Any Time Now...

...we Christians will start rioting.

One problem with that, however: a portrait of the Virgin Mary covered in dung--and looking suspiciously Sambo-like--does absolutely nothing to shake the faith of those who believe in her Son as the Savior of mankind. Yes, it's offensive, but burning down the New York Times building or issuing some form of Christian fatwa--an idea that is completely foreign to this Christian at least--on the artist (Chris Ofili) would violate the tenets of everything in which Christians believe and bring absolutely no credit upon Jesus Christ nor his followers. The editors of the New York Times know this. That's why they feel total comfort in publishing a photo of this painting, but balk at showcasing the Danish cartoons in question.

BTW, lest one think that no editor of a major newpaper is brave enough to re-publish the Danish cartoons, note the Philadelphia Inquirer. And, in front of the Inquirer building, there are protests, and talks of boycotts--and rightly so. Both sets of persons--the Inquirer's editors and those who are offended--have exercised and are exercising their American rights of peaceful free expression. However, no reports of arson by Islamic extremists on such newspapers or upon Danish Embassies/Consulates in the US have surfaced. I wonder why that is.

(Other American newspapers which have published the cartoons include the New York Post, the New York Sun, the Rocky Mountain [Denver] News and the Riverside [CA] Press-Enterprise. Additionally, the editorial staff of the alternative weekly New York Press walked off the job in the wake of the executive decision not to re-publish the cartoons.)

Meanwhile, Cheeseheads are seething over the desecration of their god, Vince Lombardi. I'm betting, however, that they'll wait for spring thaw to avenge their deity.

;-)

(Thanks to Michelle Malkin and LGF)

Comments

[David Blue]

Little Green Footballs links (link) to this post by Sandmonkey (link) showing with pictures that an Egyptian newspaper with respectable circulation published these cartoons in October 2005, without a peep out of Muslims.

What we've seen was orchestrated.

Nevertheless, the global hate for infidels on show is obviously genuine. And I think those placards express Islam's real intentions towards us.

Billions of dollars worth of aid (or danegeld) buy us more or less nothing, but the shallowest pretext, the cheapest rabble-rousing against us is fully effective. That shows where people's hearts are really at, which way they are inclined to go, and which way they are not inclined to go.

They don't need a good reason to get charged up against us. Since they are already on a jihad or unconventional war footing, any pretext to make psychological war is good enough.

It is obvious that displays of Muslim hate and acts of Muslim aggression are fully international, not bounded by nation, ethnicity or sect. Syrians and Iranians are in on it. Arabs and non-Arabs (in Afghanistan) are in it. Sunnis and Shi-ites are in on it. Muslims from countries with no little freedom (like outstandingly Muslim Saudia Arabia) are in on it, and Muslims from countries where they enjoy the complete freedoms of the tolerant West are in on it - demanding that those freedoms be diminished, in favour of the domination of their religion. All the differences that are supposed to mean you can't see "Islam" as a "monolithic threat" are subordinate to the solidarity of global Islam, and the hatred of Islam for Jews and other infidels.

It is Islam, and not a particular state, ethnicity or political system, that is at war against us.

I hope we win.

I don't see how we can as long as we refuse to identify the enemy and defy it, rather than having a weak, apologetic attitude, as though we were to blame every time they choose to intimidate us.

I think we should treat Islam exactly as we treated Communism, as a hostile, aggressive and evil belief system. I think we should discount Muslim outrage exactly as we discounted (or should have discounted) Communist propaganda.

By the way, I do not regard the cartoons as any more offensive than if they showed Karl Marx of Lenin. The Soviets thought they should be above criticism too.

[David Blue]

Arrgh! I did a preview, but still missed a couple of short words.

Arabs and non-Arabs (in Afghanistan) are in on it. (That is: happy to be violent and aggressive over things that were not the shocking affront that they have been made out to be.)

Muslims from countries with no or little freedom (like outstandingly Muslim Saudia Arabia)... (That is: Saudi Arabia is not a country with "no little freedom" meaning lots of freedom, it is a country with "no or little freedom" in matters of religion, which considering how pushy Islam is means in all sorts of matters.)

I don't regret saying we should treat Islam as hostile and phoney, like Communism. Islam is an aggressive system that promotes hatred and violence against us. Its complaints are pretexts for jihad. All this violent menace over a few harmless cartoons has shown that.

By the way (obligatory on-topic remark) "Any Time Now......we Christians will start rioting." is all too possible.

The mainstream media is showing they are bullies who pick on the peaceful but show "sensitivity" to those they are afraid of.

Eventually some Christians may decide that if they want first class treatment too, they'd better act like Muslims have. That would be a bad, bad thing.

[Tully]

The rad-Islam crowd is giving us a lovely force concetration map of their areas of influence. Take notes.

[Tully]

The New York Post has a chronology of events. Read it to trace the development from the beginning.

The Middle East end was cranked up by Al-Jazeera and the Muslim Brotherhood, which, ironically, receives EU funding as an NGO.

[Teal Marie]

A bad, bad thing has happened, David Blue. 9 churches in Alabama torched. I doubt it was true jihadi. Though I have heard that arson is a crime brought on by being sexually molested in childhood by one's own mother. We just have to wait and hope the FBI will be able to solve the crime.
We have too many elements in American society who can't wait for Islam to destroy us.

Meanwhile, dissenters use their dissenting time to complain that dissent is not allowed.

And I haven't slit any throats yet. ;-)

[GayCowboyBob]

I remember the initial controversy surrounding the virgin mary painting you show.

As a non-Christian, to me there's really very little to be offended by. Actually there are a lot of inherently artful and beautiful elements to the piece.

But what Christians are offended by is the symbolism of the piece. They go "elephant dung!?! He's sh**ing on the Virgin Mary." And unfortunately, they would be pretty wrong in their interpretation (emphasis on interpretation). When one sees the breadth of this artist's work and stops to account for the collective symbolism, you render a very different approach to the piece.

It's why I find such indignance faulty - both from Christians on this piece to the Muslims on the Danish cartoons. The practice of a religion and the practices of a religion are often inconsistent and at odds and when an artist points those out the vehemence is overwhelming and frankly irrational.

All religions would do themselves a favor to look inward first at the internal schism before assigning blame to the outside world.

[Constantine]

Why do we need an excuse to burn down the NYT? Let's just do it and call it good... ;)

(for all clue-less ignorant liberals: it is a joke)

[Synova]

Hi Bob! :-)

Serious question... what do you think the elephant dung meant in the larger collective symbolism? It's not a normal art media (though I believe I recall "poo-pets" garden statuary and someone making earrings out of rabbit pellets, or something) so the choice to use it had to be for a reason.

Most animal manure really isn't that offensive anyhow, particularly that from herbivores. Well, cow stuff is disgusting but horse stuff pretty much looks like ground up hay.

[Tully]

The elephant dung is meant to represent fertility. The artist is of Yoruban ancestry, though raised Catholic. Elephant dung is an excellent fertilizer.

One assumes that the cut-out pictures of genitalia from porn magazines are supposed to represent fertility as well.

Being agnostic, I don't get offended until you splatter a question mark with excrement.

[The Anchoress]

It's not just the elephant dung, though. Those images surrounding the virgin are of genitalia. That simply goes unmentioned.

[kyle skinner]

Im back SORRY

[skinner]

OOps Its Skinner... just Skinner { who cares]

[kyle skinner]

O.K. Heres a real comment
for cowboy bob... buster bob ....whatever If youre a cowboy like you claim you Know about dung and its many artistic qualities and what it represents etc I can just see you doing tidy little dung sculptures and showing the "boys" in the bunkhouse Then you have little discussions and applaud the fact that you got youre cappichinno machine by threatoning the Head
Honcho to wrangle the cows in drag WHATEVER ? I make no value judgements on youre being gay The fact that you arent christian tells me youre afraid of some doctrine or something but
dont pretend to be a cowboy CINDERELLA you'd be branded in 2 days { but perhaps you'd like that GET HUMAN

[skinner]

Unfortunately christians did riot ask the aztecs { I forgot there all dead] The christian
religion is acting somewhat more civilized now although Hitler had the go ahead from christian leadors in Germany and Italy {POPE} what we have now is Muslims acting like some christians used too Luckily we have bigger swords. And we have to bring these idiots out of the dark ages .... They brought it on themselves the new world people did nothing nor did the jews..... Or the innocent people
in the twin towers or in Israel and elswhere The terrorists no more represent Allah then the conquistadores or hitler represented CHRIST Theyre " HOLY
WAR " is as filthy as theyre hatefull minds and theyll rot in hell eventually

[Justin]

I've been reading a lot of the right's blogoshphere's reaction to this (Malkin, Powerline), which I generally agree with. But, for the life of me, I can't figure out what the difference is between this and the Newsweek Koran story, and why in the latter case it was Newsweek's fault for the rioting but in this case it's the rioters' fault. To me these are the same--certain extremist elements trying to use muslim anger for their own political ends by hyping some "offense" directed at Islam by the west.

This is a real question I have, and not a snippy comment.

[Tully]

To me these are the same--certain extremist elements trying to use muslim anger for their own political ends by hyping some "offense" directed at Islam by the west.

The end result is certainly the same, and what you stated. Not to either defend or attack either the Danish papers OR Newsweek, but one published editorial content, and the other published an unsubstantiated rumor as "news."

[Casey]

Justin, that's an easy one. First, most (if not all) of the "extremist" conservative/right commenters did indeed criticize the rioters for their actions. If you don't believe me, go back and see what Baldi, Powerline, CQ, and others said at the time. I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to find a blog that did fit your parameters, since there's flakes on both sides.

Basically, that question presents a non-issue. That hypocrisy just didn't happen.

Second, Newsweek ran a single-source, unauthenticated rumor as a lead story; surely an irresponsible decision based on the desire to beat the competiton. Recall that "if it bleeds [or is scandalous], it leads!"

Also please note that reaction to the story was nearly immediate. In the case of the cartoons, several months passed by before any "rage" emerged. I use quotes there because there have been pointers popping up around the 'sphere which tend to indicate a manufactured rage, at least in some cases.

Finally let's look at the offense in question. To Muslims -from what I understand- the Koran is not merely a book, but is literally the word of God. To reference the case of (say) the "piss Christ," the artist wouldn't have been dipping a symbol of the Christian religion into that beaker, but he would have literally been urinating on God.

Now, it's quite possible that the Newsweek staff was ignorant of that particular bit of theology, but surely they must have suspected the possibilty of such a reaction? The islamofascists cut people's heads off, for God's sake. Literally.

I repeat: Newsweek published a single-sourced, unconfirmed rumor. Do you really think publishing inflammatory rumors in a major world publication is the same as mild satire published in the equivalent of East Podunk, Denmark?

I do have a nit to pick of my own; Baldilocks remarked that a Christian fatwa was an idea "completely foreign to [her] at least." How do crusades rank? The Pope used to sling those around pretty freely, back in the day. Albegensians, anyone? ;)

On a more serious note, we can add strategypage.com to the list of cartoon publishers. Hats off to them.

[Justin]

Casey, come on, the right was inflamed by Newsweek. Here's Michelle Malkin:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002459.htm

Here's Powerline:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010465.php

Newsweek made a small mistake in its sourcing--it happens all the time, yet I saw very little reaction from the right that condemned the rioters, they just wanted to bash the MSM's "anti-Americanism".

[Andie]

let's not forget life of brian and the last temptation of christ and the da vinci code and dozens of south park and SNL episodes, not to mention NYT's editorials.
we christians are too understanding. bring back the inquisition!

[suds]

I'll let you guys hammer out the artistic symbolism of elephant dung. But in regard to "looking suspiciously Sambo-like". You realize of course that Mary in most likelyhood bore a stronger resemblance to your average 16 year old Palestinian girl than to the European models portrayed most Western art, right? For that matter rest assured that Jesus shared more physical characteristics with Yassar Arafat than he did with Jim Caviezel.

[Aidan Maconachy]

I don't know if those who are so magnanimous and concerned about the sensitivities of Muslims re this particular issue have ever actually lived in an Islamic country. I spent the greater part of my school years in one such country (N. Nigeria), and "blasphemies" directed toward the person of the prophet were not treated as mere infractions or artistic excesses. Muslim citizens do indeed suffer severe punishments for such "crimes" in those jurisdictions where Sharia law is practiced without deference to human rights concerns.

It is however one thing to subject the citizens of a Taliban-like state to the draconian rigors of Islamic justice, and quite another to attempt to export the same climate of threat and intimidation to Western countries under the guise of "righteous offence". In doing this, Islamic radicals seek to use our multi-cultural PC sensitivities against us and if that doesn't work there are always death threats and other types of intimidation.

There is nothing innocent about any of this; these taboos are deliberately evoked and used as a weapon to intimidate and silence.

Ironically (given that the issue of artistic rendering is central to this clash), there are quite a number of Islamic miniatures that portray a likeness of the prophet. Such representations are by no means unheard of.

This particular cartoon incident has been deliberately exploited as a political strategy in the struggle with the secular world. It is really only an early skirmish; the clash of values has just begun and those in the West who are already caving in and resorting to mealy mouthed rationales, simply don't get it.

It's not about being polite about the other guy's religion. Sure, if the other guy happens to be a mild mannered Buddhist, or any other believer whose religion is not being employed as an ideological weapon, I would agree that we should avoid giving unnecessary offence.

In the case of harder edged Islamic chauvinism with its characteristic insolence, it is naive to simply take the view that "we shouldn't offend". Excuse me - but when a Mullah in Iran issues a Fatwah on a Western based author, Rushdie, calling for his murder in a Western jurisdiction we know that it is about a hell of a lot more than wounded religious sensibilities. When a Dutch film maker, Theo Van Gogh, is slaughtered in the street for the crime of exposing injustices experienced by Islamic women, its not merely about offended male pride. When the Canadian refusnik Irshad Manji, has her life threatened for speaking about problems in her own religion, Islam, its not merely about offended orthodoxy. The impulse central to these protests is all about control and silencing any with the temerity to cross lines that have been have drawn for us, without even an attempt at polite consultation.

To simply say "we must not offend" is to be shockingly blind about what is actually going on here. Recently English Muslims were polled on the question of Sharia law, and close to 60% responded that they would like to see provisions from Sharia become a part of the English judicial system.

This is a very real fight, and those who blithely assume that we can afford to bend over backwards because our rights and freedoms in the West are immutable - or worse still - who argue for sub-clauses that designate "Muslim offence concerns" no-go areas, are in the business of selling out the very essence of what it means to be a free society.

I tip my hat to all those courageous editors in Europe - now also in the States and Canada - with the guts to do the right thing by publishing these cartoons.

The following comments are from a recent column by the Muslim refusnik Irshad Manji ...

"Muslims have little integrity demanding respect for our faith if they don't show it for others. When have we demonstrated against Saudi Arabia's policy to prevent Christians and Jews from stepping on the soil of Mecca? They may come for rare business trips, but nothing more. As long as Rome welcomes non-Christians and Jerusalem embraces non-Jews, we Muslims have more to protest than cartoons.

None of this is to dismiss the need to take my religion seriously. Hell, Muslims even take seriously the need to be serious: Islam has a teaching against "excessive laughter." I'm not joking. But does this mean that we should cry "blasphemy" over less-than-flattering depictions of the Prophet Muhammad? God no.

For one thing, the Koran itself points out that there will always be non-believers, and that it's for Allah, not Muslims, to deal with them. More than that, the Koran says there is "no compulsion in religion." Which suggests that nobody should be forced to treat Islamic norms as sacred.

Fine, many Muslims will retort, but we're talking about the Prophet Muhammad - Allah's final and therefore perfect messenger. However, Islamic tradition holds that the Prophet was a human being who made mistakes. It's precisely because he wasn't perfect that we know of the so-called Satanic Verses: a collection of passages that the Prophet reportedly included in the Koran. Only later did he realize that those verses glorified heathen idols rather than God. According to Islamic legend, he retracted the idolatrous passages, blaming them on a trick played by Satan.

When Muslims put the Prophet on a pedestal, we're engaging in idolatry of our own. The point of monotheism is to worship one God, not one of God's emissaries. Which is why humility requires people of faith to mock themselves - and each other - every once in a while."

[Miss REG]

I recently saw Nat. Geo. 9.11 docu. and in the last part it OBL said they love death more that we love life. Now I understand why the muslims riot and the many in the media caved to their demands.

[Synova]

Justin: I don't excuse anyone for their actions.

The difference with Newsweek, though, and the cartoonists in Denmark, is that Newsweek actually did something *wrong*. It wasn't just a mistake. It was a factual error apparently rushed into *knowing* that they were handing a huge PR boost to Al Qaida and not only not caring that they did that but not even making darn sure they were at *least* telling the truth!

There was the question... did they not *know* or did they just not care? If they didn't *know*, what in heaven's name are we doing getting our *news* from them, and if they didn't *care*, well that's even more damning.

The cartoons, on the other hand, weren't even that terribly bad, and had been printed months ago without incident. The indications that this series of riots have been flamed for political advantage are a bit hard to ignore.

[Grandma]

Just wanted to add, the Seattle Stranger published the toons also.

There's lots of terrorists in Seattle you know, Musty, crusty looking old Muslims on the dole sit all over Westlake Center now, scratching their private parts and spitting, and once in a while they're more youthful counterparts march (they're always angry about something), bellowing nasty slogans in unison in jibber-jabberese (gave my lovely daughter quite a fright one day when I flipped them off while they were marching in front of her apartment building, wasting my petrol, the nerve!), with their kelly green Hamas bandanas on their pin heads, through down town, which always made me quite irritated, as they'd have traffic blocked up for so long (cruel beasts), so it was quite an act of bravery for that quirky little peace-nic rascal of a freebie paper to go ahead and print those funnies up.

[skinner]

I dont feel I need to read everything ,because I can smell dung immediately. Over anylise
everything and burn your brains up
THIS IS HOW IT WORKS ....PAY
ATTENTION RADICAL MUSLIMS HATE
.... EVERYONE ... AND FEEL A CALLING FROM ALLAH , TO KILL EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT FOLLOW THEYRE DOCTRINES OF HATRED To everyone Including Muslims that arent SO COMPLETELY WACKED OUT OF THEIR [RESPECTIVE SCOTES}, AS THEY ARE!!!!! THE ONLY WAY THEY
CAN HURT US IS BY BLOWING THEMSELF UP THE ONLY CURE FOR THEM IS A BULLET IN THE SKULL
PLAI AND SIMPLE

[skinner]

Why is everyone so concerned with
speculation , as to Christs apearence and Mary's , I can understand it, somewhat because if he looked like an Ogre even in those times I dont see him getting much of a following . Fro all I've seen , as far as artwork from those times there was alot of Butt ugly people. Im sorry
half of them had human torsos
that where being propelled around by Donkeys asses . who the hell would want them , Over for dinner ??? and not just because you don't have the proper funiture . I have only one Question ...... If kermit the frog had delivered the parables,
Would they be any less powerfull??

[machsplanck]

Ask yourself this question: Was Mohammed a nose-picker?

[Justin]

The difference with Newsweek, though, and the cartoonists in Denmark, is that Newsweek actually did something *wrong*. It wasn't just a mistake. It was a factual error apparently rushed into *knowing* that they were handing a huge PR boost to Al Qaida and not only not caring that they did that but not even making darn sure they were at *least* telling the truth!

Synova, wasn't the problem with the Newsweek storty NOT that it was wrong, but that it was poorly sourced. The Pentagon confirmed abuses of the Koran (but not the specific Newsweek portion), and there is certainly no evidence that Newsweek was doing what you are accusing it of. The rioting was in no way Newsweek's fault, and Newsweek was completely blameless, just as the Danish newspaper should not be responsible for the current rioting. I'm not sure I get your distinction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/03/
AR2005060301654.html

[Synova]

So...

What you're saying is that it was fake but accurate?

[Tully]

That's what he seems to be saying. Problem being that the report was fake, but was NOT accurate. No Korans were flushed down toilets--pretty much a physical impossibility without some radical disassembly.

The Pentagon confirmed abuses of the Koran...

Please note that "abuse" is a term connoting willful and purposeful directed actions, and does not include incidental, inadvertent, or unintentional actions. Please also note that AQ operatives were taught as part of their training to make inflammatory allegations of assorted forms of abuse if captured, and that this was no secret. The "bar" for verifying such stories should be at least as high as for any other "factual" story reported.

The one confirmed case of an interrogator or guard at Gitmo willfully abusing a Koran resulted in the immediate firing of the interrogator. (He stood on a Koran while interrogating the owner.)

Newsweek was completely blameless...

Newsweek published a completely false and highly inflammatory story, with insufficient (to be kind) sourcing, representing it as factual. It was not. Their false report, printed in clear violation of their own journalistic standards, had predictable consequences. They share some of the blame for that.

Your mileage on their motives is your own. Your mileage on what portion of responsibility they share for the results of their false report, likewise. But there's a heck of a difference between editorial content and (purportedly) factual reporting that isn't.

Note also that the "cartoon" story was greatly embellished to increase reactions, by the addition of cartoons that were dran up by the Muslims spreading the story. Cartoons that made the originals look picayune. The Newsweek story was embellished at the source--in fact, it turned out to be complete embellishment.

[Justin]

Newsweek published a completely false and highly inflammatory story, with insufficient (to be kind) sourcing, representing it as factual. It was not. Their false report, printed in clear violation of their own journalistic standards, had predictable consequences. They share some of the blame for that.

Uh, no, it was two lines of a much longer story, and that specific part of the story's source was later not so sure of the story. Stories about abuses of the Koran had been circulating for months before the Newseek story broke, and, abuse of the Koran actually occurred in other instances. You are clearly trying to place blame on Newsweek for those riots, which reeks of hypocracy when you are not willing to place the same blame on a newspaper that specifically tried to offend muslims. I think the conservative outrage over Newsweek is about as intellectually and morally bankrupt as you can possible get, to be honest.

That' all.

[Justin]

Wow, I'm really a bad speller.

[Synova]

Justin.

I once sat in a church and listened to a "sermon" all about how Janet Reno had said how Christians, and homeschoolers, were terrorists, or something. She supposedly said this on a talk program on which she'd never appeared. Probably the hardest thing I've ever done in my life was to approach the speaker afterward (HUGE church and not my own) and explain that this internet rumor simply wasn't true and that he'd based his entire sermon on a lie and, in so many words, that it's important to "fact check."

He was gracious, but I was still shaking hours later. I told this story to a Christian friend of mine and she said... BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY REALLY THINK.

In other words... a lie didn't matter so long as it was the truth. *I* was gracious, but lost all my respect for her. Truth matters. It has to.

The "abuses" of the Koran in Gitmo hardly warrant mention. The official policy and practice (and the fact that the prisoners are even *given* Koran's... why the heck do we even *do* that?) is to go to absurd lengths to respect the Koran.

So Newsweek hears a "badly sourced" rumor about sticking a Koran in a toilet and prints it... why? And riots errupt in immediate response to a factual claim made by a respected source.

A newspaper in Denmark prints a handful of cartoons depicting Muhammad... not all nice but not all that bad, really. Four months later, after getting a bunch of Danish flags ready to go and adding a couple more truely horrendous cartoons and a grainy picture of a frenchman at a pig calling contest... the cartoons are circulated in the middle east.

Truth matters. Newsweek reported that the United States government had done something that they didn't do... but it was *really* *bad*. And the fellows publicizing the "cartoons" reported that additional *really* *bad* cartoons were printed along with the other ones. A lie as well. To say, "but the US really did let non-muslems handle the Koran and they didn't quite do it right" doesn't make the toilet charge true anymore than it's true that because the Danes published some of those cartoons that they published the others.

But hey... it made a really great story.

[Justin]

Synova--the what Newsweek reported was a minor point in the story--the US government has (i) invaded a muslum country (ii) tortured and killed muslums in its control and (iii) desecrated the Koran. So, a story about flushing the Koran down the toilet is hardly what is going to set Muslum's off, and was clearly used as a pretext to cause riots. The story has been circulating in the Muslum world for some time, and the parallels to the current riots are pretty close.

So, one paper specifically runs cartoons to insult muslums, and the other has two lines in a story that the original source is unable to verify, two lines that are no where near as bad as the reality of what Muslums could be pissed about--invading a country, actually desecrating the Koran, and torturing and killing prisoners. How on earth can the news source that specifically ran something to insult a group have less guilt than a paper that may have had an inaccuracy in it??

There are inaccuracies in news stories all the time, that is also something that is part of a free press.

[Laura(southernxyl)]

Aidan Maconachy...I love your cartoons.

[Tully]

You are clearly trying to place blame on Newsweek for those riots, which reeks of hypocracy when you are not willing to place the same blame on a newspaper that specifically tried to offend muslims.

Nope. I clearly said that any mileage was your own. There's a big diff between pubishing fiction as fact and publishing editorial content clearly labelled as such. Newsweek retracted their story and accepted responsibility, BTW, which speaks well of them. But go ahead and keep justifying what they themselves have said was a major mistake and a factual error.

I do love the assignation of "intent to offend" as justification for violence, though. And the conflation out into other matters. Along those lines, I was personally offended when Muslims blew up a few thousand of my fellow Americans--but I didn't blame the entire Islamic world.

See how easy the conflation game is?

[Justin]

No, I'm not using "intend to offend" to justify the violence, only that if someone (OK, not you) is going to put blame on Newsweek for a sourcing mistake, then it only follows that blame must be put on a newspaper that set out specifically to offend muslums. I put the blame on neither, but one cannot escape the parallel between the two.

[Tully]

They were published to offend? I thought they were published to highlight the difficulty a Danish writer had finding an illustrator for his children's books about Mohammed.

They were published in Egypt in October, and no one rioted. No one rioted until some Muslims seeking to inflame other Muslims added some truly offensive images of their own devising, and claimed they were part of the original publication. Including a picture of a dressed-up pig-nosed & eared contestant in a French piq-squealing contest re-labelled "The True Face of Mohammed," a dog humping a praying Muslim from behind, and Mohammad depicted as a demonic pedophile.

I don't blame either publication for anything but what they actually did either. With you there 100%. Neither publication went out of their way to intentionally incite riots, or even to offend, as near as I can tell. Instead, others used their publications to incite others to riot. Even adding things that were never there.

I fully support their right to publish what they please, no matter whom it offends. :-) And I also support the free speech rights of everyone who wants to criticize 'em for it, and so on. I don't support the rioting and violence at all--but it looks like most of it is being instigated, and is far from spontaneous.

[Justin]

I fully support their right to publish what they please, no matter whom it offends. :-) And I also support the free speech rights of everyone who wants to criticize 'em for it, and so on. I don't support the rioting and violence at all--but it looks like most of it is being instigated, and is far from spontaneous.

Well put, I agree.

[Mescalero]

May I suggest a solution to liberal hypocrisy surrounding the Virgin Mary covered with dung -- I suggest that we take the "so-called" artist Chris Ofili and cover him from head to toe with bullshit, parade him in front of the wimpy American MSM and challenge those modern examples of "liberal" conscience to utter meaningful protest. Then we can challenge the MSM cowards on hundreds of other issues.