Posted on 02/09/2006 2:22:26 AM PST by mal
It began last September.
Danish author Kaare Bluitgen couldn’t find an illustrator for his biography of Muhammad. Fundamentalist Muslims frown on depictions of the prophet and—in one of many European cases of self-censorship since the November 2004 murder of Dutch filmmaker and Islam critic Theo van Gogh—artists feared a reaction. Europe, you see, isn’t the liberal paradise you think it is, or knew it to be 10 or 20 years ago. At this very moment, European liberalism is caught in a steadily intensifying struggle with fundamentalist Muslim censoriousness—call it creeping Sharia. Concerned about this trend and eager to make a statement about free speech, Denmark’s largest newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, invited illustrators to submit drawings of Muhammad
(Excerpt) Read more at thestranger.com ...
Such fury about nothing. Imagine if somebody did something to really piss them off.
So the media knew the Muslim world would be enraged at the Abu Graib pictures and published them anyway since the outrage would be directed at our soldiers.
And now the media won't publish cartoons because the Muslim outrage would be directed at them. The media. Who, collectively, seem to be cowards.
-Time to kick the tires & light the fires, folks- terrorism gathers across the World...--
Shooting the lawless is one way to give a fundamental lesson in civility to those who would be tempted to join the anarchy.
People who act like rabid dogs should be treated like rabid dogs.
I don't care how many Muslims there are in the world. This behavior is not consistent with a civilized society.
Kind of says it all.
Perhaps it's time to conclude that media who "doesn't want to offend muslims" but offends Christians and/or Jews instead be taken for what they are -- and this includes the New York Times -- and that's not on the side of Western civilization.
Perhaps the thing that has most disturbed me in this is the ambiguous statements coming from official US representatives, coupled with the cowardice of the US press.
I realize that we don't want to PO any Muslims who might be considered allies or at least not hostile, particularly in Iraq. However, our official statement should have supported freedom of the press first of all, and then freedom to the peaceful expression of feelings in response to what appeared in the press.
Instead the lead statement was a groveling to Islam, as though it was somehow to be considered special and above criticism and the Muslims had every right to be enraged. And then, oh yes, don't forget about freedom of the press - but with "responsibility," meaning specifically don't publish anything that might offend Muslims. Very disappointing.
Furthermore, I'd like to see more commentary in the US press, not only showing the cartoons, but explaining that they focus on the violence of Islam, something that Islam has abundantly expressed but which Muslims are allowed to skip over and ignore. In fact, violence is only thing it has expressed since its foundation, but particuarly in the last few years; I do not see any great Islamic hospitals, works of charity, monasteries dedicated to contemplative prayer, etc. When I think of Islam, the only thing that comes to mind are bombings, beheadings, and grunting savages jumping up and down in the streets.
Yes, agreed, particularly as to the absence of noticable contributions by muslims.
Like I wrote earlier, I was trying to find "muslim products" to even boycott, and came up completely empty. Even with Caribou Coffee, which another FR was smart and helpful to point out is a product by a business group that states support of "Sharia law" (they aren't coming out and saying, "We're a Muslim run company!" so right there, I sense a problem, a covert method involved)...
I understand when people (including polticians) don't want 'to offend' ANYone, but by going out of the way to avoid discussing quite specific and quite horrible acts and even ideology by muslims, they're looking like enablers.
The ideology of islam is dependent upon destructive acts and eliminating others who aren't muslim. Not a lot there to not offend even by mentioning their "religion".
You're absolutely right. I hated the State Department's response, which was apologetic and appeasing when it should have stood up first for freedom of the press. Very disappointing but coming from the SD, not surprising.
If only there were more Muslims like Irshad Manji, who was on Hannity's show the other day. She is reasonable, intelligent, and condemns these idiocies. I know there must be some but where are they? Why don't they speak?
Because they don't want to end up like Salmon Rushdie or Van Gogh.
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.