Radical Islam vs. Freedom of Speech

I know I've been absent all week, but I've been busy. Not as busy as Islamic extremists in Europe and the Middle East, but it takes a lot more to offend me than it does to offend them. Just ask Denmark...

Tens of thousands of angry Muslims marched through Palestinian cities, burning the Danish flag and calling for vengeance Friday against European countries where caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad were published.

Angry protests against the drawings were spread in the Muslim world.

In Iraq, thousands demonstrated after Friday mosque services, and the country's leading Shiite cleric denounced the drawings. About 4,500 people rallied in Basra and hundreds at a Baghdad mosque. Danish flags were burned at both demonstrations.

Muslims in Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia demonstrated against the European nations whose papers published them.

The caricatures, including one depicting the Muslim prophet wearing a turban fashioned into a bomb, were reprinted in papers in Norwegian, French, German and even Jordanian after first appearing in a Danish paper in September. The drawings were republished after Muslims decried the images as insulting to their prophet. Dutch-language newspapers in Belgium and two Italian right-wing papers reprinted the drawings Friday.

Islamic law, based on clerics' interpretation of the Koran and the sayings of the prophet, forbids depiction's of the Prophet Muhammad and other major religious figures — even positive ones — to prevent idolatry. Shiite Muslim clerics differ in that they allow images of their greatest saint, Ali, the prophet's son-in-law, though not Muhammad.

Danish Prime Minister Fogh Rasmussen, in a meeting with the Egyptian ambassador, reiterated his stance that the government cannot interfere with issues concerning the press. On Monday, he said his government could not apologize on behalf of a newspaper, but that he personally "never would have depicted Muhammad, Jesus or any other religious character in a way that could offend other people."

Early Friday, Palestinian militants threw a bomb at a French cultural center in Gaza City, and many Palestinians began boycotting European goods, especially those from Denmark.

"Whoever defames our prophet should be executed," said Ismail Hassan, 37, a tailor who marched through the pouring rain along with hundreds of others in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

"Bin Laden our beloved, Denmark must be blown up," protesters in Ramallah chanted.

They're getting outraged based on something done in September? Based on this, we should hear their official protest about this year's Super Bowl ads in time for next year's NFL season.

By the way, this type of event should explain to all the ninnies in our country a few points. First, to all those who think that Christian fundamentalism is a horrific threat to freedom and liberal democracy, think again. Back in the day, I don't recall many Christians tossing bombs at anything after "Piss Christ" became noticed as great art. Lest you think I'm joking about the bomb-tossing the rhetoric in these protests seems a tad different from Christians picketing something like the Last Temptation of Christ. If you don't believe me, check out these pictures. And they're from London.

Meanwhile, the State Department issues a response that can at best be called strategic, condeming the publication with a statement that sounds like someone's trying to kiss the butt of the Islamic world...

"We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility," Higgins told AFP.

"Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable. We call for tolerance and respect for all communities and for their religious beliefs and practices."

They'd probably send a big Valentine's Day card to the Prophet Mohammed, but that might offend the fundamentalists. Someone needs to explain something to the professional appeaseniks in Foggy Bottom -- those protestors sure as hell don't fully recognize and respect freedom of press and expression. Andrew Sullivan makes the point beautifully...

So where are the State Department condemnations of vile anti-Semitic cartoons published by government-run papers in the Middle East? Why the double standard? And just for the record: statements that offend people's religious beliefs are perfectly acceptable in a free society. They may not always be admirable; they may even be objectionable. But freedom does not distinguish between "acceptable" words and "unacceptable" ones, when it comes to commenting on public matters, including - and especially - religion. And there is no more pressing public matter today than the intersection of fundamentalist extremism and politics. In this war, the Bush administration just made a strong statement. For the other side.

The cynic in me wonders if the Administration is merely trying to look good for the Muslim world while extending a middle finger to Europe for its past coddling of Islamic extremism. If so, it's short-sighted. Sullivan also notes that Europe is in a far weaker position to defend itself because they're more than willing to trample freedom of speech out of a desire to tolerance and rspect for people's sensibilities, while Americans are forced to deal with offensive comments because of a little thing called the First Amendment. Yet another reason we should give thanks to our Founding Fathers, of course.

And lest anyone think the bad guys are just blowing off a little steam, the torching of the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Syria makes it clear that this is deadly serious. Gateway Pundit has a tremendous roundup on this story. Of course, the idiots at the Boston Globe must be taking lessons from Foggy Bottom. Here's an excerpt from the most pathetic excuse for an editorial I've seen in months...

This was a case of seeking a reason to exercise a freedom that had not been challenged. No government, political party, or corporate interest was trying to deny the paper its right to publish whatever it wanted. The original purpose of printing the cartoons -- some of which maliciously and stupidly identified Mohammed with terrorists, who could want nothing better than to be associated with the prophet -- was plainly to be provocative. Islam prohibits the depiction of Mohammed in any way, whether the image is benign or not.

...Just as the demand from Muslim countries for European governments to punish papers that printed the cartoons shows a misunderstanding of free societies, publishing the cartoons reflects an obtuse refusal to accept the profound meaning for a billion Muslims of Islam's prohibition against any pictorial representation of the prophet. Depicting Mohammed wearing a turban in the form of a bomb with a sputtering fuse is no less hurtful to most Muslims than Nazi caricatures of Jews or Ku Klux Klan caricatures of blacks are to those victims of intolerance. That is why the Danish cartoons will not be reproduced on these pages.

No, the cartoons won't be carried on your pages because you're a worthless excuse for a newspaper. Instapundit gets it right: "The funny thing is that the Globe views fundamentalist Christians as a god-besotted threat to liberty, but makes excuses for people like this." I'm anxiously awaiting the Globe's condemnation of Rolling Stone for its recent cover with Kanye West as Jesus.

You can go check out the "offensive" cartoons here. In the meantime, I'm really hoping that Parker and Stone parody this controversy on South Park sometime soon. One can only imagine how they might offend radical Islam.