, I apologize.

There is no double standard. If an Iranian media outlet did so, even if we go with your assumption that it would be plastered across the Western world with outrage, we would not see a boycott on, say, Iranian textiles, nor would we see embassies being closed out of protest.

We have already boycotted them for the last 30 years, so don't worry about that issue.

And this is all despite the fact that the Iranian media IS controlled by the Iranian government.

Yes, but that’s not the core issue I'm conveying here. In fact, I’m sorry to say it is off topic. This is another thing about Islam that should be known. In Islam, the prophet Muhammad, Moses, and Jesus are ALL sacred to them. This is something that should not be forgotten. So threats to make cartoons as retaliation better not happen. If they do I would not be surprised if it was done by radicals who constantly abuse the religion.


Just because the government of Denmark is not affiliated with the newspaper does not mean they should not apologize. They could simply say, "We the government of Denmark apologize for the actions of the newspaper." They are not saying it was their own governments fault, they are simply apologizing for the stupidity of the few that tarnished their good image. This is exactly what has happened.

The Christian faith, for example, is regularly and directly ridiculed in the Western world... not just indirectly through the symbols of that faith.

Yes, in the western world, not in the Islamic world. There is a difference Hurkyl.

I cannot fathom why you cannot understand how people would not have thought that something that wasn't even meant an insult would be crossing the line.

Are you going to sit there and honestly tell me that putting out caricatures of the prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb in a time when tensions between the Middle East and the west are high would not seem even slightly offensive and insensitive?

They should not have expected the actual form that the protest has taken.

I heard that they did in fact ask an Islamic scholar about printing the cartoon, and he told them that there would be very troubling consequences if they did. Again, this all goes back to not understanding or respecting another culture.

Let’s look at your own argument for a moment Hurkyl. In your very stating that you and the west should be surprised by this turn of events, shows a TOTAL lack of understanding of what is deemed as crossing way over the line in Islamic society. Unfortunately, Denmark had to get a lesson in Islamic culture the hard way.

EDIT: Where did your post go Hurkyl, why did you delete it?

 

[Hurkyl]

Oh bleh, you saw it before I could reorganize my response. I wanted to more greatly emphasize that it's not simply about Muslims protesting: it's about the way they're protesting. (Because I feel that you're arguing up and down trying to convince me that I should not be surprised that anyone protested... and, in fact, that is not what surprised me)

Just because the government of Denmark is not affiliated with the newspaper does not mean they should not apologize. They could simply say, "We the government of Denmark apologize for the actions of the newspaper."

And that would not be, and could not be, an apology. Although one can say the words, one cannot apologize for what one has not done.

To say that this newspaper had no clue that it was crossing the line by insulting the prophet of a major religion is simply asinine.

The Christian faith, for example, is regularly, and directly ridiculed in the Western world... not just indirectly through the symbols of that faith.

Yes, in the western world, not in the Islamic world. There is a difference Hurkyl.

I'm glad you agree. Please note that in this particular subthread, we are discussing why a Westerner living in the Western world might think that no lines were crossed.

I cannot fathom why you cannot understand how people would not have thought that something that wasn't even meant an insult would be crossing the line.

Are you going to sit there and honestly tell me that putting out caricatures of the prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb in a time when tensions between the Middle East and the west are high would not seem even slightly offensive and insensitive?

No. I am going to sit here and honestly tell you that it was reasonable to think no line was being crossed, and more importantly, that it would have been unreasonable to think that it would have invoked the response that it did.

(To emphasize, I said "would have invoked the response that it did" -- I did not merely say "would have invoked a response")



Incidentally, you keep talking about how little the West tries to understand Islamic culture. Do you believe there is any fault to be had with Middle Easterners who don't try to understand Western culture? Or with Middle Eastern leaders who are trying to whip up dischord?

 

[Cyrus]

I'm glad you agree. Please note that in this particular subthread, we are discussing why a Westerner living in the Western world might think that no lines were crossed.

Again, I repeat, this was a cartoon aimed at a non-western target. Therefore, you cannot simply assume that non-western cultures will have the same views you do on satire. That is my whole point.

(To emphasize, I said "would have invoked the response that it did" -- I did not merely say "would have invoked a response")

Ahhhhhhhhhh, precisely my point! You knew you were going to invoke a response, and it would come from a society that you have never provoked in such a manner before. This bears a HUGE consequence.

Incidentally, you keep talking about how little the West tries to understand Islamic culture. I'm curious if you believe that any fault lies with Middle Easterners who do not try to understand Western culture, or if you think this is all "our" fault.

Sure, we all have much to learn from each other. This goes for any two cultures, religions, I don't care who you are. But when you have over 800 movies portraying Arabs in a negative light, and the only thing you think about when you hear Arab is 'terrorist', 'oil fields' etc etc it shows no understanding of the history or culture of the middle east. For instance, just listen to what people say about the Middle East. 'They want to go back to the 1400's.' Let me explain something to you. The Middle East and Islam was the one who brought science from the ancient Greeks to Europe. At the time, only a few people in Scotland were doing a small amount of science. It was the Arabs who brought you all the lost translations from the old civilizations, which would have otherwise been lost. It was the Arabs who refined the number system, there are countless other examples of what the 'barbarians in the middle east' have done for humanity. This is the kind of ignorance that infuriates the Islamic society. The apparent amnesia of history and the belittlement of Islam by an ignorant west.

 

[Hurkyl]

Sure, we all have much to learn from each other. ...

Nearly two hundred words this time without an answer. I didn't ask if we have anything to learn from each other, nor for a history lesson I already knew. I asked if you are placing all of the blame for recent events on Western ignorance.

I ask because you seem to be unconditionally defending the bulk of Middle Eastern response (i.e. everything but the violent extremism), and unconditionally criticizing Westerners. Was that the intent?

Again, I repeat, this was a cartoon aimed at a non-western target. Therefore, you cannot simply assume that non-western cultures will have the same views you do on satire. That is my whole point.

Then make that point, instead of saying that I must be an idiot to think that someone might think that no line was being crossed.

After all, I might not have the same views on ad hominem attacks as you do...

Can I assume people on the West coast of the U.S. have the same views on satire as I do? What about people with great aunts named Matilda? People have to make assumptions all the time -- you can't levy any criticism unless you can argue they had a good reason to think there was a difference.

(Of course, I will admit it's long past the point we could pretend there aren't a lot of violent lunatics with various amounts power over in the Middle East, but we're not talking about the violent lunatics now, are we?)

And this is all irrelevant anyways. Even if I thought that they intentionally crossed a line and purposely went a mile beyond, I would still defend their right to do so, and would still argue that the Middle Eastern reaction is entirely inappropriate, and would still have planned to buy something Dutch at the grocery store if I had noticed something.

 

[Orefa]

Westerners cannot be atuned to the sensibilities of the Christians, the Taoists, the Budhists, the Hindu, the Krishnas, the Muslims, the Sikh, the Jews, the Atheists and everyone else who also claim to hold the Truth. As open to the world as one can be, this just cannot be done.

Westerner are free to express their thoughts in text or in picture in their own country, a right that seems to be foreign to many non-westerners. Nobody has any right to deprive them of this hard-earned freedom. A good case can be made in the West that this democratic right is as sacred as the rights of any of the multitude of religions, neither one of which can be considered more valid than any other.