Posted on 02/03/2006 11:42:27 AM PST by smoothsailing
February 03, 2006, 2:05 p.m.
Protecting Mohammed
We see a big storm brewing, brought on by the Danish newspaper's publication of caricatures of Mohammed. Muslim activists every day sharpen their protests. On Thursday they assailed the office of the European Union in Gaza, and today in Indonesia they stormed the Danish Embassy. Now they are asking that the prime minister of Denmark, no less, apologize for the publication of the caricatures in Jyllands-Posten, never mind that the government has no official ties with the tortfeasor. Everybody in sight, including the paper, has regretted that feelings were hurt, but a line is crystallizing: Apologize for profaning Islam, but do not use language that conveys an apology for the laws of the land, which uphold a free press.
The Danes aren't about to schedule an auto da fe, in which the offending editor throws himself on a pyre in expiation of his sin. And the prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has not tendered an official apology, though he has convened a meeting of foreign diplomats to figure out what to say that will calm the Muslims without offending liberal sensibilities.
The most striking aspect of the controversy is the leverage of the offended Muslim community. Even in the United States, even a publication as venturesome as Slate magazine describes the offending caricatures but is careful not to reproduce them. A quite natural curiosity attaches to how these twelve caricatures actually looked. One of them features Mohammed in a vaporous cloud addressing an assembly of suicide terrorists, with the caption that the heavenly kingdom has run out of virgins, so that aspirant debauchers simply have to lay off for a while. How was all that actually depicted by the cartoonist? Even the banal representation of Mohammed with a bomb replacing the turban on his head did not appear in the New York Times, the paper of record.
The offending cartoons have to be imagined. The reason for it is what turns out to be an iron glove at the disposal of the Islamic establishment. The publisher of Paris's France Soir, which did reproduce the images, fired the editor who was responsible. Massive boycotts of Danish goods are in motion. Foreign leaders and press spokesmen are objects of boycotts and even death threats. Flag burning is routine. What we have seen is an intimation of the strength of a mobilized Muslim community. And this is early on, in the great narrative of the growth of Muslim power in Europe, where national suicide is reflected in the birth rates of Italian, German, French, and British non-Muslims (to call them Christians would be wholesale co-optation). These societies seem to be willing themselves to go out of existence, as the birth rate falls below the replacement rate.
There are Europeans who are satisfied that the tradition of press liberty is asserting itself in the current challenge but who are entitled to wonder whether five, ten years from now — let alone fifty — any such frolic as that of Jyllands-Posten would in fact be tolerated. The laws asserting the freedom of the press, like most laws, depend for their fortitude on public backing. Forty-two percent of Germans, polled on the question, opposed publishing "cartoons which might hurt religious feelings." Triggering a second question: Is the publishing of iconoclastic material integral to the question at hand?
Iconoclastic expressions in America are broadly condemned as being in bad taste. However, there is certainly freedom in America to deride Christ. This is done every day on Broadway, and every other day in Hollywood. Americans do not take up arms in protest. Derisory material at the expense of Jews is permitted only if the executioner is a Jewish comedian. Care on this front is a welcome legacy of the Holocaust: No jokes are told by visitors to Buchenwald.
But is the day imminently ahead when Muslim influence expresses itself here as vigorously as it is doing in Europe? How exactly to account for the nearly universal decision of the press not to reproduce the Danish cartoons? The arrival of decorum in Slate?
The question not being ventilated with sufficient thoroughness is: What are Muslim leaders doing to dissociate their faith from the ends to which it is being taken by the terrorists?
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200602031405.asp
Why? We're talking about upset Euro-weenie liberals here.
crickets chirping...
There's two parts to it. One is that the way Islam is understood, the way the culture around it is, things like these cartoons provoke a very strong visceral reaction, more so than religious Christian Americans dislike for the prevalent secular insensitivity here.
Second, on top of that difference, is reacting with physical violence. We don't do it. WFB's question concerning terrorism and Muslim leaders only addresses the latter of the two.
The european papers have had more backbone on this issue than the American papers have
Since it's accepted by Liberals to consider an image of Christ sitting in a jar of urine to be protected artistic expression, why do they not put a Koran or pic of Big M in a jar of urine?
Could it be that Christianity is truly the religion of Peace, but the Muslim religion is nowhere close?
What if he's not concerned about offending them per se, but he's concerned about the safety of himself and his family?
This growing cult called "radical islam" has to be crushed...again.
If they had nuclear weapons back during the crusades, they would have used them.
Time to start CRUSADES II.
IOW, you're appeasing them.
let them kill some people, burn some cars and churches and government buildings until when? They get tired?
They will consider it a dry run for the next time they incite the young masses of muslim men.
No sir or mam...it's time to start putting these dogs down en masse.
It sounds like you may not be familiar with his magazine.When the next issue goes to press,approx. Feb.10th, if Buckley deems it still a story, he'll run with it, cartoons and all.
I could be wrong,but I've been recieving the magazine for 15 years, and Buckley is fearless.JMHO.
The answer, of course, is NOTHING.
And ditto the criticism of them for it.
There are many reasons for me to be supportive of President Bush, but I really wish he'd drop the "religion of peace" nonsense.It really let's our domestic mullahs off the hook as far as I'm concerned.
Maybe I'm not being fair to the President, but it bugs me whenever he says it.
I meant all the other newspapers and media he's talking about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.