Peter, don't extend consideration to people who don't extend any consideration to you. Liberals may be wrong, but they aren't trying to kill you. Muslims are.

Brandon:

All one billion of them, eh? Scary.

I'm probably more nearly a free speech absolutist than most people here, mostly because I think that free speech devalues speech and lets us get on with business. But isn't it perfectly clear that this consideration for the offended Muslim is more fear of retribution than anything else? Fear of consumer backlash is a useful limit on speech, but not when the backlash comes up to the editorial offices with a bunch of dynamite strapped to it.

The cartoons are not part of a fight for freedom of speech at all�that battle was won decades ago.
__

These battles are never "won." They must be be re-fought again and again.

I see no reason why intentionally insulting cartoons shouldn't be an opening battle in re-fighting this one.

Despite your good point about propriety and value, the safest and most intellectually defensible position is to be a "free speech absolutist".

The left may seem to act as if they are such absolutists, but their embrace of PC makes liars of them.

The idea that depicting the prophet as a bomber is beyond the bounds of decent expression is absurd.

Peter;

This kind of thing is acceptable collateral damage from liberal democracy. This is one area where it's easy to demonstrate the slippery slope in real life (just look at the evolution of campus speech codes, for instance). It's easy to say that we shouldn't have free speech for "offensive" and "indecent", but who, exactly is to decide that? It will always be a group of unelected, unaccountable bureaocrats who will be easily captured by the moonbats. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I agree with a lot of what Macintyre says, and with some of what Peter says.

This isn't a battle about free speech. This is a battle between idiot Islamic fundamentalists and European idiots who want to provoke them.

Peter:
I've added my own thoughts on Think of England if you're interested.

Hugh Hewitt has a good discussion of this today.

Let's grant that offensive and indecent speech should be protected by law. Even so, purposely offensive speech is immoral, and deserving of criticism.

Europe is in trouble because it's descended into a Culture of Immorality that can only alternate between cowardly appeasement (rewarding evildoers for their evil, and encouraging more) and spiteful provocation or vengeance. They can't find it within themselves to rise to a Culture of Love in which they respect Muslims while standing firm against violence.

The United States still has enough love in it to do the latter, which is why the U.S. war on terror has, by and large, been welcomed by the Muslim world's leaders while Europe is increasingly met with contempt.

I think what annoys so many people about this issue is the double standard of many of those Muslims who complain about their portrayals in the media, given the myriad of anti-Semetic cartoons, fabricated stories and other incidents that have appeared or been reported in the media of Muslim nations over the years. The combines with the sensativity shown by people in power in the western media towards complaints about anti-Muslim items. The media elites have been extremely sensative towards those complants, while showing a "suck it up" attitude to anyone protesting something like Kanye West posing as Jesus on the cross on the cover of Rolling Stone.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and there's no reason to actively encourage tastelessness towards another religion when you don't appreciate that type of treatment towards your own faith. But many in the Muslim world seem to be able to dish it out when it comes to denegration of other religions and expect followers of those faiths to just sit back and take their critcisms, while any satires of their own faith is taken as grounds for jihad. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," is advice they should take to heart in this situation.

If Christians can be told to "Suck it up, Buttercup" when it comes to various media defaming their faith, the whiny Muslims can take it too. This piece was a bunch of blather by a "concerned journalist" who would fire away at you and me.

Similarly, when the cartoons were first published this was a defensible act; to publish them today, amid bomb threats, boycotts and armed gunmen, could be seen as inflammatory provocation.

This is dangerous thinking. He's basically leaving the definition of what counts as inflammatory provocation to the opinion of the inflamed. This is a corollary of the squeaky wheel rule of thumb. The inflamed victim gets the salve. It is a prescription for the most sensitive, the most easily offended and most willing to resort to violence upon receiving offence to dictate the content of public speech. No group gets veto power over public discourse in a free society.

Bruno, you make an excellent point. Freedom must be exercised to be preserved. Use it or lose it.

This is a good opportunity for the Western world to teach the Muslims about how free societies operate. I'm glad that the other newspapers reprinted the cartoon. Free societies should not apologise for being free societies.

Robert:

Free societies did apologise though. And the editor of France Soir got sacked.

You can't rely on the French to stand up and make a bold statement about rien.

I see the actions of the French press less as standing up for free speech, and more as poking at a caged lion with a stick.

My friends, to anyone who has been touched by American First Amendmnent jurisprudence, the is not a close case. The state does not enforce blasphemy laws because the state shouod not be in the business of determining what is blasphemous.

Nor do we allow free speech to become hostage to the violence of the most vicious.

Are we not to engage these people in cultural debate because we fear their wrath?

To the contrary of silencing examination of what this atavistic monstrosity posing as a world religion has to say, we should insist on religious freedom as a condition for its admission into the economic and civil world society.

Ask whether these barbarians practice freedom of religion in those places not yet liberated from their boot. Do they oppress religious minorities? Does their law discriminate against adherents of other faiths? Are others allowed to practive religion openly, to proselytize?

We know what the answers are. We are confronting a vast spiritual jailhouse, and they are confronting us. They can see that freedom of thought and expression will be their downfall.

The cracks are already showing. Just as we always knew Communism would fall beneath the force of our ideas and customs, so this primitive monstrosity will crumble.

Most ironic it is that this case arose in Denmark, for what is being discussed here is spiritual Dane-geld. Just because these primitives are so vicious and so threatening, we are asked to re-write our conceptions of freedom. The end of that game is oppression and shame.

Lou:

Very pretty, but are these not-very hilarious cartoons really your idea of engaging in cultural debate with Islam?

Of course it should not be illegal to publish them, but let's not pretend this is anything other than farting in Islam's general direction.

If you want to engage in a cultural debate with a group, you talk to its organ-grinders, or at least its saner members. You do not march up to the maddest, angriest monkey on the fringe and blow a raspberry at it.

... and blow a raspberry at it.

Brit. Why not?

erp:

Because that would reduce it to the 'debating' level of say, a discussion about Darwinism with OJ.

Since when is this a cultural debate, Brit?

A majority of Moslems all over the world publish and spread the vilest things about Jews and Christians. Jews have been purged from nearly all Moslem societies. Christians are killed in the Sudan and persecuted elsewhere. Yet, I am supposed to care about their tender religious views?

Muhammad was an oathbreaker and a killer. Nice guy to start a religion. If there were bombs in his day, no doubt he would have used them.

He launched a religion that spread by the sword. They conquered the Holy Land and we are the bad guys for the counter attack known as the Crusades.

Yes, the cartoons are a "fart" but so what. Normal religions don't threaten violence over meaningless "farts" from obscure Danish papers.

The apologies and handwringing Europe show a deep shame and weakness that will kill them in the end.

Ditto Lou.

Brit, all I can say is that we can't pretend that the majority of Muslims are amenable to a debate on spiritual matters. There is no debate with Islam. I'm reminded of the Monty Python bit where the shy husband is sitting next to his wife at the bus stop, and some randy boy comes up and begins making out with the missus. He averts his gaze, looks at his feet, does everything to pretend that he doesn't notice because that would mean that he'd be expected, as a man, to confront this interloper.

For what I know about Islam, the cartoon sounds like an accurate representation of the Prophet. He was a conqueror, and Islam is a religion of conquest. Sometimes good taste and manners are an excuse to lie.

Brit,

The last cartoon with the eye slot from the Women's Burka covering the Man's eyes, was particularly good.

Though none of them are high art, none of them are outside the range of political speech.

Any Muslim tuning in on this conversation should chime in and answer this question...

If you (as individuals and as a culture) can't take the publication of these cartoons, why should any of us in the West take you seriously?

To EuroWeenie surrender monkeys (and any Western Media outlet), if you cave in, same question.

Brit: I have seen the cartoons. Actually they are a very good way of engaging in cultural debate. How better to demonstrate that the caged lion with whom one is dealing is a crazed brute than to poke it with a stick?

I suggest that there are rational human beings behind the bars of the spiritual jailhouse who are seeing this debate from another prespective. Just maybe they are provoked to think about why their beliefs are thought to be so fragile as to depend upon repression.

Boycotting the newspapers which ran the cartoons, or their advertisers, would by a reasonable response to stories or images we did not favor. As I write, the noontime news shows Danish flags burned and defiled.

Sometimes the best strategy is an economy-of-force feint. We cause the opponent to spend resources off in the wrong direction. This kind of free speech does just that. The controversy keeps them riled up--jumping up and down, actually--and it reminds our people what we face.

As a follow, here are some Moslem cartoons on Jews:

http://www.radioislam.org/islam/roligt/roligt.htm

(hat tip to James Robbins at NRO The Corner)

funny how the moslem world never seems to get outraged at all the attrocities commited in its name. the usual appologists have no answer for this peculiarity as it negates their usual excuses about how there is no central authority in islam to counter the terrorists.

I see absolutely no reason to consider the tender sensitivities of a bunch of savages, who would as soon cut my Jewish head off as look at me, about cartoons of their "prophet." I go by the ancient axiom of: "F@#$ 'e, if they can't take a joke."

If they didn't behave as murderous thugs, we would pay no more attention to the snesitivities of muslims than we do to the members of cargo cults in the western pacific.

We are engaged in World War IV with the muslim world, and we had best take it seriously. Here are the possible outcomes of the war:

1. We cave in because our tender concerns for their delicate sensitivities. Europe is overrun, and mankind heads for the dark ages.

2. We beat them in enough places and times that they surrender by abandonning the most objectionable features of their so-clled religion, including their propensity to justify violence.

3. We vacilate until they do something really stupid like n-bombing a major western city, and then we:

a) over-react by n-bombing them until they glow, or

b) hire huge mercenary armies out of Africa, India and China (remember the boy girl ratio in those places=lots of mercenairies), and exercise the Ann Coulter option.

Pick your favorite.

And we are supposed to ignore muslim broadcasts of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, their suppression of Christianity, their constant anti-Semitic tirades and threats to drive all of the Jews into the sea, not to mention the suicide bombings, "honor" killings, murderous rioting and failure to take responsibility for their own actions and condemn their own bad actors. The heck with them.

Billions for defense, not one cent for tribute.

#2 if possible but it will probably be #3(a).

"Any Muslim tuning in on this conversation should chime in and answer this question...

If you (as individuals and as a culture) can't take the publication of these cartoons, why should any of us in the West take you seriously?"

Well, having looked at the cartoons they seem pretty tame to be honest. The artwork is piss-poor though.

As for the outrage, is it that hard to understand?

How many posters here would be upset if they saw somebody doing unmentionable things to the Stars and Stripes?

"a subconscious effort to turn the assertion that Muslims cannot assimilate into Western society into a self-fulfilling prophecy"

If a cartoon incites you to murder than you are unable to assimilate into Western society. What's been exposed (again) is the cluelessness of those who invited Muslims into Western society in the first place.

"How many posters here would be upset if they saw somebody doing unmentionable things to the Stars and Stripes? "

You mean in the quarter century since 04 November 1979? Gimme a break! If I didn't see a desecration of some sort, I assume they're even more stupid and incompentent that usual. Not including aflag-burning is like pro-wrestling not having someone hit over the head with a chair— it's part of the act the crowd has come to expect, and feels cheated if they don't get it.

Joe:

Lou described it as a cultural debate. I described it as a fart in Islam's general direction.

Now don't get me wrong. I defend the papers' rights to fart away as they please, whatever the supposed 'offence' it might cause from those Muslims who look for any excuse to be offended,- and would object to any law preventing them doing so.

But the idea that this is some brave move by the French press against the extremes of Islamic anti-West politics is laughable.

Certainly far funnier than the cartoons, among which there is only one half-decent gag (the virgins).

Ali,

I think we all understand the "outrage.". Our point is that it's fine to be outraged, boycott, write letters, cancel subscriptions, and even use oil money to buy the paper and fire the cartoonist.

No one on this planet has the God-given right never to be "outraged."

Most of us hate paying taxes to fund "Piss Christ" or watching people burn the flag. We just know that seeing such things is a function of living in the 21st century instead of the 12th.

As a personal issue, I'm one VERY patriotic conservative who finds the idea of watching some leftist or foreign bozo burning our flag of no import whatsoever.

I argue that the 1st amendment (free speech) with the 2nd (guns) to support/enforce it, make up the foundation of any civilization.

If one believes protecting a symbol of a country (a flag) is more important than defending the principle upon which it is built (free speech), I reserve the right to tell them their priorities are skewed.

"Piss Christ" doesn't hurt Christ, or Christianity. The Cartoons don't hurt any of the high values Mohammed preached, and burning a colored piece of cloth doesn't hurt anyone's country.

If it hurts some one's feelings, then the polite thing to do is tell them to get the heck over themselves and get on with life.

There were democratic Japanese and Germans in WWII who opposed their countries' wars and militarism. Yet there was no such pussyfooting about inadvertently insulting them with anti-Axis cartoons or editorials.

A very real danger about not defending the free speech of this Danish newspaper is the demoralizing effect it has the anti-terrorist resistance in non-Islamic countries.

We are splitting hairs here in terms of what needs to be done to support the Western resistance versus splitting peaceful Muslims from the terrorists.

But it is awfully bizarre to support the war in Iraq by saying the actual killing of Muslims does not create additional terrorists, but that a Danish cartoon does. We have decided in Iraq that the benefit of fighting there offsets any gains by the enemy. Clearly supporting free speech does the same.

excellent point.

Chris:

Yes, but isn't it ironic how quickly many of us (safe in the certain knowledge of how the war turned out) will opine with some embarassment that the treatment of Japanese Americans and Japanese Canadians in WW 11 was unjust, even though there was far more of a real existential threat from Japan at the time. Well, do we mean it or not? Are you saying that everytime we are opposed or a threat emerges from a different culture, faith or race, we are justified in dropping our own ideals of civility and respect and indulging in contempt and hatred?

We live in a plualistic society, based upon the ideal that all cultures and creeds are welcome provided they give us their fidelity and self-reliance and obey the law. Jews, Catholics, Orientals, blacks, Eastern Europeans, Southern Europeans, and many, many others were thought by many at various times to be a threat to our culture and incapable of assimilation. Wrong every time, and I don't recall that was proven by subjecting them to vicious insults in order to test them. However much it might be said the Muslim world deserves "a taste of its own medicine", we are not talking about the geographical Muslim world. We are talking about Muslim-Americans, Muslim-Canadians, Muslim-Brits and Muslim-Danes. These cartoons are not ordnance in the clash of civilizations. They are a mocking of the faith of many who live among us published in the full knowledge that they would hurt, offend and alienate. I would be interested in whether you and others here defending the cartoons think it was a huge mistake to admit any Muslims to our societies and whether we should be expelling them or at least imposing restrictions and disabilities based upon religion.

Was it a mistake to admit Muslims? After 911 and the bombings in London and Spain how can you even ask that question?

At the very least we shouldn't be allowing any new ones in.

"They are a mocking of the faith of many who live among us published in the full knowledge that they would hurt, offend and alienate."

F@#$ 'em, if they, can't take a joke.

Brit, I wouldn't think of debating Darwinism with oj or anyone else because I have only the barest knowledge of and/or interest in Darwin. How and why we got to this point doesn't interest me as much as what do we do now that we're here.

That being said, I believe it's obvious that in any debate all sides must be speaking the same language. In giving Moslems the raspberry, I believe we are debating in a language understood by all.

It must be apparent to everyone that after decade upon decade of talks and summits with Moslems, they can't be trusted. Their God as revealed in their holy book urges conquest and violence, not reasoned debate and tolerance.

Wishing just doesn't make it so. I know it's a bummer, but it's true.

the muslim immigrants to the u.s. have assimilated nicely. hte same immigrants in canada are trying to have sharia implemented, as they are in europe.

the muslim immigrants here are contributing positively, the immigrants in europe are massively on the dole.

draw your own conclusions.

interesting to note that europe is criticised when it tries to stand up for itself, and criticised when it doesn't.

well that's appeasement for you.

David:

Yes, you have touched on an extremely subtle point. How does one oppose anti-Muslim slander without being seen as being as cowering or equivocal about Muslim whines or, for that matter, Islam itself? I have no answer and must simply fall back on my own ideals---hopefully with eyes wide open and my powder dry.

Barbara Tuchman is a liberal popular historian, but she is so readable as to be worth the effort. In The Proud Tower, there is a chapter on the turn-of-the-century anarchists and the fear and dislocation they caused by what we can now see was a murderous, but generally very limited and quite futile campaign of terror. The sad fact is that, although the anarchists were a very small, uncoordinated group of isolated sickos and misfits, they not only tied all of the West up into knots of irrational fear, they also succeeded in undercutting confidence in Western society and probably helped advance the overall long term 20th century leftist agenda far more that would make any rational sense. Looking back, it is clear the inability to stand firm and fight back was at fault. We do like our safety and comfort, don't we?

I have to wonder whether the anti-Muslim prejudice that is gripping so much of us would be less if they actually had a real army ready to attack us, rather than just keeping us awake at night worring about whether they will be planting bombs at the shopping center tomorrow at exactly the time we will be shopping.

Bruno:

Agreed on all points.

Frankly there wouldn't have been much of a reaction if Muslim societies were healthier, more self-confident and in less need of therapy.

Peter, I found Tuchman very informative too. The Guns of August is quite interesting also.

But your main point about anti-Muslim prejudice gives me pause. I hope you are right, but I tend to agree with erp. I'd like to trust 'em, but i can't at present.

toe:

Tolerance of Islam is a vexing, difficult question these days. Tolerance of people who don't use capital letters is much more straightforward. To the stake! :-)

pb:

it hurts my fingers to type caps.

i think a lot of people want to give islam and muslims a chance, the benefit of the doubt, but there are just so many instances of bad behavior in that community.

anyway, thanks for keeping the site going while our fearless leader is down in orlando :)

We keep hearing that Islam is a religion of peace, a noble faith. We also know that it is used by bungholes and gangsters to justify all sorts of murderous idiocy. Is the disconnect a modern phenomenon, made distinct by mass media, or has it always been that way (since 632)? The evidence is not absolute, but it is close to compelling.

Is bin Laden venerated for being a Muslim, or for taking it to the West? The protest signs in London today (referring to a "new" holocaust and the like) don't seem have anything to do with religion, not in the sense we understand (such as all the religious wars in Europe). Islam has always been driven by its most fanatical adherents, who certainly intimidate (or worse) any potential 'moderates' long before they frighten people outside the faith.

With Christianity, the most fanatical are typically marginalized (especially today, though not always true in the past). They are mocked, satirized, and often confronted for their foolishness. Some, like Pat Robertson, go merrily along from stumble to stumble. But Pat doesn't threaten death to any who laugh at him.

The hopelessly secular Euros have chosen an odd place to start pushing back against the Muslims, but after the rioting of last fall, it seems that whatever spark came next would be the catalyst. These cartoons were actually published a few months ago, so it is not like this is a spontaneous outburst.