Something rotten (I can't be the first to call it that, can I?)

[scarfman]

Two things about the furore over the cartoons of Mohammad.

scarfwoman notes that the U.S. media is missing the point. They seem to think the cartoons are offensive because they're intentionally offensive images, rather than because to Islam making any image of the prophet is offensive. Remarks like Condoleeza Rice's and some of them on CNN's Reliable Sources show that the U.S. media doesn't understand the true source or magnitude of the offense.

My own thoughts - it's trite because it's true: With great power comes great responsibility. It's one thing to draw and publish a cartoon to intentionally fire people up over an issue. It's quite another to draw and publish a cartoon to intentionally offend an entire demographic. The Danish editor and cartoonist(s) abused their power, and did it against a world demographic whose extremists are known to be dangerous. They trolled the world.

Comments

[sidhekin.livejournal.com]

I claim "something rotten"!

You pretty much cover the same ground as I did, except for one point which I will dare repeat here: Research vs disinformation. Because, it just is not the case that "to Islam making any image of the prophet is offensive". It may be to some Muslims, but not to all -- and not to Islam, unless that denotes "Islam as interpreted by a minority of Muslims" here.

Quoth the Wikipedia:

Most contemporary Muslims believe that ordinary portraits and photos, films and illustrations, are permissible. Only some Salafi and Islamist interpretations of Sunni Islam still condemn pictorial representations of any kind. Offensive satirical pictures are a somewhat different case — disrespect to Islam or to Muhammad is still widely considered blasphemous or sacrilegious.

I myself have seen depictions of Muhammed, made and preserved by Muslims. The ban on making images is real, but it has been interpreted differently by Muslims in different times and places.

[antikythera.livejournal.com]

I've said it before and I'll say it again... just because we can insult someone and won't get in trouble for it doesn't mean we should. But we do it anyways, whether it's on the playground behind the teacher's back, or in the media where we play the freedom-of-speech card.

[angryricecooker.livejournal.com]

Agreed on both points.

It's also important to remember that in the United States, Muslims are mostly a part of are foreign policy. According to http://www.adherents.com/, .5% of the US population in 2000 were Muslim. Not so much in Europe. According to the BBC, In Denmark, it's 5%. In France, where the controversy rapidly expanded, it's 8-9.6%. The Europeans aren't taking a shot at some distant land, they're taking a shot at an oppressed minority group in their own nations. Though there may not be any good way to legislate against it, anything that oppresses people goes against the underpinnings of the free press.

[daibhid-c.livejournal.com]

Agreed. Mark Steel, UK radio pundit and comedian, summed it up for me yesterday when he was asked if he believed the newspapers should have been censored and said something like, "I don't think there should be a law against it, I just think they should have had enough sense not to do it."

[pedanther]

Mark Steel is great.

*has all of The Mark Steel Revolution on tape - except episode two, which Radio National always skips for some reason*