February 19, 2006
YUP, MORE CROSS-CULTURAL DIALOGUE IS WHAT WE NEED
University paper defiant after running cartoons (Canadian Press, February 18th, 2006)
A student newspaper at Canada's largest university is not backing down after publishing a cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad and Jesus kissing.Nick Ragaz, managing editor for the Strand, says the newspaper is not pulling the controversial issues off campus and the cartoon will also remain on its website.
In a message online he says the cartoon was intended to provoke debate, dialogue, and thought, and should not be understood to promote violence or hate.[...]
“We reject completely the idea that what we published was an act of hate or an attack on the Muslim faith, or on Muslims or the Christian community.”
Of course not. It was intended to promote brotherhood and tolerance by lending a helping hand to faith in order to make the transition to post-modern reality. Meanwhile, the Muslim world continues here, here, here, here and here to prove that, contrary to the tenets of two hundred years of Western thinking, you can indeed stop progress.
Posted by Peter Burnet at February 19, 2006 8:06 AMI think we've crossed a line now and newspapers are duty-bound to point their readers to the cartoons, even if they don't actually run them.
Posted by: David Cohen at February 19, 2006 9:00 AMAgreed, but I fear we are going to lose this particular battle, partly out of fear and partly out of self-doubt (or even self-disgust), but mainly out of an inability to tell the difference between the two.
Posted by: Peter B at February 19, 2006 9:32 AMThe sad thing is that many were so unmanned by the violence of the Religion of Peace that they had ever once considered censorship appropriate.
Communications technology brings humanity together. It shrinks the world, to such an extent that we cannot run and we cannot hide.
Posted by: Lou Gots at February 19, 2006 10:03 AMPeter,
Define "losing the battle." I'm intrigued by what you might think it is.
I see the cartoons as a "sonar ping" of sorts. This "ping" illustrates just how far the Muslim world has to go. (or at least a good chunk of it)
I don't agree with the argument that we can "reform" Islam (or that it will reform itself) absent our being conscious of their current nature.
The fact that the cartoons are rude, insulting, and intentionally incindiary says nothing about whether they should or shouldn't be seen.
It seems that until Muslims can look at these types of things and shrug, they will always be at our throats. If that is the case, it is better to continuously remind ourselves of that fact than it is to pretend it isn't an issue.
Posted by: Bruno at February 19, 2006 12:01 PMRegardless of the original merits, the greatest damage to Islamic reform would be to do as the radicals want. Just as the Caliphascists in Iraq must be defeated and shown that they've lost, the radicals must not get their way in this, or it will validate and encourage more of this kind of rioting and violence later.
OJ is constantly stating that Hamas will be reformded by loading responsibility on them. If so, shouldn't we, for the same reason, put the responsibility for the rioting on the rioters?
no one doubts the power of islam to stop progress, just go to any muslim country and you erase 800 years of progress with your first step off the plane.
Posted by: toe at February 19, 2006 1:19 PMAOG has it right. But what he didn't say is that end result if it plays out the way the Islamicists want, isn't the return of the Caliphate but the conversion of large parts of the Middle East to glass.
Bush and Blair understand this, but few other leaders seem to. For sure the LLL's don't, but that's in keeping with their obdurate refusal to EVER see more than one step ahead.
Posted by: ray at February 19, 2006 2:43 PMBruno:
I could be wrong, but I'm betting you'll see a lot less criticism of Islam in the Western press for some time, including richly-deserved criticism that has nothing to do with mocking or insulting it.
Posted by: Peter B at February 19, 2006 2:57 PMWhat's to criticize?
Posted by: Barry Meislin at February 19, 2006 6:20 PM