Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Danish Cartoons
Posted by: Jon Henke on Saturday, February 04, 2006

I'm not inclined to make sweeping conclusions from the emerging story of the Danish cartoons, the vehement, violent reaction of the Muslim world, and the alternately firm and feeble reactions from the Western world. Maybe this is a perfect metaphor for the coming culture clash, maybe it's not. Maybe this is a tipping point, maybe it's not.

Still, in all the fuss, a few notes do ring awkwardly. For example, this CNN International story on the fire at the Danish Embassy ends with the words: [it's on the Domestic CNN story, too]
CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect for Islam.
That's a perfectly acceptable decision. After all, we all make concessions to the sensitivies of others in our public performance. Whatever our personal feelings about belching, pornography, vulgar language, or various kinds of mysticism, we accept that other people feel differently, so we don't generally thrust it on them.

But, on the other hand, we also try to make those concessions consistent, lest we implicitly acknowledge that we value some people more than others.

Why, then, does CNN — which chooses "to not show" an offensive (to Muslims) image "out of respect for Islam" — place this image atop a story...



As far as I can tell, that kind of "respect for Islam" from CNN is just tacit acknowledgement that Islamic street thuggery and terrorism is much more useful than Christians merely complaining.

MORE:

Matthew Parris gets the problem with this double standard...
On the whole Christians, for example, take offence less readily than Muslims. The case for treating them, in consequence, differently is obvious, but we should be wary of it. It means groups are allowed to be as thin-skinned as they wish: to dictate for themselves how delicately we must tread with them — to create, as it were, their own definition of respect and require us to observe it.
Continue with this, and groups will come to discover that an Embassy bombing, a throat-cutting, a church burning or other violence is the most effective way to curry respect — or, at least, obedience. That's not the direction in which we ought to align incentives.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
The answers relatively simple. How many people died from ’P*ss Christ", for example?

Put another way, the reason that animal rights protesters tend to throw red paint on rich ladies wearing fur, as opposed to bikers wearing leather, despite the fact that both involve dead animals killed for the purpose, is because the former is not nearly as likely to kill you outright, as is the latter.

What we are witness to then, is CNN reacting to the resistance being put up by radical Muslims. They chickened out.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Cartoons today, editorials tomorrow, the straight reporting the day after.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://
The media just had its invasion of the Rhine
 
Written By: John
URL: http://
It’s time for a teaching moment I believe....if mainstream Christian groups got together this weekend to threaten death and destruction to NBC for their upcoming episode of Will and Grace that plays cutsie with the crucifiction, just how would NBC and the rest of the media react? I very well believe we’d expose the game right there.

 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
A Danish Cartoon protrays Mohammed with a bomb as a turbin. Palestinians protest this by... throwing a bomb at a French cultural center in Gaza City on Friday. Ah, the fine fine irony.
 
Written By: Chris
URL: http://
As far as I can tell, that kind of "respect for Islam" from CNN is just tacit acknowledgement that Islamic street thuggery and terrorism is much more useful than Christians merely complaining.
Not accurate at all. The cartoons were re-printed throughout the European Media, in spite of the threat of thuggery. By contrast, in America, ABC spiked the broadcast of a reality based show before it ever aired because it would have offended the Christian Right. The crime of the show? It featured a gay couple.

From the NYT:
"Neighborhood" features a real gay couple and their prospective neighbors in a continuing dialogue about homosexuality, including interpretations of the Bible.

In a recent interview, Richard Land, an official with the Southern Baptist Convention involved in the negotiations with Disney last year to end the group’s boycott of the company, said he did not recall any mention of "Neighborhood." He added, however, that had the show been broadcast - particularly with an ending that showed Christians literally embracing their gay neighbors - it could have scuttled the Southern Baptists’ support for "Narnia."

"I would have considered it a retrograde step," Mr. Land said of the network’s plans to broadcast the reality series. "Aside from any moral considerations, it would have been a pretty stupid marketing move."

Paul McCusker, a vice president of Focus on the Family, which had supported the Southern Baptist boycott and reaches millions of evangelical listeners through the daily radio broadcasts of Dr. James Dobson, expressed similar views.

"It would have been a huge misstep for Disney to aggressively do things that would disenfranchise the very people they wanted to go see ’Narnia,’ " he said.
In Europe, they publish in spite of the threat of thuggery. In America, they refuse to broadcast in the absence of such a threat.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Lots more info at instapundit.


MK is quite right here. American media has refused to show the cartoons, and the Boston Globe has compared the cartoonists to nazis. Meanwhile a Jordanian gossip magazine published 3 of the cartoons asking for reasonable heads to prevail. The editor has since been arrested.
 
Written By: Chris
URL: http://
Cartoons today, editorials tomorrow, the straight reporting the day after.
That’s just it John. I suggest to you that the mainstream media in this country has already succumbed to this. The current ’coverage’ of the matter by these is just an example of what’s been going on for a long time, now. if it makes somebody else’s culture look bad they want no part of it. What makes our culture look bad in runs on line one.

And this goes directly to the heart of the cultural point that McQ was raising last night. IMO, we are involved in a full fledged culture war. Unfortunately our own media has long since joined the other side.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
I don’t know what this means.
Jon said the magic words: “tipping point”. The fecklessness of the left has been alluded to, but because most people are peaceable, the response so far has been “what’s the harm?” The harm of appeasement is seldom evident until it is too late. The “Mein Kampf” of Islam is there for all to see. The Pope in Rome has spoken. OBL has spoken. It’s 1932 folks and the left is still putting up Islam to sponsor the Olympics.
The “evilness” of Islam is the scimitar that will split the far left off from the Center left. The wackos will want us to appease until radical Islam has the Bomb. Hey, “44 (non-radical-Islamic) countries have the bomb and we have been all right. You are just being intolerant.”
I have been quoted in this space as saying: “These liberals are going to get us all killed.” They are more concerned with getting Bush by treasonous betrayals of our intelligence secrets [called “whistleblowing”] than they are in fixing Social Security or solving the problem of Islam. Intelligent America (which IMHO includes the Center left) is not going to stand for allowing radical Islam to get the bomb. The danger is there for all to see. The Neville Chamberlains are gearing up. Soon we will all have a clear choice.
It is very simple. No real nuance here. If Islam means what it says, and those burning embassies are making a good case that it does, then Islam must die. As the Qu’ran says: It is us or them.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
MK, who seems to have missed the point, writes...
In Europe, they publish in spite of the threat of thuggery. In America, they refuse to broadcast in the absence of such a threat.
I referenced CNN’s two decisions, not those of other outlets.

What’s more, as I wrote, I have no problem with an outlet making "concessions to the sensitivies of others". We all do it. I merely note the discrepancy in their application of that concession, and wonder what the specific cause might be.

Anyway, in the case of the ABC show, they bowed to market pressures, not violence. There’s a difference.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Anyway, in the case of the ABC show, they bowed to market pressures, not violence. There’s a difference.
A difference without a distinction, as lawyers say. I was responding to YOUR point that thuggery is somehow more effective than non-thuggery. And when I point out a real life example that disproves YOUR point, you claim my point is "off topic." That’s McQ’s M.O., not yours. Moreover, Muslims are currently threatening to boycott Danish goods in protest. I suspect that threat is much a motivation for the Danes to apologize as is the threat of violence.

More to the point, there was no way any rational person could conclude that the ABC show was offensive. All it showed was a stable gay couple. Indeed, the reason it was killed was precisely because the couple appeared so normal. By contrast, while I do not believe it was a reason not to publish the cartoons, objectively speaking it is not hard to see that the cartoons could be viewed as offensive.

Another example: Buster the Bunny. Remember him? Christian conservatives went ape-sh** over the broadcast of an innocuous cartoon. (Even though not once - not once - is lesbianism, as opposed to male homosexuality - referenced in the Bible.) Many local PBS outlets spiked the show.

Muslims have much more cause to upset over the cartoons depicting Mohammed than Christian conservatives did over a cartoon depicting a bunny.
What’s more, as I wrote, I have no problem with an outlet making "concessions to the sensitivies of others". We all do it. I merely note the discrepancy in their application of that concession, and wonder what the specific cause might be.
Graven images of Christ are not blasphemous. To the contrary, they are everywhere. By contrast, images of Mohammed, reverential or not, are always blasphemous. Indeed, look at Gibson’s Passion of the Christ. It was embraced by Christians, even though it depicted Christ through the use of an actor. If a filmmaker tried to make even a glowing tribute to Mohammed, and used an image of Mohammed or an actor in doing so, Muslims would still get upset.

That’s the specific cause of the discrepancy. Not that difficult to understand, actually. Next question.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
(Even though not once - not once - is lesbianism, as opposed to male homosexuality - referenced in the Bible.)
Wrong. Romans 1:26-27 references lesbianism. I don’t expect you’ll correct yourself, though. Several threads back, I challenged you to correct your numerous mistakes...I notice you never bothered to reply.
And when I point out a real life example that disproves YOUR point, you claim my point is "off topic."
ONE data point does not disprove Jon’s point. For every example like this you can cite, there are dozens of examples where Christians object to published works and the works still get published. The "P*ss Christ" exhibit, for one...the exhibit of the Virgin Mary splattered with elephant dung for another...The Last Temptation of Christ..the list goes on.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
A difference without a distinction, as lawyers say. I was responding to YOUR point that thuggery is somehow more effective than non-thuggery.
I’m going to try to explain this once more, in case your meanderings are the result of my own lack of clarity. I don’t object in principle to a business reacting to market pressures. I may object to a specific decision, but not to the general idea of bowing to boycotts or public pressure. I support the freedom of dissent and boycotts, so I can’t possibly disagree in principle with their existence.

What I have a problem with in this instance — and, really, you should, too — is the apparent double-standard on the part of CNN in which they bow to religion objections to one image, but not to another....when the sole substantive difference between those objections is that one side is committing terrorism to enforce their will, while the other is merely writing letters.

As much as I disagree with their views, I applaud the willingness to protest those images via mere boycotts. I also applaud the willingness of many in Europe to publish those images in the face of violence. I think that’s exactly what one ought to do.

What I have a problem with is rewarding violence. Now, to you: why do you think it’s acceptable to portray blasphemous christian images, but not blasphemous islamic images? Other than the disparity in retribution, what was diferent? (and yes, the RS image was "gross irreverence towards any person or thing worthy of exalted esteem". I don’t have any problem with it at all, but if sensitivity is your standard)
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Here’s a better, shorter explanation: "We won’t publish this because it offends some people" is acceptable. "We will publish this even though it offends some people....unless they threaten us" is not.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I also believe this is different because the pressure is coming externally. Freedom of speech/press and concern for market pressures are internal decisions of a country. Much of the pressure is external. I wonder what the Danish response would be if the US tried to dictate what it could publish as cartoons.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://
Associating a contemptible idiot like Kanye West with Jesus Christ is far more blasphemous than anything in those very mild Danish cartoons. But the cartoons are only an excuse. Muslims are flexing their muscles once again, seeing how far we will let them push us.
 
Written By: Van Helsing
URL: http://www.moonbattery.com
The reaction from the radical muslim community is absolutely frightening. They don’t like the images because they insult their religion, so they suggest killing the creators? Amazing. There is an abhorent sect of radicals within Islam, and it’s hard not to conclude that that specific group of people are anything but a plague on humanity. I’d like the US to do nothing but allow the whole muslim world — with their radical elements — slip back into the empty desert.
 
Written By: upset11
URL: http://
One of the things that bothers me about all this is the implicit belief on the part of many people (especially lefties) that people have some sort of right not to be offended. While I fully believe that we owe it to each other as human beings to be courteous and respectful whenever possible, there are times when "offense" not only WILL be given, it MUST be given. This is really the heart and soul of freedom of speech and freedom of the press: the right to say things that might offend the powerful without fear of official retaliation.

If puzzles and even outrages me when lefties like mkultra make much of Christians protesting TV shows, movies, art, etc. that offend them, and equate their peaceful expression of opinion and boycotts with muslim extremist who want offenders’ heads to be chopped off.

If the muslims who find the cartoons offensive want to protest, that’s their right. If they want to boycott, that’s also their right. But when they start issuing threats of physical violence, they’ve gone over the line.
 
Written By: docjim505
URL: http://
Wrong. Romans 1:26-27 references lesbianism
Not really, not if you take lesbianism to mean - as most people do - a natural orientation of women to prefer sexual relations with other women as opposed to sexual relations with men. Paul certainly wasn’t referring to lesbianism. As opposed to heterosexual women committing sexual acts in service of idols in open public with anything that walks.
I don’t expect you’ll correct yourself, though. Several threads back, I challenged you to correct your numerous mistakes...I notice you never bothered to reply.
No need to do so. See supra. What was you said again about Cindy Sheehan breaking the law? As for other "mistakes," I have made, in your eyes, unless one literally worships the ground Bush walks on, they cannot help but being mistaken. So no, I won’t correct my "mistakes." Sorry.
What I have a problem with in this instance — and, really, you should, too — is the apparent double-standard on the part of CNN in which they bow to religion objections to one image, but not to another....when the sole substantive difference between those objections is that one side is committing terrorism to enforce their will, while the other is merely writing letters.
Sole substantive difference? Did you read what I wrote? The substantive difference is the iconography of the two religions. One religion says any image of the messenger is blasphemous, the other does not. If you do not consider that a substantive difference, then what is?

Indeed, to compare the level of outrage over the Danish cartoons with the level of outrage over the Kanye West photos is ridiculous. Let’s say CNN gets one million complaints about the former, and two about the latter. Do they spike each because they have received complaints about each?
Here’s a better, shorter explanation: "We won’t publish this because it offends some people" is acceptable. "We will publish this even though it offends some people....unless they threaten us" is not.
Ok - and tell me, where did CNN say it was not basing its decision on the former motivation, and was instead basing it on the latter? CNN said it wasn’t publishing out of respect for Islam. According to what you just said, that is an acceptable answer.

What you are trying to establish is that CNN is not being sincere because it published the Kanye West photograph. Again, I would point out the different iconography when it comes to both religions. What might obviously pi** a Muslim off might not pi** a Christian off, and vice versa.

Moreover, there are differences within religions themselves. There are some Christians who believe that any image of Christ is blasphemous. So if CNN spiked a story about the Passion of Christ because the movie contains an image of Christ, on the ground that some Christians might be offended, would that be ok? What if other Christians complained about spiking the story? What then is CNN to do?

To reduce the issue to simply one of "terrorism" is simplistic. Unlike the wingers on the right and the Islamic fundies, I say publish both the West photo and the Danish cartoons. I am not defending CNN for what it did. What gets me is that the wingers in this country are so quick to read into this some kind of bias in favor of the terrorists.

As Bush likes to say, the terrorists hate us because of freedoms. CNN time and again puts images of scantily clad women on its website. Terrorists are supposedly killing us in protest of our wicked western ways, including puting pictures of scantily clad women on news websites. Nevertheless, CNN continues to do this, in spite of the the terrorism. So any idea that CNN is adhering to the principle that it will not publish anything that offends terrorists, is simply ridiculous.

Indeed, this is what blows your suspicion out of the water. There are thousands of things that CNN does that probably pi** the terrorists off. But CNN continues doing them anyway.

Take your theory one step farther: Let’s say that MSNBC broadcasts a video of someone dressed up as Christ simulating sex with another man. Lets say this gets millions of Christians fired up. Let’s assume further that a few even get violent over it. Burn a few cars, MSNBC headquarters even. And then lets say that CNN decides not to air the video out of respect for Christianity. Would it have to to air the video, just to prove it wasn’t giving in to the ones who got violent? I doubt you would find anyone here who would say that. They would call it a very considerate and sensible decision on the part of CNN - the same people who are saying now that CNN is giving in.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
By contrast, images of Mohammed, reverential or not, are always blasphemous.
Always?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Some of the chatter I see going on on the blogs right now, is that republishing the cartoons in question is unnecessarily insulting. I find myself disturbed and angry by this point of view , particularly from people who should know better.

The Muslim radicals say they are being violent, because they are demanding respect. However it seems to me, that respect itself engenders respect. We in the west and subject to much in the way of insults, and nothingnni the way of respect, from people who understand little if anything of our culture, and what nothing to do with it, other than our money, and our submission.

We have sat back and watched thousands upon thousands of our people be slaughtered in support of a vile ideology. One sided respect in that light can only go so far. And, it has been one sided. Are we EVER going to be able to get them to stop trying to kill us? I doubt it, and so do a majority of Americans, I think. THe evidence of this is in abundance, in it’s lack; Where are all the Muslims that are denouncing these radical actions? Where, I ask, are all the Muslims protesting BinLaden and his minions? Where are all the Muslims protesting Iran’s were like stance against its neighbors?

There are none, or damned few... not enough to make any show of respect worthwhile. And the American people have identified this situation for what it is. They know we’re not going to be able to make peace with these people any more than the cow makes peace with the butcher. They mean to kill us or enslave us. We know this because they’ve said as much. Why are we still concerned about hurting their feelings?

The message being sent by publishing those cartoons here in America is that we will not submit to bullies. And screw them if they don’t like it.

The lines are firmly drawn, as they have been since 9/11/01. If there are peaceful Muslims who abhor what’s been done in the name of their religion, let them speak. They will get our respect.

Else, let them gird themselves.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
As far as CNN - shoot... It’s got a lot to do with keeping their journalist crews alive.
We’re talking about people who are yelling about killing editors and cartoonists...Think about that....now think about CNN running the cartoons...
and the next CNN crew to show up to film a good old embassey burning suddenly finds themselves being stoned on the spot.
Pure practical defense of assets. It’s NEWS which they can’t cover directly themselves if they anger the rioters without getting their people, literally,
killed.

Not to mention, it’s a service to publish the photos in what way?
Running clips of people running on fire from an explosion serves the community in what way?
There’s plenty of things many media outlets edit - photos of people dying being but one classic example. So, why fan the flames any further? I haven’t seen the cartoons, but don’t feel at a loss because of that. And since it’s clear their culture can’t handle it there’s no point in driving them totally into a state where they hop on the ponies, kiss their wives goodbye and head on a Jihad across Europe. All just to prove that our culture can publish cartoons even if it makes them mad.

As to the reponse of the muslim community, while it IS forbidden to THEM to do up images of the prophet, we, unbelievers that we are, are not.
MK, let me know next time Christians burn down Rolling Stones main office and threaten, en masse (not just an arbitrary fundamentalist loon whacko via mail), to kill the editors, artists and publishers for the picture of WestChrist.
If this were a bunch of Christian fundamentalists burning down movie theaters and studios in Hollywood you’d be on your lefty horse like the fifth horseman of the apocalypse reminding everyone how benighted, backward and ignorant Christian conservatives are.
In fact, you’re doing it now, and I don’t see you doing much hand wringing over the Muslim response.

Boycotts, good....fine....burning buildings and death threats by public officials (Hamas...) aren’t, at least not in a civilized world, but it’s a normal order of business for them.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Speaking of Kanye...
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
"CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect for Islam."

And people give money and obedience to John Gotti out of respect, also. "Respect" seems to be Italian for fear.

"Cartoons today, editorials tomorrow, the straight reporting the day after"
We already know that CNN will sanitize their "straight reporting", remember their coverage of Iraq?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I’m going to try to explain this once more, in case your meanderings are the result of my own lack of clarity. I don’t object in principle to a business reacting to market pressures. I may object to a specific decision, but not to the general idea of bowing to boycotts or public pressure. I support the freedom of dissent and boycotts, so I can’t possibly disagree in principle with their existence.
And you know that CNN is not bending solely to market pressure because ....

CNN may have made the calculated gamble that showing these images may cause it more harm from an economic standpoint than not showing them. After all, it is not unreasonable to assume that more muslims might boycott CNN for showing the images than would non-muslims boycott it for not showing them.



 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Here is what the Vatican had to say - in part:
"The right to freedom of thought and expression ... cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers."
Sorry Benny, it does. In fact, it entails that right in its entirety. Indeed, without that "right," it is meaningless.

What a tool - what an enemy of freedom. Funny, but the conservative wing Catholic Church seems to agree with the muslim extremists. Wonder when those on the right will call the pope on what he said and demand he retract his support for the extremists.

I won’t hold my breath.

Oh, and by the way, to all you wingers out there, welcome aboard. It is lovely to have you in the free expression camp, for once. Perhaps we can now discuss more objectively the concept of "responsible dissent."
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
“Here is what the Vatican had to say - in part:
"The right to freedom of thought and expression ... cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers."
Sorry Benny, it does. In fact, it entails that right in its entirety. Indeed, without that "right," it is meaningless.”
Sometimes a rose grows out of a horse turd. I could agree that the above quote is worthy of respect except that I have seen the other drivel that comes from the same source. It must be the “monkeys on a typewriter” thing. I am unable to follow MK’s train of thought here, but the above quote is eminently supportable and heads and shoulders above the usual tripe that MK offers as commentary. Does that mean that I think MK is on to something? Unfortunately, no. It is the typewriters and the monkeys.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
The difference here is one religion teaches us to love our neighbors, the other teaches us to blow them up. This may sound harsh, but I am just as harsh with quasi-christian nuts who totally deny Christ by their actions in blowing up abortion contractors (some call them doctors).

The big difference between this bit of reporting and the American broadcasters that have bowed to ’Christian pressure’ is, as pointed out before, market pressure rather than force. If I as a Christian tell a media outlet and their advertizers that I will choose to spend my money elsewhere and they decide to make a financial decision and change, then market pressure has prevailed and they bowed to their own self-interest. If they tell me to stick it, then I take my money elsewhere and another benefits financially from their choice. Either way they freely excercise their rights and I freely excercise mine.

When a muslim threatens death and mayhem in response they are not exercising their right over their own property (their money and where they will spend it) but are attempting to exert force of will over another’s rights.
 
Written By: cluckk
URL: http://www.housechurchportal.net
Here is some wisdom that puts the blame where it belongs; on the MKs of this world.
“One regret I have is that this battle should have been fought and won in favor of intentionalism and individualism inside our own western universities years ago; instead, the victory went to our progressive academic collectivists, whose fidelity to PC culture, identity politics, free-speech zones, tolerance training courses, et al manifested themselves in a “tolerance” culture that now has the goverment looking inside individuals’ heads (hate speech, hate crime) and effectively chilling all speech by defining tolerance in an Orwellian sense of tolerating only that speech which is so bland and banal that it is unlikely to offend anyone. And now we might be forced to battle with guns and chemical weapons and fissile material rather than with confidence in our own intellectual rigor and rectitude.”
“Our greatest weakness at this point is ourselves. On the one hand we have those so blind or curdled with a metastasized BDS, that they will do rhetorical backflips rather than admit that maybe they were wrong. On the other hand we have those who would be only too eager to rush headlong into the trap of hate being laid by the radical muslim elements and thus enrage and they hope, mobilize the entire muslim world.”
“Unfortunately, it is our own media and the ‘progressive’ elements in the west that are helping the barbarians by continuing to stoke the fires with wall to wall coverage and with the soothing words of appeasement.
If western civilization falls, it won’t be because we lost the battle of ideas, or lost on the field of battle. If we loose, it will be because we gave up our freedoms to barbarism for the short term security of being the last sheep that the lion eats.”
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Oh my God...

Listen to this exchange between a Danish MP and a BBC journalist (courtesy of audioblogger). I can’t even believe the last minute of dialogue even needs to be said in the Free West.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
"And you know that CNN is not bending solely to market pressure because ...."

Perhaps because, as I mentioned, CNN has a record of bowing to non-market pressures. Of course it also depends on which market you don’t want to offend, and I realize how important the Islamic-third-world demographic is to CNN’s marketing department and advertisers.

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Not really, not if you take lesbianism to mean - as most people do - a natural orientation of women to prefer sexual relations with other women as opposed to sexual relations with men.Paul certainly wasn’t referring to lesbianism. As opposed to heterosexual women committing sexual acts in service of idols in open public with anything that walks.
Wrong, whale breath. The passage is about lesbian behavior. Even www.religioustolerance.org — hardly a right-wing site — has to say about it:
This passage is unique in that it is the only place in the Bible that refers to same-gender sexual behavior by women
Go on, start apologizing.

No need to do so. See supra. What was you said again about Cindy Sheehan breaking the law? As for other "mistakes," I have made, in your eyes, unless one literally worships the ground Bush walks on, they cannot help but being mistaken. So no, I won’t correct my "mistakes." Sorry. Oh, puh-leeze. You’ve made more errors than any of us here can count,and you’ve never once corrected any of them. Go back and look at the Sheehan thread: I admitted my source was wrong. And I don’t worship the ground Bush walks on — I didn’t even vote for him.

But that’s SOP for you: accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a Bush worshipper and a wingnut. You’ve got nothing in your arsenal but ad hominem

 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
For all of the talk we’ve heard about how such images are strictly forbidden, perhaps it would be wise if we were to look at some of the history of such images.

These with which these images were found, and the number of them, suggest that what’s really going on here is that Muslims are looking for an excuse to be offended.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Correction last line:

These with which these images were found <=> The ease with which these images were found..
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
I think we can find it useful to look at what the media "self censors" and what they feel is ok to endlessly show over and over again:

Self-Censored:——————————————Show Endlessly:

The Muhammad Cartoons ——————————Abu Ghraib photos
Photos of 9/11 jumpers——————————Breathless coverage of urine-korangate
Pre-war news from Iraq——————————Classified NSA program information
Most good news from Iraq—————————Most bad news from Iraq


See a pattern here?
 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
Mark Stein has the right of it:
“...in practice, there’s very little difference between living under Exquisitely Refined Multicultural Sensitivity and Sharia. As a famously sensitive Dane once put it, "To be or not to be, that is the question."
Tigerhawk gets it:
“The real reason the left is quiet is that this crisis is a lance at the heart of modern identity politics. It has exposed the stupidity of hate crimes legislation, and made us all aware that our devotion to "tolerance" — the true god of the Western lefty — cannot be reconciled with an allegedly victimized group that is itself intolerant. The only solution is surrender, and the left does not want to admit that. So it pretends the story isn’t happening. We’ll let them know when its over.”
And then we have Josh Marshal’s gabblefab which is typical of the lefty response. They are in real trouble until they can decide which crucial facts to ignore so that they can resurrect their alternate universe for the faithful. Damn it is confusing when actual facts from the real world develop so quickly that they cannot be papered over fast enough.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
I think we can find it useful to look at what the media "self censors" and what they feel is ok to endlessly show over and over again:

Self-Censored:———————————————-—————Show Endlessly:

Anything bad about Israel——————-Anything bad about Muslims
 
Written By: media
URL: http://
One of the things that bothers me about all this is the implicit belief on the part of many people (especially lefties) that people have some sort of right not to be offended. While I fully believe that we owe it to each other as human beings to be courteous and respectful whenever possible, there are times when "offense" not only WILL be given, it MUST be given. This is really the heart and soul of freedom of speech and freedom of the press: the right to say things that might offend the powerful without fear of official retaliation.
Written By: docjim505

Agreed...except when it comes to Jews or Israel. That must always be considered anti-Semitic!
 
Written By: Moshe
URL: http://www.adl.org
Book; just go away.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Agreed...except when it comes to Jews or Israel. That must always be considered anti-Semitic!
Yeah, so? It’s no skin off my ass if you badmouth the Jews or Israel.

The skin starts to come off when you say that you want to kill ’em all. The skin’s off when you start doing it.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
OrneryWP:
I can’t even believe the last minute of dialogue even needs to be said in the Free West.
Further proof (as if any were needed) of the really bizarre attitude that the lefties have toward freedom. That same BBC journalist would doubtless wax indignant if somebody suggested that the Beeb’s news reporting was in any way influenced by market forces. Yet, she seems to seriously suggest that the Danes should toss freedom of speech and the freedom of the press right out the window in the name of avoiding potential economic fallout from a muslim boycott.

It’s ironic that the lefties (and I definitely include the Beeb in this category) have lately been making much of a bowlderdized quote from Ben Franklin about "those who give up liberty for security deserve neither". Yet, is this not exactly what they think Denmark should do?

I was also astounded (well, not, really) that she seems to think that the Danish PM should have kowtowed to the muslim ambassadors and scurried off to forbid Danish newspapers from publishing the cartoons. Can you imagine what she’d say if somebody suggested that Tony Blair should tell the BBC what they should or should not publish?

Notherbob2 cited Tigerhawk:
“The real reason the left is quiet is that this crisis is a lance at the heart of modern identity politics. It has exposed the stupidity of hate crimes legislation, and made us all aware that our devotion to "tolerance" — the true god of the Western lefty — cannot be reconciled with an allegedly victimized group that is itself intolerant. The only solution is surrender, and the left does not want to admit that. So it pretends the story isn’t happening. We’ll let them know when its over.”
I think he’s close to the mark, but the lefties aren’t ignoring the story completely: when forced to address it, it becomes DENMARK’S fault for allowing those cartoons to be published. Same sort of bizarre logic that excused the LA rioters several years ago... or makes the US take the blame for 9-11.

Give ’em some time, and they’ll come out with a theory explaining how it’s all Bush’s fault.
 
Written By: docjim505
URL: http://
Y
eah, so? It’s no skin off my ass if you badmouth the Jews or Israel. The skin starts to come off when you say that you want to kill ’em all. The skin’s off when you start doing it. Written By: Mark A. Flacy

Mr. Flacy’s skin come off his ass when a little old man in a wheel chair is murdered by a "made in USA" missile fired from a "made in USA" helicopter? An old man in a wheelchair??? Is this how my American tax dollars are spent by Israel?



 
Written By: Moshe
URL: http://www.adl.org
Yeah, no doubt he was a Saint...well, probably not.

But he was an old man in a wheel chair, at least you got that part about him right....
Some day Osama Bin Laden may be an old man in a wheel chair. I can tell you
how much that would affect my judgement if I was targeting him with a missile.
Hamas is such a friendly bunch. And I’ll bet the Sheikh was the friendliest of the lot.
"Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei called the attack on Sheikh Yassin a "dangerous, cowardly act".
Whereas blowing yourself up along with a bus load of people going to work in Jerusalem is a sane, thoughtful act of noble sacrifice and bravery that will win the hearts of sensible, civilized people the world over.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Mr. Flacy’s skin come off his ass when a little old man in a wheel chair is murdered by a "made in USA" missile fired from a "made in USA" helicopter? An old man in a wheelchair??? Is this how my American tax dollars are spent by Israel?


Question- Are you deliberately obscuring the facts about the "old man in a wheelchair", or are you just ignorant of them?
 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
Quick, MK, tell us (before the NYT tells you what you think). You have no trouble living with the inconsistencies of modern liberalism so long as you have access to the NYT to get the latest PC information. With the issue of Islamic intolerance you (and all liberals) are between a rock and a hard place. Yes, according to the strong stand you have taken, free speech says publish the cartoons. But what of multiculturalism? Yes, but what of free speech? The conflict is too direct to do your standard runaround of paper/rock/scissors. Which one is it ? Paper, rock or scissors?
To anyone who is not an idiot, your initial take is the correct one But now that you have time to think, you can see what that take does to the multicultural bullsh*t that you have been endorsing these many years. . Multiculturalism and all that goes with it is revealed as a crock. What to do. Well, buster, what do you do? Until the NYT tells you what you think you have no idea, do you?
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Fact is, no more do they.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Sorry. Make that b*llsh*t. It bears repeating.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
“CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect for Islam.”
Once again CNN fails as a media outlet by evoking censorship. Ridiculous!

How can I make an educated stance when I’m suppressed information?
How am I to support or reject these incidences when I cannot even view the actual offences?
 
Written By: John
URL: http://
It’s simple. Let’s pass a law saying it’s illegal to insult religions.

The Left like MK Ultra are so gung-go to protect Islam, I’m sure they will agree to such a sensible law.

Then the next time there are any anti-Christian messages printed anywhere, we can clap the authors in jail.

Somehow I think the fact that Islam is mainly composed of brown people who are not Republicans distorts the Left’s normally admirable priniciples of press freedom.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Notherbob2 is exactly correct. Multiculturalism only appears to work when the other cultures are similar and allowed to operate in shallow ways that do not break any objective moral rules, like gay rights, polygamy, slavery, female infanticide, women’s rights etc.

Islam is the ultimate test case that will end cultural relativity in the long run, or Islam will have to change drastically to fit the rules....(and not the other way around.)

I suspect only because Islam temporarily appears to oppose the USA, Israel, and capitalism that people on the Left are willing to carry its water.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
In fact, even in Muslim nations, images of Muhammad have been commonplace. Not in Arab nations, but in Turkey, Iran, especially in Shiite and some Sunni nations— many very early images of Muhammad from the 7th century, before the prohibition on images had arisen, were obtained and used to produce similar images which remain popular outside the Arab Middle East. So when some protestors claim that "all images of Muhammad" are prohibited, they’re wrong— in non-Arab Muslim countries, they’re commonplace, even images of Muhammad that are unveiled, with his face fully visible.

Obviously, the Danish cartoons were in a more disparaging light, and that’s one factor leading the Muslims in the Middle East to overreact like this. But another factor— and this is where I think the Danes were particularly stupid— is that Denmark has a big contingent of troops occupying Iraq. *This* was the mistake, and I think it’s the major undercurrent to at least some of the protests. It’s not just that the images were issued— it’s just that the Danes are members of a military force occupying a Muslim country (which by definition means, imposing military force on it). It’s perceived as very humiliating by the Muslims themselves, and as every strategist from Machiavelli to Clausewitz has shown, you TIPTOE VERY CAREFULLY around the feelings of an occupied people. They’re already close to rage as it is, so you have to be very careful about inflaming their emotions further. The Danes seemed to have forgotten this crucial detail— as a member of an occupying force, they should have been far more careful about something like this.

Which leads me to another point— I’m sorry, but I just can’t get exercised about this issue as a decisive battle in the war to protect free speech. Freedom of expression always occurs within the context of surrounding events, and media outlets, courts and individuals have long allowed certain restrictions of speech under certain circumstances. In Europe, for example, it’s not only unacceptable but illegal to deny the Holocaust. David Irving, the Holocaust-denier historian, is now in an Austrian jail because of that. Obviously, Austria and the rest of Europe very much do believe in restrictions of free speech— even of political speech. Even in countries where such Holocaust denial isn’t illegal, it’s so strongly discouraged that no respectable newspaper would publish cartoons denying the Holocaust or making light of it. Similarly, in the US, no newspaper would ever publish cartoons showing blacks as uncivilized monkeys needing their white massas to lead them around. Part of this, of course, is the power relationship thing— blacks are seen, historically, as being disenfranchised, and when another people is seen as less powerful, the "ruling class" has to be very, very careful about antagonism. That’s regarded as important for an orderly society, and so US media outlets do routinely censor cartoons that would humiliate black people or native Americans, for example, considering our tragic history.

Also, you obviously can’t shout fire in a crowded theater, and if you show up at city hall making a threat to machine-gun the council members, you’ll find yourself in the penitentiary. So, free speech is restricted in the US and Europe, on a routine basis, both by legal means and by journalistic norms. That being said, we tend to be far more open to expression which pushes the limits, but that’s why I find the Danish cartoons to be a very poor test case— these weren’t articles raising sound and important questions that have been suppressed and blocked from seeing the light of day, they’re rather lame caricatures whose only purpose is to provoke. The free speech doctrines have been designed mainly to ensure open discussion of important ideas that would otherwise be suppressed, not juvenile taunts and insults directed at 1.5 billion people. I feel like there’s too much energy wasted on defending them.

Also, again, the key here is the context. Free speech isn’t isolated from its consequences, and when a number of Muslim countries are being occupied, many (such as Iraq) involving an especially resented occupation involving Danish troops and US troops being slaughtered every day, it was particularly ill-timed to put out these cartoons. Context really does matter.

As a final note here, I heard recently that some Iranian newspaper is sponsoring a parallel cartoon contest of caricatures mocking the Holocaust. Being a Jew myself, this makes my blood boil, and I would hope that European newspapers would have the tact not to reprint those cartoons from Iran, which are gratuitously inflammatory. But I’d be a hypocrite to then turn around and say it’s OK for the newspapers to publish the cartoons insulting Muhammad, which are also gratuitously inflammatory. That’s the point— the context here on both sides has to be considered.
 
Written By: Benny
URL: http://
— How can I make an educated stance when I’m suppressed information?
— How am I to support or reject these incidences when I cannot even view the actual offences? Written By: John

Exactly. How would you like to go to prison for asking those very same questions? Why are they so afraid of a little questioning about the facts?
 
Written By: blinkers
URL: http://
:)
http://mohammad.islamway.com/
 
Written By: lana
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider