Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Slippery Slope of Self-Censorship

By David Morris, AlterNet. Posted February 14, 2006.


As the violence over the cartoons expands, we are no closer to defining the boundaries of free speech in an age of growing religious fundamentalism.
021406_story
The Slippery Slope of Self-Censorship

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by David Morris

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Earlier this month, even as the Danish and Norwegian embassy buildings were still ablaze, the New York Times noted a report that a "leader of Hezbollah" had declared that if Salman Rushdie had been killed, the Danes never would have dared to publish their cartoons.

Rushdie, of course, is the author of "The Satanic Verses," published in September 1988. Rushdie's novel contained no visual depictions of Mohammed; in one section of the work, however, a deranged man has a dream in which he mocks Mohammed and the Koran.

"The Satanic Verses" was met with widespread critical acclaim, winning Britain's most lucrative book award, the Whitbread Prize. The Muslim community, however, expressed deep dissatisfaction.

In February 1989, the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini issued a religious edict. He called for Rushdie's death, for blasphemy. His fatwa extended also to "those publishers who were aware of its contents … I call on all zealous Muslims to execute them quickly, wherever they find them, so that no one will dare to insult Islam again …" Iran offered a $1 million reward to spur Rushdie's execution.

Rushdie went into hiding, protected by the British police. The Japanese translator of "The Satanic Verses" was stabbed to death. The Italian translator was also stabbed, although he survived. The Norwegian publisher was shot; he too survived.

By 2001, Rushdie had begun again to appear in public, although usually without advance notice. That fall, his publisher booked an extensive tour for his new, noncontroversial book. Rushdie had long since apologized for the offensive comments contained in "The Satanic Verses," although the book remained in print. Time seemed to have calmed the waters.

And then came Sept. 11.

In October, Washington University in St. Louis canceled its invitation to Rushdie to deliver a talk as part of the reopening of its International Writers Center. The center's director cited security concerns.

"It must be remembered that people who were killed when the fatwa was issued against Rushdie were translators and publishers," he argued. "In this current climate, people at Washington University were not being at all unreasonable to think that they might be targets after Rushdie left because we had invited him."

Rushdie's publisher canceled the entire book tour. Asked to write an op-ed in the New York Times about the affair, Rushdie counseled, "How to defeat terrorism? Don't be terrorized. Don't let fear rule your life. Even if you are scared."

In 2004, the Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was murdered two months after the release of his short documentary, "Submission," which was about violence against Muslim women. His film did not caricature Mohammed.

The precipitating cause for the publication of the Danish cartoons occurred in mid-September 2005. An article appeared in Politiken, a Danish newspaper, under the headline, "Profound fear of criticism of Islam."

The article described how one Danish writer was initially unable to find an illustrator willing to illustrate his children's book about Mohammed because they feared violent attacks by Muslims. According to Wikipedia's thorough (and ongoing) coverage of developments, "The refusal of the first three artists to participate was seen as evidence of self-censorship and led to much debate in Denmark, with other examples … soon emerging."

In reaction to that debate, Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of the Jyllands-Posten (Jutland's Post), invited members of the Danish cartoonists union "to draw Mohammed as they see him." In an article accompanying the cartoons, Rose informed the newspaper's readers that he had commissioned the drawings out of concern that a secular society based on freedom of speech was in the process of censoring itself, not out of respect for a religion, but out of fear that if it did anything that was viewed as offensive to a particular religion, violence and even murder could result. "… (W)e are on our way to a slippery slope where no one can tell how the self-censorship will end," Rose warned.

The 12 cartoons were published on Sept. 30, 2005. In the light of the violence they may have stimulated, a non-Muslim like myself must confess they appear remarkably tame.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

David Morris is co-founder and vice president of the Institute for Local Self Reliance in Minneapolis, Minn., and director of its New Rules project.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
great account + religion is not the issue
Posted by: philame on Feb 14, 2006 2:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in Denmark and have been following the American coverage of the cartoon scandal. This is the most complete account I have read.

One important missing piece though is that ambassadors from Muslim countries in Denmark requested a meeting with Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen to discuss if the editors of JP could be punished under law for their actions but he refused the meeting. Rasmussen argued that to meet with the ambassadors would compromise Danes right to free speech. Fair enough but he could have called for another meeting where he LISTENED to why they took offense, why they wanted the editors to be censured and try to build understanding. He didn't do that which imo in part led to the escalation but does not exaplin it all.

The questions raised in this article are fair but there's another important question to ask: how and why the violent demonstrators got permission by some very restrictive regimes to go out and do the sort of violence they did. What are the regimes/governments getting out of it? I'd say legitimacy in the eyes of their repressed populations. That repression and manipulation is important to talk about not religion.

The clash of civilisations take on this issue is not productive. If it is possible to reduce this issue to two sides, I'd say it is a clash between democratic and non-democratic forces - not religions.

On a final note, this caught my attention from the article:
"And when violence broke out, the Western media largely confirmed his worst fears. They reported the violence and the Muslim community's feeling of rage at being disrespected. But they refused to show the images that purportedly so offended them that it led them to condone that violence."

That was really the British and American media that did that - not the "Western media". Several continental European papers published the cartoons as a sign of solidarity with JP. I am not arguing that it was right, but simply pointing out that not all Western media refused to print the cartoons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Right ON. Posted by: dirkster42
» RE: ight ON. Posted by: Jayzer
» Third way - starters. Posted by: dirkster42
» RE: Third way - starters. Posted by: Jayzer
» Hey Sambo! Posted by: Citizendeane
Look beneath the radar
Posted by: hwashen on Feb 14, 2006 3:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is hard to imagine two cultures with more differences at the core values level than Islam and Scandinavia. At the root of the problem is a profound lack of cultural awareness, compounded by an unfortunate error in editorial judgment that is steeped in the tradition of freedom of expression as an inalienable right. The Muslim response is perceived by the west to be out of proportion, but without an understanding of Muslim values it is impossible to comprehend the magnitude of the insult. Abstractions like “honour” and “sacred” have very different meanings in the parallel worlds we inhabit. It’s about time we started learning about the differences that can inflict pain and suffering on others. The word missing in most of the dialogue I have heard on the subject to date is “respect.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "magnitude of the insult" Posted by: codingguy
» RE: "magnitude of the insult" Posted by: outsidea
» RE: "magnitude of the insult" Posted by: codingguy
» so-called genocide Posted by: codingguy
» RE: "magnitude of the insult" Posted by: YogiBear
» What's to respect ? Posted by: AdamSelene11726
Freedom of speach or sensationalist racism? Ignorance or Provocation?
Posted by: IanA on Feb 14, 2006 3:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
HH the Aga Kahn at Evora University Symposium during his recent visit to Portugal:

"This brings me back to the current headlines. For I must believe that it is ignorance which explains the publishing of those caricatures which have brought such pain to Islamic peoples. I note that the Danish journal where the controversy originated acknowledged, in a recent letter of apology, that it had never realized the sensitivities involved.

In this light, perhaps, the controversy can be described less as a clash of civilizations and more as a clash of ignorance. The alternative explanation would be that the offense was intended—in which case we would be confronted with evil of a different sort. But even to attribute the problem to ignorance is in no way to minimize its importance. In a pluralistic world, the consequences of ignorance can be profoundly damaging.

Perhaps, too, it is ignorance which has allowed so many participants in this discussion to confuse liberty with license –implying that the sheer absence of restraint on human impulse can constitute a sufficient moral framework. This is not to say that governments should censor offensive speech. Nor does the answer lie in violent words or violent actions. But I am suggesting that freedom of expression is an incomplete value unless it is used honorably, and that the obligations of citizenship in any society should include a commitment to informed and responsible expression.

If we can commit ourselves, on all sides, to that objective, then the current crisis could become an educational opportunity—an occasion for enhanced awareness and broadened perspectives.

Ignorance, arrogance, insensitivity—these attitudes rank high among the great public enemies of our time. And the educational enterprise, at its best, can be an effective antidote to all of them."

For those who have less knowledge of Danish daily Jyllands-Posten I suggest you read the Denmark and Jyllands-Posten: The background to a provocation

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Your suggestion is wrong Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Your suggestion is wrong Posted by: tiffanybrown76
» RE: Your suggestion is wrong Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Your suggestion is wrong Posted by: saywhat?
no need to fear ideas
Posted by: Asses of Evil on Feb 14, 2006 3:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By insulating ourselves from ideas, we elevate the cartoons to a more elevated place from which it is difficult to discuss them reasonably and therefore, when Muslims riot, we cannot really counter them because, well, we don't even know what they're rioting about. The only way to change bad ideas is by presenting better ideas. If we pretend that the bad ideas are somehow protected and so dangerous that they cannot even be seen, well, it sort of justifies the contempt that we see the rioting exemplifies. Do we really think that if Muslims had all seen the cartoons that they would have been rioting? Do you really think that every single rioter saw the cartoons over breakfast, finished their coffee, and went out, deciding to riot? No, this is a mob mentality, comparable to any other mob mentality in which people just join a herd and follow the crowd. Really, the only way to address controversial ideas without giving them the added sheen of being taboo is to talk about them, as Nat Hentoff has said with regard to this cartoon controversy. The rioters are not reflective of Muslims as a whole but why should we be scared of ideas?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

fwiw
Posted by: Asses of Evil on Feb 14, 2006 4:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Apparently the Danish publisher is quite a conservative provocateur; via Juan Cole, I found this extremely generous interview of American conservative Daniel Pipes (who's called for internment of Muslims post-9/11/01). Again, not that this warrants anything, but it's obvious that this guy is a bit of a provocateur; Juan Cole has lots more v. useful information about him, including that he wouldn't include any blasphemous Christian cartoons. http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=10253

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: fwiw Posted by: codingguy
» RE: fwiw Posted by: Asses of Evil
» RE: fwiw Posted by: codingguy
» RE: fwiw Posted by: Asses of Evil
» RE: fwiw Posted by: Llama11
» RE: fwiw Posted by: brunowe
Religion is nuts
Posted by: Moonray on Feb 14, 2006 4:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why should reasonable people feel constrained from criticizing belief systems that are based only on myths and fallacies? Shouldn't the burden be on the zealots to prove their beliefs are true, or at least reasonably possible, before they become publicly offended?

Is an assertion -- no matter how wacky -- validated because large numbers of people believe it? Was the Inquisition justified in tearing out the entrails of anyone who failed to acknowledge the existence of witches?

Were the devotees of Mao Zedong justified in beating to death those who failed to follow the Little Red Book? Should Western critics have "exercised responsibility" or "showed respect" in condemning those acts of violence?

The rioting Moslems may be miffed, but they lack standing in the court of reasoned justice. Their religion has the same validity as any other -- none. It's just a hodgepodge of old stories and wishful thinking.

What is especially sad is that even the so-called Enlightened West still is bullied into kowtowing to the lunacies of religion. Even our most august institutions begin their proceedings with pitiful supplications to invisible supernatural beings. Ridiculous!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: religion is nuts Posted by: Poederbach
» RE: eligion is nuts Posted by: diamondvajra
» RE: eligion is nuts Posted by: Charaud
» RE: eligion is nuts Posted by: AlterNug
» Oh, please. Posted by: dirkster42
» RE: Oh, please. Posted by: codingguy
» RE: Oh, please. Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: Oh, please. Posted by: YogiBear
The response of the West should be ...
Posted by: Doug on Feb 14, 2006 6:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... the simple, calm assertion that our citizens, as free men and women, have the right to criticize, mock, lampoon and caricature anything they want to. Period.

We should NOT say "We respect Islam". We don't, really, any more than we respect snake-handling Southern fundamentalists. If a modern, secularized Islam emerges, as someday it must, then it can be accorded the same respect as we atheists accord Christians who leave us alone. Even then, we may note that the last real achievements of Islamic civilization were many centuries ago. Perhaps when they become liberal democracies, the achievements will start again.

Note that the Left has caricatured Jesus Christ for decades, with no problem at all, to the great distress of some Christians. Look up "Piss Christ".

What good can come of this? Perhaps now we will cease hearing the stupid bleating that "Well, we have fundamentalists too..." Our fundamentalists might as well be Voltaire himself, compared to real fundamentalists, the murdering kind.

And this should help to shut the mouths of the Islamist apologists in the West who want to portray the Muslim fundamentalists as basically poor little victims of Western imperialism. Let us hope Lyn Stewart serves every day of her twenty-year sentence.

And it should radically change the terms of the debate on immigration in Europe at least. For decades, anyone who questioned the wisdom of allowing in millions of people from a very different culture, was called a "racist". This sort of dishonest slander will be much harder to get away with now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here we go, again... 1984
Posted by: Liberal on Feb 14, 2006 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the FCC becomes more powerful and stronger, able to do whatever they please, without anyone willing to stand up for what is right and stand up to them, then our world will change into a totalitarian government, thus the book: 1984.

Stand up to the FCC, NSA and anyone who is trying to change our world into a totalitarian government, before it's too late.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SELF CENSORSHIP IS IMPERATIVE-NOT GOV'T CENSORSHIP
Posted by: drricklippin on Feb 14, 2006 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A free press goes to the very core of democracy. However to incite violence goes beyond the boundries of that freedom. It harms. I am against any Gov't restrictions on a free press whatsoever. I am for lawsuits against an irresponsible press when they cause direct harm. While there is culpability on both sides the print and electronic media needs to self regulate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: brunowe is sober and smart Posted by: drricklippin
» RE: brunowe is sober and smart Posted by: codingguy
» RE: FREE SPEECH SCHOLARS Posted by: drricklippin
» RE: FREE SPEECH SCHOLARS Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: brunowe is sober and smart Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: YogiBear- READ MY POSTS! Posted by: drricklippin
» RE: YogiBear- READ MY POSTS! Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: brunowe is sober and smart Posted by: codingguy
» Start at the top Posted by: YogiBear
What if the caricatures were...
Posted by: Jesse on Feb 14, 2006 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've seen the cartoons involved. Some were sort of interesting, but most depicted the bearded arab in a way that reminded me of black-face caricatures of an earlier age.

The fact is, a lot of these cartoons could be seen as pretty insulting -- if I could post the ones I mean here I would, but besides the bomb-in-turban one (which could easily be seen as conflating muslims with terrorists) and the somewhat anti-immigrant tone of the kid by the blackboard, there's the one with a masked-out OBL caricature, the one with Mohammed as a devil-- (the moon crescent makes a set of horns). I mean, come on, folks, they weren't that innocent.

Do I think the violence is justified? No, but imagine if someone had done similar caricatures of black people in the US, and ask if you would blame people for getting righteously mad. It isn't just a free speech issue, though the Danish paper has the right to publish the images.

To a Muslim, this would be just plain insulting, and I think in isolation this mighn't have been so crazy. But coupled with repeated insults, (invasion of Iraq, detaining muslim citizens, allowing the Israelis to declare open season on the Palestinians) it gets blown up.

Another thing: you think for one second the Saudi people (or Pakistanis, or many others in the Muslim world) are unaware that the dictators in their country are supported by us? (Quick fact check: Mubarak and Kings Hussein and Fahd, Musharraf, are all US cronies. Other countries have made moves towards democracy in SPITE of the US, and often with its active opposition).

Put the cartoons in that light, and see if the violence seems so senseless, nor does it seem that Muslims don't understand free speech, as though they had differently structured brains or something. They understand it quite well--but these folks were already mad at policy decisions made by Westen governments. They don't hate our freedom, they hate the policies that keep them un-free. Then the cartoons come out.

I say no to the violence, but the white slum lord who walks into an East New York neighborhood and says "this is all the fault of you black folks, you don't understand values," deserves what he gets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What if the caricatures were... Posted by: tiffanybrown76
Rioting. Burning. Pillaging. Looting.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Feb 14, 2006 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cartoon rioters are burning government buildings and destroying the business and livelihoods of "Westerners" in Pakistan.

Why? How do you do this to your fellow man over a cartoon? It's easy when you don't consider "Westerners" to be your fellow man, but "infidels" and "dogs" to be--at best--tolerated.

It's not a clash between religions, or civilizations, or societies. It's a clash between humananity and those who would dehumanize others for ANY reason. That this reason is a cartoon, though, does speak volumes about those who pillage and burn to enforce the will of their God upon others.

I won't make the comparison to the people of Nazi Germany who stormed the businesses and destroyed the livelihood of Jewish people, prior to the genocidal acts. The ideology may be the same; the scale isn't right.

Yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I wouldn't bother. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» It helps to put it in context Posted by: YogiBear
» Check the timestamp Posted by: YogiBear
representation of Mohammed
Posted by: cyberfactotum on Feb 14, 2006 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why exactly does Islam forbid any representation of Mohammed? Are there passages in the Koran that refer to this? Do all Muslims subscribe to this prohibition?

And what precisely is and is not a “representation”? A drawing? Sculpture? I guess photographs are not an issue, unless they are pictures of the Mohammed portraits in Istanbul's museum? Did Salman Rushdie receive his death threat because he “represented” Mohammed in his fictional descriptions and dialog? I am “referring” to Mohammed here, I am assuming, but would I be “representing” him if I were to give a physical description, say what he might be wearing or doing?

Does dreaming of Mohammed count as a representation? Imagining him? Does asking these very questions impinge upon representing Mohammed?

All this would be good to know, from the point of view of a fundamentalist clerics (or whoever this prohibition is really important to), just to be aware what the playing field rules are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: representation of Mohammed Posted by: outsidea
» RE: representation of Mohammed Posted by: codingguy
» RE: representation of Mohammed Posted by: codingguy
» RE: representation of Mohammed Posted by: cyberfactotum
Bogus Cartoons?
Posted by: amalgamatedspats on Feb 14, 2006 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can you link us to where you got the information regarding the bogus cartoons?

A quick scroogle search shows that the imams never claimed that the extra cartoons were published, and that this was made clear in the dossier. According to them these were cartoons that had been sent anonymously to Danish Muslims. Apparently the recipients of the cartoons have refused interview requests. This is all according to the Sydney Morning Herald.

According to CNS news (whoever they are), the delegation may have given the impression, intentionally or otherwise, that Jyllands-Posten was owned or controlled by the government.

Like any big story, there has been a lot of misinformation on both sides. Have any reputable sources translated the dossier and made it available to the public?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All this over cartoons?
Posted by: Againstthewindwalking on Feb 14, 2006 12:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So basicly what we have here, is that if you draw cartoons showing Muslims to be violent and intolerant, they will prove themselves to be violent and intolerant!

I'm not downing anyone's religion here. You can buy any line of shit you want! But if you come to the town I live in acting a fool, killing people and burning shit, over a bunch of cartoons, you're going to find out we still believe in the Second Amendment as well as the first, and the third!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: All this over cartoons? Posted by: brunowe
Useless comment
Posted by: Holland on Feb 14, 2006 1:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush 1, The Teminator; Bush 2, Judgement Day; Bush 3, Rise of the Machines… I’m shivering with the thought… but I’m alive… which is more than I can say for this Administration. The vampire strikes back, so we’d better think of ways to outsmart him. Long live Van Helsing.

Useless comment, I won’t cry when it’s ignored, but I needed to make it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Remember Sinead?
Posted by: crazyoglala on Feb 14, 2006 1:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wouldnt it be nice to reference Sinead O'Connors performance on Saturday Night Live a while back when she tore a photo of the Pope in front of a live studio audience?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Remember Sinead? Posted by: Ghoulman
CARTOON CENSORSHIP? WHAT'S FUNDANENTALLY NEXT?
Posted by: chanceny on Feb 14, 2006 1:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I receive e-mails from the Anti Defamation league weekly. They publish editorial cartoons from a wide variety of middle Eastern publications. Almost every one of them are anti-semitic, filled with hatred and encouraging violence. I react with saddness and I'm sure Jews & other caring humans are hurt and angered by such evil depictions. However no one has called for violence or censorship. I think all this rioting, openly encouraged by fanatical 'religious' leaders, is the result of the policies of this Bushite regime. The leaders in our country seem to be fanning the flames with this unjust war killing so many muslims. The clash of civilizations is promoted by the arrogant behavior toward middle eastern countries, ruled by propped up puppets that do our bidding and keep their populace ignorant of anything modern. They see the Shahs bending elbows with our state dept flunkies and their imams rant on about our hypocrisies. I think, once this corrupt cabal is ousted here, we can start dismantling our bases and reduce our presence in the muslim world. We've got a whole lot of work to do just to get back our free society right here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

more heat than light
Posted by: hwashen on Feb 14, 2006 1:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am blown away by the inflammatory comments posted about this article. It does not bode well for the future, given that there's enough firepower to destroy the planet many times over. If we value our future, and that of our children, the precondition is tolerance. Tolerance is based on respect for cultural values. Freedom of speech is not in conflict with freedom of religion as long as that respect exists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: more heat than light Posted by: brunowe
» Listen closely. Posted by: ABetterFuture
Flemming Rose is a neocon tool
Posted by: cold2touch on Feb 14, 2006 2:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You said:
Flemming Rose ... proved his point. He published a series of very sober cartoons in an attempt to define the boundaries of free speech in a world of religious fundamentalism. He did so out of concern over the West's increasing tendency toward self-censorship around matters of religion.
You neglected to mention a couple of small points, namely his rabidly pro-Likud views and links to neocon movement.
linked text
Here is his pean to Daniel Pipes, a neocon in Douglas Feith's mold and founder of Campus Watch, an organization dedicated to blackballing faculty members that don't toe the Israel-First ideology
linked text
An exemplar of ideological sobriety he ain't. He is in the league with the likes of Orianna Fallacci, whose anti-islamic vituperations (where she frequently refers to Muslims as "rats") are freely sold all over Europe.
Let's summarize:
1. Sliming Mohammed, in full knowledge that it will provoke worldwide outrage, rioting and even human deaths, is fully condoned and encouraged in order to promote our cherished freedom of speech, First Amendment, blah blah, everybody stand up and salute.
2. We must carefully monitor what those psychotic professors are saying in order not to pollute the young and impressionable minds, see below (from Campus Watch header):
Campus Watch has been instrumental in bringing attention to problems with Columbia University's Middle East Studies faculty.
In other words, a resounding yes to freedom of speech (Jyllands-Posten) and a resounding no to freedom of speech (Columbia ME Studies faculty).
Nice work, Holland.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Errata Posted by: cold2touch
It's not Free Speach, it's just ignorance.
Posted by: Ghoulman on Feb 14, 2006 4:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm soooo tired of hearing about how this issue is about Free Speach, and it's limits (shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre).

The issue is ignorance, bigotry, intolerance.

The cartoons of The Prophet Mohammad, regardless of context, are racist attacks on Islam. Period.

Now, understand, The Prophet is NEVER depicted in any way, in any context whatever. That's Islamic belief. As a Christian, I can understand this belief as "idolatry", it's just that Islam takes this belief to it's fullest. Mohammad is never depiced.

This isn't a secret, it's commonly known. SO news all over the US doesn't know this? Are they ignorant? Don't they respect religious belief? Are they intolerant? Like what your aunt hangs in her home, the blessed heart and Jesus walking on clouds stuff, Muslims have a script (which says; There is only one God and Mohammad is his Prophet) for the same purpose. No pics of Mohammad.

To make a cartoon, drawing, whatever, of The Prophet is a kin to defacing The Holy Cross. Especially one with Jesus nailed to it.

No paper would dare depict a defaced Holy Cross. It would be seen as ignorance, bigotry, intolerance. An attack on Christian belief.

I'm not surprised the traditionally racist French reprinted those old pics from a Sept. issue of a Danish free paper (a small, right wing, street rag), but all this going on about the issues of free speach... please. Propelling the propoganda? Sheesh. What suckers journalists are.

The only issue here is the willing bigotry of those who have no problem reprinting over and over what is obviously blastfamous to millions all over the world and then implying it's free speach.

A certain millions currently demonized as being crazy zealots over a few cartoons. Plays well in the pub eh?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ridiculous Posted by: brunowe
» RE: idiculous Posted by: Ghoulman
» RE: idiculous Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Ridiculous Posted by: Ghoulman
» it's just ignorance. Posted by: YogiBear
» Oh nonsense! Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» RE: Oh nonsense! Posted by: Ghoulman
Free Press or Tool of the Beast.
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Feb 14, 2006 4:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A free Press has within it 'responsibility'. The same is true of Free Speech. You can say whatever you like,but, if you yell 'fire' in a crowded room and there isn't one...You're an ass and probably arrested. Funny is funny but how would jesusland like it if cartoons of Christ cornhole-ing the Pope,who's licking Ol' W's balls with Laurie blowing the dog,
might not be so funny over here.
The point is we use cartoons to degrade people. They make the 'enemy' seem more like someone who's ass you can kick.
Or some scabby politician,like the Iran/Contra boys either
'get off' or be nailed to a cross. For the latter,they got off.
True Freedom requires responsibility on the part of the Free.
Freedom of the Press carries the same responsibility.
Humans love to poke fun at eachother,humor is part of our makeup,laughter is an effective healer. But when you cross a line you know is trouble, you're not a free press,you're a tool.
Rest easy Media,you're all giving us belly-laughs galore at how you twist on you're own hook. Get real, you're advancing the propaganda. What else can you expect from a people that brought us 'Slavery'.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE:YogiBear is VERY NAIVE Posted by: drricklippin
» RE: YogiBear is VERY NAIVE Posted by: codingguy
» RE: YogiBear is VERY NAIVE Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: YogiBear is VERY NAIVE Posted by: popsicle67
» RE: Free Press or not...... Posted by: jeffrey7
» tool of hate Posted by: codingguy
» RE: tool of hate Posted by: Llama11
» canajun, eh Posted by: codingguy
When in Rome ...
Posted by: underledge on Feb 14, 2006 5:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 2006, one should be able to believe in whatever religious dogma or doctrine one chooses. However when your beliefs condone killing those who do not share your beliefs, there is a major problem. Personally I could care less if you believe a Turnip is your god. But if I choose to eat a turnip or heaven forbid, draw a likeness of one - that gives you the right to hunt and kill me? I think not. This entire situation confirms the absolute need for Separation of Church and State. The old saying "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" should be considered here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hatred, Bigotry, and Free Expression
Posted by: UncleTom on Feb 14, 2006 6:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I, too, am growing tired of hearing the same apologies, the same accusations, the same justifications. I grew particularly weary upon reading that the cartoons in question are a racist attack regardless of their context.

Let's be clear about what this is, then. I don't want anybody to misunderstand or take what I'm stating in the wrong way. I certainly don't want anyone to be unjustifiably offended.

Islam is an awful religion. I don't need a cartoon to say it. I'm perfectly comfortable just throwing it out there. It is awful. It condones and even encourages some of the most deplorable behaviors imaginable. It is intolerant, backward, violent, and exclusivist.

Don't get me wrong - I don't seek to debase Islam in favor of any other religion. There are plenty of bad religions out there and I'd also be more than happy to blaspheme against them as well, but today we're discussing Islam.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater indeed! Am I not allowed to insult the Ku Klux Klan because they might take violent offense? Am I not allowed to mock Hitler for fear of inciting a Neo-Nazi Skinhead uprising? Oh, but I should suddenly start questioning the legality of my western values because a couple of cartoonists had the audacity to express their ambivalence about Islam, the reaction to which validated their ambivalence in spades.

Again, please don't misunderstand my prejudice here. I am not taking issue with Arabs or any other race of people. I am not taking issue with any particular nationality. It is Islam which I dislike. If you are a believer in Islam then I'm sure you find this somewhat insulting, a personal affront, and you should. You follow a bad religion, a religion that dictates persecution, repression, violence, hatred, mistrust. A religion that loves only itself and no others. A "my way or the highway" religion, the highway often being death. A religion that goes the extra step beyond the threat of hellfire to direct that the fuel of such hellfire be men and stones.

In some of the earlier posts Islam was derided for being tantamount to a fairy tale, like any other religion. I understand what the posters were getting at, but I would submit that there are certain things about Islam that are not fairy tales. The active repression of women is not a fairy tale. The cutting off of hands and feet for having insulted the religion is not a fairy tale. Severing the head of an infidel is not a fairy tale.

If you are a Muslim and feel that I am being unfair, that these characterizations do not reflect you or your values or your way of life, then I applaud you. Like most people, including Muslims I'm sure, you are probably a good person with a good heart. I would suggest you find another belief system to support, one not so steeped in violence, fear, and hatred.

Is it wrong for me to say such things? Should it be illegal?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this is sowing what we reap
Posted by: popsicle67 on Feb 14, 2006 11:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have, for too long now, been admonished to be careful in what we say or believe in the off chance that we might offend someone. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. If you
are serious about freedom you must express your most deeply held beliefs regardless of who may take exception and fight like hell to keep anyone from shutting you up. We need Howard Stern as Commissioner of the First Ammendment. We should be able to laugh at backward jackasses like muslims and President Nutbush. Who wouldn't want to laugh at a group of people who let the richest of them say how they will live and die, and don't even get me started how they treat women. It is a wonder that for a religion that is hell-bent
on destroying its followers Islam is still so popular. I geuss it only has to be with males since women have no rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sleepy Denmark gets a rude wake-up call part 1
Posted by: Clark Pratt on Feb 15, 2006 12:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a U.S. citizen who has lived in Denmark for 10 years with my Danish wife and our three children, I am saddened, but not surprised by the furor Denmark has created in the Muslim World over the past months – and especially the past two weeks. Denmark has been fantastically sheltered from the realities of what is going on in the world since the end of the Cold War and the rise of George Bush the First, of Yale, and his New World Order. (Some would say that Denmark has been out of touch with the world political situation since the Age of the Vikings.)

Just as the geographically-challenged people who call themselves “Americans” had a short period of confusion in September 2001 (“Why do they hate us, Daddy?”) and then fell into a slumber plagued by brutal tossing and turnings, the Danes are sitting up in their fluffy winter counterpane-covered beds and asking, “Hey, what's the big deal? Why are they angry at us?”

Let me tell you some things about Denmark. A flat country where there is plenty of wind, plenty of rain, lots of pigs and cows, and a reputation in the world (from something someone said in the 1970s, I think) for having the best social welfare system, the best schools, the most peaceful foreign policy and the highest level of solidarity with oppressed people in South Africa, Nicaragua, Florida, etc. An innocent, childlike people, who (adults, I'm talking about adults) interrupt meetings and say, “Hold on, I just gotta pee.” All children call their teachers (and most other adults, including their parents and grandparents) by their first names. Grown-ups do not even KNOW each other's last names. An informal country. People who do not look Danish are called “Perker” or “Neger” (the first cannot really be translated, but has some kind of Muslim, Middle-Eastern implications; the latter is like the old-fashioned Negro, except the way they say it, it really means “Nigger”). When you say, “Whoa, buddy, watch that language with the racist overtones,” they respond, “But he IS a perker. He doesn't mind.”

The government and their buddies in the banking, energy and industry sectors, are doing all they can to make Denmark look like some midwestern state in the U.S. of A. complete with malls, standardized tests in all classes, sit-coms, shoot first / ask later law-enforcement, and on and on. The people bitch and moan about it, like they do in the U.S., but are beginning to participate less and less. Still, there are some big differences. For example, no death penalty. Free (after taxes) medical care. Lots of people who do not go to church, but pretend they think the church is an important part of the society – as long as the priests do not say anything important (ring any bells? - maybe that was not a difference after all). A royal family who are tremendously wealthy and twice as popular as they are rich. Tight environmental controls which are being loosened to comply with the European Union's low standards.

Now back to the big fuss. For years and years, people have tried to make themselves popular by hating immigrants, although by now, nearly all immigrants are political refugees, people who have been tortured or oppressed, and had heard that Denmark was a progressive, non-violent, human rights-respecting country. Many of them are so rattled by what they have been through, that they have trouble adjusting to the new language, the vast array of cheeses and pork products, and the raucous sex, drugs and alcohol (sorry, the rock 'n' roll here is not so good). They find themselves underqualified to be accepted and often overqualified to get a job (for example, an anesthesiologist with 10 years experience, who is told to start nursing school again or a chemical engineer who cannot get a job as a school custodian).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sleepy Denmark gets wakeup call part 2
Posted by: Clark Pratt on Feb 15, 2006 12:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the midst of this clash of cultures, and adamant refusal to become a multi-ethnic society, especially not when those people are just a bunch of terrorists who marry their daughters off to their much older cousin in Van (Turkey) so he can move here too, a newspaper decides to print some cartoons of Mohammed.

What happened after that, and what is happening this very evening in Damascus or Tehran or Delhi, I won't try to summarize. But if you throw your dog's poop on your neighbor's car after his house has been bombed, his children mutilated, his income stolen, and his future robbed, it don't help that you baked him a cake last summer. He is mad now, and he will not remember the good old days. He may find out that you go out drinking with the guy who blew up his daughter's school when she was there on a school day. He may find out that, although you gave him a cake, you have done all in your power since that summer, to make sure it becomes illegal to give a cake to a Perker. And his anger is a virus that will spread faster than avian influenza.

So wake up, little Denmark. There is of course no excuse for violence or for intimidating people by burning flags and marching around and torching buildings – I condemn the nasty things that angry and frightened people do. But the world we have made, in which Denmark so much wants to be a big player - “Let me take just one more picture with you, Mr. President, have another frikadelle” (Danish meatball) – is a monstrously violent, angry and frightened place. “If you are not with us, you are against us,” said King George, in a moment of clarity. How about, “If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.” Instead of getting more and more bent out of shape about the reaction of the Muslim World (a.k.a. the perkers) and creeping closer to the billy club Washington holds over the “civilized world,” Denmark and the Danes need to start reaching out to the OTHER in a genuine way. The 1970s will not come again, but we can still ask people in other countries, as well as people from other countries who live in Denmark, “What can I do for you, to make your life better, to give you the energy to find hope for tomorrow?” Because yelling at each other over the fence like Vikings and barbarians is not going to fix the broken world.

The author, Clark Pratt, is a school teacher in a little town an hour from Copenhagen.
E-mail: noankusa@yahoo.dk

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religious Zealotry Is The Enemy Of Tolerance
Posted by: thirdmg on Feb 15, 2006 2:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems only yesterday that progressive values meant standing up for - among other issues - women's rights and gay rights and standing against intolerance promoted by religious extremists, such as our own religious right. Now, however, - at least for some on this message board - progressive values apparently mean standing up for religious extremists who disdain tolerance as a sign of Western moral decay and who make our own religious right sound like liberals.

Fortunately, some progressives still recognize religious zealotry as an enemy, no matter what religion or what part of the world it comes from. Here's an informed rational view from The Progressive:

Fundamentalism's bait-and-switch

"Talking about the evils of the United States and Israel is really 'God, Guns, and Gays,' Islamic-style."

-------

Also, here are a few sites maintained by progressive Muslims who support tolerance and rationality:

NO to Political Islam - In particular, see the article, Why Sharia Law Must Be Opposed - "The only possible response to the charge of misunderstanding or misreading Islam is to look at the reality of what is happening in those countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and northern Nigeria where the Sharia now holds sway."

Progressive Muslim Union of North America

A Liberal Islamic Web Site

Muslim WakeUp!

The Trouble with Islam - Irshad Manji, author of the book The Trouble with Islam is insightful and articulate, especially about the current state of Islam. The book, its call for intellectual honesty, and other information on the site are useful for understanding a multitude of issues related to Islam, including repression of women and widespread hostility to gays and lesbians.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» We agree more than we disagree. Posted by: dirkster42
Free Speech Should be Nearly Absolute
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Feb 18, 2006 4:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I take quite a strong libertarian attitude to free speech. I think that individuals and journals should be allowed to say or publish ANY political opinion. I do not believe that Holocaust deniers should be put in jail or face any other form of prosecution as has happened in Canada and apparently recently in Australia. Presumably war propaganda could be regarded as inciting hatred, and yet it seems that politicians can quite happily use terms like “evil doer” which are presented without any supporting facts and are clearly designed generate enthusiasm for what will amount to an act of terrorism. I am using the term terrorism in the broad sense, an act of violence to achieve a political objective (I believe this is how the UN defines terrorism). Many will object, saying in effect that if an act is justified it is by definition not an act of terror. But who decides, and on what grounds, if an act is justified or not -- furthermore, it seems that war has the same effect (e.g. terror) on its victims regardless of whether it has been deemed justifiable or not. That is, people will still suffer in the same way.

Any opinion is liable to inflame irrational passions in someone, therefore if the argument is that offensive opinions are not to be tolerated, and we are consistent in enforcing this position, then meaningful political discourse will no longer be possible. I am often become quite agitated watching Fox News, indeed Fox News is offensive to many of my beliefs. If I had my way I would be happier in a world without Fox News. So far as I can see there is no objective basis to say that I am wrong to find Fox News objectionable and that those who found the cartoons offensive are right. If the publication of similar cartoons, for example, is prohibited in the future the decision to do so will have been arbitrary.

Let’s say I print a column arguing that everyone should hate Mr X and a lot of people who read it take me seriously and one person decides to kill Mr X, would I be partially responsible for the murder? In a trivial sense yes, but I do not believe, legally, that I should be charged with a crime. The individually who committed the murder should solely be held responsible since he made a free choice to accept that opinion and committed the murder of his own free will. The only acceptation to free speech that comes to mind is a case where a there has been an intentional effort to deceive, if evidence convincingly points to a lie and the lie is such that it can be shown to have had harmful effects, then there may be grounds, not to censor, but to prosecute and individual for a comment made in the past. I would go so far as to say that a comment to the effect that, “so and so should be killed” should be legitimate. If incitement of killing were illegal than our president and many other politicians are clearly guilty -- if some threatens to kill someone else, this is obviously a different matter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

VAST MAJORITY of Muslim are not rioting.
Posted by: owlbear1 on Feb 18, 2006 5:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That suggests to me something other than Islam being the problem.

What are some other commonalities?

War and poverty leap up as examples.

Deciding all Muslims and Islamic belief is to blame for the riots is no different than blaming every Christian and Christianity for fire bombings of Health Clincs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Taking offense
Posted by: Fang-Face Dreamweaver on Feb 18, 2006 5:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you're going to ban something because it is "offensive" then you are going to have to ban everything. I have concluded from my studies of censorship and free speech issues that: There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere.

Case in point: the Taliban of Afghanistan banned paper bags as offensive to Islam.

And this is only one of the most egregiously stupid cases of censorship with which I am familiar.

What this whole issue should be about is personal responsibility. If I utter a comment, I am responsible only for that utterance. I am not responsible in any way, shape, or form, for your reaction to it. How you react is entirely your choice, and you are solely responsible for that reaction.

If we allow a heckler's veto over our utterances, they we are not only allowing our speech to be held hostage by every hysterical reactionary throughout the world, but we are also taking onto ourselves responsibility for their hypersenstivity by making excuses for their behaviour. Psychologists and social workers have a word for such a relationship: Enabler. This is not a healthy relationship.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two forces, one explosion - 1
Posted by: kelly.nickell on Feb 18, 2006 5:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see that by holding others up to higher standards and expecting the same of ourselves that we create a mutual respect that allows us to self censure and demure when perhaps missing the lines of demarcation in the search for the boundaries of another’s value framework.

I self censure to a great deal these days - by not wearing my "Fuck Bush" button to the local church spaghetti dinner. I do that out of respect for the institution and self preservation. I will wear it to the local 7/11 and Walmart, to provoke dialogue with someone that is brave enough to ask me why I wear it.

If I were traveling through the worlds of Islamic faith, I think I would try to respect the protocol of the places where I am a guest, as I would expect the same. That is an ideal.

The article points out the three cartoons that were not published and says these were brutally offensive, since I have never seen them, I can say by the descriptions posited that they sound no more offensive to me than even some brutally offensive stuff I have seen in Hustler, and laughed at. To me, perhaps the most offensive cartoon would be picking the prophet out of a lineup, because for me, it summons up a broader momentary truth, and one that is difficult to deal with.

To stand up in a crowded theater and yell “FIRE!” carries a lot of either lack of responsibility or plenty of it since there could indeed be a fire. It becomes my responsibility after the initial act to act just as responsibly. I don’t just stand up and trample the people around me running for an exit. I have to stop and get my bearings, asses the situation and act accordingly. In this way there will always be two directional influences that dictate self censorship. One that keeps me from yelling fire in the first place until there is one, and the other that keeps me from chaos afterwards. The only way to maintain the balance in the forces of the two in creating the chaos is to understand just what the hell is going on around me.

I think it is easy for us to dismiss the cartoons as nothing more than what they are. But what are they? If no one yells fire when there is indeed a fire because of the fear of the chaos, people may die. If no one reacts when one yells fire because of the fact that someone may yell fire to provoke chaos, people may die.

I think that if the Danes had really thought or believed that people would take to the streets and use the cartoons as a rationale for chaos, they would not have published them. The burden of responsibility was placed on the fundamental factions that justified chaos in response to the cartoons. They could have disarmed the cartoon by dismissing it, disarming it, taking ownership of the message in such a way that it could have been diffused. This is same type of thing that many in the black community have done by taking ownership of a very powerful word themselves. Nigger. As a black woman I can call my man “my nigga” and not get spanked for it. As a white male calling the same man a nigger I can cause at least a small tussle today. As that white male, I will never call another a nigger for any reason, unless I have a close bond to the person that I use it with that understands fairly precisely where I’m coming from if I use the word.

- Continued...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Two forces, one explosion - 2 Posted by: kelly.nickell
Mohammed screws the pooch
Posted by: kelly.nickell on Feb 18, 2006 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did it get your attention?

While I am not the model of humanity I would like to be, as those that know me know me all too well, I expect the same type of attempt at the humanity card in the deck as a sign that someone is paying some attention to the actions that back up my cards. This is a deck of cards whereas we continue to play whatever pops up, instead I suppose, of waiting for the right card.

We continue to self justify our actions. I cannot strap myself into the bombers seat of a B-52 and pull the latch, hoping that one bad guy resides within the boundaries of the carnage I create below. That’s just me. Many have had to do it on faith in those above, both blood borne and mystical.

It’s my attempt at self censure once again. I have the two options of ending up in Leavenworth, or eternal damnation for my actions. Since Leavenworth has more concrete and immediate consequence, I would probably follow my orders, rather than my internal right-o-meter, simply because I don’t like meals served on stainless steel. I’ve failed in supporting a higher cause.

What’s this got to do with anything? Nothing for many that see things in black and white, with no need to pick apart the intricacies associated with introspection. Some simply do, the internal compass was set long ago and will continue to guide that one in the direction it points. I see this in the fundamental action and direction demonstrated daily in our fight against terrorism and the creation of new, improved terrorists in response to a logical lack of self censure as we follow a broken compass because of the immediacy of the threat. We attack the fear, we respond to a profound lack of respect for our tack, our direction, and we do it in ways that match up with where the compass points. Islam has been fighting over just where that compass points/leads for a thousand years. The absolute fundamental framework that exists has and is in dispute, as will be the case as long as there exists no support framework that self censures the destruction of human life for greater ends. I would posit here that the framework is there, but that it has to have some respect from those that belittle the smaller portion that has need to incite chaos to prove to a higher being that our compass is on track.

Given that man has no real way to become a god, he can only hope to play one in life, we are left with many that try very hard to become one – that is an extreme lack of self censorship. Ask Pat Robertson of this eternal struggle, and be horrified at the results. The ones that have become our gods have created a force that continually pushes down on what many of us have already accepted – that we aint god and we aint going to be anytime soon. Thus we either push back or join in its direction.

Since I aint god, and he doesn’t speak to me like he speaks to others I suppose, I have nothing to lose in telling the gods to fuck off, quit killing and screw your turban down a little tighter or pull your knickers out of your crack, people are starving for your lack of attention to the real deal now. They want knowledge, higher understanding, hope, and perhaps a good steak, or pot of beans; if a cartoon of Mohammed screwing the pooch riles up the gods, we need to be asking why, not whether it was right to show the pictures.

We’ll get that chance when we meet god, if we do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion breeds right-wingers
Posted by: Moonray on Feb 18, 2006 8:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Progressive Christian" is a contradiction in terms.

It amuses me that some people who believe in an invisible man in the sky -- or whatever sugar-coated version of that myth they choose to believe -- are surprised that other such believers are rabid fanatics. Well, what did you expect?

You can't abandon logic -- religion is totally illogical -- and then cherry-pick the kind of results that decision brings. A pacifist Catholic social worker and a bomb-throwing Islamic extremist are on the opposite ends of the spectrum, but it's the same spectrum. And people tend to move across that spectrum very easily.

If you really want to build a better future, put aside the baby's security blanket of religion and accept responsibility for your own life. Religion is a delusion that has brought only misery to the human race.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Religion breeds right-wingers Posted by: kelly.nickell
» whoa. Posted by: dirkster42
The issue isn't free speech, the issue is "responsible" free speech....
Posted by: Prophit on Feb 18, 2006 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.... that supports the contention of same by informing, protecting, illuminating and acting as a watchdog for our democracy.

Anything after that which is only intended to incite is irresponsible. I am not saying it shouldn't happen, I am saying those who have that power should use it responsibly. They should be asking themselves "DOES THIS FIT WITH THE PURPOSE OF FREE SPEECH? DOES THIS "INFORM, PROTECT, ILLUMINATE, AND PRESERVE OUR REPUBLIC?"

If the answer is no, then they are not acting responsibly. Maturity is a big part of this discernment process.

Finally, this issue of the cartoons in Denmark, I believe was intentionally done to incite the response they got. These people have been living with muslims in their countries now for years and they knew the sore point. To me this was an ABUSE of that free speech power. It was intended to incite becuase the Danish flags had been distributed conveniently all over hte world.

I mean come on, THE DANISH FLAG??? Since when has it been sooooooooo popular that every muslim in the world had one to burn. Also the Immans were handing out cartoons that had not been published BUT HAD BEEN DRAWN, so how did they know they had been drawn unless someone in the paper had passed them out and had them distributed quickly so they were available for the SPONTANEOUS REACTIONS.

This whole thing smelled to high heaven of "manipulation" of the European citizens to justify Europes support of the attack against Iran. I bet It worked too, just watch in March.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hey Sambo!
Posted by: Citizendeane on Feb 18, 2006 6:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Funny thing, keep calling your black neighbor "Sambo" and he slugs you in the mouth. Then you get your friends to start calling him "Sambo". Pretty soon, sombody gets killed! This is not a clash of cultures. Its a bunch of assholes getting what they should expect.-- Joe

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

chaos and tyranny
Posted by: Holland on Feb 18, 2006 9:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The issue that democracy should concentrate on now, is the RESPONSE to the right to free speech; democracy should always be more than suspicious of religious taboos, and it shoud NEVER succumb to the demands of religious dogma, nor should it succumb to its inherent demons; because that would weaken, even destroy any argument that democracy can and must use against social and cultural regression, which has the tendency to lead to chaos and tyranny.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: chaos and tyranny Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: chaos and tyranny Posted by: Holland
» RE: chaos and tyranny Posted by: kelly.nickell