Last time I checked there were shitloads of people in the West (myself included) who are outraged about the war in Iraq.

But in the interest of fairness, to follow is a list of atrocities committed in the name of Islam which were then protested in the Muslim world.




end of list

so when you say,"I'm gonna kill you!!!" when you are upset, that's enough to incarcerate you.

it's the acting upon that is wrong, not the speech.

i dont understand what relation there is between new and previous posts--if folk do not read the thread before they write things, that is---billege made a couple points that are worth repeating: the actions that all and sundry are complaining about are undertaken by a very small percentrage of the total population, representing for the most part very conservative positions---to act as though all of islam is somehow embroiled in the same way in this tumult is simply wrong.

but....i have been reading a wide range of press reports on this from lots of different places and have noticed something odd...the american coverage, across the variety of conservative positions that folk confuse with an actual political spectrum, tends of be written in a quite sloppy way in that the writers are not contextualizing that information about protests that they present---it is as if the view of islam on the part of many american journalists is as uninformed and undifferentiated as what you see repeatedly in this thread.

on the other hand, across the board complaints about the danish cartoons refer to the same general argument: this is an aspect of a general contempt for islam, a kind of religious or race war mentality in the west. reading through some of the responses above, i think, in this limited regard, these folk are right.

that said, i think the reactions to these cartoons internationally echoes the kind of thing in the politics thread on the washington post cartoon linked above.
in general, it seems a really stupid idea for folk who object to a particular cultural product to mobilize extensively against it because every such move ends up generating huge publicity around the object, changes the status of the artist, makes them stars in potentia.
this is not rocket science.
in this media climate, ignoring objects is far more effective in that it helps speed the disappearance of them into the vast ooze that is the space of the barely noticed, the filtered out, the half-repressed---the space into which fall almost all visual elements that float through the various media that help keep us all narocitzed and feeling-safe...the half-life of barely noticed visual elements in a space as extensive as this visual culture is very very short---folk should make friends with this almost-instant obsolescence.

but no.

thanks billege, here are the rest of them...some are simply reactions to the whole situation.

http://pics.livejournal.com/weev/gallery/000038dy

/ducks


also, here is a nice collection of mohammed images throughout history. it also has better information on the issue than most of the news reports. the page seems to be experiencing a lot of traffic, so you might have to try a few times.

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

Especially when, in some of these instances, it is people in positions of power saying it. When an imam or a member of Fatah or Hamas leadership or someone of that ilk says "Kill the Danish infidels", it is taken as an instruction and order or command to do so by many.

Actually it can be... there are laws in most states regarding the threat of violence.

roachboy-

I think you're missing the overall feeling here though. They are "outraged" and respond with violence. This is nothing new. Muslims, throughout history, have been a people that are happy to go to war over religion, idealism, money, trade, feelings... Outside of the Crusades, which most Christians as I understand it are not proud of, most Western Religions do not have this kind of fervor against other people. Hell, the Christian group that protests soldiers funerals as part of their on-going war protest makes me madder than hell... but it's their right to do so, and it's my right to be pissed. If they started shooting rounds into funeral goers, or I went and started firing into their ranks, that would be WHOLLY different. But, that *IS* how things often occur in the world of Islam. No, not all Muslims are like that, but an unfortunately large number of them are.

So then, sure, no religion is 100% perfect. But Islam generates a far greater number (total and per capita I'd imagine) that resort to violence than other major religions around the world. Can you so simply explain this away as bad press? Ireland has some angsty Christian issues that are ongoing, but they are nowhere NEAR the regular use of violence, especially against the innocent, as are used in middle-eastern countries. I'm not generally a hateful person, but actions like theirs are exactly what fosters a general feeling of contempt for the whole of Islam. If they acted under the banner of "Religion of Peace" rather than just using it as a jargon line, I think there would be less tension in the middle-east. They like to blame the US and the west, but before there was a US, and before there WAS an organized Europe, there was war and hatred and distrust amongst the Arab peoples. Read any history or old religious text for examples. The Middle East has never had true peace in recorded history.

Yes, Charlatan, my thoughts exactly. Thank you for saying this. I know for a fact that Muslims can come up with a much longer list of the offenses the West has committed against the rest of the world... not ideologically, but politically and economically. Shall we begin with Israel, people??

Also, all of you who are comparing Christ to Mohammed are blowing in the wind. Our Western version of Christ has very little of the ideological power of Mohammed in the Islamic world. As such, I invite people to think of WESTERN equivalents, and I mean EQUIVALENTS, to the portrayal of Mohammad.

What icon of America, if someone destroyed or made fun of it, would send us into a warlike state?

Hmm, maybe a couple of tall buildings?

Or, on a more mundane level, how would this country react if some newspaper published cartoons making fun of soldiers in Iraq? Would we sit around and take that peacefully? Probably not. People would be ALL over the newspapers' asses for desecrating the rights of people to go fight for our freedom.

Consider what OUR country holds near and dear... NOT Christ, he's long gone from anyone's care about what's sacred. But we do hold things VERY dearly around here, and if people threaten or mock them, you can bet your ass we get violent about it.

Once again, I am NOT justifying the use of violence to respond to sacrilege. But at what point do we justify the use of violence (e.g. going to war) to defend what we perceive to be sacrilege? Obviously, we seem to think it's justified in our case... and yet we condemn the Muslims for their own reactions, without looking at the provocation.

Both sides have erred here. The Europeans are idiots for thinking they could get away with this. They KNEW what they were getting into... integration of immigrants is THE massive problem in Europe right now, and that is what is feeding into this. Remember those riots in France?? Yeah, it is all tied together folks. There is something MUCH bigger going on here than just a bunch of stupid cartoons. It is more complex than that, that's all I'm saying. And I thought the TFP would be more sophisticated in its treatment of the subject.

Hold on here, have you read a history of Europe or the US lately? They weren't sitting around singing kumbaya around the old campfire, I can tell you that. Even when there WAS a US, we had a damn nasty civil war. Before the US, we massacred millions of native Americans. Europeans sure slaughtered each other to death for, oh, most of the last 2,000 years if not more?

There have been many offensive depictions of Christ in the past.

Guess you have never seen "Piss-Christ" by Andres Serrano.

Piss Christ is a controversial photograph by the artist Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine. Some have suggested that the glass may also contain the artist's blood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ



Now imagine such a photo if it were Mohamed instead of Christ emerged in a vat of piss.

Last time I heard, Mr. Serrano was still wearing his head.

The last 10's of thousands of musslims killed was the Iraqi Army. The rest is basically false, much like the proven inflated numbers used by the Taliban and reported by Western papers as fact.

See above my friend.

another...

I recall seeing this or something similar at the MoMa... wasn't all that impressed.

Also, Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses book brought issue from the Muslim community. He still walks about the planet.

http://www.renewal.org.au/artcrime/images/ofili.jpg

LINK

Here's some interesting photos on Yahoo showing the muslims getting upset.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Religion/

Strangely enough, Muslims seem to think it's ok to constantly publish photos slandering the jews.

Time for a few deportations.

And THAT right there is is the crux of the situation. I assure you that Osama Bin Shithead did not "make fun of" the WTC. He knocked it down and killed thousands of noncombatants.

Those who would equate mocking a building with killing people are in sore need of a reality check.

Unfortunately, the Middle East seems to be full of people who are more concerned with the value of their so-called honor than the value of life.

Well, I for one say, "Fuck 'em."

Hey, let's not forget that those buildings held several thousand CIVILIANS doing their daily paper pushing jobs. It wasn't a symbol, it wasn't a picture, it was innocent people.

of course the wtc was a symbolic target.
if you don't see that, then you don't see anythng.....

No, the Washington Monument is a symbol, the White House is a symbol, the trade towers were a badly thought out target. Western civilisation when it goes to war tries not to target civilians, children and women, we attempt to adhere to rules of combat and attempt to treat people with a modicum of respect.

Hitting the towers is in no way the same as this, hitting the towers resulted in the loss of a lot of civilian life, hitting the towers realistically had no point in a terror war, did it stop people using high buildings? Did it stop people flying? No, at the end of the day all it did was kill a lot of people, inconvenience us a bit more but reaslistically it hasn't changed a lot or made many people that terrified (look at London post 7/7... they were on the tubes the next day).

An equivalent target in Western society is probably Jesus, or perhaps Martin Luther King but as a society we tend to ignore a lot of things, a live and let live and turn the other cheek kind of moment as thats what we have been told, allow tolerance, allow differences, allow people of all nations, religions, faiths, colours, and shoe sizes to go on with their daily lives and work together. Not to say that the Muslim world is less tolerant but in many of their states there is a lot less tolerance (try eating a pig in the middle of say Riyadh?).

Absolutely. Send those little bastards back to the wonderful, democratic, freedom loving bastions of justice in the world, like Saudi Arabia, Sudan or Iran.

Suggesting whole nations and random European innocents should die because privately owned newspapers printed something you think is offensive is, IMO, a hate crime. Lock 'em up, and deport 'em. If they were born there - ah, deport 'em anyway.

So would be the Washinton monument. Only difference is one resulted in the deaths of a few thousand people. There in lies the difference and if you can't see that you dont' see anything.
:rolleyes:

maybe you can explain to me how the fact that there were victims alters anything about the nature of the wtc as a target.
it seems implausible that even you would think the wtc just any building, a random target---unless you prefer to think that the folk who carried out the attack were so stupid as to not have a plan?
if you think that, what would the rationale be? that they were muslim?

let me see if i have this straight...

it's an offense to allah to portray his prophet in a picture but okay to show jill carroll terrified of her islamic captors who are about to behead her in his name???

someone has their diaper wrapped too tight around his head - loosen the fan belt...

Like it or not, Western Civilization is already in a war with the forces of Radical Islam. A religious war? Yes, but if that makes you uncomfortable you may call it whatever you like. But it's time to face facts.

This cartoon mess is only one more indication of the seriousness of the conflict we face. If you believe in Freedom of the Press, Free Speech, and the basic human rights of western democracy, please do not make excuses and/or attempt to appease the barbarians who have threatened beheadings and torched an embassy over cartoons. Had he not been shot and practically decapitated on an Amsterdam street by an "offended" Muslim, Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh would tell you that these threats must be taken seriously. When you see the Muhammad cartoon protestors carrying signs that proclaim "Free Speech can GO TO HELL!," stop for one minute to consider the implications.
The cartoon uproar is just one more wake up call for the West.

deleted.
not worth it.

This thing keeps getting worse and worse...

It's amazing to see the hypocrisy of people complaing about drawings then torching buildings afterwards. Anyway.

However I do feel there is blame on both sides in this, although the Muslim side is certainly the one doing the excesses now.

I would like to say that this issue is not really about "Freedom of speech" though. Freedom of speech, yes even in Europe, is not absolute. Depending on where you live, there are things you can't say: threats of violence, lies and defamation, trade or governmental secrets, hate speech, or general cultural taboos. Even in the US, you can't really publish pictures of military coffins in the newspapers. Besides, just because you're free to post something doesn't mean you have the right to expect no counter-reaction.

Some (not all) of those cartoons are definitely offensive, and are meant to be so. This being Denmark, which has some issues with its muslim immigrants, this amounts to flame baiting which sadly has caught on (and the publication of the cartoons in places like France was even more of the same). The local response eventually grew up to be a more global one; and countries such as Saudi Arabia did no one a service by upping the ante and withdrawing ambassadors. Especially knowing how the media is not controlled by the gov't over there (so there's not much that the gov't can actually do), and that people would obviously rally over 'freedom of speech' rethoric in the West.

As a Middle Easterner, I can tell you that these protests are not solely about this cartoons. That's frankly just an excuse to express a lot of anger in those countries. While I don't believe there is a "Clash of civilizations" (that implies monolithic blocs on both sides), there is a certain degree of hatred and misunderstanding on both sides. And that's what driving this issue, it's just taking the shape of anti-Danish-cartoons demonstrations on one side.

Plainly put; though for instance the US has more influence (negative to some people) over what happens in the Middle East, it's easier - and carries less global repercussions - to burn the Danish Embassy than the American one (Also, this being Syria, it wouldn't have happened unless the govt let it happen).

For instance (that's one example, not the case for everybody btw), if you're some 18 year old refugee in a refugee camp in overcrowded Gaza, living in poverty, having no job, feeling humiliated by a "westernized" occupation, you have a lot of stuff you could be angry about. Offensive cartoons in some Danish newspaper are not the real issue. But with irresponsible religious leaders that play into these frustrations, things degenerate. I truly hope no blood will be shed over this issue, but I know everything's possible. And once again the hypocrisy of people who advocate violence after some offensive drawings is startling.

In the end, after this row dies down, it will have created more anger and hatred on both sides. Some Middle Easterners will be even more opposed to the West; and Western countries will see the others are more of an 'uncivilized' bunch of brutes. Which will be reflected in their views of muslim immigrants in their own countries, and those immigrants will likely be less integrated in response. Which won't help anybody.

Ah, righteous religious anger. It's no wonder I'm an atheist. One less thing to fight and kill about.

PS: I could never support a boycott that would ban Danish butter cookies. Mmmmmmmmm. Danish butter cookies forever :icare:

PSS: I'd be interested in hearing from our resident Dane Nancy over how this is playing out in Denmark.

I wonder if they would protest the Internet if they knew the pictures are on here?

The only one I could see them being offended at is the one with the bomb as a turbin. The one where they ran out of virgins is funny.

Whoever said, "An individual person is smart, a group of people is stupid." Is very smart.

Well. Now they've started burning things.

Surely, this is an appropriate response to a cartoon:

Full Text

Interesting response from the Vatican:
I disagree. Freedom of speech precisely ensures that I can say somthing that offends someone elses religious beliefs. Thier beliefs do not control mine.

Full Text.

I'm really sick of this whole thing. They are being totally unreasonable. It was a cartoon. Get over it. You have the right to be offended, fine. Be offended. I'd do the same thing, except I wouldn't set anything on fire, or threaten to behead anyone.

Religion Of Peace™ for sure...

Several of my friends have "diapers" on their heads and to honest, statements like yours disgust me to know end. How old are you? Grow up.

And before we become too critical of all the "diaper heads" in the world who according to this forum are all of the same ilk, let's have a few middle eastern newspapers showing a depiction of Jesus Christ getting a blowjob from an 8 year old boy. Hmmm, what do you think would happen then? More invasions of countries by the "non diaper heads"? More torture by those same people? Or just a blanket statement that those people are ignorant beyond reason and always have been?

Funny how the outrage to some violence is so hypocritically chastised but to other forms, and even more in destructive intensity, is condoned because those doing the damage are the savours of all rights and liberties.

:lol:

I imagine jihad will be declared on the infidels of the TFP. I can't wait!

No it's not funny at all. It's a serious fact. The people threatening to do violence and actually doing the violence are the ones protesting against freedoms that we in the West take for granted. Those standing against them are supporting those freedoms.

In one sense you are correct. This is about more than cartoons. It is about much more. One only needs to listen to what the Islamists are saying. They do not hide their goal of global jihad, of reestablishing the Caliphate and spreading their "religion of peace" at the point of a sword.
Here are some questions for all who read these pages: Do you despise homosexuals? How about gender equality? Wanna do away with that? Do you think little girls should be forbidden to go to school? Do you hope that the death penalty is more strictly enforced, and that it is carried out by public beheading? How about seeing movies and flying kites--should kids be publicly beaten for that? Want to punish with beheading people who dare believe in Buddha, Jesus, or anything other than the strictest of Muhammadian orthodoxy? Are you really fond of dictatorship? Do you want to see an end to the separation of church and state? Should the government destroy ancient religious relics (like Buddhist statues, for example), because they offend Allah? If you answered yes to any one of these questions, you're gonna love the Jihadis.
As for the attempt to connect Christianity to pedophilia, there really is a difference between Catholic priests who committed these disgusting crimes against perhaps hundreds of innocent children, and Muslims who murder thousands of innocent people in the belief that they will get to have sex with dozens of virgins in Paradise. The difference is that no one doubts that the priests' crimes were grossly wicked and immoral. The priests themselves know the depravity of their actions. Church leaders condemn them in no uncertain terms. They have been punished by the Church and the legal system. No one defends their actions by saying God wanted them to do it or that the children deserved it. They are universally condemned. The same cannot be said for the Muslim savages who are now carrying out violence against people because of cartoons they find offensive. In fact, the opposite is true. It is their religion that (they believe) gives them the right to kill, burn, and terrorize all who offend them. In many parts of the Muslim world they are seen as holy warriors doing the work of Allah.

yikes, aladdin sane: sounds like something you'd read on a front national page.
you know, the neofascist political party.
i am sure you are familiar with this type of organization: they position themselves as defenders of a threatened white christian europe heroically standing up to the invading brown (muslim) hoardes etc. etc. etc....
in doing this, these organizations also position themselves as racist.
so do you.


well played.

If I am a racist, you are an idiot.
OK, good. Now that the personal attacks are outta the way, how about some rational discussion?

Bumpity...

This Just In
People react as expected!


In recent months we have seen a rapid decline in
support for our "War on Terror".
Both sides in fact have grown weary of this battle.
Israel is moving to the moderate center,
even Hamas is looking for a peaceful soultion.
We have too much invested in this war
to allow it to fizzle out at such an early stage.
It is time to "Fan the Flames"
A total assault on each side's most sacred object is in order.
The muslims see mohammad as a most sacred object
So we will assail his image in the press,
repeatedly, until we are able to solicit the proper amount of outrage.
The muslims can always be counted on to react in a violent way,
given the proper motivation.
Next we will portray their reaction as being against the
West's most sacred object "The Free Press"
When the West see's the Muslim threat of violence,
and demands for censorship,
replayed over and over and over in the media,
They are sure to react with a renewed vengance.
One thing in this world is guaranteed,
The people will always react to the proper stimulus.
Thank You For Your Continued Support,
The Ruling Elite

Was discussing the isse with a Danish friend of mine. I was surprised when he didn't seem that upset and thought it better that such cartoons had never been published. In his words, Denmark, up until about 30 or 40 years ago had been a very homogeneous society with essentially one people - Danes. Now, there is a large muslim minority in Denmark, and there is some cultural friction.

He also said that essentially when you are dealing with muslims you are essentially dealing with a theocracy that is like it or not, operating well in the past. His comparison was "imagine printing such cartoons in Europe in say 1500."

The church would be out scouting nice poles right now to tie you to for the wienie roast. Only it would be your wienie about to be roasted.

Muslims are a primative culture, steeped in religous traditions, out of step with the modern world. And I use the word primitive deliberately, since that is how they strike me.

The only really scary difference is that unlike the Christians of 1500 who would have roasted your ass, these guys are living in 2006 and as such are actively trying to build a nuclear bomb.

Think about that for a minute.

aladdin:
i didnt say you were anything.
i said your argument amounted to a racist argument.
that is why the post ended with the phrase "well played"


i would explain more but it hardly seems worthwhile.

james t kirk

since i am a muslim, i find your comments quite offensive. your stereotypical comments that paint all muslims with the same brush hardly seems like you put much thought into your words. you obviously dont have many muslim friends.

and for your information.. "muslims are a primitive culture" wtf???.. islam is not a culture, its a religion.. muslims happen to be followers of islam. get off whatever your on buddy.

seeing that tfp is such an open and liberal forum to voice one views, i find some membes comments quite disturbing.

dishguy, aren't most religions primitive at the extreme? Not in intelligence or capability, but in the idealized lifestyle? The stereotypical path to purity rejects modern convenience, addictions, etc. Primitive wouldn't be the word I'd use but that's how I interpret it in this context.

I'm not worried about individuals seeking personal faith and spirituality, but I am worried about those seeking power through religion, and followers who believe they must compel others to follow their path. As far as I'm aware, every major religion has writings that, taken literally, would put us at each others' throats. The danger's in the dogma and its interpretation.

What I find extreme is people who are ready to burn embassies and threaten decapitation because a cartoon offends them. "We will redeem our prophet, Muhammad, with our blood!" they chanted. So yes, such intolerance is the very definition of primitive.

This says it all:

fighting words
Cartoon Debate
The case for mocking religion.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Saturday, Feb. 4, 2006, at 4:31 PM ET

As well as being a small masterpiece of inarticulacy and self-abnegation, the statement from the State Department about this week's international Muslim pogrom against the free press was also accidentally accurate.

"Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images, or any other religious belief."

Thus the hapless Sean McCormack, reading painfully slowly from what was reported as a prepared government statement. How appalling for the country of the First Amendment to be represented by such an administration. What does he mean "unacceptable?" That it should be forbidden? And how abysmal that a "spokesman" cannot distinguish between criticism of a belief system and slander against a people. However, the illiterate McCormack is right in unintentionally comparing racist libels to religious faith. Many people have pointed out that the Arab and Muslim press is replete with anti-Jewish caricature, often of the most lurid and hateful kind. In one way the comparison is hopelessly inexact. These foul items mostly appear in countries where the state decides what is published or broadcast. However, when Muslims republish the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or perpetuate the story of Jewish blood-sacrifice at Passover, they are recycling the fantasies of the Russian Orthodox Christian secret police (in the first instance) and of centuries of Roman Catholic and Lutheran propaganda (in the second). And, when an Israeli politician refers to Palestinians as snakes or pigs or monkeys, it is near to a certainty that he will be a rabbi (most usually Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the leader of the disgraceful Shas party), and will cite Talmudic authority for his racism. For most of human history, religion and bigotry have been two sides of the same coin, and it still shows.

Therefore there is a strong case for saying that the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and those who have reprinted its efforts out of solidarity, are affirming the right to criticize not merely Islam but religion in general. And the Bush administration has no business at all expressing an opinion on that. If it is to say anything, it is constitutionally obliged to uphold the right and no more. You can be sure that the relevant European newspapers have also printed their share of cartoons making fun of nuns and popes and messianic Israeli settlers, and taunting child-raping priests. There was a time when this would not have been possible. But those taboos have been broken.

Which is what taboos are for. Islam makes very large claims for itself. In its art, there is a prejudice against representing the human form at all. The prohibition on picturing the prophet—who was only another male mammal—is apparently absolute. So is the prohibition on pork or alcohol or, in some Muslim societies, music or dancing. Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent. This current uneasy coexistence is only an interlude, he seems to say. For the moment, all I can do is claim to possess absolute truth and demand absolute immunity from criticism. But in the future, you will do what I say and you will do it on pain of death.

I refuse to be spoken to in that tone of voice, which as it happens I chance to find "offensive." ( By the way, hasn't the word "offensive" become really offensive lately?) The innate human revulsion against desecration is much older than any monotheism: Its most powerful expression is in the Antigone of Sophocles. It belongs to civilization. I am not asking for the right to slaughter a pig in a synagogue or mosque or to relieve myself on a "holy" book. But I will not be told I can't eat pork, and I will not respect those who burn books on a regular basis. I, too, have strong convictions and beliefs, and value the Enlightenment above any priesthood or any sacred fetish-object. It is revolting to me to breathe the same air as wafts from the exhalations of the madrasahs, or the reeking fumes of the suicide-murderers, or the sermons of Billy Graham and Joseph Ratzinger. But these same principles of mine also prevent me from wreaking random violence on the nearest church, or kidnapping a Muslim at random and holding him hostage, or violating diplomatic immunity by attacking the embassy or the envoys of even the most despotic Islamic state, or making a moronic spectacle of myself threatening blood and fire to faraway individuals who may have hurt my feelings. The babyish rumor-fueled tantrums that erupt all the time, especially in the Islamic world, show yet again that faith belongs to the spoiled and selfish childhood of our species.

As it happens, the cartoons themselves are not very brilliant, or very mordant, either. But if Muslims do not want their alleged prophet identified with barbaric acts or adolescent fantasies, they should say publicly that random murder for virgins is not in their religion. And here one runs up against a curious reluctance. … In fact, Sunni Muslim leaders can't even seem to condemn the blowing-up of Shiite mosques and funeral processions, which even I would describe as sacrilege. Of course there are many millions of Muslims who do worry about this, and another reason for condemning the idiots at Foggy Bottom is their assumption, dangerous in many ways, that the first lynch mob on the scene is actually the genuine voice of the people. There's an insult to Islam, if you like.

The question of "offensiveness" is easy to decide. First: Suppose that we all agreed to comport ourselves in order to avoid offending the believers? How could we ever be sure that we had taken enough precautions? On Saturday, I appeared on CNN, which was so terrified of reprisal that it "pixilated" the very cartoons that its viewers needed to see. And this ignoble fear in Atlanta, Ga., arose because of an illustration in a small Scandinavian newspaper of which nobody had ever heard before! Is it not clear, then, that those who are determined to be "offended" will discover a provocation somewhere? We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt.

Second (and important enough to be insisted upon): Can the discussion be carried on without the threat of violence, or the automatic resort to it? When Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses in 1988, he did so in the hope of forwarding a discussion that was already opening in the Muslim world, between extreme Quranic literalists and those who hoped that the text could be interpreted. We know what his own reward was, and we sometimes forget that the fatwa was directed not just against him but against "all those involved in its publication," which led to the murder of the book's Japanese translator and the near-deaths of another translator and one publisher. I went on Crossfire at one point, to debate some spokesman for outraged faith, and said that we on our side would happily debate the propriety of using holy writ for literary and artistic purposes. But that we would not exchange a word until the person on the other side of the podium had put away his gun. (The menacing Muslim bigmouth on the other side refused to forswear state-sponsored suborning of assassination, and was of course backed up by the Catholic bigot Pat Buchanan.) The same point holds for international relations: There can be no negotiation under duress or under the threat of blackmail and assassination. And civil society means that free expression trumps the emotions of anyone to whom free expression might be inconvenient. It is depressing to have to restate these obvious precepts, and it is positively outrageous that the administration should have discarded them at the very first sign of a fight.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is Thomas Jefferson: Author of America. His most recent collection of essays is titled Love, Poverty, and War.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2135499/

Copyright 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC