I agree completely.

The more I heard about these cartoons the more I realised how messed up it was. For me, it went in the discovery order 1.) Mohammad as a terrorist – 2.) It’s offensive to depict Mohammad – 3.) Bomb for a turban. – 4.) Reprinted – 5.) Reprinted internationaly

At each point, I got more disgusted.

Of course, I do NOT support the illegal protesting or violence. However, the first few rounds of protesting in Denmark were completely ignored {or spured the editor to print then again}.

It all comes down to respect. A Belief may be questioned openly, but should not be insulted. Heck, far too many people just believe science, rather than reading the fine print and finding out how much isn’t proven… yet {but scientist still have a pretty good idea of what goes on}.

” True, in one cartoon of the 12, Muhammad’s turban is a bomb, and, who would have guessed it, that one cartoon is better known and more widely discussed than any of the others. (The way to prove the cartoonist who drew it wrong, however, is not to kill him.) In another “total outrage against Islam,” Muhammad is depicted in heaven before a queue of apparent martyrs, shouting, “Stop! We’ve run out of virgins.” Exposing the hypocrisy of slaughter in the name of God’s justice is not an offense; it is an editorial point eminently worth making. Another of the cartoons is not of Muhammad at all, but of a nervous cartoonist attempting to draw Muhammad and at the same time keep all unwelcome eyes away from his composition. Would anyone like to argue that this cartoon denigrates Muslims?

But of course, the reason for the embassy burnings, the promises of murder, the blackmail of civil institutions, is not the light in which a group of Danish cartoonists portrayed Muhammad, but the fact that Danish cartoonists portrayed Muhammad at all. And while Muslims have every right to abhor visual representations of their prophets, they have no right — none whatsoever — to prevent non-Muslims from drawing whatever pictures they want to. This is not a matter of tolerance of Muslim beliefs, but of whether or not we non-believers are prepared to submit ourselves, out of fear, to Islamic law. Capitulation to the bullies is not a sign of an abundance of intellectual sophistication, but a severe lack of self-respect.”

Further, the reason for this tradition is specifically to prevent idolatry. This is extremely similar to, and perhaps derived from, the Jewish Commandment against graven images. The fear is that if an image is made, then people will worship the image instead of worshipping God. Now, of the cartoons posted, there are a couple that could be considered insulting. But as for the rest–does anyone *really* believe that some impressionable Islamic youth is going to start idol-worshipping a newspaper cartoon of Mohammed? Obviously not.

You make snippy noises about how the Danes really should have known better than to print inflammatory material. But to a mind thinking clearly, the worst of these cartoons was little more than an annoyance. The reaction should have been perhaps some ruffled feathers and a brief swell of debate, not widespread violence aimed at anything European.

I’d like to take this opportunity to point out that in the Islamic world, using violence to control the media isn’t exactly a new phenomenon. In Palestinian-Authority-controlled territories, for example, all journalists who don’t toe the PA line are threatened and hindered until they leave. That’s how you get ridiculous situations like the illusory massacre in Jenin. In most Islamic countries, the media is state-run, and the penalty for straying from lockstep can get a bit worse than just losing your job. So, accepting that rational thought really isn’t a factor, is it any surprise that the Islamic world is trying to control the European media through violence? It would be a shame, and a frightening one, if this led to self-censorship.

However, Buddhism doesnt follow idoltry like the three Abrahamic religions do. They dont even believe Buddha is divine. At least, they’re not supposed to, but we all know how poorly the religious follow their faiths.

And 2 is also correct because legitimate criticism of fanaticism and zealotry is frequently met with baseless charges of “racism” and “cultural insensitivity.”

While I personally am not offended by flag-burning, most US citizens are, and yet not a day goes by when a US flag isn’t burned in the Middle East. Where’s the cultural sensitivity on the part of muslims? Where’s the concern for our feelings? Oh, I forgot the entire non-Islamic world is comprised of “infidels”. Our culture and our religious beliefs are not only undeserving of respect but should be destroyed.

I anxiously await the complaint of cultural insensitivity the next time another Islamic government blows the face off an ancient Buddha.

1) either we are scared shitless of what their response will be (which suggests their reputation for violence is preceding them)
or
2) we are treating them like children not deserving or capable of the same adult dialogue we engage in with our Western friends (and foes)

Which is it?

I think it is (2)

I’ll repeat: That cartoon seemed to be making the very valid point that the Islamic religion has largely been hijacked by extremists and violent elements that clearly contradict the prophet’s teachings.
Additionally I think it was merely a cartoonist seeking a clever juxtaposition of imagery.

“Also, thanks for accusing me of being a racist patronizing lout before asking for a clarification, Rob!”

I didn’t call you a “racist patronizing lout”. You realize that, so enough with the melodrama.
I was referring basically to anyone whose apologism for violent zealotry under the “it’s a different culture, it’s a different religion, any criticism of its practices and followers stems from racism” defense.

The fact that we in Western culture are so terrified of criticizing widespread abominable behavior in the Islamic world says one of two things (or both). 1) either we are scared shitless of what their response will be (which suggests their reputation for violence is preceding them)
or
2) we are treating them like children not deserving or capable of the same adult dialogue we engage in with our Western friends (and foes)

Which is it?

I suggested that EQUATING the wearing of turbans WITH being a terrorist is racist.

Drawing the turban as a bomb suggests that all folks who are wearing turbans are also carrying around bombs. Sorry if I think that’s racist.

Also, thanks for accusing me of being a racist patronizing lout before asking for a clarification, Rob!