February 2, 2006
DRIVEL
In defence of Danish satire (National Post, February 2nd, 2006)
Jyllands-Posten issued an apology on Monday for any offence caused, but defended its right to publish the cartoons. That is the right approach. To give in on this issue would represent the symbolic triumph of medievalism over the West's cherished democratic secularism. Muhammad may be a hallowed figure to the world's 1.2-billion Muslims. But knocking around hallowed figures is something democratic nations permit. Whether that means filth smeared on the Virgin Mary in a New York museum, or images of George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon eating babies, it's all legal. Or should be, anyway.
Provided, of course, one follows the “right approach” and apologizes for any offence caused.
Posted by Peter Burnet at February 2, 2006 6:57 PMPeter;
All of those things, which ones generated apologies? Only one, yet you generalize that to cover all these other incidents despite the fact that no apology was forthcoming. Seriously, why do you do that?
"Jyllands-Posten issued an apology on Monday for any offence caused, but defended its right to publish the cartoons. That is the right approach. To give in on this issue would represent the symbolic triumph of medievalism over the West's cherished democratic secularism. Muhammad may be a hallowed figure to the world's 1.2-billion Muslims. But knocking around hallowed figures is something democratic nations permit. Whether that means filth smeared on the Virgin Mary in a New York museum, or images of George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon eating babies, it's all legal. Or should be, anyway.
As Bernard Lewis and numerous other scholars of Islam have written, one of the great obstacles facing Islamic nations is their stubborn refusal to fully separate mosque and state. It is their right to remain backward in this respect if they wish. But they should not be permitted to foist their intolerance on more advanced nations. Denmark's government and Jyllands-Posten deserve praise for recognizing this fact."
Seems like whoever wrote the editorial is rather secular given the ranking of Sharon and Bush as hallowed figures alongside the Virgin Mary and the Prophet.
Also the author seems somewhat unclear about Muslim society: you can't separate mosque from state because there is no official Islamic religious establishment akin to the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church.
The protests and outrage have occurred because the cartoons have Muslims hold the Prophet in great esteem to a degree that's probably unfathomable now in a lot of the secular West, especially since they're described as symptoms of medieval barbarism.
Ali - Denigrating others has become central to the secular left's identity. They can't change behavior when it comes to Muslims.
That's why we have to take care to distinguish ourselves from the secular left, by denouncing the cartoons.
Posted by: pj at February 3, 2006 3:38 PM