Sunday, February 12, 2006

The anti-Islam cartoons and the world-wide protest they have inflamed

Normally I try not to post comments on this site without photos or graphics (often lifted from other web sites without permission). In this case I have chosen to violate that practice. I believe that freedom of the press works two ways: it gives me the right to print (almost) anything I think is politically important or sometimes just funny, but it also gives me the freedom not to post anything I think is wrong.In this case, not because the Danish cartoons are offensive, (I post lots of stuff that will offend some people), but because I think the cartoons are fundamentally dishonest and present a false image of Muhammad and Islam. I simply don't believe that exercising freedom of the press requires me to defame anyone. Acton H. Gorton, The editor of the Daily Illini, after struggling with the same problem came to a different conclusion, here's some of what he said:
To the right [you'll have to click on the link to actually see the cartoons, that's your choice -Dan] you'll see a series of cartoons about the Islamic prophet Muhammad that have fueled a firestorm of debate all over the world.

These cartoons are bigoted and insensitive to the Islamic faith because they are depictions of the prophet Muhammad. In much of the Muslim faith, there is an absolute ban on drawing or portraying religious figures. I agree they are bigoted and insensitive, as do many others.

However, this serious controversy has not been addressed by the press. By refusing to run the cartoons, Americans have no idea how "offensive" they are. The ensuing death threats, riots, murders and laying siege to embassies, leave most of us confused and appalled. [more].

(Also check out the editorials in the current issue of The nation)

In the same issue of The Nation, Gary Younge says:
The right to offend must come with at least one consequent right and one subsequent responsibility. people must have the right to be offended, and those bold enough to knowingly cause offense should be bold enough to weather the consequences, so long as the aggrieved respond within the law. [In this case] Muslims were in effect being vilified twice - once through the original cartoons and then again for having the gall to protest them. Such logic recalls the words of the late South African Black nationalist Steve Biko: 'Not only are whites kicking us; they tell us how to react to being kicked.'

This whole issue takes me back to my childhood and the mantra: "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me." (No matter how offensive).
In other words, being dis-respected isn't an excuse for violence outside a New York City Hip hop studio or in the Middle East.

No comments: