I was going to say something clever and snarky about the Danish cartoons that have sparked several days of riots in the Muslim world, but, as always, The Rude Pundit has a much better, and coarser, take on it than I do. In any case, here are a few of the cartoons involved: Now none of these are particularly clever, but neither are they particularly offensive from a content standpoint. Mainstream American political cartoons are far more pointed, and with the exception of Mallard Filmore and the editorial page guy at the Strib, more insightful. Nor are they attacks on Islam so much as they are commentaries on those acting in its name. Heck, several of them are directed at the media themselves rather than anyone in the Islamic world. Apparently some of the objection in the Muslim world is to the mere depiction of the prophet Mohammed as that is forbidden in their religion. Now while I am all in favor of letting people maintain whatever belief system works for them, we do not (yet) live in a world where religious fanatics can dictate the behavior, let alone the speech, of those outside their faith. If you are a player on the world stage expect the same sort of analysis and criticism that everyone else is subject to. I leave the obvious comparisons with America's religious right to others.
(Is my posting of the controversial cartoons simply a poke in the eye to those who would prefer the world adhere to their particular ideology? You bet.)
Well said. Every newspaper in the world should run these comics with a little blurb about freedom of speech in secular society.
cp
By 7:34 PM
, atIt's easy, sometimes, to compare America's radical evangelicals to radical Islamists. I think we're seeing here where the comparison breaks down. For as much as I criticize Tony Perkins, et al., they campaign through the ballot box and boycotts. There are rare instances of violence, particularly in opposition to abortion, but for the most part America's rank and file evangelicals register their objections without the threat of violence.
There is a tricky issue here involving the line between reasonable and unreasonable action against legitimate free speech. Where does one draw the line on legislative action involving a purely religious opinion? Where does one draw the line on social action involving a purely religious opinion? Last week on the Patriot, AM1280 news director Patrick Campien made a big stink about how people who are against gay marriage yet who don't support anti-gay marriage laws don't really have the courage/conviction of their beliefs. Is this an example of over-the-line behavior? If islamic folks make up the majority of a democracy, can they vote to instal laws that allow for the criminalization of certain aspects of free speech, privacy, or whatever? What about Christian majorities?
forget the violence for now, this issue brings up some very interesting issues in the current American political arena.
cp
By 8:39 AM
, atIt's difficult to place reasonable limits on extreme speech without winding up with extreme limits on reasonable speech.
well put.
By 10:15 AM
, at << Home