"The Muslim community say that those puerile Danish cartoons should not have been printed, and they are right. It would not have been censorship or the curtailment of free speech to not print (and reprint) the offending cartoon. It would have been basic human decency. It would have been cultural restraint at a time when tension between the West and the Muslim world is higher than it has been for centuries."
If it is NOT a good idea to argue with irrational people then why begin one with a cartoon? I contend it is also NOT a good idea to needlessly incite them. With FREEDOM comes responsibility.
It is, when so many people in the civilized are in denial about the irrational people's irrationality. And especially, when that state of denial is really the only weapon the irrational people have. It's not like the Muslim world could beat us in a straight fight. Their war is a 95% propaganda war.
To do what or to or for whom? By what value system do you judge the truth of that claim. The author claims "basic human decency" as if that were some sort of standard. Where is that standard raised? Who is its keeper and how can I review it so I can know whether or not I am a basically decent human?
Shalom.