Posted on 02/07/2006 8:14:09 PM PST by bnelson44
Well, it's done. I appeared tonight on Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes for an all-too-brief segment on the Muhammad Cartoons. Before I drove to the Washington, D.C., studio, I stopped by a Kinko's store, printed out the cartoons, and pasted them onto a piece of poster board. I then used my short time on the airwaves to do what no one wants to do on American TV:
I tried to show viewers all 12 cartoons to give viewers the full context of the Jyllands-Posten's decision to publish the artwork.
(Excerpt) Read more at michellemalkin.com ...
I'm not surprised Fox tried to weasel out of showing the cartoons...they know who butters their bread.
Whoa there slick, back away from the crack pipe and carefully remove your head from your a$$. It's 2006. Now maybe you've been out with the "vapors" the last couple of centuries but I can assure you if you reach out to the Freepers we'll try to ease you out of your current warped fit and into a nice warm reality.
It's not so much about demoralizing as it is "calling them out". Islam carries itself as the one and only rightful ruler of the world, not by the choice of people with free will, as in Christianity and most other religions, but by the sword and by jihad. Whoever does not willingly submit is to be subjugated. That was the example set by Mohammed.
Now, we are expected to be under the same strictures and laws as those who have taken idolatry of Mohammed to its ass-backward conclusion, by rioting over cartoons that simply have his name stuck to them. I would not display a caricature of Mohammed to demoralize them for its own sake, but to remind them that they are not the sole source of law in this world. Let them play that game among themselves.
A brilliant response.
Because she's a Christian and the cartoons are a way to demean and belittle islam and their demon possessed criminal pedophile profet.
And she's right, unless you're not a Christian.
I disagree with you. Sorry.
What a gutsy gal is little Michelle! I will pray for her safety now. She is probably about as popular with the Imams as Salman Rushdie.
malkin was simply trying to show what exactly had certain muslims going off.
as you are well aware,it's not alright for our press to show the raw footage from the WTC,the beheadings,executions etc.in allah's name--so great diplomacy and sensitivity has always been shown toward them.
Wow!!! And all along I thought it was the year before that!
I understand all that. I just disagree with the level of hysteria over 'buy Danish' and liking these cartoons,etc. It's not because I like islam either. I don't love or hate it personally. I just don't agree with anything that denigrates a religious icon, esp. one of the three major world religions. That's all.
Technology should be used. Tagline. Situation addressed.
you said "Whoa there slick, back away from the crack pipe and carefully remove your head from your a$$. It's 2006. Now maybe you've been out with the "vapors" the last couple of centuries but I can assure you if you reach out to the Freepers we'll try to ease you out of your current warped fit and into a nice warm reality."
LOL, OK everybody let me be clear I am not justifying the response of some muslims because of "yeah we did the same thing". I was just pointing out that in the Freep land critique of Islam it might be helpful to realize that Christians went through the same thing and perhaps we can all learn from that as we try to live with 1.2 billion muslims without blowing ourselves up
With all the attention that politicians and the media have devoted to the controversy generated by Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten's publication of twelve cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, it's important to understand this controversy in its proper context. Jyllands-Posten decided to publish these cartoons because it wanted to test what editor-in-chief Carsten Juste described as "an article of self-censorship which rules large parts of the Western world."
In other words, Juste contended that there is a real fear of being seen as criticizing Islam in large parts of the Western world, and that this fear has bred self-censorship. Juste is right on both counts. An article that I wrote for the Daily Standard back in November documents in some detail the trend toward criticism of Islam being met with threats or actual physical violence. Examples of this include Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa sentencing writer Salman Rushdie to death after publication of The Satanic Verses; the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh after he directed a film dramatizing the mistreatment of women born into Muslim families; the death threats directed against actor and Muslim convert Omar Sharif after he praised his role as St. Peter in an Italian TV film; Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali being driven underground by threats after admitting in a televised debate that she had left the Islamic faith; and Dutch painter Rachid Ben Ali being forced into hiding after one of his shows featured satirical work critical of Islamic militants' violence.
These are but a few examples of a far broader trend toward speech crticizing Islam being met not with counter-speech, but with threats -- and in extreme instances, with death. So Jyllands-Posten's publication of the cartoons of Muhammad is best understood not as an attack on Islam, but as a reaction to this trend, and an attempt to dramatically reassert the primacy of free speech. In the past, when criticism of Islam was met with threats, Westerners haven't always been vigilant about standing behind speech rights. After a bounty was placed on Rushdie's head, for example, British novelist John le Carré offered an excuse for Rusdie's would-be assassins by stating that "there is no law in life or nature that says that great religions may be insulted with impunity." Likewise, Western legal systems -- through such vehicles as religious vilification laws -- frequently send mixed signals by suggesting that the slander of religion can be punished by law.
So it is encouraging to see that the controversy over these cartoons wasn't met with wholehearted Western self-flagellation and apologies, but rather with defiance. When newspapers like France's France Soir, Germany's Die Welt, Italy's La Stampa, the Netherlands' Volkskrant, and Spain's El Periodico republished the cartoons, they did so not out of anti-Islam animus, but rather because they understood the principles that are here at stake.
Of course, Westerners have not unanimously stood in solidarity with freedom of speech in this latest controversy. In an excellent article published in the Weekly Standard, Paul Marshall, a senior fellow at Freedom House's Center for Religious Freedom, notes the reaction from the UN's high commissioner for human rights after the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) complained to her about the cartoons:
The U.N. high commissioner for human rights, former Supreme Court of Canada justice Louise Arbour, replied to the OIC, "I find alarming any behaviors that disregard the beliefs of others." She launched investigations into "racism" and "disrespect for belief," and asked for "an official explanation" from the Danish government. However, despite being a professed defender of human rights, she showed no alarm at the OIC's disregard for the Danes' belief in and commitment to a free press.
When the U.S. State Department and British foreign secretary Jack Straw condemn the publication of these cartoons, it only demonstrates that they are either unaware of the threat to free speech -- or else would like to pretend that it does not exist.
The fact remains, though, that the threat to free speech is real. Even in the West, people are threatened and sometimes killed for criticizing Islam. The Danish cartoons struck a blow against the resulting self-censorship. How we as a culture are able to weather the current controversy will say much about our understanding of the importance of free speech rights -- and about our prospects of keeping these rights vibrant in the future.
http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2006/02/the_danish_cart.html
Well the muslims have done all these things over some silly cartoons. To not show them on TV or other media demonstrates that the MSM is simply afraid of the muslims or have a huge double standard. I think it is a little of both. If you supression of free speech by violence is ok, then maybe you should move to a muslim country, we don't condone it here in the USA.
Uh, if you haven't been keeping up with current events lately, we haven't had a Christian Crusade or Pogrom in, oh,WEEKS now! I really miss the extra income I was making selling ham sandwiches at the local auto da fe every weekend, but, price of progress you know.
Go far enough back, EVERY group has an ethically challenged history. Some of us became civilized.
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This includes both freedom of speech and the press.
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.