We talked a bit about this in class this morning (ethnomusicology, believe it or not...we were very off-topic).
First off, yeah, I think the cartoons - as described, I have not seen them - are disrespectful. Especially considering that this is the second time they have been published, and the whole thing really should have died with the initial publication a few months ago. But that is my opinion. Do certain groups in the Middle East then have the right to threaten every Danish citizen for no other reason than the cartoons? No. But I think the threats and violent reactions we have seen are more typical of a group of people who, for whatever reason, have a great hatred for Western countries and feel that violence is their only recourse. The peaceful protests in Indonesia and Yemen are proof that violent, knee-jerk reactions are not typical of Islam, but rather of a comparatively small group in a specific section of the globe. (Islamic Fundamentalists are to Islam what the Klan is to Christianity...got that from "The West Wing.")
Secondly, since the newspapers themselves have brought up this point, is this really an example of the freedom of the press at its best? To me, it seems similar to the question of freedom of speech vs. shouting 'fire' in a movie theatre. Forget for a moment the actual opinion of Muslims on the controversial nature of the cartoons. That argument requires a certain amount of sympathy which is difficult to measure or ensure in a discussion. Consider instead the fact that most Muslim leaders do not condone the actions and edicts of the terrorists. (I can't be any more specific than that. It is information I got from the in-class discussion this morning.) Editorial cartoons, by their very definition, give a very strong opinion of subject by the manner of the subject's depiction. If Islam itself is against the actions of "Islamic terrorists," then depicting, in a political cartoon, Muhammad as a terrorist would be making an erroneous connection between the religion and the political movement. It would perhaps be analogous to depicting Jesus as a member of the IRA (just because the members are Catholic, it doesn't necessarily follow that their views are those of the Church).
But it gets worse. This erroneous connection is not just confusing some vague bit of theology. The cartoons are actually representing and propagating a stereotype, one which is extremely volatile in today's political climate. For an example of this, just look at the nasty turn this thread took for a long time. There is a lot of confusion about the actual nature of Islam. But instead of using their positions as free newspapers to educate the people, the editors have instead continued to publish the cartoons in a move designed only to prove that they can. This has caused the much-publicized, violent reaction of a small group, which has in turn caused a negative reaction among (I'm sure) normally tolerant and intelligent people and reinforced a stereotype in their minds. Although probably not premeditated by the newspapers, this is at the very least s**t-disturbing, at the worst, a type of hate-mongering. Which I'm sure is not covered in the right to a free press.
Are there violent, Islamic fundamentalists who are willing and capable of blowing up buildings and killing civilians over a few poorly chosen editorial cartoons? Sure, probably lots. I hope it doesn't happen, but that is the nature of the world at this point in time. Is the political and social history of Europe, especially the relationships between Muslims and Christians, far too complicated to be reduced to a 200-word entry on an internet forum? Damn right. But that doesn't mean that the two extreme ends of the debate, and everyone throughout the middle, has the right to insult one another. I don't have the right to tell people that my next-door neighbour is a terrorist simply because I have a right to free speech and my neighbour's Muslim. The same goes for newspapers.
First off, yeah, I think the cartoons - as described, I have not seen them - are disrespectful. Especially considering that this is the second time they have been published, and the whole thing really should have died with the initial publication a few months ago. But that is my opinion. Do certain groups in the Middle East then have the right to threaten every Danish citizen for no other reason than the cartoons? No. But I think the threats and violent reactions we have seen are more typical of a group of people who, for whatever reason, have a great hatred for Western countries and feel that violence is their only recourse. The peaceful protests in Indonesia and Yemen are proof that violent, knee-jerk reactions are not typical of Islam, but rather of a comparatively small group in a specific section of the globe. (Islamic Fundamentalists are to Islam what the Klan is to Christianity...got that from "The West Wing.")
Secondly, since the newspapers themselves have brought up this point, is this really an example of the freedom of the press at its best? To me, it seems similar to the question of freedom of speech vs. shouting 'fire' in a movie theatre. Forget for a moment the actual opinion of Muslims on the controversial nature of the cartoons. That argument requires a certain amount of sympathy which is difficult to measure or ensure in a discussion. Consider instead the fact that most Muslim leaders do not condone the actions and edicts of the terrorists. (I can't be any more specific than that. It is information I got from the in-class discussion this morning.) Editorial cartoons, by their very definition, give a very strong opinion of subject by the manner of the subject's depiction. If Islam itself is against the actions of "Islamic terrorists," then depicting, in a political cartoon, Muhammad as a terrorist would be making an erroneous connection between the religion and the political movement. It would perhaps be analogous to depicting Jesus as a member of the IRA (just because the members are Catholic, it doesn't necessarily follow that their views are those of the Church).
But it gets worse. This erroneous connection is not just confusing some vague bit of theology. The cartoons are actually representing and propagating a stereotype, one which is extremely volatile in today's political climate. For an example of this, just look at the nasty turn this thread took for a long time. There is a lot of confusion about the actual nature of Islam. But instead of using their positions as free newspapers to educate the people, the editors have instead continued to publish the cartoons in a move designed only to prove that they can. This has caused the much-publicized, violent reaction of a small group, which has in turn caused a negative reaction among (I'm sure) normally tolerant and intelligent people and reinforced a stereotype in their minds. Although probably not premeditated by the newspapers, this is at the very least s**t-disturbing, at the worst, a type of hate-mongering. Which I'm sure is not covered in the right to a free press.
Are there violent, Islamic fundamentalists who are willing and capable of blowing up buildings and killing civilians over a few poorly chosen editorial cartoons? Sure, probably lots. I hope it doesn't happen, but that is the nature of the world at this point in time. Is the political and social history of Europe, especially the relationships between Muslims and Christians, far too complicated to be reduced to a 200-word entry on an internet forum? Damn right. But that doesn't mean that the two extreme ends of the debate, and everyone throughout the middle, has the right to insult one another. I don't have the right to tell people that my next-door neighbour is a terrorist simply because I have a right to free speech and my neighbour's Muslim. The same goes for newspapers.
Not meant as an insult, but there is absolutely no similarity between drawing a cartoon which is insulting to a religion, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. The ironic thing is that it's become standard practice to attack Christian beleifs. Opinion page columnists do it on a regular basis, as do political cartoons on occasion. Most of the Cartoons published by the Danes couldn't even be considered a deliberate insult to Islam - the main objection is that "it is forbidden" to depict Mohammed at all. I'd like to suggest that this is a good time to lay out the boundaries. You're more than welcome to beleive in whatever god you wish, but don't you dare try and control what I can say, write, or draw. And that goes for you to Meg. What gives you the right to censor the media based on your opinion as to what is or isn't "an example of the freedom of the press at its best"?
