When a joke goes too far, or a way to ruin some months

Well, this entire situation has certainly gotten a rise out of me.

I'm pretty much an absolutist when it comes to freedom of expression: with the exception of child pr0n, I believe in the freedom to write, speak, draw, or film any expression of one's artistic or political sensibilities (so long as no violence or vandalism is committed or advocated against people or property). And people who object to, or are offended by, such expression, are themselves free to express their outrage (again, so long as no violence or vandalism is committed or advocated against people or property).

The people here who are "to blame" for this situation are those who feel that their offense is sufficient justification for killing the cartoonists, burning down the newspapers' offices, or kidnapping the citizens of the countries wherein those newspapers are located. I admire and support the courage of those papers that republished the cartoons knowing what the reaction would be; and I'm deeply disappointed that an editor at a French newspaper was fired for authorizing their publication.

"I am offended by what you drew, so you must DIE!!" ??? WTF justification is there for that?

One observation, though: When Muslims are offended by material that criticizes or denigrates their religion, the response of the culture seems to be to grovel on its knees and say "Oh! We are sorry! please forgive us for hurting your feelings!" When Christians are offended by material that criticizes or denigrates their religion, the response of the culture seems to be "Shut the fuck up and go away!" Is that because there actually is (as many conservatives charge) a "culture war" being waged against Christianity and other "traditional values"? Or is it because when Christians are offended, they can pretty much only splutter ineffectually (articles in conservative journals and blogs, and calls for the offensive art to be removed or the artist's government subsidy canceled), whereas a Muslim who gets offended is likely to pick up an AK-47 or a bomb belt and try to kill the offending parties (and if some innocents happen to die as well, hey, that's "bonus points!" they were just infidels anyway!)?

(And if anyone is offended by my characterization of Muslims, let me suggest that your offense is misplaced: your offense should be directed at those Muslims who are giving the religion a bad name by exactly these actions. If Islam truly is a "religion of peace", as President Bush said shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, then why is there not more being done within Islam to censure amd marginalize those who call for violence and murder? Why is Islam content to let its image be portrayed by, among others, the slimeball goon who murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh for making a film critical of Muslim attitudes toward, and treatment, of women?)

I'm pretty much an absolutist when it comes to freedom of expression: with the exception of child pr0n

Sorry, you can't be in favour of freedom for expression, but only of things you find tolerable. Granted, you may make one exception, but it's no different from someone else stating that they find these cartoons, or nazi writing, or religion in general, the 'exception' to the rule. It's hypocritical.

The people here who are "to blame" for this situation are those who feel that their offense is sufficient justification for killing the cartoonists, burning down the newspapers' offices, or kidnapping the citizens of the countries wherein those newspapers are located.

Oh, these people were pissed off long before the cartoon. It's not justification. It's an excuse for crappy behaviour.

I'm deeply disappointed that an editor at a French newspaper was fired for authorizing their publication.

I agree.

One observation, though: When Muslims are offended by material that criticizes or denigrates their religion, the response of the culture seems to be to grovel on its knees and say "Oh! We are sorry! please forgive us for hurting your feelings!" When Christians are offended by material that criticizes or denigrates their religion, the response of the culture seems to be "Shut the fuck up and go away!"

Exactly. It's hardly fair is it? But to be honest, Christianity is a very commonplace cultural artifact within Europe and America, while Islam is something very new. It's not surprising that they would garner different reactions, much like when races first intermingle. But I agree; when someone creates these images, if a significant group of people demand an apology, one should be given (no bannings, firings, censorship – just an apology). That's that. If those same people continue after the apology, I think the only fair response is to tell them, "Shut the fuck up and go away!"

Is that because there actually is (as many conservatives charge) a "culture war" being waged against Christianity and other "traditional values"? Or is it because when Christians are offended, they can pretty much only splutter ineffectually (articles in conservative journals and blogs, and calls for the offensive art to be removed or the artist's government subsidy canceled), whereas a Muslim who gets offended is likely to pick up an AK-47 or a bomb belt and try to kill the offending parties (and if some innocents happen to die as well, hey, that's "bonus points!" they were just infidels anyway!)?

I dunno, Christians can be pretty persuasive. Like in the Crusades. The Spanish Inquisition. Lynch mobs. IRA terrorism. Political lobbying to prevent the distrubtion of AIDS vaccines to African countries unless they abolish abortions. Then there's of course all the horrific violence within Christianity between its different sects.

But then, I assume those people are the extremist minorities of that religious community, and not the norm. Something I'd hope would be reciprocated to other religious communities.

(And if anyone is offended by my characterization of Muslims, let me suggest that your offense is misplaced: your offense should be directed at those Muslims who are giving the religion a bad name by exactly these actions.

That's bull. "I'm perpetuating the stereotyping of an entire people, but it's their fault." It's bull and you know it, because whenever mainstream television depicts the woman bodybuilder as a testosterone man-bitch, you rant about how unfair the stereotyping is.

If Islam truly is a "religion of peace", as President Bush said shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, then why is there not more being done within Islam to censure amd marginalize those who call for violence and murder? Why is Islam content to let its image be portrayed by, among others, the slimeball goon who murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh for making a film critical of Muslim attitudes toward, and treatment, of women?)

Are you crazy? That's like me pointing the finger at you and claiming why you haven't personally stopped gun crime in the US.

The vast majority of Muslims state that those terrorists are not true Muslims. Even in this current debate, the news over here shows one Muslim representative after another saying that they found the image offensive but that the situation is being riled up by extremists. They don't think the cartoon is a big deal. They say so repeatedly. What makes you think that there is nothing being done within Islamic communities to not only stop terrorism, but the portrayal of terrorists? Of course they are. And you can't say, "Everyone should be allowed to say 'Muslims are terrorists'" then say "Why doesn't Islam do more to prevent the depiction of their religious members as terrorists?" The only actions you seem to pay attention to are the horrifically violent ones shown on the television, those which support the stereotype of the muslim terrorist, and not the actions of the public speakers who decry terrorism, the politicians who try to show how Islamic law could potentially help in areas such as finance and eductation, or the simple day to day attitude of being appropriate to their fellow man. Many Muslims feel marginalized into an apologetic role within society due to terrorist attacks, when they personally, have no relationship to the attack. Why must any Muslim depcition be in relation to terrorism (pro or anti)? Surely those Muslims who live their lives totally absent of terrorism send the strongest image of Islam.

It's horrifically offensive to act as though all Muslims are just terrorists waiting to happen. You'd be offended if, because you're American, people thought you'd just go 'crazy' and pull a gun out and start shooting them. Or because your Christian you'd start to burn people at the stake for being of different race, religion, or sexuality to yourself.

You want to be pissed off with Islamic extremists who think a cartoon is worth killing over? Join the club, and you can get behind me. But don't get pissed off with an entire population of humanity just because they happen to share the same zip code.

"(And if anyone is offended by my characterization of Muslims, let me suggest that your offense is misplaced: your offense should be directed at those Muslims who are giving the religion a bad name by exactly these actions. If Islam truly is a "religion of peace", as President Bush said shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, then why is there not more being done within Islam to censure amd marginalize those who call for violence and murder?"

DAvid,  your brain works quite well when it comes to drawing the forms we here love so much.  But your brain does not work so well when it comes to detached analysis.  Within one sentence you admit that there are some Muslims who give that religion a bad name AND defend your subsequent (mis)characterization of all Muslims.  The thinking you demonstrate is a sad commentary on how a man widely seen throughout the rest of the world as morally corupt and intellectually challenged could not only be elected, but also REelected.  What ever happened to "the land of the free and the home of the brave" – to "one nation under god?"  It was sold to the highest bidder with nary a peep of lprotest from people like you.  No wonder other peoples will do whatever they can to keep the same thing from happening to them.  The american eagle no longer carries an olive branch and "big brothe"r has taken over and that is apparently OK with you and everyone else who reelected that person?!  If american democracy can come to this, what realistic hope can it offer the world?  And spare me the inevitable "if america is so bad how come everyone wants to move here" argument.  That is a myth perpetuated by the conservative talk show culture you apparently use as your news source.  The USA imprisons more of it's citizens than any other 1st world country.  American infant mortality is the highest in the 1st world (with multibillion dollar wars, who needs health care?).  And of the richest 20 nations in the world america has recently lost it's lead and been dropped by the exact same organization to now be included among the 3 least free.

It is a sad fact that many people in the middle East and the North of Africa have nothing but their religion. They have no freedom, no rights, no money and a shitty standard of living. (If you've ever been to Cairo, Marrakesh, Gaza or Basra, you know what I'm talking about.) It is a well-known fact that if the state fails, private charity, usually inspired by religion, takes over. Religious law replaces state law.
Of course, ridiculing the last stable part of your society is not going to make you win a popularity contest.

However: Religion is an outdated technology. It has failed to solve the most complicated problems of primitive and modern society, just think of the plague, medical care, sexual complexes or long-distance travel. Instead, modern societies use science. The essence of science is doubt, the main concept of religion is belief. If you rule out doubt, you lose all the benefits of science, especially it's perpetual expansion of knowledge.

Now, historically Islam is a derivative of Arianism, a religious doctrine affirming the humanity of Jesus and the totality of God. It is very well adapted to modern society since it does not impose any limits on human development. (God is deemed to be too complex for human understanding, furthermore, the concept of kismet suggests that humanity should not take "acts of God" personally.)
Due to the loss of Andalusia and the emergence of the Ottoman power in the 15th century, Islam has changed to become more strict and dogmatic. This has remained the status quo with very few exceptions.

In my opinion, the pendulum is about to swing the other way: The return flow of money from the Muslim population working in first world countries is increasing individual prosperity, while globalisation increases business flows. This change is a herald of the collapse of the fixed order in Muslim countries. The two traditional power blocks, the military and the religious have something to fight about: The faith of their followers. To instir them with political fervour, everything goes: Thus pointless hysteria facing a rather tasteless joke.

I say, it's okay, it will pass. If one doesn't want to insult people, he oughtn't become a caricature artist. The same goes for getting insulted in turn. (If you can't take a joke, don't make one.) Besides, the Arabic language can be very picturesque even while being courteous, be careful with literal translations.

If you want to help calm the situation, buy your foodstuff at an Arab or Turk or similar grocery store, the money you spend there will eventually build a home for a family. Do not forget the central tennet of social democracy: People who have something to lose do not revolt.

PS: As many have said, it would be better if the news channels brought positive information about the area once in a while. Maybe something about the reduction of infant death or about a NGO success. Why not? It's still news.

In my opinion, the pendulum is about to swing the other way: The return flow of money from the Muslim population working in first world countries is increasing individual prosperity, while globalisation increases business flows. This change is a herald of the collapse of the fixed order in Muslim countries.

IMO, many people at both sides of the equation have foreseen what you just have said. So the solution for them is to fan the flames, do not be surprised if in the years to come you see tensions rise even more (remeber what happened in france some months ago? remeber the "leaked" photos about abu grahib?) and at some points you will start to see mass expulsions of muslims from europe and the creation of concentration camps for them in the USA (you would need but one suicide bomber in a walmart* for US citizens to forget completely about human rights, literaly). This is going to get fugly before it gets any better 😥

* Before you think "yeah right", federal agents in my country (that is Mexico, not the USA) stopped four iraqi citizens that wanted to enter illegaly into the united states. If this dudes wanted to blow themselves inside the USA then you should be very thankful we stopped them this side of the border, because there is no way in hell the "mighty" FBI or CIA would have stopped them, I would not at all surprised if they had orders from the top to let them in.