Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 27, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates








Truthdig Bazaar
The China Reader: The Reform Era (Vintage)

The China Reader: The Reform Era (Vintage)

By Orville Schell and David Shambaugh

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Most U.S. News Orgs Won’t Run Muhammad Cartoons

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Feb 3, 2006
From Jyllands-Posten

Cartoons like this, which originally ran in a Danish newspaper, have sparked massive protests and calls for jihad against Denmark and the other European countries that published them.

As violence spreads across the world, Editor & Publisher has the best take yet on why most U.S. news outlets won’t re-publish the satirical images.

Editor & Publisher: NEW YORK—As a collection of controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad circulates online and through some European publications, prompting numerous acts of violence abroad, nearly all U.S. newspapers have chosen not to publish the cartoons.

Although most American papers have covered the issue, with many running Page One stories, most contend the cartoons are too offensive to run, and can be properly reported through descriptions. While some have linked to the images on the Web, others are considering publishing one or more of them next week. Meanwhile, the Philadelphia Inquirer has complained that The Associated Press should at least distribute the images and allow members papers to make the call. | story


ABC is one of the very few to do so. | video (there’s a commercial)

Update: Check out the way Truthdig’s Mr. Fish depicted Jesus in a cartoon.
Is it offensive, an exercise in free speech, or both?

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By michael siegel, February 16, 2006 at 3:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

shame on truthdig for republishing this propaganda

is there no limit to speech?  is there such a thing as obscenity?  just because we have the right to express something, should it be expressed?

i will always make the concession that there is no justification for violence.  violence only begets more violence - whether we are talking about “wars for freedom”, suicide martyrs, or in, this case, cultural imperialism.

what do i mean?  what is “cultural imperialism”? 

a suggested definition: imposing one worldview onto others, without their consent.

if one billion people, or some large fraction thereof, believe that illustrations of their spiritual leader is a form of blasphemy, why would you intentionally violate their sense of dignity - why would truthdig, and other media, willfully disrespect this sacred belief?

what is to be gained by asserting this freedom?  why is it right to freely disrespect other people and their beliefs?

granted, their are various fundamentalists on both sides that have interests in this fight - taliban-style leaders who want to assert a 21st century caliphate, western christians and jews who crave evidence to justify crusades against islam.  there are examples of exaggeration and inflammation that have have taken this debate into unreasonable realms, including murder and embassy destruction.  these extremist actions distract from the principal question, however, which is:

why must the West assert its right to caricature Mohammed? 

by reprinting this mohammed caricature of the prophet as a ticking time bomb, truthdig.com is validating the efforts of the Danish, Norwegian and other European media powers who have callously, even insidiously, put these images into the public realm.

if the reason for this is to assert speech, why not also publish graphic sexual imagery, rape victims from Darfur, rotting corpses from Daschau, Christian priests caught in the act of molesting young boys?  will we also reprint the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?  Sambo cartoons?  everything provocative in the interests of freedom?

the principle that truthdig seems to be standing on - that we reprint these profane images in the name of free speech - would seem to justify hate speech, incendiary speech, obscenity in all forms. 

luckily, the supreme court of the united states has been wise enough to distinguish between expression and provocation.

can the rest of us be so wise?

michael
oakland, calif.

Report this

By Dr. Swami Sez, February 14, 2006 at 6:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So, tell me, if this political cartoon was in color and the turban / hat / bomb was red, wouldn’t it have looked more like a Shriner from Cleveland?

“Death to cartoonists!”—- especially about a 6 month old political cartoon from the Danish press—is hardly a rallying cry of the noble.

If a Jew is depicted with a large nose in a cartoon, does that make it disrespectful???  Is it not but an artistic exageration of a character of the human condition? If it is derogatory and tasteless, well, then there’s Larry Flynt.

Long live satire and parody and the 1994 Supreme Court Decision on Satirist Rights.

For supurb humor / satire about this very subject, check out: “Hey Just Tell The Truth!! Be Frank ‘n’ Be Not a Lying Liar!!!.” It’s on Amazon.com or you can see the best sample pages free at http://www.xlibris.com... go to “bookstore” then “search” and put in title: Hey Just Tell The Truth.

Going back a few incidents, Homeland Security really “dogged” Cat Stevens. If Cat Stevens is a Terrorist Link, then its true…we ARE all related to one another through Adam and Eve.

Report this

By Gary, February 12, 2006 at 5:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Perhaps it is time for every person of faith to read and understand what Sam Harris has to say.  His book “The End of Faith” is an excellent starting point along with his article and rebuttal on the Truthdig site. 
There is no more room on the planet for destructive religions and ridiculous unsubstantiated religious philosophy. All one has to do is take the time to read the Quran or the Bible to see just how foolish it really is to believe in these hate filled documents. 
It was OK to be a religious fundamentalist in days past, but in the nuclear/biological weapons era, there is no room at all for religious zealots.  I have no desire at all to die or lose my way of life because of the ridiculous religious beliefs present in today’s world.

Report this

By RABIH, February 11, 2006 at 11:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

to all you idiots who think you are schollars of islam. you post comments here like you know everything in the world. you only know what you are told through the media, its like you are all zombies! wake up and have some common sense. you can just treat all muslims as a mob. im a proud muslim and never been prouder than now… not because of all those idiots burning buildings,,, thats just frustration and stupidity! if you will judge all muslims as a group based on what you see on TV, then you are a lost sould and a mindless creature. under your theory, people who are barbaric, violent, heartless, angry etc are extremists and we should judge all the religion based on that,,,,if thats so, lets not forget that Hitler was a christian.!

wake up people! get a brain and think….. if muslims are extreme because they get frustrated and think of being too far to one side, they you are not any better by being against them… you are just the same as the people you accuse of being a mob!

free to email and debate with someone who has a brain and maybe you will learn a thing or 2..:

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)


true muslim!

Report this

By larry allen, February 7, 2006 at 10:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

For all you “moderate” muslim out there I would like to ask why you are now so outraged that your religion is being associated with violence? Where was all of this outrage on 9/11, or Madrid, or London? The truth is that most of you approved of these attacks. That is the truth. It will proven again the next time a horrific attack on innocent people is made by those of your faith. There will be silence in the Muslim world.

Report this

By Frank, February 6, 2006 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If ISLAM is a religion that promotes the violent burning of buildings, death threats, assaults, and kidnappings in the name of a cartoon, then ISLAM is a mob, period.
Mobs are groups of people who, over time, have felt victimized and insulted repeatedly, and so have built up a reservoir of anger, for which a single incident can serve as a trigger.
Mobs need to be stopped.
However, after mobs are stopped, a real discusion about the underlying causes of the anger needs to be held, and solutions need to be implemented.
If you want the people who make up the mob within your society.
The alternative, which is always advocated by some, is that the people who make up the mob have no place in ‘our society’, and should be removed from it, either by imprisonment, deportation, or expulsion.
The question that arises in my mind, is whether societies whose governments are inherently religious (Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, etc, etc, etc) can ever really assimilate into countries whose governments are (supposedly) secular (US, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Austalia, etc, etc, etc.).
Separation of Church and State is a real intellectual dividing point. However, intellectual

Report this

By Malcolm, February 6, 2006 at 1:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This quote from a BBC article says it all

“They want to test our feelings,” protester Mawli Abdul Qahar Abu Israra told the BBC.

“They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and to their newspapers,” he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4684652.stm

Do they understand that saying “Death to {insert name here}” is the very definition of an extremist reaction to a cartoon.

Report this

By Ron, February 6, 2006 at 12:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Someone more adept than I should do a search of the most important Middle Eastern news papers to see if their editorial cartoons have ever caricatured non-Muslim religions.  If this has occurred (as I suspect it has), it should be immediately brought to the attention of the rioting masses.

Report this

By Plain Speech, February 6, 2006 at 9:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A religon that cannot tolerate a cartoon, is most surely not a religon at all.

Report this

By jimothy, February 6, 2006 at 6:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“- Saturday Night Live when Sinead O’Connor ripped up a picture of the Pope? The furor was enormous, which led to NBC receiving a 2.5 million dollar fine by the Federal Communications Commission. Imagine if Sinead ripped up a picture of Jesus.”

This makes for a lovely analogy, if only it were true. NBC was never fined for this incident, although, yes, many people were offended. But I don’t recall any consulates being burned.

Report this

By jimothy, February 6, 2006 at 6:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Let me see if I understand this. I’m not an scholar of Islam, so I might get some parts of this incorrect. But it seems the Muslims are offended because their God was portrayed. And He was portrayed in a manner which equates Islam with violence.

So offended are they at being equated with violence, these Muslims take to the street and burn buildings. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe these Muslims are doing more to tarnish the image of Islam than a thousand cartoonists’ pens ever could.

Report this

By KLW, February 6, 2006 at 12:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

These defenses are feeble and ridiculously fallacious.  No amount of hypothetical expressions that might be offensive to westerners is going to convince someone who values free speech to endorse censorship, either by government or by barbaric mob.  No offensive expression in contemporary Europe or the US has triggered massive, hysterical violent outbursts like this. 

We are not talking about “complaining”.  We are talking about thousands upon thousands of people rioting, ransacking, burning down buildings, proudly holding banners endorsing vitriolic hate, murder, and mutilation… even hundreds of direct death threats to the cartoonists and their publication… Over what?  The fact that somebody lampooned one of their heroes on an op ed page somewhere in Denmark?!? 

The supposed offenders, the Danish, are basically a mild and internationally inoffensive people that have a tradition of irreverent humor, and only the most oblique connections to the people who are “protesting”.  The fact that so many people have gone so violently crazy over something so abstract, harmless, and irrelevant to them is an indication that these people are completely insane, by any standard I know of.  All this defense and equivocation of such rampant criminality is shameful sophistry, and I doubt anyone who values this publication and what it represents is buying it.

Report this

By Evan Rogers, February 5, 2006 at 9:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is a great example of free speach, and also an great reminder as to why religion and government need to be kept separate.

I don’t think that the person who drew this cartoon was being racist, he was simply showing how hypocritic the so-called ‘terrorists’ are.  Their religion teaches understanding and compassion, but here they all are blowing everyone up. 

Without free speach, no matter what you think of it, people can never be taught properly: research simply can’t exist.  Without the separation of church and state, free speach can’t exist.

Report this

By C. M. Baxter, February 5, 2006 at 2:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“It has been open season against anything Arabic for40 [sic] years in the U. S. media, only more so now, [sic] you [sic] guys playing intellectual amd [sic] lying about Islam never said anything about that.
Quit your ignorant, illiterate statements, [sic] and…”

Ignorant, illiterate statements?  Hmmm…

Report this

By R. A. Earl, February 5, 2006 at 1:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

From the Bigger Picture item #9

“What we’re witnessing is the childishness of civilisations.”

Let’s not denigrate children. A CHILD is entitled and expected to act in a childish manner.

IMMATURE is the correct word to describe the reaction of fundamentalists, whether Muslim or Christian, left-wing or right, whose evolution and enlightenment is a “work in progress” that isn’t even approaching adolescence.

These folk are stuck in a time warp of some kind… their mental processes anachronistic in the world of 2006. I’ve long held the view that our technological achievements are the “rabbit” and our cultural & traditional views, the “hare.” We’ll have colonies in outer space long before Christianity and Islam are relegated to their rightful place… as curiosities of antiquity that served to provide people “something to do” - medicate them - while their brains evolved.

It wasn’t that long ago when Zeus was the head honcho to be worshipped, and He lived in “the mountains.” No one in their right mind would venture into the mountains for fear of upsetting “the big guy.” Apparently many of us have given up on the imaginary Zeus & Company to make, what seems to me, a lateral move to Christianity and Islam. I guess Zeus just wasn’t imaginary/elusive enough to sustain absolute control. Too many “caught on” that His Lightning Bolts were just natural phenomena. So there’s hope yet we’ll shuck the shackles of Christianity and Islam… but where we’ll careen to from that point is anyone’s guess.

Watching the fracas over the “cartoons” is much the same as watching a brawl amongst ignorant and superstitious illiterates. All each one seems to understand clearly is that his very survival rests on being perceived as the SAME as his peers. Banishment, or worse, is the fate that awaits anyone who tries to escape the “groupthink” of their culture/religion. Thankfully it’s a learned behavior… which means it can be UN-learned at some point… might take centuries though.

In the meantime… “If you’re offended then I’m offended… let’s go burn down an embassy… we’ve got nothing better to do anyway.”

Report this

By R.A, February 5, 2006 at 6:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

well, just reading some of the comments people wrote here and all i got to say is whats wrong with this world.? so much hate, u all sit here and say freedom of speech and freedom this freedom that, but what a load of bull!! what ever happened to respect? im sure in all religions it states to respect all people and love all people. even if you think islam is barbaric and violent, why dont you follow the path of your own religion and treat people with respect. im a proud muslim who did not want to see that cartoon, but i did…. i did not take to the streets but was deeply upset and enraged… and thats exactly what the newspapers wanted.. more rage..!! think the other side here… what would happen if a newspaper had a cartoon of a man saying… all women are scum and are only good for having babies and cooking…. what? that wouldnt be bad, rude, sexist and mean…. and are you telling me no one has the right to complain because its freedom of speech? wake up people….!! or what would happen if a middle eastern newspaper had cartoons of jesus christ holding hands with little boys and and walking into a catholic church, with text next to it “come on kids, my good priest will give you the magic TOUCH to help you in life”.... (god forgive me for saying that, jesus is also a sacred person in our koran) now, back to the point, that will enrage people, and if it doesnt, you have no passion for god or faith…...

well, after all this, i hope the world will step back and see what the media is doing to us… its deviding the world, all for the story… and the stupid people out there dont help…...

if anyone has a comment to send to me or wants to have a fair and open debate about this and any other issues related to islam,,,, email me on .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

peace be with you..

true muslim.

Report this

By The Bigger Picture, February 5, 2006 at 2:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As much as we try to rationalize the publishing of the cartoons, there are also issues of hypocrisy, double standards and racism.
Remember:

- Saturday Night Live when Sinead O’Connor ripped up a picture of the Pope? The furor was enormous, which led to NBC receiving a 2.5 million dollar fine by the Federal Communications Commission. Imagine if Sinead ripped up a picture of Jesus.

- A film called The Last Temptation of Christ showed Jesus making love to a woman? In Paris, someone set fire to the cinema showing the movie, killing a young man.

- Rachard Itani: “This whole affair is nothing but an over-reaction to a simple cartoon, you say? Not if you remember a certain other cartoon that appeared in the British newspaper, The Independent, on 27 January 2003. It depicted Prime Minister Sharon of Israel eating the head of a Palestinian child while saying: “What’s wrong? You’ve never seen a politician kissing babies before?” Jews in Britain and around the world erupted with indignation, arguably because the depiction reminded them of millennial charges levied against them by Christians who accused them of using the blood of babies in ritualistic killings. You see, Sharon can actually kill, maim and spill the real, actual blood of Palestinian babies: that is not offensive to Zionist Jews and their apologists in the West. But let Sharon be depicted in a cartoon metaphorically as the ogre that he has proved to be in his real life, symbolically eating a Palestinian child, and the world will erupt in offended indignation. A cartoon that is offensive to Muslims, on the other hand, is depicted as nothing but an expression of “free speech.” There is a word for this in any language: hypocrisy.”

Read the following articles (especially Rachard Itani, Robert Fisk and Remi Kanazi):

Rachard Itani: Cartoons and Hypocrisy—Danes Finally Apologize to Muslims (But for the Wrong Reasons)
http://www.counterpunch.org/itani02022006.html

Remi Kanazi: What Would Jesus Do?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11788.htm

The Independent: The Inside Story Of The Newspaper Cartoons That Inflamed The Islamic World
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060203_cartoons_offensive/

James Brooks: How Did We Become So Hateful?  Deep Roots Of Islamophobia
http://www.jerusalemites.org/articles/press/58.htm
_________________________________________________

ROBERT FISK:
DON’T BE FOOLED, THIS ISN’T AN ISSUE OF ISLAM VERSUS SECULARISM

So now it’s cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed with a bomb-shaped turban. Ambassadors are withdrawn from Denmark, Gulf nations clear their shelves of Danish produce, Gaza gunmen threaten the European Union. In Denmark, Fleming Rose, the “culture” editor of the pip-squeak newspaper which published these silly cartoons - last September, for heaven’s sake - announces that we are witnessing a “clash of civilisations” between secular Western democracies and Islamic societies. This does prove, I suppose, that Danish journalists follow in the tradition of Hans Christian Anderson. Oh lordy, lordy.

What we’re witnessing is the childishness of civilisations.

So let’s start off with the Department of Home Truths. This is not an issue of secularism versus Islam. For Muslims, the Prophet is the man who received divine words directly from God. We see our prophets as faintly historical figures, at odds with our high-tech human rights, almost cariacatures of themselves. The fact is that Muslims live their religion. We do not. They have kept their faith through innumerable historical vicissitudes. We have lost our faith ever since Matthew Arnold wrote about the sea’s “long, withdrawing roar”. That’s why we talk about “the West versus Islam” rather than “Christians versus Islam” - because there aren’t an awful lot of Christians left in Europe. There is no way we can get round this by setting up all the other world religions and asking why we are not allowed to make fun of Mohamed.

Besides, we can exercise our own hypocrisy over religious feelings. I happen to remember how, more than a decade ago, a film called The Last Temptation of Christ showed Jesus making love to a woman. In Paris, someone set fire to the cinema showing the movie, killing a young man. I also happen to remember a US university which invited me to give a lecture three years ago. I did. It was entitled “September 11, 2001: ask who did it but, for God’s sake, don’t ask why”. When I arrived, I found that the university had deleted the phrase “for God’s sake” because “we didn’t want to offend certain sensibilities”. Ah-ha, so we have “sensibilities” too.

In other words, while we claim that Muslims must be good secularists when it comes to free speech - or cheap cartoons - we can worry about adherents to our own precious religion just as much.

I also enjoyed the pompous claims of European statesmen that they cannot control free speech or newspapers. This is also nonsense. Had that cartoon of the Prophet shown instead a chief rabbi with a bomb-shaped hat, we would have had “anti-Semitism” screamed into our ears - and rightly so - just as we often hear the Israelis complain about anti-Semitic cartoons in Egyptian newspapers.

Furthermore, in some European nations - France is one, Germany and Austria are among the others - it is forbidden by law to deny acts of genocide. In France, for example, it is illegal to say that the Jewish Holocaust or the Armenian Holocaust did not happen.

So it is, in fact, impermissable to make certain statements in European nations. I’m still uncertain whether these laws attain their objectives; however much you may prescribe Holocaust denial, anti-Semites will always try to find a way round.

We can hardly exercise our political restraints to prevent Holocaust deniers and then start screaming about secularism when we find that Muslims object to our provocative and insulting image of the Prophet.

For many Muslims, the “Islamic” reaction to this affair is an embarrassment. There is good reason to believe that Muslims would like to see some element of reform introduced to their religion.

If this cartoon had advanced the cause of those who want to debate this issue, no-one would have minded. But it was clearly intended to be provocative. It was so outrageous that it only caused reaction.

And this is not a great time to heat up the old Samuel Huntingdon garbage about a “clash of civilisations”. Iran now has a clerical government again. So, to all intents and purposes, does Iraq (which was not supposed to end up with a democratically elected clerical administration, but that’s what happens when you topple dictators). In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood won 20 per cent of the seats in the recent parliamentary elections. Now we have Hamas in charge of “Palestine”. There’s a message here, isn’t there? That America’s policies - “regime change” in the Middle East - are not achieving their ends. These millions of voters were preferring Islam to the corrupt regimes which we imposed on them.

For the Danish cartoon to be dumped on top of this fire is dangerous indeed.

In any event, it’s not about whether the Prophet should be pictured. The Koran does not forbid images of the Prophet even though millions of Muslims do.

The problem is that these cartoons portrayed Mohamed as a bin Laden-type image of violence. They portrayed Islam as a violent religion. It is not. Or do we want to make it so?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article343111.ece

Report this

By fayez, February 5, 2006 at 12:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Listen to these people who are just so learned and are just so un-afraid of anything the various media
may report.
A couple points for you cultural primitives:
When you say it is the religion itself that is
a say, bad religion, you should be immediately arrested for inciting hate against a people, just as if you had said that the Jewish religion is bad, evil, whatever. The cable ‘news’ networks
peddle that every day; people from the right wing
think tanks,and/or jewish lobby groups constantly make
false and hateful remarks about Arabs and Moslems.
In Europe you cannot say or print certain things,
such as issues dealing with the holocaust[I have
just returned from Barnes and Noble where I perused a large book with many pictures of the
holocaust]
Actually, those cartoons did violate laws against
encouraging hate against a group, because it is now targeted.
Don’t give me your high and mighty bull about freedom of the press.
Look at the media in the U.S.: largely right wing,
supports the invasion of Iraq.
They report what the crooks in the current regime say, as if it is fact, and on and on.
It has been open season against anything Arabic for40 years in the U.S. media, only more so now,
you guys playing intellectual amd lying about Islam never said anything about that.
Quit your ignorant, illiterate statements,
and talking about the noble Islamic religion, as you have, you sound just like facsist Coulter,
Limbaugh, O’Reilly and other stupid arses.
You know, there are over 1 and a quarter billion Moslems in the world.
We did not do WW1 and 11 or death camps and the other actions which were the greatest horrors of the 20th century.
You are narrow people, when you join the un=informed, so talk understanding, see reality or just….SHADDUP later alligators

Report this

By KLW, February 4, 2006 at 3:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think this ‘incident’ exposes the fact that there really is a huge cultural divide between the industrialized west and the islamic world. 

I also think it exposes as a lie all the talk we keep hearing about how Islam is really a dandy, peaceful religion, and only a few crazy extremists are making it look bad.  Anyone who is willing to endorse or participate in violence over the fact that someone halfway across the world drew a cartoon is simply insane.  It seems like there are quite a few of them.  The real problem obviously has deep roots in the religion itself and is not something just tacked on by a few wackos. 

Unfortunately, there is also a similar divide here between people who favor a rational, secular government and a rising tide of evangelical Christianity.  Bombing abortion clinics and scapegoating homosexuals didn’t just appear out of thin air.  The truth is that both Islam and Christianity have deep, inherent flaws from the point of view of anyone who values peace, freedom, justice, equality… 

There is far too much deference to religion in this country.  Saying so puts one in a tiny, radical minority.

Report this

By R. A. Earl, February 4, 2006 at 3:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If Pablo’s assertion in #4 that the cartoons were meant as satire then it goes without saying that fundamentalists of any stripe will be upset.

Fundies are far too thin-skinned and narrow- and close-minded to appreciate anything as evolved and thought-provoking as satire.

Satire works in the “greys” of the universe. Fundies see only black & white.

Report this

By C. M. Baxter, February 4, 2006 at 1:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I side with Europe in this matter.  I think that the Muslims who took to the streets with guns and banners, threatened to murder citizens of the “offending” countries and who let their ignorance and intolerance hang out for the world to see, should be soundly denounced by all free media.  I also think that those same media should severely castigate our present administration for their utter pusillanimity.  By attempting to appease the Muslim world in this matter, by caving in to medieval barbarism, President Bush has turned tail (I’m almost certain he has one) on the very principles he claims to be fighting for.  In doing so, he has provided stark evidence of his own moral cowardice.

Kudos to ABC and to Truthdig for daring to publish the (quite funny) cartoons.

Report this

By Pablo, February 4, 2006 at 10:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“The drawings, which include a depiction of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, were meant as satirical illustrations accompanying an article on self-censorship and freedom of speech. Jyllands-Posten commissioned and published the cartoons in response to the difficulty of Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen to find artists to illustrate his children’s book about Muhammad, for fear of violent attacks by extremist Muslims.”

The point of publishing the cartoons was to expose the bullying hatred of Islamists.

Seems to me, that is exactly what he managed to do…

Freedom of speech is more far important than political correctness or the unabashed hypocrisy of the Bush regime’s support for a religion that calls for the death of a cartoonist.

Report this

By fayez, February 4, 2006 at 12:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ever see the way the fascists in Europe depicted jews in the 30’s and 40’s?  Just like the way the media depicts Arabs and Moslems now.You should be condemning racist depictions and columnists, mostly right wing jews and their hate friends. You all should be ashamed. The irony is sickening. Also, bums, last election, the majority of
jews in the U.S. voted Republican, cause Bush is influenced[about 98%] by the neo-cons most of whom are israeli lobbyist, chickenhawk traitors.

Report this

By pamalonia, February 3, 2006 at 10:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Does Randall Terry Want Islam to Blow Up the Free Press?

The Christian News Wire Service sent out a press release from Randall Terry, President of Society for Truth and Justice. Terry issued a statement February 3, 2006 in response to Muslim response to the Danish cartoon depicting the prophet Mohammed. Terry has a plan to “simultaneously show the true nature of freedom, and the true nature of Islam.”

His plan is that “newspapers in America and around the world” would “run the cartoon of Mohammed over and over and over.”

Terry expects Muslims worldwide to issue demands that no cartoons making fun of Mohammed be published. However, those who “cherish the freedom of speech and the press will resist such political and cultural incarceration,” says Terry.

He anticipates that Islamic religious leaders will issue a fatwa against the cartoonist and the newspapers that publish the cartoons.

“Threats of death or assassination attempts will be levied against those who authored the cartoons. Threats, assassination attempts, or destruction of property for the newspapers who ran the cartoons will begin to happen,” Terry predicts.

Isn’t Terry, by calling for the mass and repeat publication of the cartoon, hoping that such publication would provoke Islam into doing his dirty work for him–bombing the free press– much as he hates the “liberal media”?

GIAJ spoke with Randall Terry. He asserted that “we as Americans must publish the cartoons because if we don’t then we have surrendered to them.” To surrender would be to submit to “false peace,” Terry said. “Justice and freedom are more important than peace,” according to Terry.

(GIAJ wonders ideologically if you can have justice and freedom without peace.)

When GIAJ asked Terry if Islam makes him think of 666, he responded entusiastically, “That’s a whole other story.” He had someone on the line. He quickly excused himself.


http://www.godisajoke.com

Report this

By pamalonia, February 3, 2006 at 10:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When A Song Will Do Don’t Sketch

That the Muslim world would object to the cartoon portrayal of Mohammed is not surprising. Deeply ingrained in the mind of Islam is the belief that graven images are blasphemous.

Apparently the cartoon depicted the prophet wearing a bomb on his head in place of a turban. It seems it is not the idea of the bomb on Mohammed’s head that offends Islam, but the execution of the idea in image form.

Advocates of the free press argue that publishing the image speaks loud and clear a respect for the freedom to offend. While the right to offend is absolutely vital to intellectual and moral freedom, GIAJ wonders if freedom, the highest good, becomes evil when such an exercise deliberately trespasses upon a sacred boundary that can otherwise be gone around to achieve the same end. The political statement about the religion of Islam could be expressed in words, or in song just as effectively.

For example, were GIAJ to portray Mohammed, or Yahweh, also known as the Almighty God, for that matter, it would put the bomb between the legs where these Weapons of Masculine Destruction belong.

It might also pen a verse to the tune of Yankee Doodle Dandy that would go like this:
I’m a soldier of destruction,
Soldier of doom, do or die
A real live prophet of the end of times
Born was I to fight and to die
I got a Bible or a Koran
It’s my master, guide and joy
Enemies and Infidels came to town
Riding on a warhead
And that’s why I’m
A do or die boy

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.