I’ve been extremely reticent to address the recent protests and riots that have emerged in response to the cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper several months ago. I’ve been hesitant for a few reasons:
- I wasn’t entirely sure what the cartoons actually depicted
- My initial tendency is to side with free speech, regardless of who’s “insulted”
- It’s already been shown that publishing the cartoons results in death threats, and general denouncement by numerous Muslim leaders
- I don’t have any particular desire to ignite a conservative/liberal debate here, because American politics simply aren’t involved
Well, I’ve changed my mind. After reading about the rioting in Nigeria today, and the subsequent attack on Christians, I’m too disturbed to keep my proverbial mouth shut.
I agree that some of the cartoons, as published, are potentially offensive – particularly if you hold Mohammed in high regard. As a Catholic, I’ve found several artistic depictions of Christ to be in poor taste over the years. That being said, I’d never propose that a privately-held institution doesn’t retain the right, through free speech, to print or publish such depictions. As an individual, it’s my right not to patron said institutions.
So it’s fairly obvious by now that I think the Danish newspaper was well within its rights to publish the depictions of Mohammed, as much as they might displease Muslims.
The irony of the whole situation here is that the very “attributes” of Mohammed that are considered offensive (rejecting suicide bombers in heaven because there are “no virgins left,” his violent nature, his association with terrorism and unlawfulness) come as the result of some very strongly perceived stereotypes. I’m not prepared to speak on whether or not Islam is a religion of peace, but I can say with certainty that it’s not perceived as such…by the majority of non-Muslims.
There is no question that suicide missions are carried out in the name of Islam every day. Nobody wonders whether or not many Muslims hate Jews; they know it. The word “infidel” was only used in cartoons, until Muslim extremists started getting frontpage press. And now, Muslims are burning Christians alive because they’re angered by these cartoons.
Don’t you get it, guys? Non-Muslims around the world would be far more likely to write off the cartoons as useless dribble, if you didn’t insist on proving them right. Boycotts, demonstrations, letters, posters…that’s all fine. It’s an overreaction, in my opinion, but it’s fine. When you start killing people because they’re affiliated with a faith other than yours….you’ve just added validity to every aspect of the cartoons that you’re protesting.
If it upsets you that Mohammed was portrayed as a violent dude with a machete (presumably because he wasn’t that..?), then why bust out your machetes to cut down people who might agree?
I sincerely hope I’m overreacting, because I’m concerned that this is yet another step toward an all-out war between Muslims and everyone else. We’re all infidels, it would seem…and if it’s a Muslim’s duty to eradicate infidels, this is going to get ugly.
My thoughts and prayers are with those families, across the globe, whose lives are being turned upside down because of the artistic opinions of twelve Danes. After all – the people beating down your door, occupying your streets, dowsing your body in gasoline and lighting you on fire…they were insulted by some cartoons in a newspaper.
Just remember that.