So we're back to where we were in the Cold War, supporting odious regimes & behavior because "he's _our_ SOB".

Well, I don't like it now anymore than I liked it then, but I guess in the big scheme of things sometimes you've just got to eat a sh*t sandwich and smile.
But I still don't like it.

See my post in the item just below. "F@#$ 'em, if they can't take a joke."

No.

The line must be drawn here.

There are two choices, no more. We continue to recognize the right of free speech, or we ban the right of free speech.

Now if the choice is submission, the "law" enforcing spiritual tyranny must be of general application. In other words, all speech objected to by anyone must be suppressed. No one thinks we could single out one particular tradition for special protection.

To do so is a blatent establishment of religion--dead-on-arrival from the standpoint of First Amendment case law, I should say.

The corrosive taint of cowardice permeates this discussion. It is as if a time-travel fantasy has borne us back to the world of Munich.

I likewise don't care for this at all. Did the spokesman also say that threatening violence was not a good response?

The only thing that consols me is that it is an unknown State flack. However, I imagine that President Bush would also say the basic view when asked. Pity.

fred - exactly.

Lou - yes, we continue to recognize free speech. No one's questioning that. The State Department says "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press." They are making a moral statement.

This is not Munich. This is being attentive to the point of view of the good people who are our allies and friends. Of course we will denounce all violence or the threat of violence.

fred - I meant the 'exactly' to your last statement. The first part - about supporting odious regimes - is not true. We are supporting ordinary Muslims who don't want to see Mohammed blasphemed, but who want to work with us for liberty in the Middle East.

To some extent, PJ's postion is a logical extension of the 'walk softly and carry a big stick' school of foreign policy, and has much to recommend to it. The unfortunate reality is that the second half of that recipe is too rarely used, until the whole policy cannot be distinguished from cowardice. One you set limits on what you are willing to say, it can start to warp every other facet of your society (a la campus speech codes). You have to have confidence and long-range vision to use a policy like this, and it's clear many countries especially lack the confidence.

This is all very strange. It seems to me that the current fiasco is a direct product of the absurd Tolerance mandated by the European ruling class [NOTE that I am NOT trying to say that the extreme & in many cases violent reactions are justified or OK by me]. As far as I can tell, for years absolutely no criticism of Islam has been permitted, as any offender would automatically receive the mark of Intolerance, the worst sin that a modern European can commit. This of course has been met with utter contempt by a non-trivial, though still minority percentage of Muslims. Finally the frustration of many Europeans has begun to be expressed, but one wonders how any sort of understanding can be reached at this point. One the one hand, you have Europeans who are beginning to say "I'm tired of you telling me that I can't criticize a few Muslim hoodlums. Forget that. I say that ALL Muslims are hoodlums!" And on the other, you have Muslims who say "You're not allowed to criticize me!" (and the religion of Tolerance has taught them to believe that that's the rule...). So what possible way out is there?

Free speech includes the right to criticize the free speech of others, on the basis that what they have said is stupid. Our "liberal" Democrats don't like that, and tend to claim that anyone criticizing them is calling for censorship, but that's merely their way of trying to avoid discussing the merits (or lack of merit) of their arguments.
Let us not make the same mistake here. No one is calling for government censorship, or to re-introduce 19th Century AMERICAN blasphemy law. And calls for violent reprisals are likewise to be condemned.

I think it is only fair to point out that Denmark actually has 540 troops in Iraq. That's like, half their army. So they really can't be accurately characterized as neutral.

As the NSA wiretaps of foreign phone calls to and from the United States showed, what is said in the name of diplomacy by this administration -- such as all the platatudes about Islam being the religion of peace -- may be in part just for public consumption , and what is actually being done behind the scenes may not jibe with what is being told to the media.

I wouldn't expect to see anything else than this type of statement come out of the State Department, based on their past history, but hopefully like the NSA operation, what is being said and done behind closed doors about these threats to freedom of speech (however annoying it may be) isn't the same as the attitude being displayed for the public.

I think it's important to second HT's statement, the Danes have troops in Iraq.

"ordinary Muslims in places like Iraq and Afghanistan who long to live in freedom"

When someone threatens murder because of a cartoon it makes me think they may not care that much about living in freedom.

Bruce - It is not only "talk softly and carry a big stick," but even more importantly, befriend someone first and then try to persuade them. What's lacking in Europe is the friendship part. They hide their disagreement through cowardice, or rush to criticism without ever treating the other person as worthy of love.

b - Yes, precisely. I applaud the desire of Europeans to rebel against the growing oppression of free speech in their countries. I just wish they would do it with sensitivity to their potential allies from other cultures. It's not necessary, in the course of defending your own rights, to associate Mohammed with terrorism - an association that most Muslims reject and that good people around the world are at pains to refute, but that is the cornerstone of terrorist propaganda.

HT - Yes, Denmark is an ally and one of our best friends in Europe. Their PM deserves credit for his support for freedom of the press in this instance.

Carter - The loyalties of many ordinary Muslims stand balanced as on a knife: first, a pull toward democracy and freedom and the better lives those will bring; second, a fear of crossing the tyrants and terrorists, who kill advocates of freedom and U.S. allies; third, a desire to preserve their own culture, protect their Islamic religion from denigration, and be treated as equals and friends by whomever they ally with. If the U.S. and our allies do not treat them as friends and do not respect their culture and religion, it will be 2 to 1 and their desire for democracy and freedom will lose. If we do befriend and respect them, it will be 2 to 1 and they will swing our way.

second, a fear of crossing the tyrants and terrotists

What's missing is a fourth: a fear of crossing the West. Let's remedy that and one, two and three will sort themselves out.

keep in mind that europe doesn't have democracy, they have socialism. their governments (including the uk) are totally unresponsive to the electorate, hence the only way to get your point across is through rioting and strikes. no one asked the european voters if they thought open immigration from north africa was a good thing.

no matter how you dress it up, appeasement is appeasement is appeasement. if the muslims can't or won't fit into the host societies they move to, then it is their problem to solve.

islam is in a death spiral and its more extreme folowers are lashing out like a dying animal.

No one forced them to go to Denmark. If they kept to themselves not only wouldn't they acidentally read cartoons mocking their false prophet no one would be publishing them either.

The State Department's statement is absolutely shameful.

I'm not speaking about European Muslims, who have to adapt to their societies. I'm speaking about Middle Eastern Muslims, who we are working with in the war on terror.

Recently, "The Book of Daniel" was cancelled on broadcast tv. I did not mind that. My spouse, an Episcopalian like the protagonist, was disappointed. The show seemed to her so much like her church as she knew that it was spot on. As a Catholic much given to the power of metaphor, I thought the much-maligned appearance of Jesus was an merely an effort at illustrating Daniel's interior monologue. Nothing blasphemous, although other Christians might disagree. However, the show, as tv, was lame, too many dramatic conflicts in too little time. That was its major fault.

In the current kerfuffle, I sympathize somewhat with Muslims. We in the West have a problem with distinguishing between Muslims and Islamism. On balance, we respect the former and must after 9/11 feel compelled to annihilate the latter, not because we hate Islam but because enemies of any sort must be destroyed utterly. Often, regrettably, we overrreach, as do they.

As a person who has great respect for Islam, I find the current reactions to the Denmark thing sincere but misguided. Better that Muslims in a pluralistic world should disassociate themselves from Islamists the better that they can spread their belief more widely. The West can be painfully satirical but the satire is not inherently malevolent. Otherwise Christianity would have fallen to ridicule centuries ago.
It's the strength of your belief that counts.

In the end Muslims, Christians, and Jews all seek the same ultimate knowledge of the Divine. If Mohammed is depicted as a guy with a bomb in his turban, how did anyone get that impression? Not from meditating on God, I think. Look to some of your own number.

All best,

Ed

P.S. Coming up soon: "Hey, Mo!" A Weekly Series about Mohammed and his family, in which he keeps getting ragged on by his wife because she has all the money and he's not paying his way, preferring instead to meditate in a cave.

Ed:

Somehow, I don't think the network marketing guys will approve of a show where a wild mystic is married to a woman about 15-20 years older than he is.

The problem is that I really don't recall the US govt becoming involved before in issues where free speech produced something offensive to other groups. We have always supported free speech unless it clearly incites a clear and present danger (the yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre example). While the cartoons might be offensive, in bad taste, or provocative, that is not the issue.

If the US does not support free speech, then we are effectively surrendering a very important issue to our enemies. Why are we at war with Islamic terrorists if not to preserve free speech?

While I agree that the US should attempt to split peaceful Muslims from the terrorists, the wording from the State Dept could have been better especially as it was not necessary to issue such a communique to distinguish our actions from a Danish newspaper.

It's perfectly fine for the State Department to say that these are stupid, offensive cartoons. Many of them are. The problem is saying that free speech "must be coupled with press responsibility." No, it mustn't and no it isn't. They can say whatever goofy thing they want to say, and we can respond. See, e.g., the Armed Service Chiefs response to the Tom Toles cartoon in the Post. We have to remember that what America protects is, effectively, obnoxious speech. Nobody, after all, is looking to ban unobjectionable speech.

David - It's true that "must" should have been "ought to be".

David:

As usual for you, extremely well said.

Paul:

Thanks for posting the cartoons. Per your suggestion, I'm on my way to stock up on Danish food group items for the Super Bowl party.

Per Eugene Volokh the media may not have told the whole story.

... here's the relevant excerpt from the Sean McCormack press briefing:

Our response is to say that while we certainly don't agree with, support, or in some cases, we condemn the views that are aired in public that are published in media organizations around the world, we, at the same time, defend the right of those individuals to express their views. For us, freedom of expression is at the core of our democracy and it is something that we have shed blood and treasure around the world to defend and we will continue to do so.

Well. That makes me feel a lot better.

I keep trying to buy Danish but I can't seem to make it past the bakery. Mmmm, Danish.