Washington Post: Why I Published Those Cartoons

[Owen Densmore]

Interesting article from the WP on why the cartoons were published:
   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/ 
AR2006021702499.html
(also attached as text)

Hard to believe, but apparently in Europe, there is great fear  
growing among editors and reporters over possible insulting Islam.  
Puts the cartoons in an entirely new light.  It would be interesting  
to see if similar self-censorship is occurring in the US too.

I was surprised how the cartoons were no worse than most of the  
political style cartoons I've seen with a Christian "message".  These  
have caused outrage, but no killings.

A recent NYTimes article, "The Islam Gap" by Karim Raslan:
   http://tinyurl.com/s8a2g
points out that Indonesian Islam has a different slant on the west,  
and apparently distinguishes between the European brand of secularism  
and the US's odd brand of religion:

   "Nor is the West a unitary culture. Europe's fervent secularism  
reminds me that the nation of the Great Satan, with its crowded  
churches and Sunday preachers who fill sports stadiums, is actually  
more like my world than Europe is."

I found that sort of subtlety surprising.  Guess its my week for  
surprises!

     -- Owen

Owen Densmore
http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org

Why I Published Those Cartoons
By Flemming Rose
Sunday, February 19, 2006; B01

Childish. Irresponsible. Hate speech. A provocation just for the sake  
of provocation. A PR stunt. Critics of 12 cartoons of the prophet  
Muhammad I decided to publish in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten  
have not minced their words. They say that freedom of expression does  
not imply an endorsement of insulting people's religious feelings,  
and besides, they add, the media censor themselves every day. So,  
please do not teach us a lesson about limitless freedom of speech.

I agree that the freedom to publish things doesn't mean you publish  
everything. Jyllands-Posten would not publish pornographic images or  
graphic details of dead bodies; swear words rarely make it into our  
pages. So we are not fundamentalists in our support for freedom of  
expression.

But the cartoon story is different.

Those examples have to do with exercising restraint because of  
ethical standards and taste; call it editing. By contrast, I  
commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-
censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of  
intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam. And I still  
believe that this is a topic that we Europeans must confront,  
challenging moderate Muslims to speak out. The idea wasn't to provoke  
gratuitously -- and we certainly didn't intend to trigger violent  
demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Our goal was simply to  
push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing  
in tighter.

At the end of September, a Danish standup comedian said in an  
interview with Jyllands-Posten that he had no problem urinating on  
the Bible in front of a camera, but he dared not do the same thing  
with the Koran.

This was the culmination of a series of disturbing instances of self-
censorship. Last September, a Danish children's writer had trouble  
finding an illustrator for a book about the life of Muhammad. Three  
people turned down the job for fear of consequences. The person who  
finally accepted insisted on anonymity, which in my book is a form of  
self-censorship. European translators of a critical book about Islam  
also did not want their names to appear on the book cover beside the  
name of the author, a Somalia-born Dutch politician who has herself  
been in hiding.

Around the same time, the Tate gallery in London withdrew an  
installation by the avant-garde artist John Latham depicting the  
Koran, Bible and Talmud torn to pieces. The museum explained that it  
did not want to stir things up after the London bombings. (A few  
months earlier, to avoid offending Muslims, a museum in Goteborg,  
Sweden, had removed a painting with a sexual motif and a quotation  
from the Koran.)

Finally, at the end of September, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh  
Rasmussen met with a group of imams, one of whom called on the prime  
minister to interfere with the press in order to get more positive  
coverage of Islam.

So, over two weeks we witnessed a half-dozen cases of self-
censorship, pitting freedom of speech against the fear of confronting  
issues about Islam. This was a legitimate news story to cover, and  
Jyllands-Posten decided to do it by adopting the well-known  
journalistic principle: Show, don't tell. I wrote to members of the  
association of Danish cartoonists asking them "to draw Muhammad as  
you see him." We certainly did not ask them to make fun of the  
prophet. Twelve out of 25 active members responded.

We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family and  
other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The  
cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity,  
Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in  
Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the  
Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not  
strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims.

The cartoons do not in any way demonize or stereotype Muslims. In  
fact, they differ from one another both in the way they depict the  
prophet and in whom they target. One cartoon makes fun of Jyllands-
Posten, portraying its cultural editors as a bunch of reactionary  
provocateurs. Another suggests that the children's writer who could  
not find an illustrator for his book went public just to get cheap  
publicity. A third puts the head of the anti-immigration Danish  
People's Party in a lineup, as if she is a suspected criminal.

One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban -- has  
drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is  
saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a  
terrorist. I read it differently: Some individuals have taken the  
religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of  
the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad  
name. The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and  
the orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This  
suggests that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an  
inherent characteristic of the prophet.

On occasion, Jyllands-Posten has refused to print satirical cartoons  
of Jesus, but not because it applies a double standard. In fact, the  
same cartoonist who drew the image of Muhammed with a bomb in his  
turban drew a cartoon with Jesus on the cross having dollar notes in  
his eyes and another with the star of David attached to a bomb fuse.  
There were, however, no embassy burnings or death threats when we  
published those.

Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly  
didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque,  
I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just  
as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer  
demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public  
domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And  
that is incompatible with a secular democracy.

This is exactly why Karl Popper, in his seminal work "The Open  
Society and Its Enemies," insisted that one should not be tolerant  
with the intolerant. Nowhere do so many religions coexist peacefully  
as in a democracy where freedom of expression is a fundamental right.  
In Saudi Arabia, you can get arrested for wearing a cross or having a  
Bible in your suitcase, while Muslims in secular Denmark can have  
their own mosques, cemeteries, schools, TV and radio stations.

I acknowledge that some people have been offended by the publication  
of the cartoons, and Jyllands-Posten has apologized for that. But we  
cannot apologize for our right to publish material, even offensive  
material. You cannot edit a newspaper if you are paralyzed by worries  
about every possible insult.

I am offended by things in the paper every day: transcripts of  
speeches by Osama bin Laden, photos from Abu Ghraib, people insisting  
that Israel should be erased from the face of the Earth, people  
saying the Holocaust never happened. But that does not mean that I  
would refrain from printing them as long as they fell within the  
limits of the law and of the newspaper's ethical code. That other  
editors would make different choices is the essence of pluralism.

As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive about  
calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular  
trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for  
debate as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened  
to human rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov,  
Vladimir Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris  
Pasternak. The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as  
some Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-
Islamic.

The lesson from the Cold War is: If you give in to totalitarian  
impulses once, new demands follow. The West prevailed in the Cold War  
because we stood by our fundamental values and did not appease  
totalitarian tyrants.

Since the Sept. 30 publication of the cartoons, we have had a  
constructive debate in Denmark and Europe about freedom of  
expression, freedom of religion and respect for immigrants and  
people's beliefs. Never before have so many Danish Muslims  
participated in a public dialogue -- in town hall meetings, letters  
to editors, opinion columns and debates on radio and TV. We have had  
no anti-Muslim riots, no Muslims fleeing the country and no Muslims  
committing violence. The radical imams who misinformed their  
counterparts in the Middle East about the situation for Muslims in  
Denmark have been marginalized. They no longer speak for the Muslim  
community in Denmark because moderate Muslims have had the courage to  
speak out against them.

In January, Jyllands-Posten ran three full pages of interviews and  
photos of moderate Muslims saying no to being represented by the  
imams. They insist that their faith is compatible with a modern  
secular democracy. A network of moderate Muslims committed to the  
constitution has been established, and the anti-immigration People's  
Party called on its members to differentiate between radical and  
moderate Muslims, i.e. between Muslims propagating sharia law and  
Muslims accepting the rule of secular law. The Muslim face of Denmark  
has changed, and it is becoming clear that this is not a debate  
between "them" and "us," but between those committed to democracy in  
Denmark and those who are not.

This is the sort of debate that Jyllands-Posten had hoped to generate  
when it chose to test the limits of self-censorship by calling on  
cartoonists to challenge a Muslim taboo. Did we achieve our purpose?  
Yes and no. Some of the spirited defenses of our freedom of  
expression have been inspiring. But tragic demonstrations throughout  
the Middle East and Asia were not what we anticipated, much less  
desired. Moreover, the newspaper has received 104 registered threats,  
10 people have been arrested, cartoonists have been forced into  
hiding because of threats against their lives and Jyllands-Posten's  
headquarters have been evacuated several times due to bomb threats.  
This is hardly a climate for easing self-censorship.

Still, I think the cartoons now have a place in two separate  
narratives, one in Europe and one in the Middle East. In the words of  
the Somali-born Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the integration of  
Muslims into European societies has been sped up by 300 years due to  
the cartoons; perhaps we do not need to fight the battle for the  
Enlightenment all over again in Europe. The narrative in the Middle  
East is more complex, but that has very little to do with the cartoons.

flemming.rose at jp.dk

Flemming Rose is the culture editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-
Posten.

? 2006 The Washington Post Company

[Roger Frye-2]

The 12 cartoons published by Jyllands-Posten, which you can find on the  
web, don't tell the whole story.  I saw the other three, very gross  
cartoons that were confused with them, and I believe these triggered the  
outrage.  Even so, it is very hard for us to understand the taboos of  
other religions.  Roman catholicism and orthodoxy split over iconography.  
Judaism prohibited the naming of god (JHWH), and Christians prohibited  
swearing in the name of god (Jehosephat, 'sWounds). Hindus prohibited  
beef, while jews and muslims prohibited pork and the mixing of meat and  
dairy.  Westerners have become extremely desensitized to these  
prohibitions.  Americans can't even understand British revulsion to blood  
and gore.
-Roger

[Douglas Roberts-2]

The only cartoon that I saw was the one with Mohammad wearing a bomb-shaped
turban.  I confess that such satire seems perfectly appropriate, given the
active encouragement of the fundamentalist Muslim cleric for bombing
activities.  How respectful can one be expected to feel towards sanctioned
suicide bombers?

BTW, I lived in Libya for about one year, so I'm not speaking from a base of
complete ignorance about Muslim traditional values.  Respect, in other
words, frequently seems to be a one-way street when it comes to fervent
practitioners of fundamentalist religions (not just the Islamic ones,
either; *all* of the fundamentalists that I've encountered seemed tolerant
of only their own value sets).

--Doug

On 2/20/06, Roger Frye <rfrye at commodicast.com> wrote:

>
> The 12 cartoons published by Jyllands-Posten, which you can find on the
> web, don't tell the whole story.  I saw the other three, very gross
> cartoons that were confused with them, and I believe these triggered the
> outrage.  Even so, it is very hard for us to understand the taboos of
> other religions.  Roman catholicism and orthodoxy split over iconography.
> Judaism prohibited the naming of god (JHWH), and Christians prohibited
> swearing in the name of god (Jehosephat, 'sWounds). Hindus prohibited
> beef, while jews and muslims prohibited pork and the mixing of meat and
> dairy.  Westerners have become extremely desensitized to these
> prohibitions.  Americans can't even understand British revulsion to blood
> and gore.
> -Roger
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

--
Doug Roberts, RTI
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060220/b7997ae3/attachment.htm

[Pamela McCorduck]

And now, if Edward Rothstein in the NY Times is right, we hear (or I  
do for the first time) that the Danish cartoons were supplemented by  
cartoons commissioned by fundamentalist Islamist clerics, really  
nasty in nature (a dog and Mohammed in sexual congress) but passed  
off as part of the original batch, these the better to stir up the  
True Believers.


On Feb 20, 2006, at 12:31 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

> The only cartoon that I saw was the one with Mohammad wearing a  
> bomb-shaped turban.  I confess that such satire seems perfectly  
> appropriate, given the active encouragement of the fundamentalist  
> Muslim cleric for bombing activities.  How respectful can one be  
> expected to feel towards sanctioned suicide bombers?
>
> BTW, I lived in Libya for about one year, so I'm not speaking from  
> a base of complete ignorance about Muslim traditional values.  
> Respect, in other words, frequently seems to be a one-way street  
> when it comes to fervent practitioners of fundamentalist religions  
> (not just the Islamic ones, either; *all* of the fundamentalists  
> that I've encountered seemed tolerant of only their own value sets).
>
> --Doug
>
> On 2/20/06, Roger Frye <rfrye at commodicast.com> wrote:
> The 12 cartoons published by Jyllands-Posten, which you can find on  
> the
> web, don't tell the whole story.  I saw the other three, very gross
> cartoons that were confused with them, and I believe these  
> triggered the
> outrage.  Even so, it is very hard for us to understand the taboos of
> other religions.  Roman catholicism and orthodoxy split over  
> iconography.
> Judaism prohibited the naming of god (JHWH), and Christians prohibited
> swearing in the name of god (Jehosephat, 'sWounds). Hindus prohibited
> beef, while jews and muslims prohibited pork and the mixing of meat  
> and
> dairy.  Westerners have become extremely desensitized to these
> prohibitions.  Americans can't even understand British revulsion to  
> blood
> and gore.
> -Roger
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
> --
> Doug Roberts, RTI
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-670-8195 - Cell
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

"Weary old faiths make art while hot young sects make only trouble.  
Insincerity, or at least familiarity, seems to be a precondition of a  
great religious art--the wheezing and worldly Renaissance Papacy  
produced the Sistine ceiling, while the young Apostolic Church left  
only a few scratched graffiti in the catacombs."

                                Adam Gopnik


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060220/bfb1cf7d/attachment.htm

[Jochen Fromm-3]

The fear is justified, since an Islamic court in India has
recently issued a fatwa on the cartoonists, condemning to
death the 12 artists who drew the controversial images of
the prophet Mohammed.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18220608-38197,00.html 

I think it is a bit frightening how stupid people can be,
although I see it more from the viewpoint of a complex system.
It is interesting how a few insignificant cartoons posted
in a minor newspaper in a tiny country can cause a series
of violent protests and deadly aftershocks which are felt four
months later (see http://www.iq.harvard.edu/blog/netgov/2006/02/).

In the city where I live, Kassel, 1500 people on Saturday took part
in a demonstration against the Mohammed cartoons. First only the men,
about 600, and then separately the women, many with headscarf (as if
they want to say "now more than ever"). I guess nearly none of them
has really seen the cartoons, and they didn't even manage to create
banners with correct spelling. Many carried turkish flags, which
had nothing to do with the cartoons or carricatures at all.

It think it is a buzz-related media phenomenon. One blog entry says
"it started with reports and reprints of the Mohammed cartoons
all over Europe". That was apparently enough to exceed some
critical mass or tipping point. There is often positive feedback
in this kind of events because the media itself is involved in it.
The newspapers print something about a delicate subject, which stirs
small protests, which trigger in turn more reports and articles about
the delicate subject, which makes the situation even worse and
causes bigger protests, which goes on and on (see also the O.J. Simpson
issue and other related cases). A self-reinforcing process,
although there are certainly a lot of other reasons, too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4678220.stm

-J.

-----Original Message-----
From: Owen Densmore
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 5:44 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Friam
Subject: [FRIAM] Washington Post: Why I Published Those Cartoons

Hard to believe, but apparently in Europe, there is great fear  
growing among editors and reporters over possible insulting Islam.  
Puts the cartoons in an entirely new light.  It would be interesting  
to see if similar self-censorship is occurring in the US too.

[Owen Densmore]

Good insights.

I find I simply do not "get it" in terms of European Islam, which  
seems much different than the version of US Islam I see more of  
here.  I'm not sure if its a difference in the size of the US (thus  
diluting cultural differences), a difference in assimilation models,  
or possibly just luck!

I am reading the book by Reza Aslan (one VERY hip dude!)
   http://www.rezaaslan.com/html/aslan_book.html
.. which makes some really interesting points on Islam, and that the  
struggle is much less a "cultural revolution" than a "Islamic  
reformation".  His John Stewart (Daily Show) interview was interesting.


     -- Owen

Owen Densmore
http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org


On Feb 21, 2006, at 10:37 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote:

>
> The fear is justified, since an Islamic court in India has
> recently issued a fatwa on the cartoonists, condemning to
> death the 12 artists who drew the controversial images of
> the prophet Mohammed.
> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18220608-38197,00.html
>
> I think it is a bit frightening how stupid people can be,
> although I see it more from the viewpoint of a complex system.
> It is interesting how a few insignificant cartoons posted
> in a minor newspaper in a tiny country can cause a series
> of violent protests and deadly aftershocks which are felt four
> months later (see http://www.iq.harvard.edu/blog/netgov/2006/02/).
>
> In the city where I live, Kassel, 1500 people on Saturday took part
> in a demonstration against the Mohammed cartoons. First only the men,
> about 600, and then separately the women, many with headscarf (as if
> they want to say "now more than ever"). I guess nearly none of them
> has really seen the cartoons, and they didn't even manage to create
> banners with correct spelling. Many carried turkish flags, which
> had nothing to do with the cartoons or carricatures at all.
>
> It think it is a buzz-related media phenomenon. One blog entry says
> "it started with reports and reprints of the Mohammed cartoons
> all over Europe". That was apparently enough to exceed some
> critical mass or tipping point. There is often positive feedback
> in this kind of events because the media itself is involved in it.
> The newspapers print something about a delicate subject, which stirs
> small protests, which trigger in turn more reports and articles about
> the delicate subject, which makes the situation even worse and
> causes bigger protests, which goes on and on (see also the O.J.  
> Simpson
> issue and other related cases). A self-reinforcing process,
> although there are certainly a lot of other reasons, too.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4678220.stm
>
> -J.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen Densmore
> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 5:44 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Friam
> Subject: [FRIAM] Washington Post: Why I Published Those Cartoons
>
> Hard to believe, but apparently in Europe, there is great fear
> growing among editors and reporters over possible insulting Islam.
> Puts the cartoons in an entirely new light.  It would be interesting
> to see if similar self-censorship is occurring in the US too.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Stephen Guerin]

Owen wrote:
> I am reading the book by Reza Aslan (one VERY hip dude!)
>    http://www.rezaaslan.com/html/aslan_book.html
> .. which makes some really interesting points on Islam, and that the  
> struggle is much less a "cultural revolution" than a "Islamic  
> reformation".  His John Stewart (Daily Show) interview was interesting.

Here's a link to the Reza Aslan interview from the Daily Show site:
http://tinyurl.com/j2o8b

And you can get the bittorrent of the whole episode at:
http://tinyurl.com/rxe2l

[Mohammed El-Beltagy]

Here is my perspective from Egypt.  There are a couple of crucial points
that I noticed that have been missing in news reporting that you are getting
in the US that might shed some light on the what the fuss is all about and
why the Muslims are reacting the way they do (the protesting, boycott  and
the anger.) :
1. The nature of religious life in the Muslim world
2. The distinction between satirizing Muslims and revered symbols of their
faith

With regards to the first point, it is very difficult to a westerner to
understand how attached Muslims are to their religion and how they revere
its symbols even though my might have very different interpretations. To
help illustrate that matter (I doubt I will be successful), I will share
with you the story of one of my students at Cairo University. Hamid, is a
very jovial young man of average academic performance, his parents are
struggling to get him through college and he sometimes has trouble getting
necessities like books or buying a new pair of pants (he only has two, I
have noticed) . Hamid, has very little prospect of finding employment after
he graduates.  His chances of being able to afford to rent a tiny little
hovel and to settle down with his sweetheart seem very slim. His parents
tell him of much better times when they are able to afford the things that
he now find unattainable. He perceives the ruling elite as corrupt, he knows
is environment is polluted (physically and morally). The only glimmer of
hope in his depressing existence is prayer. He finds comfort and peace in
praying five times a day; it gives him strength to muddle though pain,
poverty and suffering. He can not at all understand why anyone would
satirize the prophet of Islam. He certainly reveres all the prophets of the
new and old testament, his mom (a Muslim also) occasionally lights a candle
to the Virgin Mary at a nearby church for blessing. He knows of political
satire, but before that episode he has never seen any prophet made fun of.
He finds it hard to understand what that has anything to do with freedom of
expression. He asks me, "Is it Okay to deny that holocaust and get away with
it in western press?" I say "No, but the holocaust is confirmed historic
incident that happened not so long ago.religion on the other hand." he
interrupts "My religion is more real to me than their holocaust and they
should have sense to at least not insult my prophet." At that point I can
not carry the conversation further. He gives me an incredulous stare that
reminds of one I saw a couple of years ago when I was out on a desert
safari. It was the speechless reaction of our Bedouin guide when a European
girl on our group was pontificating on the merits of a vegetarian diet
(something that is impossible to do in the Sahara..unless your stomach can
handle bush leaves).



Muslims do make some distinction between what they do and their religion.
So, while they feel very upset by the way they get portrayed in western
media (mainly as terrorist, fanatics, or sex crazed sheikhs) they often
excuse the west of its ignorance of them (some also they many suspect a
conspiracy at work). A great many Muslims have a feeling that they have not
been following the teachings of Islam as they should, and that once they do
they will take there rightful and decent place among nations.  The
conventional wisdom is that they have not done enough to present a good
image of there religion to the west and that more needs to be done. They
know that terrorists have marred the image that the west has of their
religion. So, when those pictures appeared in October there was no immediate
popular reaction and it was thought that matter can be resolved by
reasonable means (of course there were firebrands even then.). But when the
Danish PM refused to even grant audience to the ambassadors of Muslim
countries in the Denmark (a unacceptable behavior when the representatives
of fifth of the world's population want to have a chat with you), and when
Jyllands-Posten refused to even issue some statement to the effect that it
didn't mean to insults Muslims. that is when all hell broke lose. The insult
was felt very deeply. A popular drive to boycott Danish products started and
protests flared across the Muslim world. it was only then that
Jyllands-Posten issued some mildly apologetic statement (a bit too late.
alas). The issue was not about whether the Muslims were satirized or not,
but one about a deeply revered symbol of their religion that has been cast
as caricature through the deeds of some who label themselves Muslims.

Finally, who is to judge if a satire is appropriate of not? What metric can
be used? What are the limits of free speech? I don't see racist or demeaning
cartoons as appropriate satire. I pray for the day when we stop seeing each
other through cartoons and stereotypes and see the diversity of human
culture through a more compassionate lens, a lens though which a culture's
strength, beauty and seeming contradictions are appreciated.

[Roger Critchlow-2]

Mohammed --

Thank you a new simile for not getting it:  like preaching
vegetarianism to the Bedouin.

-- rec --

On 2/23/06, Mohammed El-Beltagy <mohammed at computer.org> wrote:
> not carry the conversation further. He gives me an incredulous stare that
> reminds of one I saw a couple of years ago when I was out on a desert
> safari. It was the speechless reaction of our Bedouin guide when a European
> girl on our group was pontificating on the merits of a vegetarian diet
> (something that is impossible to do in the Sahara..unless your stomach can
> handle bush leaves).
>