Peter:

Have you seen the cartoons?

Peter, see if you can get your word-count down 60- or 70-percent; you really tend to gas it up, man.

A couple of these cartoons say so much that is true that they are sublime. Political cartoons, when good, constitute high art and hold an uncanny power to communicate truth. Seeing a Mohammed viciously wiedling a sword, with only his eyes black-barred, and behind him, two cowering women, every inch of them blacked-out, except their eyes, lookng out through a bar-shaped slit, the exact dimensions of the bar preventing Mohammed from seeing ... it's fabulous. Says it all. Earth to Peter Burnett: Islam IS political; you think it's exempt from criticism? Blasphemy? Get a clue, man! Half the world's population thinks these people are dangerous nuts. It's a reputation they've freaking well earned. Stop treating your women worse than goats and maybe we'll start taking you seriously. As if a good Catholic can't laugh at a Pope joke ... and if it's offensive, we ask God to help the offensive idiot; we don't cut his head off. The Europeans are bending over backwards for these primitive nuts. Banning Winnie the Pooh for Piglet? That's the kind of societal pressure that's going to get Islam to "reform?"

Peter:

It will be interesting to see how the euro journalists cover the trial in Italy with the atheist suing the Church (a village priest, actually) for stating that Christ did in fact exist. The plaintiff has already said he doesn't expect a fair trial in Italian court, but that the EU court will treat him better. Perhaps the angry Muslims should seek redress in Brussels.

Sorry, Geoff, I was too rushed to be brief this morning.

How about "Both sides are jerks"?

I will respect the right of muslims to be free of blaspheme, when they respect my right to continue to draw breath.

Peter, see if you can get your word-count down 60- or 70-percent; you really tend to gas it up, man.

Gas it up? It's a paragraph of succinct text with a link. Could not be more perfect. Not every blog is channelling Glenn Reynolds, ahem MAN.

Fabricated cartoons worsened Danish controversy:

"the Danish Muslim delegation showed much more than the 12 cartoons published by Jyllands Posten. In the booklet it presented during its tour of the Middle East, the delegation included other cartoons of Mohammed that were highly offensive, including one where the Prophet has a pig face. But these additional pictures were NOT published by the newspaper, but were completely fabricated by the delegation and inserted in the booklet ... the action was a deliberate malicious and irresponsible deed carried out by a notorious Islamist who in another situation had said that �mockery against Mohamed deserves death penalty.� And in a quintessential exercise in taqiya, Abu Laban has praised the boycott of Danish goods on al Jazeera, while condemning it on Danish TV."

Peter, perhaps both sides are acting like jerks, but there's more underlying this flap than cartoons. This is a warning to Europe of what life will be like as they surrender themselves to the will of their growing minorities. It (multi-culti) was so P.C. a few years ago, but they are now being mugged (read boycotted) to continue their integration into Islamism.

Buy Danish!

I thought Orrin said that God has a sense of humor and that's why it's OK to mock Him. I wouldn't do it myself, but if someone wants to see how much of a sense of humor the Supreme Being has, hey, it's their soul.

Peter, every word a gem.

I think I saw the cartoons a while back, but can't remember what they looked like. Anyone have a link?

Jeff, The cartoons are on Michelle Malkin's site:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004413.htm

Scroll down.

It's actually a suprise just to see European papers show any sign of cajones in standing up for the right to be controversal/tasteless on a subject that actually will create ccontroversey, as opposed to the usual lampoons of the Catholic Church or your average WASP culture, which carries no threat of retribution and simply makes the artists and writers feel good about themselves for being so cutting edge.

Every once in a while I'm struck by what a successful tactic terrorism has proven for Islamic radicals. It has won the Palestinians friends, respect and a proto-state, if they can keep it. It has won Islam in general a degree of deference of which other religions can only dream. It is now winning Muslims out-sized political influence throughout Europe. Now major motion pictures are being made damning us for responding to the terrorists. It's our own damn fault, but murdering innnocents has been great politics.

David:

Why should that be surprising? The IRA won plenty of friends in the USA.

Interesting that they gained no political ground in Britain until they stopped bombing.

It is certainly much easier to be tolerant when you know---when you truly internalize---that if you are not, you may get shot, stabbed, blown up, or decapitated. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, it concentrates the mind wonderfully, in this case, for virtue---for the acceptance of "the other."

The particular variety of activist Islam that has been seen of late should thus be commended, especially by the militantly---perhaps even the mildly---political correct, for promoting tolerance in a most effective way.

Some might argue that enforced tolerance is not true tolerance. However, such objections need not be taken all that seriously, since those doing the objecting can be counted on to either change their minds or disappear entirely. Eventually.

And some might argue that tolerance cannot, realistically, be imposed because people by their very nature need to blow off steam and should not be constrained from expressing themselves. Tolerance, they would insist, is not healthy.

However, this argument can be effectively dismissed as sheer polemic simply by pointing out that there are still ample targets against which one can vent one's spleen; since it is extremely politically correct to hold anti-American and anti-Jewish points of view.

And anti-Zionism is virtue.

So why worry?

You know Brit, I hear this a lot from er, Brits in general and it's utter B.S. 99% of all Americans never heard of NORAID, and most of the ones who have heard anything at all about the IRA disapprove of it. Support for NORAID was strictly a fringe phenomenon, to be found EXCLUSIVELY in certain Irish and Irish American circles in certain Northeastern cities, and not even among most Irish Americans. But whenever you mention terrorism, you can count on some Englishman to pop up and say "IRA/NORAID" and expect all the Americans to quake like vampires being shown garlic. So a bunch of Irish Americans in Boston and NYC gave money to NORAID. So what? How does that show that the IRA made "plenty" of friends in the US? It doesn't. As for the IRA having gained political support -- I hate to break it to you, but its political support now has been a gift of the long slow surrender of the British government. If you are under the impression that the IRA has given up lawbreaking, you are deluded.

The most hilarious aspect of this story is the claim from some offended Middle Eastern figure that the cartoons would never be published if they insulted a rabbi or other Jewish figure. Talk about needing to get a clue...

I would say that a people's religious beliefs deserve respect to the extent that those beliefs remain the private, voluntary expression of the believer's faith. Once beliefs cross the line into political manifestos then all bets are off.

Peter if you think that Europe's irreverence is a function of its secularity, then I'd hate for your illusions to be shattered by taking a look at the kind of vicious slanders and mockeries carried out by Catholics and Protestants during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. That stuff would put these feeble modern attempts at blasphemy to shame. To carry out serious blasphemy, you have to be a true believer.

Perhaps it is time to unleash a guerrilla army of graffiti artists throughout Europe and even take the battle directly to the Middle East.

"With a Beretta in one hand, and a spray can in the other....."

Surely some cartoonists in the US have the stones to duplicate the Danes. After all, they have no problem drawing Condi Rice and Clarence Thomas as big-lipped house slaves, or (like the WaPo did yesterday) showing armless and legless US troops under the eye of an evil Dr. Rumsfeld. If all the scribblers want to do is get the MAN, what better way to do it than to stick one right in Muhammed's (or Allah's) nose?

David - I understand your point, but I think that certain parts of the Muslim population would have rioted about this prior to terror becoming a common political tool (say, before about 1967, or even 1948). I think the deference part also has something to do with oil - remember the fall and winter of 1973. If the Middle East weren't the world's main repository of oil, Islam would probably get a lot more satire thrown its way.

what the arabs have really accomplished with their terrorism, is to make their lands a free fire zone, and the premier test site for new weapons systems. when they are sent to their maker en masse, no one will weep, no one will say stop.

Lisa:

99% Americans couldn't point to Belfast on a map of the world. So what? Without that US funding, there would have been a lot less IRA murders.

The point is that David is right - bombing gets you taken seriously, and violence gets you fans.

I'd suggest that you need to stop violence to get anywhere politically, but it does seem to be a pretty effective way to get your foot in the door.

Cornish independence never got anything like the press, and there's plenty of Cornish descendents in the States.

Genecis:

Thanks for the link; I had already seen them.

I just wasn't sure Peter had, for in his finely crafted comment on the article, he left me the impression the cartoons constituted blashpemy.

Which piqued my curiosity, as I had precisely the same take on them Henry has. Just because Muslims are hollering they are blasphemous does not make them so. Particularly since virtually all of them make pointed comments about human actions, not about the prophet or Allah.

Jeff: To be blunt, I don't think you're capable of determining whether or not these cartoons are blasphemous. Nor am I. That's for Muslims to determine. Now, you and I can determine whether we think that such expression should be legally permissible, and whether they should be socially acceptable, but not whether or not they are blasphemous.

David: I read a quote some time ago where a Kurdish leader was asked why there hasn't ever been any global support for a Kurdish state and he replied because they don't blow up Europeans.

At last! We have finally found something the modern european will fight to defend: the right to be a jackass.

In Islam it is considered blasphemous to even depict the Prophet. There are no images of him in Islamic countries, they are not allowed.

I got a kick out of hearing Bill Clinton in Davos state that these cartoons were "appalling" and should not have been published.

under islam, the mona lisa is blasphemous.

Cheer up, Peter! Always look on the bright side of life! (And whistle, while yer at it!)

Wonder if Bill Clinton considers Sbarro's "Piss Christ" "appalling?" No, wait--answered my own question--he was president when the NEA funded it, wasn't he? guess he doesn't.

Mike:

That's (Andres) Serrano, not Sbarro. Don't get the pizza makers upset.

As for Bill Clinton, he laughs at funerals (of supposedly close friends). He insults his country and then comes home and expects a little hug to take everything away.

Mike:

That's (Andres) Serrano, not Sbarro. Don't get the pizza makers upset.

As for Bill Clinton, he laughs at funerals (of supposedly close friends). He insults his country and then comes home and expects a little hug to take everything away.

99% of Americans couldn't find Belfast on a map? Perhaps. But if you believe that then it's pretty obvious that the IRA's support here was pretty fringe. The habit that some English have of constantly trying to smear the entire country as IRA supporters is tiresome and dishonest. (And in your case, condescending as well.)

Thanks for the correction, Jim. My apologies to pizza lovers everywhere.

In Islam it is considered blasphemous to even depict the Prophet. There are no images of him in Islamic countries, they are not allowed.

Well, no actually, as the Watch site demonstrates (see just under "Articles of the week"). This (outstanding) site also references this collection of western and Islamic depictions of Mohammed.

The fact is, some people dearly need a reason to rumble.

Hmmm...very interesting.

Mike, I think "piss chr*st" was in 1987 or 1988 so no Clinton connection there.

Irish-Americans, Brit, not Americans.

We can also thank drunk teddy for that, too.

I think you may be wrong about the P*ss Christ because I think Giuliani was mayor when that happened. He was trying to take money from the Brooklyn Museum because of it. That would make it later than '87 or '88 and quite possibly while Jane alexander was head of the National Arts Council and Clinton was in the White House.

google says it's 1989

Giuliani was mayor for the controversy over the Virgin Mary depicted with elephant dung by Chris Ofili at the Brooklyn Museum.

b:

To be blunt, your comment reeks of relativism. "Blasphemy" has a meaning, and it isn't defined by the annoyance meter of the hypersensitive.

David:

After reading the updates at michellemalkin tonight, I want to modify my earlier statement. CNN and NBC ran stories on the cartoons today, and refused to show any of them. That doesn't have anything to do with oil, but rather with anti-American emotion, and just plain fear.

And what about "All the News That's Fit to Print"? Surely this is even more serious than the fatwa on Salman Rushdie....which makes it quite newsworthy indeed.

Jeff: Yawn. Of course "blasphemous" is a relative term. Take the above mentioned "Piss Christ" for example. What some people consider blasphemy, others consider legitimate protest, and still others consider to be a tired and pathetic cry for attention. Standard Islam, as far as I understand it, is extremely iconoclastic and so some (not all) of these cartoons are probably legitimately considered blasphemous by many Muslims. Having said that, do I sympathize with those who are freaking out about them? Nope.

Lisa:

Of course it's fringe. It's fringe in Ulster.

Islam bans depictions of living creatures since it's considered that encourages idol-worship which in turn subverts monotheistic belief in an unseen Creator. Which is why Islamic arts and crafts have generally focused on ceramics, calligraphy, architecture and geometric shapes as opposed to paintings, sculpture etc.

The strictness of interpretation varies (taking it to the logical conclusion would mean TV and photos being declared impermissible) but depictions of the Prophet are generally off-limits, miniatures from Safavid court painters notwithstanding, given the increased risk of idolatory.

Having now seen the cartoons, I'm with Peter. A plague on both houses.

If they're meant to be satire, they are stupid, unsubtle, unfunny and unfair.

That a load of fundamentalists halfwits would go ape over them was surely entirely predictable. The cartoons weren't good enough to be worth it.

Ali

Judeo-Christian theology has given this a great deal of thought and settled on George Burns or Morgan Freeman.

b:

This definition appears to substantiate your point:

Blasphemy is the defamation of the name of God or the gods, and by extension any display of gross irreverence towards any person or thing deemed worthy of exalted esteem.

If that is what those cartoons were doing. However, my take on them is that the cartoons were lampooning the behavior of adherents to a specific religion, not the religion itself.

For instance, the cartoon showing Mohammed with a bomb in his turban is not disrespectful towards Mohammed, but towards what people do in His name.

Presuming Islam is the Religion of Peace(tm). On the other hand, it it isn't, as any close reading of the Quran would suggest, than the cartoon is simply a factual statement.

It is noteworthy that another definition of blasphemy is much more on point:

Swearing in the name of God, denying the existence of God, saying evil things about God, asserting incorrect beliefs about God, etc. One religion's affirmation of their God is another religion's blasphemy about their God.

You blashpemer, you.

Further to my point, calling something blasphemy simply doesn't make it so. In a recent Der Speigel editorial on this subject, the writer noted how evenhanded the West is when it comes to blasphemy, noting Monty Pythons Life of Brian as a case in point.

As it turns out, many Christians at the time were so offended by the movie that they called for it to be banned.

But it takes truly heroic effort to find blasphemy in that movie. There are two depictions of Christ, both of which hew exactly to the Bible. Nowhere in that film is there any insult to God.

However, it is very easy to find caricatures of religious belief. A memorable scene regarding blasphemy comes to mind.

Making fun of human behavior is not blasphemy, no matter how hissy the hypersensitive become.

A cartoon depicting God looking down from on high, irritated at Pat Robertson's latest fulmination is not blasphemy, because it does not insult God.

Similarly, a cartoon suggesting that aspirants to martyrdom have overdone it due to depleting the supply of virgins does not insult Mohammed, as the target is the terrorists behavior.

In this respect I disagree with Brit. Whether the cartoons are funny is a matter of taste. But each of those cartoons dealt with human behavior within the context of religious belief. And it is worth noting that several cartoons that would fit nearly anyone's definition of blasphemy were circulated through Arab countries, purportedly examples of published cartoons.

As it turns out, that is an out and out lie.

I think every newspaper in the West should publish these cartoons, then suggest to Muslims that they should either get over it, or boycott the entire world.

Jeff:

Thank you for putting in definitions. By far the worst forms of "blasphemy" do not involve cursing God, but speaking falsely on his behalf, or from putting a 'religious/spiritual' patina on something that is patently wrong.

I don't think the cartoons fit into these categories. The Muslims would look at it differently, no doubt, because it offends them that mankind would even deign to address the nature or character of Allah or Muhammed.

The Europeans may just have to ask the Muslims to leave.

Actually, there's a perfectly good non-blasphemous interpretation of "piss Christ," which is that it damns modern society for pissing on Christ's commandments. One has to be a little deconstructionist to accept it, but it is perfectly valid.

Sorry, David, we're all originalists around here when it comes to interpreting urine-soaked crucifixes.