Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Clash of Civilizations ? Worthy of Violence ? http://cryptome.org/muhammad.htm Of course not. But, this is also not definitely a clear-cut case of fundamental differences or “they’re crazy and we’re not.” A recap for those whom aren’t following. The Danish paper, “Jyllands-Posten,” printed some “cartoons” showing the prophet Muhammad in different situations. Some of the more extreme images have led to rioting and, in some cases, deaths in various countries. The “why” is explained in an article by the Copenhagen Post: “Jyllands-Posten called for and printed the cartoons by various Danish illustrators, after reports that artists were refusing to illustrate works about Islam, out of fear of fundamendalist retribution. The newspaper said it printed the cartoons as a test of whether Muslim fundamentalists had begun affecting the freedom of expression in Denmark.” Well, I guess they found out the results of that test. Now, first off, before people start shaking their heads and wagging their fingers, I don’t think anyone who is a believer in the tenets of any faith and who has not gone through the same thing, should cast judgment. As a Christian, I have not had the experience of coming across anything tantamount to what Danish Muslims saw. Critics have tried to prove the contrary, by trying to draw comparisons; one that I heard the other day on CNN: “Well, Kanye West was on the cover of Rolling Stone posed like Jesus, but no one went ape-shit about it,” (emphasis and “ape-shit” added). That might not be a close-enough comparison—maybe if I saw a cartoon of Jesus molesting young kids in my paper, then we could start talking. But, I haven’t seen anything like that pop up in my Sunday Ledger or Times, yet. Secondly, I think the use of the word “cartoon” in these discussions, leads us to take their concerns less seriously. When I hear the word “cartoon,” it connotes images of Ziggy, Broom Hilda, Peanuts, and Family Circle (a kick-ass cartoon, especially when they drew the little trails behind the kids as they ran around the house). Finding images of Muhammad lumped together with these comics wouldn’t exactly be fitting. I guess that’s why the term political cartoon came about. Which leads to my last point: political cartoons are supposed to be satirical. Aside from a few boxes, where is the satire to be found? It’s pretty clear that these images were meant to incite and, if we are to deem the Copenhagen Post article as true, then even the editors themselves admitted that fact. How to prove it? Ask the cartoon designers to explain what they meant. If these were tools of free speech, then they must have had some opinion to express. My guess is that they would have nothing intelligent to add to the discussion. Violence is violence and it should not be condoned, that goes without saying. But this isn't a case of a clash of civilizations. This is about a few terrorists who got in the mix and started riling people up. On the Limbaugh station today, the guy filling-in pointed out that these cartoons were printed in September 2005!?!?! And, only now, in February, are people rioting over them? Someone got involved, and that someone had bad intentions. I think, from here on out, in order to slow the momentum, these papers should move on to other material and content on their pages and stop reprinting the cartoons in other papers. People can write op-eds supporting free speech, but reprinting the cartoons to support that fact does nothing. What do you all think? Oh, and before I end this, I read about a major major study that was undertaken, which shows that a low-fat diet does not cut health risks. Great article, but tons of caveats, as usual with these health studies: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/health/08fat.html?pagewanted=print