See Kaus on Sullivan becoming unhinged over these cartoons.

It really isn't the case that unless everyone wears t-shirts with Mohammed depicted as a suicide bomber-rapist, civilisation as we know it has collapsed.

And you are right that there's no connection whatsoever with the desirability of the invasion of Iraq (Iran, Syria etc).  

Sullivan obviously wants you to believe that unless you support Bush and Blair's foreign policy you will not support freedom of speech or you are such apologists for Muslims that you will forgive any behavior.  This is obviously a ridiculous strawman.

It seems to me that both left and right have a lot of thinking to do not about the cartoons, though some here at the Cafe were way to ready to toss free speech over the side but about being dogmatic in the face of facts and reality.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

You're dead on.  That post, and his implied righteousness, left me uneasy as well. 

www.taylorowen.com

This is an interesting position Mr. Sullivan takes.  He should experiment with it.  I suggest the following:  Go to a professional baseball game.  When everyone stands to sing the national anthem (or mouth the words to it) Mr. Sullivan should remain seated and start yelling, "Fuck America!"  Then, when he gets visual, verbal and/or other insubordination from his fellow fans, he can wag his finger and equate their actions with the end of civilization. 

Are you empolyed Mr. Labowski?

The Chicago Tribune ombud has a good point on why they Trib didn't run the cartoons.  He said they didn't run them for the same reason they don't print profanity. The cartoons were in poor taste, and would have offended some of their readers. 

Yes, papers should have the right to run whatever they want.

Yes, the appropriate reaction to something printed in a newspaper does not include burning down buildings.

No, the actions of a Danish newspaper hasn't any effect on US or UK foreign policy.

And, finally, there is plenty of room for polite restraint in societies that  permit free speech.  

Have you seen the cartoons?  They are not only not funny. They're not merely offensive--they're gratuitously offensive. 

Interesting to find Matt and Hugh Hewitt basically agreeing on something.  I certainly agree that this is a time for cool heads, and ginning up the "war between our civilizations" is lunacy.  That said, as a left-winger I will admit to this whole cartoon business giving me some pause for thought.  Mindless and dangerous fundamentalism is by no means restricted to various parts of the Muslim world, but I must say that this whole episode is making it more difficult to compare our homegrown band of fundy's to the nutcases currently torching buildings and getting people killed over cartoons.  When Pat Robertson says crazy things about tsunami's and fantasy assassinations, part of the response here in the Wild West is to draw cartoons about him....as opposed to Danes drawing cartoons and having hundreds of thousands of people call for the death of the cartoonists, their families, the newspaper publishers, and perhaps anyone who happens to be from the same country as the cartoonist.  Isn't there just a tad bit of difference there? And shouldn't that have some impact on foreign policy?

It gives me some pause for thought about the state of the world right now.  And no, that doesn't make me more likely to think that BushCo has done anything right in response to the situation.  Still, where are the Dems on this?  I want to see our leaders saying, "Yes, these were offensive to some Muslims and yes, we need to be cautious with this whole free speech thing, but the apparently orchestrated response in parts of the Muslim world is cynically irresponsible, barbaric, and absolutely at odds with the values of openess and tolerance that we believe in."  Instead, we get pablum about how free speech comes with certain responsibilities, blah, blah, blah.  Hey, this isn't high school civics class people.  It's not just ironic that Bush is the one condemming the violence right now (and being told to "Shut up" by Hezbollah), it's downright depressing.  Where's Hillary?  Where's Obama?  Where's Ted?  Where's Howard?  Can we only work up a lather over "Piss Jesus" not getting funded? 

I'm fine with the NYTimes and others refusing to publish these because they fear for the safety of their staff.  But I expect that those news sources and any politician who feels likewise will take the oportunity to state clearly that they didn't publish them because of a lethal brand of insanity currently running rampant in many parts of the world, not because they were "offensive".   That's the real story - not free speech, or religion, or even BushCo's stupid, criminal "War on Terror". 

There isnt any lesson to be learned from the publication of the cartoons, unfortunately.  It hasnt highlighted and increased need to freedom of the press, or helped any arguements towards its limitations.

What everyone should know, and have known, is that politicians, whether "proper" American ones, or "radical" Muslim ones, will exploit events and stories to misdirect attention from their own issues, which was clearly the case with this event.  The cartoons were published months ago, and it wasnt until Saudi Arabia  failed yet again to provide any sort of security and safety for their massive group of pilgrams, that they used this story as a way to take the heat off of their policy failure. 

The US does this all the time with issues such as abortion, and the death penalty.

In the end, if there is something to learn, its that belated and government issued "outrages" are always hiding something much more damaging and immediately affecting to their populations, and the lesson learned should be to instantly question why a political moutpiece wants us to look at his right hand, instead of his left (magician reference).

Yes! I have been thinking similar things.

The Sullivan/Hitchens/liberal hawk response is really "Give me liberty or give me death." That's at the heart of it, all of it, the support for Iraq etc. They want a culture war. They've wanted a culture war since the Rushdie fatwa.

It started to occur to me this morning reading this Salon piece on reactions in Morocco , where there are many examples of moderate, thoughtful reactions, that I myself had fallen prey a bit to that which I thought I had learned so well after decades of serious study of reactions to controversial art and what they end up doing:

To me, history has shown, if you want to win for your side in a culture war, just say no to the predominant culture wars framing from their end. Just say no to accepting their framing.

The more zealous, self-righteous and outraged your response, the more it will fuel the other side. The Iraq invasion as a response to the global situation after 9/11 in itself was like a metaphor for this, that which I had learned, it's why I was instinctly against it from the start. 

 From the Salon article:

At the same time, there's a sense the real damage may not only be that negative stereotypes of Arabs are reinforced but that the West will lose heart in promoting positive change. Says a friend, "There comes a point when you've got to handle your problems yourself -- you can't go on forever blaming poverty and colonialism and relying on your image as a victim."

 

I ask Driss Ksikes, editor in chief at TelQuel, a well-respected journalist in Morocco, what he thinks about the cartoons. "I have no red line as a liberal person, but there is a question of politics, particularly the way this [issue] has been used by fundamentalists to say 'We shouldn't talk about certain things,'" he says. "This also comes at a particular moment -- the Hamas victory, the situations in Iran and Egypt. It makes you wonder: Islamists are getting more and more power around the world, and they're trying to use whatever weapon they can against liberal thinking. Above all, they want to show that Islam is a victim of the West. But we should not yield to this type of lobbying."

 

"I hope this type of incident may help people reconsider who think there is no war of civilizations," Ksikes continues. "It has dramatized what could become a reality, if more and more extremists determine the political agenda."

If you intend to go to the barricades with zealous rhetoric about defending free speech, you will be taking the bait of the Salafis who are driving the continued violent responses. That's what they want. It's the same as Bush saying "bring it on," the same as taking Osama's bait by invading Iraq.

The most effective response, same with the latest brouhaha about any kind of controversial art, is to take a nuanced position. To hear all sides, to possibly even co-opt the more radical extremist ones. It's the actual beauty of free speech and tolerance. (And that's tolerance, merely tolerating, NOT approving.) You say: ok, you've got a point, but I don't think that way, or these others don't think that way, why do you want to impose your way on me or them?

Sometimes I think Rodney King is one of the greatest philosphers of all time in  people, can we all just get along? Take the power out of the issues, nuance it, and you defang the extremists, they have no response to that.  Keep in mind that the Salafis are betting on keeping certain Muslim masses thinking the majority of the West did not find the cartoons tasteless or dumb, and that no one apologized for them, that no one in the west is taking a nuanced stance. So that by taking a hard-line "free speech" stance, making it a Sullivan/Hitchens cri de coeur, rather than shrugging and saying "well, yeah, we have hate speech here," and "well yeah, we don't control our press, whaddya going to do" fuels polarization, helps the other side. The latter, the nuanced shrug, that's really the only way to win against theocracies, to make them look like the ones that are the rigid zealots that few would want to live under.

Sometimes I think these hawk liberals atheist fundamentalist zealots are going to do us all in. Patrick Henry and his phrase is a real nice cartoon hero meant to get you thinking about what people gave up to defend this country. But the truth is the majority doesn't want to be soldiers on the front line, principles are nice in theory but when you start talking about shedding blood for them, most people in day-to-day real life opt for stuff like diplomacy, games, tolerance, quoting majority rule of law, to protect their own culture.

Try not to feed the radical Salafist tribal trolls' flame wars more, and yes, we already did that once by invading Iraq. Quit helping them frame themselves as victims! Yes, admit we have free speech and we have trolls too. So what?

Has anybody raised the question to the extremists. How do you think others feel about dragging and burning the American flag in the streets.Or hanging our dead from bridges, burning them?  Do their religious leaders speak out to their subjects that this is improper behavior?

I have got to believe that all religions speak of hypocrisy.

Both sides are at fault for fanning the flames of intolerance.  

The only thing this stupid editorial cartoon scandal prooves is that if you bait  billions of people already beseiged militarially and culturally, and already the victims of both racial and religious prejudice, and top that off by insulting thier religion, some small fraction under 1% will respond violently.

Well, big suprise there.

I suppose the Watts riots or the Rodney King riots show the inferiority of blacks right? I mean, was that violence rational? No. But then, we always set a standard for 100% rationality from people for them to be normal like us right? Like our invasion of Iraq in response to 9/11. That was 100% rational right?

Like for example, we always responded peacefully to the British right? As a disgruntled colonial power we always kept our cool didn't we?

And besides, it's not like the Dutch or French were ever colonial powers or anything. It's not like they played any part in the way in which many Muslim countries are now ruled, like drawing the boundaries of ME countries and sticking opposing groups together in the same way British colonials ruled India by playing Indians against themselves. No blood historically on their hands that might prompt them to have a bit of self restraint before adding insult to injury. 

People are such damn hypocrites. 

RJB

I remember a cartoon from the Reagan era. It was a multi pannel showing a caricature of R.Reagan morphed with Rambo and loaded down with guns and rockets. He ran as if attacking a castle with a funny caracature of the Iatola leaning over the tower wall. Reagan was shouting that they were going to get just what they were asking for. When he reached the castle gate he dropped all the weapons and ran away. I thought it was both hilarious and effective. I guess it doesn't really inform this discussion but I'd hate to see political humour disappear.  I agree that the cartoons were in poor taste, considering everything. I wish a lot of Americans would lighten up but  I really wish a bunch of the Muslims would.   

You should be careful of making broad generalizations about Muslims.  You think that having any Muslims in a country is dangerous. 

screw it.  I could argue with you, but this goes back to the argument from a couple weeks ago about the hamas election, and it comes down to the fact that you are prejudiced against Muslims.  I'm not going to change your world view by arguing with you on the internet.  So, whatever.

Actually, Supari, I do believe it still would have happened.  There was quite a lot of anti-American sentiment in the middle-east prior to 9/11.  One could argue that anti-American sentiment lead to 9/11.

Right - never would have happened prior to Iraq and Afghanistan.  Because the two missing buildings in Downtown Manhattan certainly aren't any evidence that Islamofascists wouldn't resort to violence before those two wars began.

Just a question for all those who think that newspapers sould NOT publish the cartoons:

 Do you (a) also think that newspapers should not publish anything offensive to Christians, such as Piss Christ, Elephant Dung Virgin Mary, etc., or (b) think that Christians are evil so it's OK to offend them in a way that one shouldn't offend Muslims.

I'm just curious.

I agree with you r basic points and have said much the same. But reading your comments and then reflecting on mine, I think it's important to remind ourselves that we don;t give the mistaken impression we think Islam are all saints and it's all our fault.

I certainly don;t mean that at all.

I think it's more accurate to say we can all be pretty ignorant and hateful and fundamentalist knee jerkers sometimes. However, as the greater power in the world I think it is our responsibility to try and do better, and as the powers that be, we have to take responsibility for ways in which we've helped shape the world to be a less peaceful place that it might have been had we made better decisions.

As the more prosperous and powerful culture we should be big enough to take on more responsibiltiy and do more. We must also be more humble for a weak power never had to fear opressing another people or commiting a genocide. 

al, shame on you for using a silly term like "islamofascists."

fascism is very much a disease of modernity: jihadist fundamentalists no more approve of fascism than they approve of any other aspects of modern life. they want to turn the clock back. the idea that osama bin laden wants a government where the military, business, and the state are all comingled is quite obviously not true.

RogerGathman

How many people here have seen pics of Serrano's the Piss Christ? Unless you have the caption, you are not going to know what the Christ is floating in.

Actually, if you published a good picture of  Marcus Gheeraerts’s Christ As Victor over Life and Death from 1560, you would have a picture of Jesus with an obvious erection. That would shock people today. It would also shock people that early Renaissance pics of the baby Jesus sometimes showed the madonna or a companion playfully touching the infant's genitals. Since, in the 1500s, people were much looser about these things, and since Jesus was being portrayed as a human, the attention on his genitalia was encouraged. By deeply Christian artists in a society in which you could be burned for blasphemy. For those who want to research this subject further, look at Leo Steinberg's  The Sexuality of Christ in Renaissance Art and in Modern Oblivion. Steinberg, for you conservatives out there who want to get out the pitchforks, was an emeritus professor at Harvard.

Conclusion: sacrilege and iconography change over time.

And before we start getting off on how peaceful ultra Christian conservatives are, maybe we should take a poll of murdered doctors and blown up abortion clinics.  

"I don’t think there is anything wrong with the French and Danish desire for cultural homogeneity and harmony, however it becomes quite hypocritical for their companies and FP to effect the Islamic world in negative ways, and for them to participate in the international power brokering of finance, resources, military balance of power, etc and then not expect to have to deal with some consequences and resentment for their power."

There were also some other complains about the colonial past of Denmark.   Somehow, Denmark managed to subjugate Norway, Iceland, Faeroe Islands, Greenland and what is now American Virgin Islands.  I understand that in Iceland the colonial rule was not particularly benign.  However justified Icelandic or Escimo gripes could be, what is it about the Danish affecting Islamic world in negative ways, brokering military balance of power etc.

Freedom of the Press doesn't give anyone the right to insult or cause injury

Oh yes it does. George Bush is regularly portrayed as a chimp (insult) and Jack Abramoff suffers injury through exposure. And quite right too.

 Freedom of the Press doesn't give anyone the right to insult

Huh?  Freedom of the press absolutely gives the right to insult.

You also have the right to be offended and cancel your subscription, boycott their advertisers if you choose.

Matthew, you are right.

Andrew is correct, and deserves tremendous credit, for being relentless about the threat of religious fundamentalism to West, Middle East, etc. (and he is unsparing on all fronts… “rationalists of the World unite… and fight!!!).

However, he is still in denial.  He has not come to accept two simple and obvious truths:

1. The US led Iraq war was a war of wreckless fundamentalist fanaticism—a foolish, destructive endeavor led not by careful rational analysis, but rather a zealous ideological  combination of Neconism and the exploitation of Bush’s limited an uncurious intellect that has been replace with a Messianic sense of destiny. 
2. As thoughtful anaysts predicted, this idiotic war galvanized and empowered the Islamic radical fundamentalists.  How could it not?

Of course the radical fundamentalist violence and exploitation is outrageous, and reflective of the worse side of humanity.  But so is the catastrophic and disastrous, unprovoked Iraq war. 

Andrew: time for some honest introspection.  The US made up reasons to invade and occupy a country, and we have destroyed their infrastructure and unleashed a civil war.  Have you consider during your outrage over the reactions to the cartoons, that we have caused the death of at least 40,000 Iraq’s (three times that maimed and mutilated?).  (Not to mention our 2500 troops and tens of thousands seriously injured).

Are you surprised that the Islamic world is a tad miffed?  How the hell would you feel?  

Andrew, I’m also curious how this voluntary and unprovoked war plays into a rationalist/humanistic view (and an admirable one, I believe) of a morality based on a  “culture of life”?? Where is your outrage????  Where is your honest, rational and analytical thinking???  

That's a VERY good question.  I don't know--I'm seeing a lot of people talk about the New York Times defense of Andres Serrano, and confusing that with actually reproducing images of his or others' works.  If in fact the Times didn't reproduce images of this, then a lot of the right-wing bloggosphere needs to be called out on what would be factual inaccuracy.

"Do you (a) also think that newspapers should not publish anything offensive to Christians, such as Piss Christ, Elephant Dung Virgin Mary, etc., or (b) think that Christians are evil so it's OK to offend them in a way that one shouldn't offend Muslims." You guys have given this way too much credit as a good question. I think it's plain silly, up there with the bias behind the "war on Christmas."

It's also a distraction from all the other perfectly sensible points made underlying the main topic: the questionable decision to publish them in Denmark, the right of anyone who chooses to take offense or boycott products, the essential freedom of the press prohibiting any state action against their publication, the very idea of papers as not organs of the state that makes a Danish official apology out of the question, the horrible and inexcusable nature of the violence, the Arab manipulation leading up to the violence, the more pressing real western decisions that might tick off those in the mideast or anyone with half a brain, and of course the main point that Islamic violence does not automatically make it a fine thing to have invaded Iraq.

Now, I wouldn't scream myself too loudly if some papers had a policy of not ticking off any potential audience. Hollywood thinks the same way. But do I think not reprinting the cartoons is necessarily all about not offending anyone? By no means. One can consider not the audience's fragile sensibilities but the place in one's publication of attacking a religion itself, and I acknowledge that it's not totally insane to interpret the representation and/or specific use of Mohammad as entaining that. I'd be surprised if the Times reprinted the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and I hope others would not think it's because of fear at how Jews might respond. It's because anti-Semitism is wrong. Freedom of the press means we have to allow such publication, but it doesn't mean the Times is wrong to decide not to. I also don't believe that one must remove the great works of Renaissance Christian art like Pilate washing his hands because descendants of the Roman empire or Jews might find their beliefs offensive, and I don't see the least inconsistency.

Would printing a photo of controversial art amount to hatred of Christianity? Oh, come on. No more than the museums and artists are part of this alleged secular, liberal, pro-Islamic but anti-Christian cabal. As I understand it, Ofili is professing Christianity while hoping to reconcile it with his affirmation of African roots. I'm not sure about Serrano, but adolescent agonizing over one's Catholic faith is not a new thing and not anti-Christian either. I've written articles ridiculing both, but also ridiculing Giuliani's response as maniuplative at best, censorship at worst, and I still believe that. For what it's worth, I admire the point about Steinberg, who was describing representations of Jesus's private parts as a Christian affirmation of his humanity and thus artistic representation of mainstream Christian belief.

One can also make art out of some nasty religious biases. (Say, I'm not banning Oliver Twist.)  So that's another reason Piss Christ isn't comparable: it's not a political cartoon. But it's not essential to the point either: the point is that Al's question is loaded and not legitimate.

http://www.haberarts.com/

How anybody can even indirectly blame Israel for sparking a bunch of thugs to burn Danish embassies and attack UN observers over some silly rtoons that they were never forced to see just shows how utterly bereft of reason some prople can be.

"Shell is an Anglo-Dutch corporation based in the Netherlands.  Why would anything Shell do reflect on Denmark?  Denmark has virtually no colonial legacy at all."

Well, actually the Vikings really did get around in their day.  For example, they had many settlements in Ireland — Dublin was a major Viking center 800 AD.  In modern times, their insidiousness is more subtle and sinister—the propagation and proliferation of godless, subversive, secular modern design.  Damn the Danes, just damn them to Hell.

Brad

You may be right about Sullivan's point but I am not sure the problem is exactly having Muslims within your country.  India is the second largest Muslim country and their Muslims don't seem to be rioting nor are Muslims in the United States.

I point out that both India and the United States have long British traditions.  The United States in particular only requires allegiance to a few set of principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution to be an American.  Despite obvious epsiodes of nativism and bigotry the United States is pretty good at assimilating people.

Europe is going to have to decide what it means to be a European.  To be of the land or the blood or to believe in a set of principles.  That is why the Vatican's efforts to make Europe a Christian area is so pernious. Until Europeans decide what makes you European or French or German having Muslims who want to stay apart is going to be a problems.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I'm saddened to see such ignorance on this board. Confusing Denmark with the Netherlands (aka Holland) just because "Dutch" and "Danish" sounds kinda similar is akin to confusing Alaska with Alabama, or Australia with Austria.

 As others pointed out, Danish "colonial legacy" can be found in places like Greenland, Sweden, or perhaps England. Certainly not the Middle East.

 Then again, the distinction between what's Dutch and what's Danish is probably lost on most of the Muslim protesters too, and perhaps NickDoe wanted to gently point that out?

good point.  I don't often agree with Wycliff but he was spot on with this.  Saying you have the right to run cartoons that will piss some group off doesn't mean you have the DUTY to do so in the name of free thinking.

"we have to remember that France and Denmark (and the US) have a long history of involvement with colonialism or otherwise projecting power into the Islamic world. "

 Really?  What is the long history of Denmark in this? 

Have you figured out the difference between Holland and Denmark yet, Nick?

If in fact the Times didn't reproduce images of this, then a lot of the right-wing bloggosphere needs to be called out on what would be factual inaccuracy.

Actually, what I recall was that AT THE TIME, the Serrano photograph was all over the newspapers.  For anyone paying attention, there was no question about what the picture actually looked like.

In a sense, this is an irrelevant issue.  Clearly, while many people were offended by the pictures as an insult, the issue at the time was more about the question of public subsidy rather than the issue of blasphemy.  Indeed, the very idea of blasphemy as a matter of law largely does not exist in the West anywhere.  In the US, the Supreme Court struck down the blasphemy laws that were on the books about 50 years ago, saying, rightly, that it is not the place of the state to decide what is blasphemy.

That's the biggest thing that Muslims don't seem to understand.  This is not a legal issue.  It is an issue of courtesy and kindness.  Just as it was unkind and unnecessarily hurtful to religious Christians to put up Piss Christ, so now the publication of the photos is similarly hurtful.  We should have the right to publish pictures and we should have the right to offend.  But as a matter of decency and kindness to fellow citizens, we ought to exercise that right sparingly.  We certainly do so in other situations.

The problem with this position is that you come off as sypathetic to some of the most unsympathetic people in the world.