If their god (or any god) is such a powerhouse, how come the guy apparently can't take even the slightest joke?

again i did it!

"we ARE confronting" the exact same issue we did with the toles cartoon.

Where is this "Acron" in northeast Ohio? ;)

[EV responds: D'oh! Corrected, thanks.]

I know dozens of jokes with the subject as God, Jesus or Moses. I tell them to people who I think might want to hear them. I am very glad to live in a country where I am allowed to do that and where my only danger is that my friends will think I'm being a jackass. To relate to an earlier post on this site, we are not living under Muslim law. The Beacon-Journal has a readership and its circulation decides whether that readership likes what the paper prints. For a handful of disaffected: "It's a big world -- we are sure you can find another country, whose people think the way you do, to live in".

BTW, I grew up in Akron, OH, and have enjoyed Bok's cartoons for many years. This one is pretty funny, actually...

This borders on the nonsensical. WHO are they concerned will confuse Muhammad with God? Certainly not atheists like myself. Doubtful they are concerned about Christians or Jews making this error.

I never had any problem. Muhammad's a good three inches shorter, darker hair, and in much poorer physical condition.

"...the difficult but necessary distinction between (more or less) reasonable taking of offense and unreasonable taking of offense..."

Careful, Eugene. You could destroy half the blogosphere in one fell blow.

What would we be without "unreasonable taking of offense"? F***ing bored, that's what.

I can't help but substitute the Amir of Akron (and oh how THAT sounds like a Church of the Sub-genius title) for Arthur's company at the gates of the castle, getting abused by the French in Monty Python's Holy Grail. The "insults" are just about as ridiculous.

Does it strike anyone else here that Muslims are emotionally like teen age girls? I mean, they are offended by anything, throw fits over nothing, and generally think they are the center of the world and must be catered to at every turn.

The quoted article refers to "the Prophet" or "the Prophet Mohammed". When did Americans start talking like this? no one says, "the Lord Jesus".

I also hope then to talk in some measure about the distinction between this cartoon and others that I do think can reasonably be found to be offensive, and that probably shouldn't (as a matter of civility) have been published in the first instance

Eugene, please, no. NO. No distinctions. As Glenn said, this was not a time for nuance.

At this point, to admit that particular cartoons "probably shouldn't have been published," even as a "matter of civility," is to concede far too much. Indeed, to even have the discussion is, at this time, to concede too much.

People are burning buildings, making death threats, and threatening a new 911 in Europe. In the U.S., CAIR and its like are essentially asserting the position that any negative protrayal or caricature of Islam or Mohamad is a hate crime. These people should not, and cannot, be rewarded.

Any fine, nuanced, hyper-rational (yes, in this context and given the larger audience, hyper-rational) discussion regarding that which is legal, but "should" not published as a matter of civility is going to be drowned out by, and lost on, those were are trying to convince and/or battle in the areana of world-wide public opinion.

To concede that some of the cartoons should not have been published as a matter of civility will be interpreted and propandized in the following way: Our concession that they should not have been published. Period. For many people a concession that something ought not be published as a "matter of civility," or "tolerace," or "cultural sensitivity" goes an awful long way to establishing that a law prohibiting publication of the material really would do no harm, and may do some good. After all, once you've conceded that the material really should not have been published (for whatever reason), what real harm would such a law do?

Having re-read what I said above before posting, I don't want to be perceived as censoring you or pressuring you regarding what you say, and particularly not on your own website. :) However, I really am concerned about what I said in my last paragraph above.

If I may, I again wat to say that the best thing we can do is to Support Denmark and Buy Danish campaigns. The links, buttons, badges, banners and icons are reference on my weblog:

The Is-Ought Problem
http://www.theisoughtproblem.blogspot.com/

Uh oh. I'd always refused to believe that we were really in a war with Islam. I'm starting to think maybe we are. That's going to suck!

Some jackass on TV was saying, yay for the NYT for being a good citizen and helping out the war effort by not publishing the cartoons. Oh my god. This war will only end once we've taught muslims how to live in a civilized world. They need to learn about free speech - that sticks and stones may blah blah blah. That is, that's the only way the war will end well. Other endings are too horrible to contemplate.

"Does it strike anyone else here that Muslims are emotionally like teen age girls? I mean, they are offended by anything, throw fits over nothing, and generally think they are the center of the world and must be catered to at every turn."

They sound quite like a number of fundamentalist Christian groups, do they not.

I add my voice to those outraged by those people being outraged over something insufficiently outrageous!

somebody should really do a mock lichtenstein, where you don't see the content of the picture or the couple viewing it, but you see the caption coming from the woman saying "o mohammed, pretty soon you'll be the talk of the middle east!"

Even if you accept the premise that depictions of Muhammed are prohibited (a premise not all Muslims would accept), the reason for that prohibition is to enable Muslims to avoid idolatry and to avoid venerating an image of the Prophet instead of venerating Allah. The reaction of the rioters, though, is just the opposite -- they are treating these images as if the mere publication of pictures of Muhammed somehow reduces Allah.

I guess we need more Muslim versions of Justice Breyer, who are willing to look at the purpose and goal of the taboo on depictions of the Prophet, and fewer Muslim versions of Justice Scalia, who stick strictly to the text of the religious law, no matter what.

coward,

They sound quite like a number of fundamentalist Christian groups, do they not.

I don't believe I've seen that in the MSM coverage - got any particulars? Or is this just general derogation?

Hugoblack,

I guess the difference is that Jews and Blacks are races, while Muslim is not.

JRDickens,

Jew is not a race, thanks. I think you might mean Semitic, but either way I think it undermines your credibility a little.

JRDickens,

Don't sweat it - I've seen people defiantly refuse to submit on equally indisputable things.

Nobody listens to me either.

Read here for the biggest defeat of all for socialism :

The men who had hated [the book], and had not particularly loved Helvétius, flocked round him now. Voltaire forgave him all injuries, intentional or unintentional. 'What a fuss about an omelette!' he had exclaimed when he heard of the burning. How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that! 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,' was his attitude now.

S. G. Tallentyre, referring to Voltaire. Often attributed to Voltaire.
pseudonym of Evelyn Beatrice Hall

More to the point: does any lack of choice regarding what one finds offensive affect what is to be called a 'reasonable' taking of offense?

I don't think the inability to control what one finds offensive, or even the degree to which one finds it offensive, is the least bit relevant.

What is relevant, and where standard of reasonableness comes in, is how one chooses to react to the perceived offense or provocation. Or, more precisely, how one chooses to act and the conduct one engages in. Quite simply, burning down buildings, threatening people with death, and putting bounties on people's lives are unreasonable response to speech.

What I find unreasonable and, to be honest, truly digusting, are those (and I'm not speaking of you) who vilify those who engage in what may be offensive or derogatory speech, but do their best to excuse and mitigate destructive, violent and murderous actions on the other side.

What is also relevant, and where standard of reasonableness also comes in, is what the offended person expects others, and the state, to do in response to their offended feelings. in a free socienty, expecting others not to speak is unreasonable. Expecing people in a free society half a world away is even more unreasonable. And expecting the police power of the state to force others not to speak is not only unreasonable, but dangerous.

Charles,

Not to nitpick, but I don't understand the game theory reasoning. If I interpret you correctly, "defecting" is getting pissed off and burning stuff when you're affended, and "cooperating" is just singing songs and protesting and stuff when you're offended. Whether or not they defect, it's always in our interest NOT to defect. In order for the PD model to make sense, it would have to be the case that it would always be in our interest TO defect.

On a lighter note, what the hell am I doing up.

If people are offended by the Bok cartoon, there's probably no reasoning with them.

I have to admit being completely confused about "civility". As near as I can tell, "civility" means saying and doing whatever, at any given moment, will benefit the Republican Party.

I don't have an opinion about this particular cartoon. I do think the original cartoons were a classic example of mediocre artists doing something they knew was hurtful and offensive, assaulting an ages long tradition, in order to make a point they personally were incapable of making through ingenuity and art. I think blasphemy should be considered incivil, and it should only be engaged in when truly necessary. Usually it will only be necessary when one is a member of a particular faith. Basically, one should accept that one's blasphemy is immensely rude and needs great justification - from a manners perspective.

I do have another opinion - when Liberal political activists die, and when their loved ones' have funerals for them, they often have funerals that are true to their spirit. Then, conservatives - people who opposed these people at every step and who were often part of a larger movement that slandered and insulted them constantly - suddenly get offended by the lack of "civility". I don't get it. I was in Minnesota when Senator Wellstone died. He was a great speaker, a friendly and joyful guy, as was his entire team - yes I had met all 6 people who were commemorated there. The funeral was HORRIBLE Television, but it actually devoted significant time to remembering each of them (this was one common compliant - too long - boo hoo, it wasn't made for people who didn't actually care about these people). Also, it was a little "hippyish" - but Wellstone was a guy who campaigned in a big green bus. Come on people!

Now, Conservatives had spent months insulting and sliming Wellstone, often through grotesque front groups. The amount of dishonesty was massive. And numerous advertisements had described him as a "hippy" who liked "free love." And through it all, all those people who came to the funeral had supported him for who he was.

Then, suddenly he's dead, and all the people who never stood up for him and who in fact insulted him regularly are saying that the funeral put together by his loved ones is "incivil". Now, if you don't see why that kind of thing is hurtful and hypocritical, I don't know how to explain it to you.

I acknowledge those funerals are bad politics. However, the left would rather honor their dead true to the person's spirit than engage in good politics. The Right would rather exploit any possible talking point about "civility" than actually show the slightest degree of manners.

Now, I HATED the Right-Wingers who exploited Wellstone's funeral at the time (I shouldn't have hated them, but I'm not always a good Christian), because it was clear that they didn't care at all about any of the people on who's behalf they were supposedly offended. However, I at least understood that they were in the end days of a very important campaign, and I could see how they couldn't exert sufficient self-control to be well mannered.

With the King funeral, I realized that the Right is so devoted to slandering anything that the left does, they will stop at nothing. No manners will be considered, no decency. And the language of freedom, civility, and such will be spoken the entire time. I have found that there is nothing anyone can say that isn't "incivil" to the right. If you're not famous or important and you go to a leftist rally of any sort, at any time, you're "incivil".

The Right argues that King's funeral was a chance to come together and celebrate what we've accomplished. They did that at the funeral. They also celebrated what King was still working for. She had devoted her recent years to opposition to the War, to fighting poverty, to LGBT rights, etc. She would have wanted those fights to continue, even at her funeral. If you really don't understand that, maybe you don't understand leftists and Liberals well enough to discuss what is "civil" or "mannered" at their funerals. I doubt anyone actually doesn't understand it though - I think we all know that civility is just one more club the right likes to use in it's endless battle to dominate others.

Just one more example of how Islamic Fundamentalism and the American Right aren't so different after all.

I'm not sure what Coretta King's funeral has to do with the subject of the post.

I understand the tangent about "civility," but I don't think that has much to do with what's going on here. To me, "civility" in that context would mean that one shouldn't criticize others for the way they choose to run their funerals. Just because a few commentators crossed the line on this doesn't mean that all Republicans toss the word around as a talking point. Sometimes "civility" is just an excuse to deflect deservedly harsh criticism, and other times it's an appropriate admonishment to someone who tries to bring a machine gun to a debate.

Two noteworthy additional links:

Weekly Standard article by Olivier Guitta covering the involvement of the Muslim Brotherhood in this and how it fits into their global strategy of infiltrating the West.

Also, English translation of the Arabic letter that the Danish Muslim delegation presented during their tour of the Middle East (small pdf).

The pdf begins as follows:

"Here is what the Danish Islamic priest told religious and political leaders of the Middle East. This is the first pages of a 40 page case file compiled by the Danish Imams. It contained the 12 cartoons from the Jyllands-Posten, plus 30 more drawings, of much more severe character, unknown origin, which has never been published in Jyllands-Posten."

Regardless of what you thought about the original cartoons, this one is extremely good. It points to the absurdity of all these Moslems going berserk over the original cartoons. And then CAIR, et al. are offended by this cartoon that doesn't even really portray their Prophet?

I pointed out a couple of days ago that whereas a lot of people in Europe seem to be backing down on this issue out of fear, I suspect that it is out of zeal for multiculuteralism here. The Moslems are now an officially sanctioned minority, and, as such, cannot now be ridiculed in any way. But majority religions, notably Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, and Scientology, are open to such, by their status as majority religions. (Well, Judaism may not actually fall in there yet, the Holocast and all that, but I have no doubt that it will eventually).

I have no doubt that a big part of this is the result of CAIR. That seems to be their mission in this world, turning run of the mill Moslems into certified victims. I would not be surprised if they had their affirmative action quota of delegates at the next Democratic National Convention, along with all the other certified victim groups in this country.

Houston,

No, the MSM is politically correct, and Moslems are now an officially recognized minority, deserving of all the respect due any other officially recognized and sanctioned minority. It isn't fear - in this country it is political correctness.

Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about. Hell yeah! I'm for debating anything. Rhode Island says yea!

One of my all-time favorite movie quotes, from 1776.

Don't we have in the Muslim reaction to cartoons an example of the victim's veto? A person/group assumes the status of victim, and therefore gets to dictate the language or other actions of the purported victimizer insofar as these words or deeds can possibly be seen to perhaps offend someone of the victim group.

See "Water Buffalo", "Niggardly", etc.
See the powerful reaction of Zionists to any description of the situation in Israel that evokes sympathy for palestinian araba (and does not mention suicide bombers in the next sentence).

Reader, your post raises some questions about the extent to which the "no mohammad pictures" rule will be enforced. (And by enforced, I really mean - humbly acquiesced). If a pixilated fellow with no discernible characteristics is offensive to Muslims because the context implies that he is Mohammad, then what about a black square with an arrow pointing toward it, that says "Mohammad?" There has to be a point at which the Muslims have no right to be offended, even on their own terms. At any rate, the MSM, for one, will welcome our new Muslim overlords.

All of the discussion on these pictures focuses on whether there is a "right" to publish these pictures and/or whether there should be a decision based on "civility" or "sensitivity" to not publish these pictures. In this sense, the protesters have accomplished an important objective - they have removed from discussion any consideration of the actual content of the cartoons. These cartoons were not published to defame Islam by portraying Mohammed, and they clearly were not published to promote worship of Mohammed. They were published to point out that Mohammed and his followers ACTIVELY PROMOTE TERROR AND VIOLENCE. Yet, Muslims have so cowed the rest of the world with their allegations of religious insensitivity that the actual, underlying message of the cartoons is completely ignored. Of course, Muslims do this in no small part through acts of violence and terror...

also, assuming a total reversal, i doubt anybody here would argue that attacking us to prevent us from having nuclear weapons (when our attackers have them) would be acceptable.

i suspect that if muslims controlled the worlds most powerful economy and military they would not be burning flags and attacking embassies.

True enough. Because all other world religions would have been destroyed utterly.

Just ask the Zoroastrians. They used to be dominant in Iran/Persia. Now, there are about enough WORLDWIDE to populate an average suburb, and almost none of them live in Iran. That didn't happen through quiet persuasion.

"It is the test of a good religion whether you can joke about it."- G. K. Chesterto

The difference is that WE DON'T CARE if we offend the Christians.And we certainly don't worry about reprisals from them. Everyone has a right to feel offended.

Of course. Which is why the big papers printed the offensive Tom Toles cartoon, and why they didn't print the Mohammed cartoons. So the whole American Right vs. Islam comparison is moot from the get-go.

TV (Harry)

Michael B - Since you provided no explanation whatever, I'll just say I have no idea what is similar between the Left and the fundies (Islamic or Christian).

Inspector Callahan - The idea that images of Mohammed are blasphemy has been well documented for centuries. That a political cartoon arguing that the current presidential administration is bad for the military would lead to a similar level of offense seems implausible, and certainly unpredictable (would there have been complaints about such a cartoon in the Clinton era? no). While it is true that any negative comment about the President can lead to a week of Television whining about how "mean" or "angry" the given critic was, I don't think that really reflects any blasphemy - just hackery.

The idea that people in this country don't bend over backwards to appease the religious is absurd. Every candidate is expected to yammer on about God: "God, I believe in God, .. .. God, God, God."* Meanwhile, the Democrats get constantly lectured about being unable to appeal to the "values" crowd. And we have a press corps that critiques the relgions just about never (for instance, everyone knows about those Catholic Priests who are sleeping with women &men, etc, but no one talks about it. Basically, unless there is a successful lawsuit proving pedophilia, the Christian Church is beyond reproach).

BTW - I'm not in favor of political correctness per se. However, the Right Wing seems to advance a new level of political correctness - any critique of anything Republican is incorrect. Now, when someone says something like "If a segregationist had been elected president, we'd have avoided all these problems." That person needs to expect to get criticized. Now, if there were real political correctness of the sort people whine about, Ann Coulter, Savage, Michelle Malkin, and Rush would all have lost their jobs. Now, when a person DOES critique the Republicans, they DO lose their jobs - Phil Donahue, etc. Basically, there is no real Left on television or the media. Michael Moore has a much larger following than Coulter, but he had to create his own media movement, whereas she just gets brought in constantly. But, Political correctness, it's just out of control.

*Personally, I think every presidential candidate who mentions God should have to make some fairly specific theological statement about God. Like, If you're going to say, "As a man of faith,..." I want to hear "I believe in transubstantiation" or "the afterlife will be in the flesh, not spirit, form" or "the Gospels meant it when it told us to renounce our parents." Nothing is more disgusting to me than this religion without religion thing.

MDtoMN,

Basically, there is no real Left on television or the media.

Could that be because they fail to entertain? That they lack popularity (i.e. ratings)? No, no, of course not. We all know that the country is really pining for a lefty-populist regime, but the VRWC uses it's sinister behind-the-scenes influence to choke off the voice of the people and to decieve the masses into voting against their own best interests. Hock-ptuey.

Islamic nations don't have civil societies. Most publications are government-approved or -created. Most change happens via violence, or at least military force.

It wouldn't occur to the protesters to protest any way except violently, and anyone who disagrees with them is staying home.

That's the cause of the problem.

One must wonder why Muslims are so hyper-sensitive. Are challenges to the Prophet so dangerous? It's not like it's easy to mock him for his 8-year-old child bride (along with 20 other wives), his sanctioning of assassinations of old men and women who mocked him, his being fooled by Satan (hence the "Satanic Verses" regarding some godesses or other), his breaking of treaties and attacking during holy months, his ... no, wait, maybe that's it. Wow, that answering-islam site has some pretty scary information ...

Fuck Mohammad, fuck Jesus, fuck Budda and fuck all the rest. But most of all, fuck anyone who tries to tell me what I can or can't say, how to think, how to act, what false god to worship or who I can and can't love. I find it mind boggling that those so oppressed are so will to pass that oppression on.

I guess the old adage is true, you can only pass on what you have.

If I believed in him, I would thank Alla that those types didn't set sail on the Nina, Pinta or the Santa Maria.

Hey assholes, keep your irrational bullshit and "curses" (ooohhhh I'm scared) to yourself. I'm so sick of being told to fear the wrath of other peoples imaginations.

If Alla, Jesus, Budda, and the rest are so powerful, why don't they just wipe non-believers off the earth? If you fundies really believed what you say, you would realize Alla doesn't need your help. According to you, he's all powerful. But... what? Lazy? Uncaring? Not aware of the "evil" running rampet on the Earth?

Pretty ineffectual deity, if you ask me. Maybe he just isn't interseted in dealing with you fuck ups. Can you blame him?

Wait, I'm still breathing, and not burning in the bowels of hell? Where's your Alla now?

Maybe you're wrong. Maybe if you had jobs you wouldn't have all that time to protest what people on the other side of the world are reading. I've never protested anything that has happened on the other side of the world, 'cause I've been employeed since I was 10.

You should be at work, creating an economy and a culture that prospers (Alla probably has rules against that too)instead of the shitholes (like Gaza) you live in. But, I guess if Alla willed you to be unemployed, you have to do something with your time.

It would be silly (and fatal) to protest those who keep you oppressed, who keep you under educated and way, way sexually repressed.

So scream and burn and kill because others around the world have the freedom to live how you wish you could. Forget the KFC and burn down a palace. At least then, you might earn the respect you think you deserve. You've never fought for anything worth having, because if you did, you'd have it.

You will never have what your not willing to fight for, and if, by some chance you do get it, someone will take it as easily as it fell into your lap.

You can't fight something you don't have. You're fighting for your own oppression. That's fucked up.

Maybe if you let their women lose the beekeeper suits you wouldn't be walking around all pent up and ready to kill anyone who doesn't agree with your uneducated, unenlightened, backass ways. I bet if you spanked your monkey before those protests you'd be a lot less willing to flail yourself.

Try hanging with your buds for a couple of beers after a softball game. Whoops, sorry. I forgot. That's evil too. Well, at least you have your hookha.

Did you like this post? Did it piss you off? Too bad. My forefathers fought and died for my right to piss you off. What rights did your forefathers die for?

Jezus Christ, liberals like MDtoMN really piss me off. I mean, what are you thinking? How can you even for a second defend a culture that enslaves women, lynches gays, and kills people who exercise their right to free speech? What do liberals stand for nowadays? They used to passionately oppose any and all who would do such things, and now all they seem to be able to do is attack Republicans. It's time to shelve your opposition to the Bushitlerchimpcowboy for a while, and recognize that there is a real enemy out there who wants to destroy everything you (used to) stand for.