Street Prophets

Religion over Press Freedom?

by aaraujo

Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 09:43:06 AM PDT

US sides with Muslims in cartoon dispute

Washington on Friday condemned caricatures in European newspapers of the Prophet Mohammad, siding with Muslims who are outraged that the publications put press freedom over respect for religion.

By inserting itself into a dispute that has become a lightning rod for anti-European sentiment across the Muslim world, the United States could help its own battered image among Muslims.

"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question. "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."

"We call for tolerance and respect for all communities for their religious beliefs and practices," he added.

Major U.S. publications have not republished the cartoons, which include depictions of Mohammad as a terrorist. That is in contrast to European media, which responded to the criticism against the original Danish newspaper that printed the caricatures by republishing the offensive images themselves.


Tags: (all tags)

Permalink | 19 comments

  • You would think (0 / 0)

    the recent riots in Europe would have called into question the wisdom of "shouting fire in a crowded theater"

    Good for Washington.

    SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

    by JCHFleetguy on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:23:46 AM PDT

    • "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" (0 / 0)

      The quote is accurate enough. The Justice in question was using the concept to deny the rights of an activist who was trying to fight a draft involving a foreign war (WW I, in this case).

      I can see the problems with these cartoons; the one about Mohammed and the turban-bomb in particular is the epitome of "offensive." But really, people need to get the f*ck over it. I don't think there's a religion on Earth any more whose members have not been accused of sacrificing babies to their god (JCH, I'm betting you can recite the relevant anti-Christian slanders from memory). Armed raids and kidnappings over a damn cartoon? That's insane.

      Oh, and what do you think would be the reaction in America if even a tiny group of neo-pagans when this batsh*t crazy over a similar cartoon of a witch? Anyone? Not a condemnation of the cartoonist or the relevant paper, that's for damn sure.

      As usual, Dear Leader has no concept of nuance, and could care the f*ck less about freedom of the press (or any other, for that matter), no matter what sort of phony disclaimers they spit out about them. Obviously the paper's choice was stupid, and this raises some very serious questions about bigotry, but if we defend the rights of f*ckin' Nazis -- and I, as a card-carrying member of the ACLU, believe we should -- this is nothing.

      Sorry about the language, but I am sick unto death of the growing fear and hate of "bad speech." There's only one true remedy for it, as our Founding Fathers noted -- good speech. (Governments trying to pass laws or use intimidation to silence critics, by the way, does not count.)
      --
      (/) Roland X
      Give me liberty or give me death!

      by Roland X on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:48:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • I do not have to memorize them (0 / 0)

        I hear them often enough :-)

        I am not "PC" and never will be. Really I agree with you - people should develop some "skin thickness" and get over themselves. This belief that everyone else has to take you seriously does not help Islam, or Christianity to a lesser degree (the "Christmas" stuff), seem moderate and reasonable.

        However, newspapers do have some public responsibility - and many cities in Europe were burning because of Muslim youths feelings of outrage and marginalism just a couple months ago.

        Islam is certainly more anti-idol/icon than Christianity. My Catholic MIL has statues all over the house I pay no attention too :-). The greatest wars on the planet now are driven by Muslim fundamentalism. The planet, and Islam, need to figure out a way to defuse that reality. Perhaps newspapers can be a little less "cute" and a little more insightful - perhaps helping us understand our differences rather than pouring gasoline on a fire.

        Let's go back to the mid-sixties and the cities of America burning over race. Would the "smart" thing for the Washington Post to do be to run some cartoons with some stereotypes of black folk or their leaders. Not really.

        BTW: Not everything President Bush does has to be evil. I do not see one wrong word in this statement. There is no reason to believe it was for nefarious reasons. If you want to train a child, you praise them when they are right and criticize them when they are wrong. Carrot and (not or) stick.

        SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

        by JCHFleetguy on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 12:20:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • asdf (0 / 0)

          JCH "BTW: Not everything President Bush does has to be evil."

          Perhaps.

          However, he's lied & manipulated so very many times that in my book, the man's words & actions as Preznit are guilty until proven innocent.

          by Propheticus Lycanthroponica on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 09:40:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • I am sorry (0 / 0)

            that is a terrible place to be in. I am still just enough of a fool to give everyone I meet the benefit of the doubt.

            If what he said was right, I will just assume his heart was too. Although, somehow I doubt the President ok's every single administration utterance. He is, of course (as President Truman implied), responsible for them even if he doesn't approve them in advance.

            SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

            by JCHFleetguy on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:05:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            • Wise, not terrible (0 / 0)

              It's not a terrible place, John, it's a wise and safer one.

              JCH "I am sorry that is a terrible place to be in. I am still just enough of a fool to give everyone I meet the benefit of the doubt."

              I used to be equally foolish, believing that no matter how much damage someone did, their "heart was in the right place". Then I came to believe that's a co-dependent's excuse for unnaceptable behavior. I should think you would have learned at least that much from your time in your Al-Anon.

              Before I'm branded a paranoid cynic, I shall state that I do indeed give folk I have never met the benefit of the doubt, but Bush has been lying & manipulating for five years. That's sufficient reason to take such a jaundiced view of that dangerous fool.

              by Propheticus Lycanthroponica on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:49:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              • As I once said (0 / 0)

                there was a time in Al-Anon where my higher power was the human race.

                My current belief in original sin and the basic depravity of humans has not eradicated that completely :-)

                Perhaps, that is why I am attracted to Natural Law - it means even when we do wrong we at least knew what right was. That is a start. It also means that I believe people have a deep conscience gnawing at them regardless of their desires to the contrary; so even the most depraved people still have that chance they will listen to and obey that voice.

                Its OK though. Fifty-three years of life have given me enough wisdom not to give people a direct shot at what is important to me.

                SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

                by JCHFleetguy on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:03:22 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  • my thoughts (0 / 0)

    I've posted on this at some length at my blog.

    First, I need to say that a lot of Muslims are overreacting in ways that make me want to bang my head against a wall, over and over and over again.

    But I do think that this is being used to express feelings about a lot of other things and that's why there's so much fury, not just over the cartoons themselves. It's about the social and economic conditions for many Muslims, in Europe and elsewhere. It's about the way that Muslims perceive Muslim countries such as Iraq and Iran being treated by the West, where there seem to be a lot of double standards. It's about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and CIA black sites in Europe and how Muslims have been treated in those places.

    Finally, I have to say that it's very painful for me as a Muslim to see so many liberals wanting to republish the cartoons when many of the cartoons contain such awful stereotypical images of Muslims. I really don't think that if the cartoons contained similar stereotypes of Jews or blacks or another minority, that all of these people would be so quick to want to republish the cartoons in the name of freedom of speech. Would people be as proud of that as they seem to be in some cases here?

    So basically, the behavior on all sides of this issue just hurts me.

    "Riches does not mean having a great amount of property, but riches is self-contentment." (Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him)

    by lauramp on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 12:53:33 PM PDT

    • ditto (0 / 0)

      what she said!

      I find it equally irksome that many Muslims are eager to fulfill the stereotypes described in the cartoons, and that so much of the western media seems eager to point this out.

      I am publically opposed to the boycott of Danish products here, a position that puts me at odds with the majority of our community. Frankly I am tired of talking about it.

      To God belong the east and the west: Whereso ever you turn, there is the face of God. For God is all-Embracing, all-Knowing.

      by dervish on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 01:25:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • boycotts (0 / 0)

        In general, I think that boycotts can be a useful, non-violent tool. People should be free to boycott groups or companies that they do not want to give business to, and this is a form of expression too and is not censorship.

        However, it doesn't sound like the boycotts in this case are being targeted correctly although they do seem to have been effective in drawing attention to the situation!

        "Riches does not mean having a great amount of property, but riches is self-contentment." (Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him)

        by lauramp on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 02:02:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • A friend in the Gulf (0 / 0)

          noted in his blog that the boycotts are hurting Danish farmers and merchants, not the people who created or published the cartoon. It seems misdirected to me, but apparently it's become quite the bandwagon.

          by Morgan on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 04:29:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • In that sense, (0 / 0)

            while a boycott may be "non-violent" it certainly can cause great harm - and can be highly coercive.

            They should be applied well. The boycott of Iraq between 1992 and 2003 is a major case in point of a boycott that never applied pressure to the right parties - and caused even death. Perhaps it wasn't even non-violent.

            SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

            by JCHFleetguy on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 04:34:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            • In my view (0 / 0)

              the propsed boycott of Danish goods is a clear sin because we are punishing one party for the acts of another. I have found that this argument has reasonable traction here, provided that the listeners aren't too frothing angry to listen.

              To God belong the east and the west: Whereso ever you turn, there is the face of God. For God is all-Embracing, all-Knowing.

              by dervish on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 05:07:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              • responsibility (0 / 0)

                Yes, I agree with this. As I said, from what I've read, it sounds like this one is directed in the wrong place!

                As JCHFleetguy said, they should be done well. Like any other form of expression, we do best when we excercise our freedoms responsibly. In many cases this will mean that a boycott is not appropriate, such as this one.

                Occasionally it is.

                "Riches does not mean having a great amount of property, but riches is self-contentment." (Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him)

                by lauramp on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 05:31:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  • I appreciate the restraint (0 / 0)

    American press need not reprint the cartoon just to demonstrate that we are free to do so.  It's easy enough to find it online.

    "There ain't no sanity clause." Chico Marx http://wfmu.org/playlists/RX

    by Asbury Park on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 04:17:26 PM PDT

    • Definitely (0 / 0)

      this whole episode reminds me of those artists who produce monstrously sacriligious works for the sole purpose of creating scandal and backlash (and then notoriety and publicity for themselves).

      Yes, we all have the right to push that button... but why do it for no reason?

      To God belong the east and the west: Whereso ever you turn, there is the face of God. For God is all-Embracing, all-Knowing.

      by dervish on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 05:12:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • We have our rabble rousers (0 / 0)

    Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter (all orchestrated by much more discreet powers, like the vice president's),

    and (arguably) Michael Moore ...

    and they have theirs ...

    Why be astonished that their Limbaughs are succeeding?

    In a demogogic world. there will always be power in motivating peope to feel anger and resentment ...

    by Mike Finley on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:34:06 AM PDT

  • Freedom of speech versus blasphemy (0 / 0)

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

    by aaraujo on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 05:49:23 AM PDT

  • burning books (0 / 0)

    When you start burning books, you end up burning people

    by aaraujo on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 10:24:04 AM PDT

Permalink | 19 comments