Thin-Skinned Religious Extremists
It’s been a while since I’ve had multiple friends ask me to blog about something, so with my friends Nasaka and Anthony both wanting to know what I think about the Danish Muslim cartoon controversy, well, I guess the title of this post kinda sums it up. For a little background, here’s how BAGnewsNotes (who as of early this morning was the only place I could find the cartoons) summarized the controversy :
Saudi Arabia and Syria recall their ambassadors from Denmark and Libya closes its embassy in Copenhagen. Muslims storm the Danish embassy in Jakarta, and gunmen threatened the European Union offices in Gaza. Why? Because of 12 cartoons that ran in a Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten, in September.Originally, editors at the paper asked 12 artists to draw depictions of the prophet after an author complained that no artist was willing, under his own name, to illustrate a book about Mohammed. A controversy then broke out between Danish Muslims and the paper which appeared settled after the paper apologized for causing offense, but defended its right to publish the material. The current crisis started, however, when European papers began reprinting the cartoons in a display of press freedom.
From The BAG’s standpoint, however, the strangest thing about the controversy is that the specific cartoons (with the exception of the one above) have barely been discussed. Instead, the anger centers almost exclusively on the fact that the prophet is involved. Religious leaders insist that Islamic tradition bars any depiction of Mohammed for fear that such images can lead to idolatry.
In defense of those protesting, a number of the cartoons are genuinely offensive, but if the protests are based less on the content of the cartoons than the fact that some uppity cartoonists would have the audacity to draw a picture of their prophet, then one cartoon in particular stands out as the perfect criticism of this whole situation :
I sympathize with those who are offended by some of the other cartoons, but the people rioting in the streets need to calm the hell down. Living in a free society means sometimes you’re going to hear and see things you find offensive. Protesting is a perfectly natural reaction, but this is extremism :
That said, there’s probably a lot more to this than meets the eye. Are the photos we’re seeing in the press indicative of the protests as a whole or just the hysterical parts that the media has latched upon? Are European newspapers responsible for stoking this controversy by responding to Muslim anger by reprinting the cartoons? I don’t know enough about the relationship between Europeans as a whole and the Muslim world to reach any conclusions, but my initial reaction is that this is largely a bunch of religious people overreacting and trying to silence their critics. I hate it when people do that in America, so this rubs me the wrong way as well. Put down that burning flag and write a letter to the editor, man.
Less importantly, but still worth mentioning, is that this sign cracks me up :
At first glance, I thought this said “Freedom to go to hell” which made me laugh in a “I’ll give you a can of ’shut the hell up’” sort of way, but it looks like it’s actually a sign protesting the idea of freedom. Is it just me or does that seem like a poorly-chosen stance for someone who’s rioting in the streets? Either way, I can’t wait to steal this idea with a “Fuck the First Amendment” placard at the next anti-war protest.
UPDATE : Dumb mistake on my part. It was a Danish newspaper, not Dutch. For those of who who view this as a pet peeve, here’s a Elayne Riggs calling me an idiot.
[I]t’s starting to niggle at me that many bloggers have mistakenly referred to this as a Dutch controversy. No folks, we’ve already covered that one. Holland and Denmark are not the same country, as I hope Amsterdam-bound bloggers are aware
My bad.
68 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
If you think the idea of Muhammad being portrayed as a terrorist is offensive, I can’t think of a worse way to protest it then by calling for the mass death of citizens of those countries that ran the cartoon. Doesn’t that sorta support the cartoonist’s portrayal? Seems to me like the protest of these drawings should be setting up a soup kitchen & going out to pet cats at a no-kill shelter.
Comment by Anthony — February 3, 2006 @ 4:51 pm
I thought it was originally a Danish newspaper, not a Dutch one. Pretty sure about that.
Comment by Jason — February 3, 2006 @ 6:14 pm
When you motivate young men to blow themselves up by telling them they will get laid in heaven,you are asking for ridicule. The running out of virgins cartoon is funny. Just like Christians who sit back and let Pat Robertson represent them, the Moslems should rise up and denounce those who make them look bad. Same goes for decent Republicans.
Comment by Becky — February 3, 2006 @ 7:15 pm
I don’t think most of the Muslims who are protesting have even seen the cartoons, just like most who called for Rushdie’s death never read a word of Satanic Verses.
The goverments of Saudi Arabia and other Muslims countries are to be blamed for this situation turning so ugly because it was them who first made such a big deal out of this. And we all know that no protests occur in those countries without goverment approval. If they take to the streets protesting their own goverment they will all be beaten and locked up.
What is really pathetic about the Muslims who are protesting is that they didn’t get so worked up when their fellow Muslims were being bombed to oblivion in Iraq, but get all bent out of shape over some cartoons.
Comment by shaker — February 3, 2006 @ 11:00 pm
What somebody should do is paint an illustration of a particular section of the Koran, and then do a Magritte - write beneath the picture “This is not Mohammad”.
More seriously, while I agree wholeheartedly with the heading to this post, I think the water is muddied by a number of the cartoons being clearly racist. All in all, though, I can not help but think that this is just the kind of situation that Bin Laden hoped to bring about - a break down of reasonable discussion leading to the radicalisation of everyone involved.
Comment by Notorious Apostate — February 4, 2006 @ 7:07 am
Within the culture of Islam, it has been traditionally forbidden to make likenesses of either God, or the Prophet, for fear of becoming idolatry (which is a HUGE no-no in Islam). While the content of the cartoons is offensive, in many ways, the fact that they even exist is the larger sin.
I can’t think of a comparable offense in non-Islamic religion.
Even the most offensive thing I can think of (Christ masturbating through the hole in his palm, if you must know) is offensive in terms of content.
I heard about the cartoons, and put my face in my palms and shook my head. There are some things that you simply don’t do. Making cartoons such as these, with the world as it is, is one of them.
Are people overreacting? Probably, as evidenced by the photos you posted. But it’s a larger picture than cartoons and fatwas, as you mentioned.
The rise of fundamentalist Islam is no accident, or fluke. Look who’s supporting it - oppressive governments (not to mention the U.S. back in the days of the Cold War). Look who’s embracing it - the citizenry of these oppressive governments, who have little else to embrace in their lives.
In many ways, it’s the equivalent of Millenialist Dispensationalist Christians (those who tend to believe the Left Behind series are the gospel truth) getting into a fuss because gay people exist.
In addition, given the West’s treatment of all-things Islam throughout history, we’re in a particularly dicey time. People are probably understandably nervous and scared. To them, this is one more slap in the face. But far beyond a slap.
Actions speak louder than words. And Bush can assure people that the U.S. finds the cartoons “offensive” all he wants. But given his track record of credibility, it’s hardly surprising that apologies are being ignored.
Comment by A. Nonymous — February 4, 2006 @ 7:29 am
Doesn’t the reprinting of the cartoons in the other 3 newspapers seem like more of a cultural jab, than anything to do with freedom of speech? When you take a defining icon of a embattled (literally) group and use it in this way, without respect, but solely as an appropriation to make a point about how free you are, what result do you really expect? To make a laborious and not entirely effective analogy, if we were talking about newspapers in the American South, and a series of 12 cartoons were printed about black folks–say they’re about the King family, right around Coretta Scott King’s death–2 or 3 of which were patently offensive, would it matter if the rest were inoffensive, funny, or incisive? Wouldn’t we make some moral judgments about the publisher? Wouldn’t we expect a little outrage?
Yeah, the protests are going too far, to our eyes, but you have to assume that they’re less about the issue of a rule in Islam, and more about having to go through yet another bit of defamation, courtesy of the smug west.
Comment by cp — February 4, 2006 @ 7:29 am
You mention a Dutch Muslim cartoon controversy, but the BAGnewsNotes article you cite is talking about Denmark….
Comment by anonymous — February 4, 2006 @ 7:32 am
I think the European newspapers that printed the offensive cartoons as a jab towards the (mostly unwanted) Muslim populations of immigrants in their countries should continue their show of “free speech” by following former Sen. Bob Kerry’s rule of politics; “If you’re making people angry on both sides of the aisle, you must be doing something right.” So now I think it’s time for political cartoons in those European newspapers that would piss off the kind of reich-wing Faux christians we have in this country, with headlines that say, “See? We can make fun of Christians and Jews too!”
That would take some of the wind out of the sails of those who would wish to use those cartoons to just ferment further hatred between Islamic peoples and the rest of the West.
It should be further researched (and factually proven), however, who brought these cartoons BACK to the front of the public eye, and told so many of those who can’t even read about them.
If that trail leads back to Bush’s friends, in any way, I’d be completely UNsurprised.
Comment by Silversmith — February 4, 2006 @ 8:23 am
Here we have a group of believers who have repeatedly demonstrated in the past that they are willing to sacrifice their own lives, and willing to kill thousands of innocent civilians, in the name of their religious beliefs. It is massively stupid to bait them by violating one of their strongest religious prohibitions. Massively stupid.
I thought of a bizzare and implausible analogy, but one that seems to sum up the situation to me:
Someone has chained a man-eating tiger in a public square. It has already killed and eaten several people, and the square is littered with their bones. But I am going to take my family to the square for a picnic, right next to the place where the chain is secured. Hey, it is a public place, and I can go there if I want to.
Comment by Biff Usually — February 4, 2006 @ 8:35 am
Someone has chained a man-eating tiger in a public square. It has already killed and eaten several people, and the square is littered with their bones. But I am going to take my family to the square for a picnic, right next to the place where the chain is secured. Hey, it is a public place, and I can go there if I want to.
So you’re comparing these extremists to unreasoning animals.
That’s offensive.
The tiger can’t help himself.
(BTW, if I did a picture of Mohammed wearing a Mickey Mouse mask, would that be safe?)
Comment by Brad — February 4, 2006 @ 9:59 am
This is a huge deal, embassies stormed, etc… I think these people in the photo’s are angry at “the west” and feel mocked. I doubt the people holding the sighs read english well or want to “Slay” anyone. My opinion, all of those protest signs were written with the same pen, almost cetainly by the same extremist person.
Maybe we can never win over that guy with the pen, and his friend with the camera, but we can probably placate the mob.
BAG is an awesome site. Awesome.
Comment by mdhåtter — February 4, 2006 @ 10:18 am
In several European countries it is illegal to insult entire ethnicities and religions. For example, anti-Judaism or Holocaust denial is outlawed. But no action is taken against these Islamophobes. Why not? Because Europe is infected with anti-Muslim sentiment.
These protests and boycotts are entirely justified. Until Denmark and its neighbors are prepared to respect all people equally, that is.
Comment by Abe — February 4, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
How and when did a good portion of the world’s polulation loose its ability to understand the nature of humor?
Is it not better to insult with a jibe than a sword?
Or am I missing something here?
Comment by rasulus — February 4, 2006 @ 12:34 pm
How and when did a good portion of the world’s polulation loose its ability to understand the nature of humor?
Is it not better to insult with a jibe than a sword?
Or am I missing something here?
Comment by rasulus — February 4, 2006 @ 12:35 pm
Oh. I thought you were talking about objections to “The Passion of the Christ.”
Comment by skip — February 4, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
As a side-note, it’s refreshing to see that zealots of all stripes can mistake “It’s” and “Its.”
Comment by cp — February 4, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
Denmark is not an Islamic country so you can’t try to force a religious belief on them. If we stop publishing anything that might be offensive to someone, we’d all be looking at blank pages. That said, the paper that published the cartoons took responsibility for it and apologised for offending anyone. Those who were offended and wrote to the newspaper, who boycotted Danish products, and voiced their concerns were right to do so. Those who are now rioting and calling for murder are not doing their cause any good. It will only further instill the “anti-Muslim” feelings in European countries.
Comment by Jesse — February 4, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
how many of you are discussing this without having seen the cartoons. one of the pictures shows the islamic moon curving around Mohammed’s head to form horns. most were really offensive. reminiscent of cartoons of Jews I’ve seen from the Nazi era in Germany.
Comment by paul — February 4, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
To Abe:
What do laws against against holocaust denial (which is commonplace in muslim countries
) have to with the current madness sweeping the Middle East? If these laws did not exist, the mobs would still be howling for blood. And to the madhatter, those signs you’re seeing like “freedom of expression go to hell” are from protests in England. A country where no one has reprinted the images.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I believe in freedom of speech, further I believe nothing is beyond satire, least of all religon. What offends me are the Western politicans, like Jack Straw who are giving credence to these fanatics.
Comment by Artless dodger — February 4, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
Within the culture of Islam, it has been traditionally forbidden to make likenesses of either God, or the Prophet, for fear of becoming idolatry (which is a HUGE no-no in Islam). While the content of the cartoons is offensive, in many ways, the fact that they even exist is the larger sin.
I’m surprised that this is the root of the international coverage, but then again, not surprised. Discussing the content might prove difficult or, perhaps, shameful, as much of it — from what I’ve seen — is insulting at best.
But by making the conversation about “representations of Mohammed”, now we’re talking freedom of expression — and whether or not Muslims have the right to protest *anyone’s* representation of Mohammed. From an American (well, perhaps “liberal American” these days) point-of-view, they certainly have the right to protest it, and even to tell me not to do it, but if I’m a non-Muslim for whom Islamic law is irrelevant to my salvation (or lack thereof), they seem to be overstepping the bounds of tolerance.
But I wonder which is most offensive to the most vociferous of protesters: that Mohammed was represented, or that he was mocked — or if there’s even a signficant difference.
Comment by Simon — February 4, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
How can anyone discuss these cartoons in terms of having gone to far or are they insensitive when the culture they refer to equates any criticism to the incompetant butchery we quaintly describe as beheading. History shows us the only answer to intolerance is intolerance of its oppression.
Never appease. Never submit.
Comment by Cainhook — February 4, 2006 @ 3:42 pm
Other than Matthew Parris, no one seems to be mentioning what seems to me to be the most fundamental observation: that those beliefs mocked by the cartoons are OPPRESSIVE beliefs that are FALSE, or better, WRONG. This is why they are being mocked. I know that everyone associates atheism with Ayn Rand and shrill, unpleasant people in general, teenagers especially, but let’s back up a minute here: why were people glad that the judge in the Dover case rejected intelligent design? Not because of the vindication of some abstract principle like free speech but because the idea that there is a God and that he created the earth ready-made in six days with dinosaur bones etc. is so patently absurd and backwards that it deserves nothing but a swift relegation to the bottom of some dusty file cabinet at the British museum with the likes of Zoroaster et al. Likewise with those beliefs satirized by the Danish cartoons: they are not just any beliefs, they are the same old contingent, backward beliefs that a handful of secular societies such as Denmark’s have with much struggle overcome, to some degree, and the same beliefs that continue to make life miserable for a tremendous number of people across the globe today. What happens when you accuse a drug addict of being a drug addict? He protests, he denies, he calls you an a**hole, he calls you a liar: in short, he does everything he can to hold on to his pathology.
Secondly, there is an obvious element of bad faith in the protests: I mean, it was a handful of CARTOONS published in DENMARK, and embassies are burning? Those protesting know that they can throw a tantrum at the slightest provocation and extract one more battery of (in their eyes) humiliating apologies from the west…if ever there was a time when representatives of secular societies needed to draw the line and say, “Ok, not this time, this is too ridiculous, I’m not going to tell you once again that I tepidly ‘respect’ your belief in Santa Claus, whatever that means, anyway,” it’s now.
Comment by Lance — February 4, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
As in chemisty, our cultures are being mixed together and the result is that the boiling point is being lowered.
Before mass mediums, it was little insults that effected small groups.
Now, it’s our Western “Freedom of Speach” that upsets the protectionist fundamentalist ideology. And, that’s not just Muslim fundamentalism - it’s Christian, too.
We are at a critical time in the world’s history. How do we solve this war between free speach, free society’s, and fundamentalist Theocracies?
One sure thing is not to follow the Bush Doctrine (whatever the Hell that is - besides lie, spy and die). Don’t invade Muslim lands and dare Fundamentalist’s to “Bring it on!” Jaysus, who drew up this imbecilic cartoon character? Hamas-Barbarian?
I’d like to say that we need to open up avenues of communication. But, I’m afraid that’s not enough, if it’s possible at all. But, we do need to keep talking…
However, we can’t be afraid of insulting every fundamentalist with every move. If we do that, they win. Maybe it’s, “Here’s the line - freedom of expression. If you’re crossing it, you do it at the peril of incarceration.” ENOUGH!!! We can have our opinions, too - as do you. You may protest, but to kill and maim is against EVERY religions message.
I’m at a loss as to what else to to do.
Help, anyone?
Comment by c u n d gulag — February 4, 2006 @ 5:47 pm
I live in Copenhagen, Denmark, and WITHIN our country there seems to be a dominant feeling of reconciliation and a notion of moving forward in the best interest of all citizens. However, as much as I’d like to see that in the rest of the world, I actually do not believe that the much-touted solution through dialogue carries the potential to bring us closer to a normalization or even an understanding. This is because for once in a dispute, there is no space for compromise. Demanding respect is of course not the issue - we can all agree on that, if we just prefix “mutual” - it really comes down to the interpretation of the concept “respect”. In my view, which is shared by most Danes, respect is certainly not the same as agreement or deference. Since I have chosen not to be a muslim, I can and do respect Islam and muslims’ right to practise their religion, but per definition I have chosen not to follow the teachings of the Koran. That’s exactly what some muslims all over the world wants or even demands Denmark and other countries to do when they demand an apology for not obeying a religious dogma. On the other hand, we are posing as blind fundamentalists when it comes to defending freedom of expression - it has become our pseude-religious dogma.
It is no secret, that Denmark has a massive welfare state with internationally generous levels of benefits including free education at all levels and free health care for all. This was historically made possible by a consensus in a homogenous population, which means that a redistributive tax system with a marginal income tax rate of around 60% today is largely accepted as a prerequisite for big government and a relatively equal income distribution, which are seen as social goods. So when the newspapers write that Denmark is governed by a centre-right government supported by the far-right Peoples Party it does not mean right-wing or hawkish in an American sense. No matter which party has ruled the country we have been persistent when it comes to such issues as the environment and renewable energy, foreign aid and all sorts of publicly funded programs to support marginalized groups. In fact, we have been and still are to a large extent a rather consensus-seeking, “lazy” nonconfrontational people. In this vein, there are many examples specifically when it comes to respecting (defering to) Islam for pragmatical purposes: Did you know that all chickens sold in Denmark have been prayed over by an Imam? Or that all public schools in Copenhagen are required to serve halal-meat to all children thus eliminating the freedom of choice for non-muslims? The list could go on for a while, and these solutions to practical problems are an accepted part of everyday life, because they are convenient.
But we are also a secular, democratic country and when it comes to the fundamental principles of society, we simply cannot choose the road of convenience and appeasement. I recognize the trade boycott as a valid means of people as consumers to express their disagreement, and we must carry the loss of those few percentages of total Danish exports. (However, if the Arabic and Indonesian governments actively support the boycott then it is of course a matter for the WTO.) The general opinion is that Denmark, Norway etc. have lost their good reputation in the Middle East over the free press dispute. Well, I for one will not be ashamed for standing up for freedom of expression, and as it stands, our prime minister, the newspaper Jyllands-Posten and the people cannot go any further without violating our core democratic values, and most Danish imams have in fact come to at least publicly accepting this, but the streets and governments of the Middle East simply do not seem to understand that society is fundamentally different here and that the authorities cannot interfere with the press just as newspapers cannot apologize for the existence of freedom of expression. We cannot allow any religious group to dictate our laws and our minds. In a way, one can argue that the latter has partly taken place, since we can apparently only use our freedom of speech under the threat of death and destruction, which became crystal clear with the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. We must definitely draw the line when it comes to “guaranteeing it will never happen again” and thus changing our legislation.
So, in our own back yard, things have cooled down considerably. Today there was a demonstration by far-right wing/neo-nazis, and an impressive figure of around 40 in a country of 5.4m people showed up. They chanted in the cold Danish outdoors, and after a couple of hours they peacefully climbed on board a public bus chartered by the police and went home. So much for the racist extremism in Denmark…
However, the burning of the embassies in Syria an the attack on EU offives in Palestine has shown that the issue has moved far beyond cartoons in the Arabic countries. In that context, it is disheartening to witness the wishy-washy stance of the UK and USA, our supposed allies in the fight for freedom and democracy. Straw and Bush were not so reluctant when it came to something as deeply antagonizing and unpopular as actual war, but they are strange humble when it comes to verbally defending a cornerstone of democracy.
I do understand, that many citizens in Britain and the states including lots of people on this blog does not share the official opinion of their governments, and I am very appreciative, but you just cannot help but feel disappointed. That goes for the former president as well.
As of today I honestly do not think that even the most shameful kow-towing by Denmark and Europe in general will make much of a difference at this point, and to many Danes it is now a matter of time when it comes to a terrorist attack in Denmark or Danish interests abroad. No one can tell where this attack on the freedom of expression will end or if it will draw us into a terrible dispute.
I know that’s quite pessimistic, but I can only hope that no matter how much violent pressure we face the Danish people and government (plus everybody else who believes in democracy) will not give up their freedom of choice.
Thanks for reading if you made it this far! And do comment or ask questions if you have any.
Comment by Michiko — February 4, 2006 @ 6:37 pm
Artless, I believe in freedom of expression as well. But every country has its own standards of freedom of expression. In most of Europe, for example, you can express yourself freely as long as you do not do it in an ethnically insensitive way. Fair enough, apply this standard. But apply it equally on anti-Islamic speech as you would on anti-Jewish speech. If you don’t, you are setting a double standard. This is what is being protested. If you can’t offend a Jew in Europe, you had better not be able to offend a Muslim. Now if Europe was an equal opportunity offender, and Muhammed (saw) was just one of the many figures drawn in a negative way, you would not see this reaction sweeping the Muslim streets. However, Denmark and its neighbors are singling out 1.5 Billion Muslims, a population that will not tolerate such focused intolerance against it.
Comment by Abe — February 4, 2006 @ 6:46 pm
You guys do realise this was a deliberate troll (hah! a Danish troll), don’t you? Jyllands-posten’s act had about as much to do with freedom of expression as if the New York Post had printed the word NIGGER over and over on their front page. I mean, I’m a staunch believer in the freedom to say anything, but let’s not ennoble those grubby little hacks at Jyllands-posten.
It started when Danish wingnut Kaare Bluitgen claimed falsely that nobody would illustrate his upcoming anti-Islamic children’s book on the life of Mohamed because they were afraid of reprisals from Islamists. So the right-wing tossers at Jyllands-posten asked registered illustrators to contribute a picture of Mohamed (of the three out of twelve submitted that mock the enterprise, two depict Bluitgen as a publicity hound) and then ran them as a deliberate goad against Denmark’s minority Muslim population (brave, eh?). Muslims and others then demonstrate against bigotry and intolerance; right-wing papers abuse them. The Danish PM snubs attempts to discuss the issue - he has an ultra-right coalition partner to pander to. And so it escalates.
Not reading Danish, other Western news sources come in late to the brouhaha and predictably frame the issue as one to do with Islamic intolerance of free speech rather than the Danish Right’s intolerance of Muslim immigrants. Of course, you’d think some sections of their audience would know better…
The Danish authorities could have nipped this in the bud very early on by arguing for the principle of freedom (not that they demonstrate much commitment to that principle, given their “anti-terror” laws) while at the same time condemning anti-Muslim bigotry. They did not do so, for obvious reasons.
I’m not a Dane by the way. I got the background from Danish friends.
Comment by Ohlordylordylord — February 4, 2006 @ 10:42 pm
Since I live in Japan, may I ask Michiko if hers is a Danish name and if she is originally from Denmark and is now (since she speaks of ‘our country’) a naturalised Danish citizen?
Tim Harris
Comment by tim harris — February 4, 2006 @ 11:09 pm
Within the culture of Islam, it has been traditionally forbidden to make likenesses of either God, or the Prophet, for fear of becoming idolatry (which is a HUGE no-no in Islam). While the content of the cartoons is offensive, in many ways, the fact that they even exist is the larger sin.
Muslims are not supposed to make representations of any creature, human or animal, but in the Alhambra in Granada there are statues of lions encircling a fountain in the Court of the Lions, (dating from the 14th century if I recall correctly). This was a gift of a Jewish leader on good terms with the sultan. I overheard a guide saying that because they were created by non-Muslims and given as a goodwill offering, they were acceptable, and in fact are the centerpiece of the courtyard.
Religious laws have always been open to interpretation according to the social and political climate. Offensive or not, it seems that the cartoons in question (which I haven’t seen) are being used as an excuse to express intolerant and extremist views. Swami Beyondananda would say that these people are suffering from “irony deficiency”
Comment by Mad — February 4, 2006 @ 11:14 pm
This is the Swami’s web site.
Comment by Mad — February 4, 2006 @ 11:15 pm
The Swami’s web site is http://www.wakeuplaughing.com/ (I didn’t know that my name would be made into a link…)
Comment by Mad — February 4, 2006 @ 11:17 pm
French prime minister de Villepin has jumped into the Mohamed-depicting fray by claiming that there must be a suitable balance between freedom of expression and respect for religion. For those of who dont keep up with the bizarre sphere of french politics, lets just say that this is a pretty damned ironic statement, as hell is still breaking loose about the separation of church and state in France. For those danes who think the french should mind their own buisness, sorry.
Comment by Gasquest — February 5, 2006 @ 3:47 am
This is basically one huge clusterfuck in progress. On one side, we’ve got the hardine Muslims overreacting like fuck, on the other, as OhLordyLordyLord pointed out, we’ve got the Danish press and cartoonists who deliberately provoked them by printing a cartoon that basically said nothing more complex or intelligent than LOL ISLAM. Call me cold-hearted but I find it hard to sympathise with someone who’s been stoned to death when he’s spent the past month wearing a great big sign saying “PLEASE STONE ME TO DEATH LOL TOWELHEADS”.
One way to sort this out would be if both sides just chalk it up to major-league failures of judgement on both sides and just walk away.
Or they could just blow each other up. That works too.
Comment by Nimrod Gently — February 5, 2006 @ 4:07 am
Ishmael is a wild man, and his hand will be against every man. Thousands of years have gone by, and this is still the same…
Why did Bush lie to the American people and call Islam a religion of peace when it has always been a religion of violent conquest?
NOTE TO BUSH: No one believed you and it was not worth a gallon of gasoline.
Comment by Observer — February 5, 2006 @ 5:03 am
The cartoon seems quite self evident, does it not?
the insane murderous protesters have only shown how accurate the cartoonist really is!
Comment by Observer — February 5, 2006 @ 5:07 am
To Tim Harris:
I am adopted from South Korea and I have a Danish mother and a Japanese father.
Michiko is a Japanese name, but I have several first names because of my mixed background.
I have lived in Denmark since I was 3 months old, and I have also lived and studied in Germany and England.
For all purposes I am Danish, and I am actually very proud of living in a country which has been at the forefront of human rights, environmental protection, foreign aid, equality of sexes, etc. numerous times and which caters for the educational, health, social security and cultural needs of ALL its inhabitants to a level unheard of in most other countries.
And allow me to disagree with those who equate these cartoons with racist utterings against Jews, Blacks etc.
“Race” is a rational concept in the sense that it is relatively easily defined in a public expressions and debate context as hatred against population groups, including Arabs. Hence we have laws regarding racism and freedom of expression which forbids hateful and degrading comments and threats against muslim PEOPLE. Religion on the other hand is in a sense irrational, because it is based on individual faith. I am not trying to mock religious people, I am a Christian myself, but we cannot find absolute, objective truths in religion, and we in Scandinavia and Europe at large have chosen to live in secular societies, where religion is personal rather than political. If we claim that it should be forbidden to insult or critizise religion itself we open up a pandora’s box of potential limitations to life. Take the Christian right-wing in the US. They feel that abortion should be banned because it insults their faith and it is fundamentally wrong. Or Jehovas Witnesses who cannot accept blood transfusions. Or Mormons who believe in polygami. Should we really change the laws for entire populations because of these subjective views on what people should or should not do including being able to dispute and discuss religion at all?
And here’s a thought experiment: Imagine the people of Europe burning flags and committing terrorist attacks on embassies of Arabic nations because our core value of freedom of expression (AND freedom of religion) has been violated over and over again in these countries (as exemplified with the recent imprisonment of the Jordanian editors who chose to print the cartoons) and imagine European civilians and leaders demanding that the Arabic countries apologize for not defering to freedom of expression and change their laws immediately to comply with the way we think society should be. I think I’ll let that passage speak for itself…
And to those who uphold a reationist view of events, i.e. if X does something then they must expect that Y does something in return and hence it’s all X’s fault if X is harmed:
That amounts to saying that women should never wear sexy clothes because then they are responsible for being raped or consequently that extremist muslims would never harm anyone if only we all complied with the teachings of the Quran.
Comment by Michiko — February 5, 2006 @ 7:53 am
Fundamentalist christians advocating killing abortion doctors and protesting clinics should keep in mind the rest of us see you as pretty similar to these muslim guys.
Comment by Infidel — February 5, 2006 @ 2:12 pm
Michiko….. brilliant. Just brilliant. I am gay but I don’t take offence at every daily insult to gays and I don’t expect others to live gay. I have nothing to fear with the Danes, except for occasional hurt feelings. Protest and free speech is good, but people get hurt in violence and inciting to violence.
Comment by Tom — February 5, 2006 @ 3:06 pm
Michiko, the freedom of press/speech argument doesn’t work. If these cartoons had been gross insults against Judaism, people would be sitting in court over it. But because they are insults against Islam, the government ignores it, even though it is a violation of the Danish penal code.
http://www.cagle.com/news/BLOG/BLOGgifs/MohammadCartoons/hajjaj350wide.gif
Countless Muslims have been peacefully demanding an apology, only an apology, from the Danish government for months now. The Danish government refused. Already stationing troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, Denmark has confirmed for 1.5 Billion Muslims it has a beef with them and their religion. Fine then, get your nationals and your embassy out of Muslim countries or else they will be forced out.
Comment by Abe — February 5, 2006 @ 3:13 pm
The Danish government cannot apologize on behalf of a newspaper. Period. In a society which believes in the rule of law only the courts can decide on this matter -our government cannot judge what is right or wrong.
The public prosecutor has recently decided not to put Jyllands-Posten on trial because it is deemed that the drawings could not be interpreted as a violation of Danish blasphemy legislation and hence would not lead to a conviction. Legal experts agree on this interpretation of the law, which is in accordance with precedence. Some muslim organizations in Denmark have naturally used their legally guaranteed right to appeal this decision, and we all await the outcome of that appeal. I think that we should definitely encourage that the PROPER channels are used to dispute the drawings - as opposed to violence, threats, and state-approved attacks against diplomacy.
The last time the law was applied i.e. actually lead to a conviction was in 1938. In the mean time, several Danish artists have been found innocent of blasphemy even though they have produced films, songs etc. which which were highly offensive to christianity or other religions. So the argument that “it’s just because they are muslims that the government doesn’t do anything (which it couldn’t do in the first place mind you)” clearly is a falsum.
I am not concerned about the economic consequences for Danish firms as much as I am worried about the outcome for the people of the Middle East if, as Abe suggests, those countries sever all ties with the European countries, in which some newspapers have chosen to publish the drawings by way of “force”, since they would then exclude themselves from vital economic aid and investment, only adding further to the poverty and unemployment which sadly dominates the region, and which Denmark and other European countries have been trying to combat through EU and bilateral agreements and private sector initiatives. I do not think that a discontinuation of current political and economic ties would be in anyone’s best interest, definitely not for those who care at all about the socioeconomic situation of the Middle East populations, and least of all those of us who desire peace and prosperity for all nations.
Comment by Michiko — February 5, 2006 @ 4:37 pm
Has anyone taken a look at the Egyptian national papers lately? It seems that every day the mainstream press is printing articles about how the Holocaust is a fabrication, the Jews were behind 9-11, and Israel should be destroyed. We have Iranians and Palestinians burning American flags and claiming in large numbers that European values are ’satanic’.
Then these same fundamentalists are so enraged by criticism that they commit arson, and start exhorting murdering the critics?
Imagine if citizens in the US started rampaging, burning Lebanese businesses and government buildings because of editorial cartoons published in a Beirut newspaper. Who would even THINK to suggest that the Lebanese asked for it?
People, for God’s sake, let’s get some perspective here. Who is honestly suggesting that criticism of religious symbols or statements should be unacceptable? Shall we burn Voltaire, then? Or Jonathan Swift? Why stop there - let’s track down Salman Rushdie, and murder him for blasphemy as well.
There is a principle at stake here which is worth defending. That is, no sense of value ascribed to a symbolic artifact makes it immune to critique. Further, there can be no moral equialence made between threatening murder and creating cartoons, no matter how insulting. Let’s get some perspective here, people.
Comment by anonymous9 — February 5, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
Michiko, these governments do not have to apologize on behalf of the newspapers. A flat apology for the Islamophobia represented by these media outlets would be sufficient. An Islamophobia that has arisen by their failure to enforce their own laws against it. They frequently apologize for Anti-Semetism, why not for Islamophobia? It is because unlike Anti-Semetism, Islamophobia is popular on the European street. If these European governments decide they wish to represent this, then they have no business representing it in Muslim countries.
When it comes to cutting off ties with Europe, you should keep in mind two things.
1. The Muslim people will have principles over ‘aid’. The opposite would be dishonorable and to try having both would be hypocritical.
2. This ‘aid’ from Europe goes to the corrupt, oppressive regimes responsible for their people’s poverty to begin with. It is actually, in some ways, desirable for the Muslim public that this be cut off.
On the Secular European media and government offending Christianity. This is true, and Christians should be upset about this. It seems that laws made against negative ethnic sentiment protects neither Muslims or Christians. The only reason we don’t see Christians demonstrating against such intolerable insults, is that they have become thinner than air.
Back to the bottom line. The Danish government has made clear its stance toward the Muslim world. Firstly, by failing to apply their laws fairly. Secondly, by failing to apologize for such imbalance.
Comment by Abe — February 5, 2006 @ 6:10 pm
Many of us in the “third world” find it interesting that when the Iranian president questioned the holocaust, he was condemned by the UN Security Council, US Prez, German Chancellor etc. No one called them irrational opponents of his right to free speech. But when some people ridicule a religious leader, that is a cherished right and freedom. The Iranian leader was rightly chastised. The same should go to the rest of those putting down other religions as well…
Comment by Paul — February 5, 2006 @ 6:41 pm
I saw the cartoons. They’re very offensive.
But come on, that many people are going to get into that much of a tizzy because of some cartoons published in Europe? Give me a break. If some newspaper in Egypt published some extremely nasty cartoons about Christianity, am I going to burn down their embassy? That’s absurd.
Paul says:
“The Iranian leader was rightly chastised. The same should go to the rest of those putting down other religions as well…”
Agreed. And if a large amount of Jews went this completely nut-so about his statements, I’d wonder what the hell was wrong with them. And this is an ELECTED LEADER of Iran, not some cartoonists/newspapers. Get a grip. It’s freedom of speech. We can condemn what they’re saying, but this is waaaay over the line. Move on.
Comment by Scott — February 5, 2006 @ 7:51 pm
I too believe the cartoons are cleverly disguised anti-Islamic speech disguised as “freedom of speech” […or maybe not so clever, since the disguise is not so subtle].
I can just here the likes of Lance [poo-pooer of Santa]chanting:
There is no god but freedom, and my western liberal democracy is the prophet!
When can I get beamed up? I am so sick of the endless repetition of history!!!
In the eternal words of the non-prophet [jajaja, see, sense of humor, not hope, is the last thing to die] Rodney King:
CAN’T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?
Comment by Niyyah — February 5, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
Scott, the problem isn’t with the cartoons. The Muslim reaction to the cartoons in themselves was calm anger, not even demonstrations, for months. The problem is the Danish government’s reaction; 1. Failure to enforce its laws on Islamophobes the same as it enforces its laws on Anti-Semites, 2. Failure to apologize for 1. If you are a Jew, and you see Denmark enforcing its laws on Islamophobes, but not Anti-Semites, and then refusing to apologize for this policy, you should damn well expel Danish nationals and the Danish embassy from Israel (with force if necessary) and boycott all Danish products on the Israeli market. If you don’t, you have no honor or self-respect. The Danish government would have proven its solidarity with Anti-Semetism, and as a proud Jew you should be enraged. So Denmark has now proven its solidarity with Islamophobia, and the Muslim world is rightly enraged.
Comment by Abe — February 5, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
I also see many people, including the US government making reference to Anti-Semetic cartoons in the Muslim world. As if to say the Muslim world is being hypocritical, offended by Islamophobic cartoons while producing Anti-Semetic cartoons. There is a couple problems with this.
1. Israel produces Islamophobic cartoons. So that the Muslim world expects more respect from Denmark than it gives Israel is not hypocrisy. Israel does not respect the Muslim world, and so the Muslim world does not repect Israel in return. Danish/Muslim relations are apart from Israeli/Muslim relations.
2. No Muslim cartoon was so Anti-Semetic as to deride the founder(s) of Judaism. It would be one thing for Denmark to have unapologetically published Arab/Muslim caricatures. This is done very often with no uproar. But Denmark is defending an insult on the central Prophet of Islam.
Comment by Abe — February 5, 2006 @ 8:45 pm
Wait a minute.
I’m not familiar with Danish Law, but I know it in the US of A. I certainly support the right of newspapers to publish any type of Anti-Jewish, Anti-Christian, Anti-Muslim, racist, sexist, anti-gay, etc, etc, etc, tripe it wants. I support the right of the Nazi Party or the KKK or any other hate group to exist-although I have certainly protested the former.
If Denmark has made it illegal to make anti-Jewish cartoons, they are wrong.
I could point out that various people, media outlets and governments in the Muslim world routinely say insanely hateful things. In fact, so do many people in the West. So what?
Some “artist” smears the crucifix in feces. Is that offensive? Of course. Should we start burning down buildings in New York, or anywhere else where this is displayed? No. Ignore the idiot.
Imagine if some newspaper showed such a display, and the entire Christian world was in such rage. Sheesh. Even our “Religious Right” imbeciles aren’t this bad.
Comment by Scott — February 5, 2006 @ 9:21 pm
Wait a minute.
I’m not familiar with Danish Law, but I know it in the US of A. I certainly support the right of newspapers to publish any type of Anti-Jewish, Anti-Christian, Anti-Muslim, racist, sexist, anti-gay, etc, etc, etc, tripe it wants. I support the right of the Nazi Party or the KKK or any other hate group to exist-although I have certainly protested the former.
If Denmark has made it illegal to make anti-Jewish cartoons, they are wrong.
I could point out that various people, media outlets and governments in the Muslim world routinely say insanely hateful things. In fact, so do many people in the West. So what?
Some “artist” smears the crucifix in feces. Is that offensive? Of course. Should we start burning down buildings in New York, or anywhere else where this is displayed? No. Ignore the idiot.
Imagine if some newspaper showed such a display, and the entire Christian world was in such rage. Sheesh. Even our “Religious Right” imbeciles aren’t this bad.
Comment by Scott — February 5, 2006 @ 9:22 pm
I don’t think there is any danger of idolatry with these particular cartoons. So that argument sorta caves in on itself.
Comment by nate G- — February 5, 2006 @ 10:47 pm
Is it just my imagination, or are all those signs written with the same pen and handwriting?
Comment by magic mark(er) — February 5, 2006 @ 10:56 pm
Important things to keep in mind.
They are not protesting in an effort to enforce the ‘No Drawing Muhammed’ rule on the West. Muhammed has been drawn numerous times in the West without protest from Muslims.
They are not protesting because these cartoons were offensive, although they did find them offensive. There have been countless cartoons made in the West and elsewhere that are offensive to Muslims with no protest.
They are protesting because the Danish government did not enforce its laws against Islamophobia as it has enforced its laws against Racism and Anti-Semetism, and because the Danish government refused to apologize for this discriminatory policy.
They have attacked the Danish embassies because they will not tolerate a Danish government in their countries that will not tolerate them in Denmark.
The average Westerner is looking at this as a bunch of radical Muslims over reacting to silly little cartoons. This is not the situation at all. The cartoons in themselves had very little reaction in the Muslim world for months. It is how the Danish government has revealed its double standard against Muslims which is the subject of Islamic rage.
Comment by Abe — February 5, 2006 @ 11:17 pm
(1) This cartoon thing is being pushed by certain political forces in the Muslim world (NOT Saudi Arabia’s government) which find it a convenient opportunity to amass support. The Egyptian government seems to have been first, seeing this as a chance to win points with Islamicists back home (who normally support the Muslim Brotherhood, not the secular government) without actually having to do anything. See Juan Cole’s blog at www.juancole.com
(2) So what kind of newspapers are we talking about here? Tabloids?
(3) I liked a couple of the cartoons but many were puerile and of course, needlessly inflammatory. It’s a bit like intentionally belching in church–legal surely, but a bad thing to do, even if one doesn’t believe in the church’s teachings. If the editors were determined to fan the flames of civilizational war, surely a more elevating topic could have been chosen…?
(4) Yes, the world is full of immoderate, dangerous people. What to do…?
Comment by Dawud — February 6, 2006 @ 3:43 am
Many of the comments posted above are why I have become so disillusioned with the American left that I have abandon any association with it: The cartoons are “hate speech;” this is really about Muslim oppression; equating it with Christian objections to Piss-Christ and Osama Christ. Calling the cartoons “racist.” What a crock.
What we have here is a global campaign against free speech. A campaign whose goal is to create global anti-blasphemy laws. And so much of the left seems willing to consider this campaign “reasonable” so long as it is carried out through boycotts rather than riots.
What would the left of the Berkeley Free Speech movement think of the “multicultural sensitivity” left of today.
Pre 9/11, the left expressed vocal outrage against the fatwa on Salmn Rushdie; post 9/11, the left sticks it tail between its leg and call for understanding the fascists campaign against free speech. This MUST be a new low point for liberty-lovers.
Comment by once left — February 6, 2006 @ 3:56 am
The Danish government refused to apologize because there was nothing to apologize about. The cartoons may have been offensive, but political cartoons are not Family Circus, they are meant to make people think. Right now, when radical Islamic terrorism is one of the biggest problems for many governments, is it really that weird that someone would eventually draw a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb? To me, this signals a problem with the thousands of Muslims who use Mohammed as an excuse to kill, not of racism or religious intolerance. On the topic of racial intolerance, I would also like to know where all the outrage was for the thousands of times elected leaders in the Arab world mocked and threatened Jews, Christians and secular governments?
And as for the “Danish government will not tolerate them in Denmark” quote. Muslims and other foreigners living in Denmark and many other European countries are, for the most part, treated with respect and tolerance.
This whole outrage over the cartoons seems to be an excuse for violent fanatics to burn some flags and buildings. The images of these violent protests and fires have done more to hurt Islam than any cartoon.
Comment by GranadaJoe — February 6, 2006 @ 5:38 am
yeah, and the extremism captures all kinds — the Vatican released an official response that said that freedom of expression should be protected, but also that it shouldn’t be allowed to offend believers. great…
Comment by acm — February 6, 2006 @ 7:09 am
I think it needs to be pointed out that some of the Danish imams whipping up their congregations about this have taken it upon themselves to add a few *really* offensive drawings to the pool; this from http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?m=20060116 -
“[…]Danish Muslim leaders who have been touring the world explaining how offensive the cartoons are have actually added three cartoons to the original twelve: one depicting Mohammed as a paedophile demon, one of him with the snout of a pig, and another of a praying Muslim being sodomised by a dog.” (links to pics at URL).
Comment by Joe — February 6, 2006 @ 7:23 am
The correct way to handle such insulting cartoons (or anything else) would be to send mail to the magazine, boycott, and protest it. Calling for anyone’s death is way out.
I understand that Muslims in Europe feel oppressed and powerless. This is not the way to go. Look at Martin Luther King and Ghandi…but, of course, it’s probably too late for non-violence.
Comment by Andrew — February 6, 2006 @ 9:08 am
abe said:
I don’t think we can really speculate on what the average Muslim throwing firebombs at embassies is angry about specifically, but he’s probably not familiar with the intricate details of Danish law regarding hate speech or “Islamophobia”.
In the U.S. we have the right to practice any religion we want. We have the right to think other religions are stupid. We have the right to draw cartoons depicting religious leaders as stupid, short, fat, ugly, poorly dressed, rude, or violent. We have the right to be offended when others say that our religions or religious leaders are stupid, and we have the right to say so.
But we can’t do anything we want to; some actions are disallowed by law, because they infringe on the rights of others. Thus, we do not have the right to threaten others with violence. We do not have the right to destroy property or burn down buildings that do not belong to us. We do not have the right to fire automatic weapons into the air on public streets. We do not have the right to take people captive.
What exactly is the question at hand? Is it OK to make offensive cartoons? Yes. Is it OK to burn down embassies? No.
Comment by a libertarian — February 6, 2006 @ 11:58 am
Four words sum up this controversy, as well as that which will be the history of the upcoming century:
All fundamentalists are assholes.
Comment by Cakesniffer — February 6, 2006 @ 1:39 pm
- As others have said, I seriously doubt that the protesters have any knowledge of particular Danish laws and how they should be applied. In addition, attacks on missions of Norway, Austria and the US in the past couple days have shown that this is not a targeted, rational protest with a specific argument.
- It doesn’t make any more sense for the Danish govt to apologize than it would for Washington to apologize for something published in the NY Times. The beauty of freedom of speech and freedom of press is that the press is neither beholden to or a representative of the government.
- In fact, one thought that keeps turning over in my head is how the lack of freedom of press in most of the protesters’ countries relates to their reaction. If you were from a country where all press is reviewed and approved by the government than it would seem to make sense that items published in any other media outlet would somehow be a symbol of a national stance. As we know, items printed in a Danish newspaper have no direct effect on Denmark’s public policy (unlike, for example, an Iranian or Palestinian leader calling for the destruction of Isreal).
I’m not sure anyone I’ve read can accurately explain this explosion of violence and rioting. After so many incidents and controversies in the past few years, what makes this particular one different? Was it just the “straw that broke the camel’s back?” Perhaps the roots of these feelings run too deep in the history of colonialism and oppression by the west for westerners to grasp. Or perhaps it is a product of thousands of years of tribal culture blended with an extremely passionate religion and pressed into the modern world. Or perhaps it is simply a worldview that we, so used to our rational thinking and methodical avenues of change, can’t fully understand. In any case, the violence is something we would not tolerate in our own communities and should not tolerate elsewhere. Unfortunately, the key to changing the gut reaction of millions of people has yet to be discovered.
Comment by bpgbpg — February 6, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
There are so many bottom lines to this enterprise; you’ll never know when to stop digging. The direct action of the editors and cartoonist show something very much prevalant to the case. We have very grave concerns at the very least, outright fear at the very worst. A democracy cannot flourish under theocratic rule. And if anything that the past two free elections in both Palestine and Iraq will tell us, is that democracy is going to find a very very hard toe hold in most muslim countries with the extremists firmly entrenched. What we can hope is that these cartoons do what all political cartoons are supposed to do. Reach across boundries and issue a calling to cooler heads. It makes me wonder how long the moderates in muslim countries will stand for allowing terroists abusing thier religion. I mean, most christians hold no love for Jim Jones. If it does anything, I hope it reaches out to the peaceful muslims, telling them, in effect: This is the world, you must make a change.
Comment by Tyler — February 6, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
Has anyone noticed the
contemplative scholars/theologians
on cable tv in the past few weeks?
Has anyone seen “What The Bleep Do We Know”
Of course, the idiots are also shown.
THIS is the Awakening…the so called end times.
…the rapture if you dont mind.
When all the major religions gently fall
away the power structure struggle(holy war)
ends.
The Creation is all there is.
google UGK julius.it
to see very strange dialog.
i am not an atheist.
i dont know that i know anything.
Simplicity is the key.
The Creator expresses as the
Sacred Feminine…dont faint.
JC was NOT an xtian.
.
Comment by meL — February 6, 2006 @ 6:22 pm
I quoted Rodney King without really thinking about it, but the riots in the Muslim world remind me of the LA riots in 1991. It seems like a long time ago, but it caused a great impression on me, having lived in LA and experienced all the god-damn racial tension that city is capable of producing (seen the movie Crash?). Remember that it was not the actual beating of Rodney King but the court ruling that the LAPD could do so with impunity that sparked the riots.
Speaking of riots, how about the Muslim riots in France? The problem with supposed bastions of liberty like France is that they are so fucking intolerant of everything non-French. They go in and take colonies in Africa and now they cry that they have all these colonial immigrants! Boo-hoo-hoo! Too fucking bad, assholes! Did you think you could just go in and colonize the south and then just walk away from it all?
Thank God or Allah or whatever the fuck rules the universe I do not live in Europe!!! Think about it… The Danes are not so far from the folks that brought you genocide in the 20th century.
Comment by Niyyah — February 6, 2006 @ 7:06 pm
Doesn’t it seem strange that every protest sign is written in English. (All by the same hand as others have pointed out.) If you are protesting Denmark, should there not be Danish signs. I mean you’ve gone through the trouble of translating, shouldn’t you be able to find a translator that also speaks Danish?
Also, not one of these “protestors” has shown up with a sign in their native language, something that would surely happen were this a spotaneous protest, the result of general outrage.
To the extemists, there is only the middle east, and the “west”, thus everything is written in the perceived language of the west, and not in Danish, German, or French, the countries at which their anger is directed. I guess everyone just picked up a sign from the pile when they showed up at the protest site.
If the CNN and BBC cameras did not show up, would there even be a protest?
Comment by Dubious — February 7, 2006 @ 8:55 am
I think the water is muddied by a number of the cartoons being clearly racist.
I don’t see any of them being racist. How did you figure that?
Comment by chris mankey — February 7, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
Are you kidding? Let’s look at the nature of this for real..
The true God says : I give my “ONE” son to die for you so that you “ALL” live forever!
This False god of Islam says: Give me “all” of your sons to die for me and I’ll let “them” live forever. The rest of you are a “maybe”?
The true God says: I am love and love conquers all!
The false god is Islam says: Death to all that oppose me, death conquers all!
The True God says: I come that you might have “life” and have it more completley.
Tee false God of Islam says “no” freedom outside of me and my law!
When one accepts the true God into their lives, they learn to love their nieghbor no matter what they beleive.
When one decides to follow the false god of Islam, they must either convert thier neighbor or kill them?
Strange thing about all of the above. The false god of Islam has the exact same nature as Satan. Could it be that Satan himself has decieved 1.5 billion people into following him through another name? The answer is simple. Yes he has..
Comment by Michael — February 15, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
Are you kidding? Let’s look at the nature of this for real..
The true God says : I give my “ONE” son to die for you so that you “ALL” live forever!
This False god of Islam says: Give me “all” of your sons to die for me and I’ll let “them” live forever. The rest of you are a “maybe”?
The true God says: I am love and love conquers all!
The false god is Islam says: Death to all that oppose me, death conquers all!
The True God says: I come that you might have “life” and have it more completley.
Tee false God of Islam says “no” freedom outside of me and my law!
When one accepts the true God into their lives, they learn to love their nieghbor no matter what they beleive.
When one decides to follow the false god of Islam, they must either convert thier neighbor or kill them?
Strange thing about all of the above. The false god of Islam has the exact same nature as Satan. Could it be that Satan himself has decieved 1.5 billion people into following him through another name? The answer is simple. Yes he has..
Comment by Michael — February 15, 2006 @ 1:08 pm