News-Record.com

The cartoons may be viewed here.

"...we know the cartoons are sensational..."

Really? I wouldn't characterize them as sensational at all. Yet another reason to publish.

I never thought I'd see the day when newspaper folks would fall all over themselves to get on the wrong side of the biggest free speech issue in a decade.

And just when we were having so much "fun" discussing the merits of free speech with Allen . . .

Now that I've picked myself up off the floor, I have two questions for Roch: (1) Does this smooth move violate the N&R's "Terms of Service"? and (2) How long do you think your link to the "sensational" toons will stay up?

It is convenient for the N&R. Let a blogger do what the newspaper is afraid to do.

David, I guess we've all seen the day.

David, I support the newspaper's right to publish whatever they like. I'm not criticizing any of the papers that chose to publish the cartoons.

Perhaps you don't see them as sensational, but some people who've seen them certainly do.

Yes, it's absolutely within our rights to publish. But for us, it's less a free speech issue than a civic relevancy issue.

Some see them as sensational (especially those killing people). Some don't. Folks should judge for themselves. No question.

I don't know what 'civic relevancy' means. Does it mean the cartoons aren't relevant to your readership? Is any world or national news then?

I don't really blame y'all for not wanting to get involved. Publishing the cartoons is a high risk, low reward proposition. However, it's maddening for you to try to explain it away in terms other than free speech vs risking offending someone. Your editorial this morning said publishing the cartoons would serve no purpose and now you say they aren't relevant. These arguments are simply ways for you not to publish and therefore not offend and at the same time still be 100% for free speech.

So. I take it the direct link that Roch posted here on your Editor's Blog does not violate the newspaper's "terms of service", or the editorial policy that the N&R has taken on this issue (as stated by both you and Allen)?

Hello? John, (playing devil's advocate here) the "senasational toons" are, for all practical purposes, PUBLISHED NOW ON YOUR BLOG. One click and we're there - with English subtitles. They're going to stay easily accessible because Roch assumed "responsibility" for the content of the link - not you? It's Roch's free speech you'd be stomping on if you took it down, but aren't YOU responsible for the link staying up?

(Still playing the devil in a red dress) if it's the N&R's editorial opinion that the drawings are "inflammatory" and "sensational", and the paper will not publish them, then it would be logical for you would kill the link and apologize for the offense . . . and (like Allen) say, "find this particular news elsewhere".

I'm with David. It seems to me the Danes are the ones giving the real lessons in "civic relevancy" (whatever that means). People are bombing embassies because of cartoons - but the cartoons themselves are not relevant? Huh?

Meanwhile, in it's search for relevancy, the New York Times can re-publish pictures of the Virgin Mary drawn with elephant poo. No offense to all the Christians who will not be making pipe bombs tonight.

If we were to grade you on what you said you were going to do I would have to give you an "F". Looks like you failed in reaching your goals. Anyone else want to "grade the paper"?

Here is what you said you wanted to do or would do:

Our goal in 2006 is to give you even more news and information that you cannot get elsewhere. We won't neglect national and international news, but the days in which wire services dominate the front page are waning at mid-size newspapers across the country. Instead, we will devote more space inside the paper for the stories that explore national and world issues in greater depth. ON THIS YOU GET AN 'F'

Through it all, our pledge to you remains unchanged: to be an independent voice in pursuit of the truth; to give you information you need to make smart choices in your life; and to be a trusted place to hear, share and talk about the news. LOOKS LIKE ANOTHER "F" IN THIS DEPARTMENT ALSO.

Lots of other columns on the public's right to know, but I guess that depends on what you want to know and what you want us to know. So much for "openess".

We make judgments every day about what's relevant to our readers, what do we think they need to know and what our responsibility is in bringing them that news. We've cut way back on our national and world presence so that we can emphasize local news more.

I haven't heard a compelling reason TO publish the cartoons for our readership. I've seen the cartoons and I've read the description of them. The description seems accurate to me. Is publishing the cartoons going to help readers understand the issue better? I don't think so. Will it insult some? Obviously. So, if I don't think publishing possibly offensive content is going to serve the purpose of giving readers information vital to the story, why do it? (Other than that I can.)

By the way, I didn't write or edit the editorial this morning.

Mary, because this blog is linked elsewhere doesn't make me responsible for the content on that site. I'm not publishing it any more than I'm publishing anything by the folks to the right.

That's better. You don't want to publish because the cartoons won't help the reader understand the issue.

I remember first seeing the cartoons after having read about them. I was amazed that folks were so worked up over something so mundane. I did not have that reaction before looking at them. Viewing was critical to my current understanding.

Here's Alan Dershowitz's reason for you JR:

[On the American media's unwillingness to show the cartoons:]

...You can't have a story about a cartoon without seeing the cartoon. In fact, when you see the cartoons published by the Danish newspapers, they are mild in comparison with what's published every day in Islamic fundamentalists newspapers and in Syrian newspapers, in Egyptian newspapers, in Saudi Arabian newspapers. So you have to see the cartoon to get a sense of how outrageous these attacks on the Danish embassy [are] and the hypocrisy across the Middle East is.

[In response to a question seeking an explanation for the US media's decision not to publish the cartoons:]

...I was informed yesterday that Time magazine was seriously considering publishing the cartoons. That would take an act of courage.

CNN has shown no courage. It claims it won't publish the cartoons because they're offensive. But they have published previous cartoons that are offensive. The fact is, they're frightened. The fact is, that this kind of religious and intellectual terrorism is working. It is persuading journalists who would otherwise cover this story with the cartoons to back away--not on ideological reasons or not for reasons of protecting or preserving integrity or anything of that kind, but out of physical and economic fear. This is economic, physical terrorism directed at journalists and it is working. They have succeeded in the United States. They have failed in parts of Europe, but they have succeeded in the United States.

John, one click and the reader is there. According to your "terms of service", the N&R can take the link down if the paper considers the cartoons offensive and sensational to your readers. As I just told Allen, you're having your cake and eating it too.

I mean, either (1) somewhere tonight Roch is sitting at his computer smiling like the cat who ate the canary at his masterful key-stroke, or (2) could it be that the two of you dreamed this link up as an easy out for the N&R? From what I know of Roch, I'm leaning towards #1. Either way, it's afforded a great civics lesson.

You've seen the cartoons and have made up your own mind - but you're not going to give your (print) readers the same chance? I've seen the cartoons too (thanks Mr. P and Roch). And (as I just told Allen on his blog), seeing the cartoons have helped me put this crisis in context - something that someone else's "description" could not do.

As for grading Mr P, is there anything below F? JR, I KNOW you make judgments on local news coverage every day. It's just that for nearly every day of eight years (especially the last three), I've been on the wrong end of that decision. And (referencing one of David's posts on Allen's blog), the money-changers who abused the people's trust down in (local) Asheboro are still sitting fat and happy. And I'm still not working in my own hometown. The biggest part of that equation now is a local press that panders to those with the money and power and only prints what conforms to its notions of what should be. America is supposed to a better place than that. I simply cannot stomach the hypocrisy.

It's not about right or left. It's about right and wrong . . . and truth . . . be it found in a cartoon or a doctor's website. As I said on Allen's blog, a bunch of over-paid bullies running a hospital sued me for telling the truth. It was very much a free speech issue to me, and it cut me to the core that anything like that could happen . . . or continue for as long as it did . . . for as long as it has . . . since the "non-profit" public servants who sued me for "lying", lied themselves and GOT CAUGHT (but according to the N&R, that's not news). Only now are "whistleblowers" being afforded some real protection (see the story on today's N&R homepage). Too little, too late for me.

I've digressed again. I apologize. But free speech is a RIGHT for which people have bled and died . . . a precious gift that too many take for granted until it is challenged. Some of us have been legally beaten black and blue ("terrorized" is a good description) in standing up for it - right here in the good old USA. So I'm sorry John. But you're NOT making any sense on this one. The real issue here is about the fear of retaliation. Just say so and be done with it.

And enjoy eating that cake.

I appreciate the opinion of a lawyer as much as the next guy, I guess. I wonder if I can find another one who'd argue with him.

Mr. P, I thought you lived far outside our circulation area and didn't actually even read our newsprint product, which is what those goals refer to. And since they are goals for the year and we're only one month into it, we have time to improve. The goals wouldn't be worth much if we achieved them in one month.

Mary, yes, the terms allow that. Of course, the cartoons aren't on our site. You're saying that if any of the people on the blogroll say anything I find offensive I should remove them from the blogroll? That's not what is intended by the terms or service.

Pulitzer-prize-winning cartoonist Doug Marlette, an Alamance County native, summed up the response of U.S. newspaper editors today on WUNC: cowardice posing as sensitivity.

JR, why would the goals only pertain to the print version. Is not the electronic paper just as important in getting out the news in this day and time as the print. I do believe that you have alluded to that in several of your columns.
It would seem that the first one could apply just as well to the electronic as the print, especially if the story is run in both.

The second perhaps could be even more relevant to the electronic version of the paper as it states: Through it all, our pledge to you remains unchanged: to be an independent voice in pursuit of the truth;
to give you information you need to make smart choices in your life;
and to be a trusted place to hear, share and talk about the news.
What stands out here is an independent voice in pursuit of truth; to give information needed to make smart choices;
and the ringer, a place to hear, share and talk about the news. Now that last phrase sure sounds like the electronic paper to me. And in that case ,in this instance, you failed. (Sorry I can't use RED for the F anymore. It is not politically correct and it might upset someone.)

As one writer expressed, a story with out a picture is just a story, a story with a picture is like a thousand words.
Be that as it may. You decided not to run the story because it might "upset" someone. That is your choice.
Think about that when you run other stories that at times try, convict and hang an individual all in one day. Or does that not upset anyone? Think about it.
The next time you demand that all the story be told no matter how sensitive the information is, who or what it may upset, think about this story.

Yes,JR I do live outside the area but I do get a print copy occasionally, actually more than occasionally since I am not stuck here in the sticks. I do happen to make it to the big city occasionally, even if the big city is Winston Salem more often than not. The do have copies of the N&R there as well as in G'boro. I manage to make it to G'boro a few times a month these days and while there I usually pick up a copy. Never know when I might do some painting or packing and a good supply of print newspaper does come in handy. Our little paper is not much help in that department since it is as advertised , the smallest newspaper in the south. I believe it is 81/2 X 11. An outstanding paper. They didn't run the cartoons either but neither did they run the story. Let's them off the hook.

Dr. Johnson,

I posted the link of my own volition, there was no coordination with anybody. If John wanted to delete it, indeed that is his right within the published terms of use. I suspected he wouldn't. The post itself does not violate the TOS as far as I can tell but I don't think it violates the N&R's position on publishing the cartoons either.

Does allowing the post to remain cut a fine line? Sure. But that's something this medium affords us and if such a post is precariously balanced in the middle of two sides of a position, there is no compelling reason to demand that it be pushed to one side or another.

The N&R won't publish the cartoons in the paper. They haven't published them or a link to them on their website. They have allowed a third party to post a link to them on a public comments section of their site. So be it.

I appreciate the opinion of a lawyer as much as the next guy, I guess. I wonder if I can find another one who'd argue with him.

You bet. However, it's compelling, no?

I haven't heard a compelling reason TO publish the cartoons for our readership.

The Dershowitz comments may well apply to the international television networks and the national magazines. But for us in Greensboro, a city where the story has made the front page for the first time today and that's only because the Danish ambassador is from High Point? I don't think so. It still seems to me that the argument you're making for us to publish is simply because we can. Or to show that we're not afraid.

You certainly can write about a cartoon without showing the cartoon. We write about murders without showing the murder. We write about movies without showing the movie. We wrote about Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction without showing what she showed. People seem to understand.

Just got in this morning. And the person I wanted to hear from most was Roch (thanks). When I first saw his post yesterday, I laughed out loud and nearly fell out of my chair at the sheer audacity and simple genius of it.

John, first and foremost, I could CARE LESS what a lawyer thinks. I am sick to death of lawyers. In my experience (AT Randolph Hospital IN Asheboro), half of them don't trouble themselves to know the law - and the other half just ignore it and lie their tails off afterwards (billing all the while) to get around it. We're talking about the First Amendment of the Constitution. Pretty straight-forward stuff.

This is a question, at its core, of journalistic responsibility and credibility. In my questions to John and Allen on this subject, I have been playing devil's advocate. But I don't think there's any "fine line" here. The News & Record's editorial policy is not to publish the cartoons - at least for its print readers. But the newspaper can dodge that policy on-line if a blogger posts a link on "The Editor's Blog". The link will stay up because the paper doesn't want to trample on free speech and can claim (via its "terms of service") that it is not responsible for the content of the link. It's journalistic double-speak and hypocrisy. Make a decison. State your reasons - and stick to that policy both in print and online. Or not. But don't tell us it's because you're "sensitive" - or can't make a decision about right and wrong without a lawyer. Bledsoe is right. You're scared. I get that. After what happened to me in my own dance with Number One . . . in my (local) hometown (in this era of "ethics" in "the people's business", that story your paper still won't cover), I understand fear very well.

Don't put your words in my mouth John. After all, my understanding is that you have removed "offensive" content from the blogrolls before. You've banned certain "trolls", and you've shut down threads that were getting out of control. So it's not like it's a first if the N&R decided to stick to it's stated editorial policy and shut down an "offensive" link.

The "compelling reason" (as both David and I have pointed out) is understanding. It disturbs me that the US press apparently doesn't get that. I related my first impression, on Allen's blog, of one of the cartoons. It was a sweet little drawing of the Prophet that one might find in a children's book (if such a children's book existed) - and the Prophet appeared, on first impression, to have horns. When Roch published the link, I finally had a reference with English subtitles and discovered that the "horns" were actually a "halo" formed by the crescent moon. It certainly made me think - there was a library full of commentary in that one cartoon. It's about impressions and biases and what a religion says versus what its followers do (as I pointed out, not a uniquely Muslim problem).

All of that in just a "silly" cartoon.

This article speaks volumes about the lack of action by the Western press and the truth behind the action of the Islamist.
-------------------------------------------------
Running up the white flag in the face of clerical fascism

February 08, 2006
British columnist Melanie Phillips, at Realclearpolitics. com, on the folly of Anglo-American appeasement

THE still escalating confrontation over the Danish cartoons dramatically illustrates the now pathological reluctance of the leaders of Britain and America to face up to the blindingly obvious and the extent to which they have already run up the white flag in the face of clerical fascism.

With holy war declared openly upon the West, with death threats being issued against cartoonists and editors, with Danes, Scandinavians and other Europeans being hunted for kidnap and in fear of their lives, with blood-curdling intimidation, with mob demonstrations, calls to behead westerners and rallying cries for holy war by Islam against Europe, the governments of Britain and America are busy prostrating themselves before this terror, apologising for causing offence and blaming the victims of this assault.

Meanwhile, their intelligentsia earnestly debates whether it is wrong to insult someone else's religion, as if this were a university ethics seminar rather than a world war being waged by clerical fascism against free societies and with people in hiding and in fear of their lives for having exercised the right to protest at religious violence and intimidation ...

The cartoon jihad has made one thing crystal clear. No more alibis. The roots of global terror do not lie in Iraq, nor in Israel/Palestine, nor in Chechnya, Kashmir or any of the other iconic conflicts that are said to be its cause.

They lie instead in the Islamists' rage that their religious culture is not in power across the world, their determination to subordinate that world to its tenets and their truly pathological belief that it is they who are under attack if their victims dare defend themselves. Twelve scribbled drawings have lifted the veil - on both the nature of the threat and the disarray that greets it

I agree with you Mr. P that the uproar over these silly cartoons has exposed to the world the Muslims campaign to control the rest of the world. That this was their intention has been apparent to me for some time now just simply from noting actions of Muslims locally, nationally and worldwide. It is not the people who have to be made aware of this fact, it is our officials locally, nationally and internationally. So, I still maintain that the N&R printing these cartoons is not the place to take a stand against this movement. As far as I am able to gauge the only place there is any real concern about this issue is in the media and blog land. And we on the Internet have access to the cartoons. The man on the street couldn’t care less about seeing these cartoons. And at the heart of the Right of Free Speech is the Right to NOT SPEAK when you find the issue (as in actually seeing the cartoons) irrelevant. Where the N&R and we the People need to make a stand is on the local level. For instance where were all of you when the Muslim lady beat the Wal-Mart employees and then had our own Greensboro mayor rush to her on bended knee with all kinds of apologies? I also made note of the fact that when the truth of the matter came out he made no such display and effort to apologize to the Wal-mart employees! Our American officials seem bent on always assuming that where a minority is concerned the blame is always that of the white and Christian-Jewish population. We need to change this attitude and printing a bunch of silly cartoons in the local newspaper won’t do this.

JR, I'll concede the local vs. national argument although it makes me wonder why you bother to publish national or world news at all in the Greensboro paper.

I think it's clear that you don't want to publish the cartoons because you don't want to take a chance on offending Muslims. OK. However, it makes me wonder about your thought process when you published the picture of the little black girl eating watermelon this summer. You knew that would offend some folks, yet you did it anyway. What were you thinking? Perhaps, this is an innocent picture, it's delightful, lots of people like watermelon, the stereotypes are outdated, if someone is offended they should get over it?

You continue to assume/insist that our decision not to publish is based primarily on a fear of offending. That's simply not the case. Virtually everything we publish offends someone, or certainly has that risk. What you look for is a compelling reason to discount that risk. I still haven't heard a compelling reason for the News & Record to run the cartoons.

My explanation on the watermelon photos is here: http://blog.news-record.com/staff/jrblog/archives/2005/08/more_than_1000.html

Brenda (being gentle here), the problem I have with your "real man on the street" argument is that "the real men and women and children" on the streets and in the towers of New York . . . and on those doomed planes . . . on 9/11 (not to mention all of the rest of us) might have benefited from being a little better informed (or a better understanding) of what was really going on in the world BEFORE their lives became forfeit in a war we did not even know we were in.

We know now. It's "compelling" and much more than an ethics seminar.

It was all over CNN this morning: Islamic fundamentalists told our President & Secretary of State to "shut up" (about the cartoon frenzy). Now, I've had the strong urge to tell Dubya where to go myself (especially lately), and I voted for him. But "Death to America"? "Death to Israel"? Shouldn't the "average" man and woman on the street take that seriously? And shouldn't the average Joe/Jane have the opporunity to make up their own minds about the drawings that started the demands for genocide?

On her blog yesterday, Sue "ranted" that the Prophet Mohammed has been depicted in art throughout the centuries. Just like Jesus and the Virgin Mary. Our newspapers can print The Lord floating in urine - and His Mother drawn in dung. But not Danish cartoons.

If I learned anything from what happened to me in Asheboro, I learned this: the average "man on the street" usually doesn't care on whit about what is going on in the big bad world - unless something directly affects (or offends) him. OR unless he's told (by the "free press") that he needs to care. That's where the N&R is supposed to come in.

I cannot just concede the "national versus local" argment. Just like I don't really buy the "right not to speak" line offered up by US newspapers and journalists as anything more than a cop-out.

Come one, come all. Fried chicken (some people call it crow). Watermelon. Cake. A delicious Southern meal. All available at the N&R editorial offices.

If it's simply not the case that you don't publish because you don't want to offend, then what's this about discounting risk? Risk of what?

The compelling reason is that this has been the biggest news story in the world for the past week and you can provide context by showing people what the riots and killings are over. As has been noted by me and others in these comments, there is a difference in viewing the cartoons vs. hearing descriptions. If there wasn't a difference in the visual effect of cartoons and pictures, you wouldn't waste money producing them at all, anywhere in your paper.

You offend for a compelling reason. I don't see the reason. I think the story is easily told and understood without the actual cartoon. I think that they also understand what the riots and killings are about. We haven't had people clamoring to see it in the paper.

But I understand you disagree.

Let me offer this excerpt from Don Wycliff's column in the Chicago Tribune today. He says it much better than I. The whole column is here:http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0602090018feb09,1,3078952.column?coll=chi-navrailnews-nav&ctrack=1&cset=true

"By not printing "Jesus Christ!" as an epithet or insulting cartoon images of the Prophet Muhammad, the newspaper does not "knuckle under" to threats of protest or disorder. Rather, we show a modest respect to the most deeply held beliefs of people who invite us daily into their homes and offices and lives.

"What of Mr. Farmer's argument above that, with the explosion of violence against Western institutions throughout the Islamic world, this cartoon conflict has become "about protecting our rights and way of life"?

"Well, suppose that instead of crude cartoon images of Muhammad, that Danish newspaper had published an expletive-laced diatribe against Islam and Muhammad and all their works. And suppose it had inspired the same violent response.

"Would the Tribune print that document as a way of "protecting our rights and way of life"? I think not.

"Radical Islamists--radicals of any sort--"win" when they induce us to betray our own best principles and practices to show them who's boss, who's tough, who makes the rules around here."

I understand that reasonable people can disagree. I understand, too, that you may not consider me reasonable.

OK. I'm done. However, before I go, will you allow me one more jab? If enough folks clamored for it, then it would be OK to offend?

Yea, it's a battle against the bastion of power and "we the people" seem to be fighting a losing battle. As long as the "power's" own the sandbox and the toys, we might as well stay home.
I think this paragraph from the article by the Brit deserves repeating before I go:
"Meanwhile, their intelligentsia earnestly debates whether it is wrong to insult someone else's religion, as if this were a university ethics seminar rather than a world war being waged by clerical fascism against free societies and with people in hiding and in fear of their lives for having exercised the right to protest at religious violence and intimidation ..."

Come down, come down, from your ivory towers and see the reality.

Interesting question, David. Probably not, but I suppose it depends what "enough" is. (I know what the meaning of "is" is.) I only made that comment because based on our usual measures, seeing the actual cartoon is not an issue that has captured the attention of our readers.

John, aren’t you really telling us that the N&R decided that there is, “no redeeming social value” in publishing the cartoons? Perhaps it was before your time, but how did the N&R cover Salmon Rushdie’s, “The Satanic Verses?” If memory serves me there was outrage, rioting, and deaths in the Muslim world after its publication.

Dr. Mary,(with gentleness here to) Where have you and others who weren’t aware that we were in a war with Muslim fanatics before 9/11? I was aware and a lot of the other countries in the world were aware. It has been going on for decades now; the riots and burning of our flag and presidents in effigy and yelling Death to America and Satan America. A groups of silly cartoon in 2006 certainly isn’t the beginning, and sadly neither will it be the end.

As for 9/11, it was simply a matter of time before they attacked our country too. The fact that we are such a free society and bend over backwards to give criminals their “rights” as in the big furor now over tapping the phones of known Muslim fanatics in our country and the violating the ‘civil rights’ of the prisoners in prison at our base in Cuba, that we were so easily and devastatingly attacked. They were able to pull this off because we offer All in our country both citizens and visitors almost unlimited freedoms and protections.

The ‘man on the street’ is aware of all this nonsense promoted by our officials. I use as a gauge of my “man on the street” my mother’s group of bridge playing ladies (80+ years) who are very much aware of what has been happening and feel this particular episode is a tempest in a teapot. The other gauge is my children (30’s) who are too busy trying to make a living, raise a family and pay off student loans to pay much attention to blogs but are very much aware of the danger the world order is in from these people and who just laughed at these cartoon as being of no importance except perhaps in bringing the problem home to some people. Both of my children served in the military so this may have given them more insights. You see they are aware they just feel that personally they can‘t do anything about it so they go on with their lives. (I might add both parent and children fall into the fairly well educated middle class.)

I stated it was our American officials at all governmental levels who are playing the politically correct games and as such are an embarrassment. This certainly isn’t the first time Muslim fundamentalists have told our president to shut up. Jimmy Carter and Clinton were also told where to go. Their reaction was an embarrassment and after 9/11 I was so happy that Gore wasn’t the president because he would had wrung his hands and ask them to “please “ not do it again. I was also personally embarrassed at the actions of Greensboro’s mayor with the Wal-Mart incident before he knew the facts.

If any of you recall reading my reaction to this discussion before you also know that I personally feel that religion which is a persons private relationship with his God should always be off limits to ridicule. The manure Mary and Piss Christ were ….well…uh…I simply can not find the words to say what I think of the people who are responsible for this type of ...things!

David I think I will answer your last question: No! Was the crucifixion of Christ okay because the crowds were clamoring for it? Were the lynching in Jim Crow south okay because the crowds were not only clamoring they made a picnic out of the events?

Let us save our outrage and actions for a REAL event least we burn ourselves out over this non-starter.

I don't recall, but the equivalent would have been for us to have reprinted the offensive parts of "The Satanic Verses", which I doubt we did.

Did the News & Record publish the picture of Kanye West dressed up as Jesus?

The man who said "George Bush hates black people" dressed as Jesus? The man who consistently writes and performs "songs" that advocate killing, gangster lifestyle and boorish behavior toward women -- yeah, that Kanye -- dressed as Jesus.

Did you run it? If not, would you have?

Just curious.

Jim, the answer to your question is yes, it was run in the online in the Nancy's blog,the Front Pew, Feb 3, 2006. Of course this may not count since it is only read/seen by those of us who read the paper on line.

God should always be off limits to ridicule.(Mary)

Mary, this may sound good but remember, Jesus was ridiculed His entire life. It was even foretold that this would happen. I recently read an article which addressed this very thing. I have taken the liberty to draw from that to address your comments.

“All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads” (Psalm 22:7). “He was despised and rejected by men . . . as one from whom men hide their faces . . . and we esteemed him not” (Isaiah 53:3).

“They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on his head. . . . And kneeling before him, they mocked him, saying, ‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ And they spit on him” (Matthew 27:28-30). His response to all this was patient endurance. This was the work he came to do. “Like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth” (Isaiah 53:7).

For Christ, enduring the mockery of the cross was the essence of his mission. Without the mockery, ridicule, and degrading acts commited toward him, there would be no salvation.

During his life on earth Jesus was called a bastard (John 8:41), a drunkard (Matthew 11:19), a blasphemer (Matthew 26:65), a devil (Matthew 10:25); and he promised his followers the same: “If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household” (Matthew 10:25).

For Christ, enduring the mockery of the cross was the essence of his mission.

This was not true of Muhammad. And Muslims do not believe it is true of Jesus. Most Muslims have been taught that Jesus was not crucified. One Sunni Muslim writes, “Muslims believe that Allah saved the Messiah from the ignominy of crucifixion

How should his followers respond? On the one hand, we are grieved and angered. On the other hand we should rejoice as Paul did when he was ridiculed, degraded and mocked and be prepared to face the same.

It means that a religion with no insulted Savior will not endure insults to win the scoffers.

Therein lies the difference between how we should react and how the Islamist reacted. They have no promise of tomorrow with the exception of perhaps receiving a dozen virgins for dying. Evidently the women have no promise or hope of tomorrow for certainly they will not be given a dozen men under Islamic law.

Uh....Mr. P. Mary is on your side Hon. It's me Brenda who is so insistant that a man's relationship with his God should be off limits to derogatory speech. And, it was Christ's mission to be ridiculed, but He taught us that we were to love all mankind and to me that would mean following the ten commandments "Thou shall not taketh My name in vain" which we most certainly do when we mock his followers beliefs.

Gee I'm sorry you had to spend so much time today looking up those Bible quotes. Do you have a Concordance by any chance? A handy little book to have. And, I do forgive you for getting Mary and I mixed up that's just something that happens to us old folks.

Now this OLD BROAD is going to go make herself an Irish Coffee and snuggle down with a good light weight romance novel (if I can find one somewhere in this stack of books ...I think my daughter left one maybe) because my weary brain has really had a work out dropping my 2 cents worth all over the world today.

Sorry Brenda, but I knew a Mary Bowers also and I think that she actually may have had an older sister named Brenda. I know she had a house full of brothers because the two younger ones and I fought all the time. I was tall skinny and scrawny and they were short and stocky and loved to pick on this skinny lil feller. They didn't stand a chance. hahahaha. Guess it is old age catching up to me. haha.

No dear , I didn't have to spend time looking up those verses, they are in my permenant file in my head, in my spirit and in my heart. Yes, I do have a good Concordance and several commentaries as well, in fact a right well stocked library on Biblical studies.
Unfortunately you missed my point or it would seem that you have. Read again and you will see that the entire point was a comparison of followers of Jesus and followers of Muhammad and how the reactions differ or should differ. The difference in the roles of the two are also pointed out.

Mr. P and Brenda, gentleness appreciated.

Where was I before 2001? Well, if you haven't figured that out by my website by now, then I don't know how to tell you. I was in an Asheboro Courtroom - standing up for my duties and rights as a physician and citizen (and that pesky little thing called the First Amendment) . . . as well as the welfare (and pocketbooks) of my parents/patients. I was young and very idealistic/naive . . . and under the impression that things like false advertsing, and good/bad medicine, and fiscal accountability by "non-profits" mattered. Eight years later, it's very clear I was wrong. Brenda, if you think your kids are/were busy with their lives, take that, square it and then multiply it by all the lying administrators and shifty lawyers (that JR sets such store buy) I was doing battle with. In short, I was busy. I would rather have been busy with something else. I would have liked to have had the time to be more "worldly" in my awareness.

The fact is, before that beautiful morning (that I remember like yesterday because someone I loved was in the air) was darkened with smoke and ashes, a lot of us lived in a bubble.

We were "aware". But we weren't.

My case is just another example of the public not knowing what is/was going on because they're not being told. JR doesn't consider it "civically relevant". The information isn't being put out there for us to make up our own minds. Instead, the decisions are being made for us by those who assume they know best. And no one seems to understand why there are ethics scandals in Raleigh and Washington?

One of the reasons I'm so put out with JR & company on this issue is because I did what he and the N&R will not. And I took the hits (and it cost me going-on ten years of my life). Guess what? That Dragon tucked his tail and flew back into his cave (and the people who let him fly in the first place are squirming now because yours truly has the black & white evidence that the real liars were in the cave).

Cowards and bullies retreat and hide when you stand up to them. Could be a lesson there in this situation.

A lot of people "on the street" (many of whom are good Christians) . . . now sufficiently disturbed by several days of rioting - are saying, "Where are these cartoons? I can't find the cartoons. What is all the fuss about? Why are our newspapers cowering in fear?" My boyfriend (a more blue-collar, "on the street" kind of fella you could not find), asked me that just last night . . . after I "confessed" the sin of challenging JR and Allen on these blogs.

Last time I checked the US Constitution, church and state were separate issues (don't always like it, but that's the way it is). So it really should not be a question of whether of not newspaper publishers in the US/West are demonstrating Judeao-Christian sensibilities in the decisions they make about printing or not printing these cartoons. It's not a question of being "better" than "they" are either (also I hear that in some of the excuses disguised as explanations).

As Scott said on Allen's tread, these cartoons are NEWS. Do they offend? Sure. Are they "civically relevant"? You betcha. Compelling. I think so.

But then, I've seen them.

Dear Mary, Having tilted at a few windmills in my day I understand and agree that we must stand up to the charlatans, frauds and out-right criminals. Bullies always retreat when challenged. It is easier for a woman to do this now also than it was just a short 25 years ago. Glad you won and sorry it took so much of your life and energy to do so. I guess that is why having gotten my nose whacked a few too many times coupled with the fact that I no longer have the years available I have had to learned to carefully choose my battles. I am happy to have the blog land to encourage young people to take up the battle and try in my blog to give notice when a bill is coming up that they should be aware of, or just to remind them that enough e-mails to Congressmen do get results, but if the people don’t speak up the Congressman will listen to the ones who pay their bills (lobbyist) rather than the ones who vote for them.

As for the News and Record I have seen much better newspapers. I will give it to the editors and reporters however for putting themselves out there in their blogs to be hammered at. Writing an article, essay, pamphlet or book is easy compared to laying yourself out on a blog. Must respect that.

Mr. P I have studied many religions in my personal quest to find God but Islam was not one of them so my knowledge of their faith is scanty. I have however spent some time studying their cruel and brutal practices towards their women and girls and find them beyond contempt as human beings. I did miss your point last night ( it had been a long day). I thought you meant that we were to be ridiculed, not what you actually meant that we should accept ridicule if it comes as did Christ. By the way, I did find my God and it was so simple: I simply stopped searching on my own as if I were doing a class project and told the old fellow that if He wanted me I was here but I wasn’t going to look for Him anymore. It was then He revealed Himself to me. He had been there all along but I was looking for Him on Earth and this is not where He lives.

Well, Brenda you did get part of what the post said. Yes we will be ridiculed for our beliefs, just as Christ was ridiculed and for that we should be happy for it is evidence that we are walking close to him, which is the goal of Christians to be Christ like. So either way you now have the total picture of what I was saying.

I am glad that He found you. For you see we can never find Him in our own strength. When you said, ok, Lord, that's it, I can't do it, I can't find you, you had surrendered your will and now He could step in to do His will with your life. I rejoice to hear that. Like the song writer wrote in that old hymn of faith, I once was blind but now I see, was lost, but now I'm found. Remember He is the shepard,and we are the sheep. A good shephard will always find the sheep that are lost and bring them to the fold.Jesus said, "I am the good shepard and my sheep know my voice..."
Ooops guess I should stop before somebody accuses me of preaching or somebody want's to take up an offereing or give an invitation. hahha.

Brenda. Heavy sigh. I "won", but I did NOT "win". And that is both the story and the problem - reflective of so many (local) issues that JR and the N&R say they care about.

But notsomuch.

If you have not been to the website: http://www.asheboropediatrics.com, PLEASE take a look. JR thinks that because a website is "out there" already, he does not have an obligation to report the story - or direct more people to it (something that might induce the legal/elected officials who have sat on their tails and done nothing/said nothing for three years MOVE). In this case, JR has pretty much run out of excuses. It's local. It's "civically relevant" to medicine and law and ethics and public disclosure and public service and the accountability of the government & "non-profit" sectors . . . many stories that are front & center these days . . . so we're not exactly talking about windmills.

It's also about free speech and a doctor who was foolish enough to believe that the ideals would ulitmately trump the lying and the greed.

I've reported CRIMES to the Asheboro District Attorney AND the Asheboro City Council. Where ARE the LOCAL newspapers? I did protest in front of the hospital, but since I'm not "crazy" enough to throw pipe bombs or storm federal buildings (or stupid enough to believe that it would garner any sympathy for my cause), it's not "news".

I am well aware of who the Congressmen and legislators listen to. From Enron to "disproportionate share" to Jack Abramoff to Jim Black it is very easy now to say, "I told you so!!!". Several recent letters to my local, state and federal legislators - as well as to Randolph Hospital Board members & medical staff (who've been judging this case by "constructive quorum" since day one) are now posted on my website and speak to the price we all pay for silently putting up with slime.

I expect I would respect JR and the N&R more if they lived up to their high-minded journalistic promises - in the SAME way I tried to honor my medical Oath when I was forced to choose between my livelihood and a baby's life. I knew what Jesus would say/do, and I made my choice. And we know what Randolph Hospital did. It's that actions vs. words theme.

This thread is about free speech - something about which I am "passionate". It's also about hypocrisy.

It's 2006 in America, and our newspapers are afraid for us to look at cartoons. Why am I not surprised?

Just out of curiosity John, did you folks publish Abu Ghraib pictures? I don't remember.

We did, but I don't recall exactly which ones and where, and I'm not at the office where I can check.

Thank you for posting the Poynter Institute's discussion of the ethical issues.

John, what caused the N-R to publish the Abu Ghraib pictures? Did you feel you "couldn't cover the story sufficiently without them"? Why is this different from your Danish cartoon decision? Are the journalistic priniples not the same?

Bubba,
Publishing the Abu Ghraib pictures fits into the politically correct agenda of today's media. It calls attention to just how "terrible" this country is in treatment of the poor "pitiful" oppressed people who only want "peace" that they believe that only their religion can bring. After all if everyone is forced to believe alike and those who don't are killed, certainly, in their thinking, peace would abound. Now to publish the cartoons, would be calling attention to the real underlying thinking of these same "poor oppressed" peoples. It would show them as the violent, repressive, closed minded, people they are.

Before some of the "politically correct" crowd jumps and accuses me of thinking that all Islamist are alike, let me say , no, they are not. However, those who do not think the way the rioters of late have done little or nothing to condemn those who have run rampant. An old song goes, If you don't stand for something, then you stand for nothing at all. Therein is the problem of the Islamic so called peaceful groups. They fail to condemn therefore they speak volumns of praise for those who are violent.

Abu Ghraib involved Americans torturing prisoners. It portrayed real people -- Americans -- performing real acts on other human beings. It hits much closer to home than cartoons published by a Danish newspaper. Those photos showing Americans posing with the prisoners were compelling and necessary to tell the story. The cartoons are less compelling and unnecessary.

Plus, there is the whole religious angle to consider.

"Those photos showing Americans posing with the prisoners were compelling and necessary to tell the story."

....and the Danish cartoons were not? You previously said you did not need to publish the cartoons to tell the story.

Why were the Abu Ghraib pictures necessary to tell that particular story? Just as in the cartoon story, you could have covered the story as thoroughly with words, and without pictures. The angle of "it hits much closer to home" rings hollow to me and others.

What is the guiding journalistic principle involved here?

Bubba, I'd like the answer to that question too.

It seems that a lot of us have a different definition for the word "compelling". And "civic relevancy" is still one I am trying to wrap my head around. Like "truthiness".

Hollow is right. "Real people" drew the cartoons. "Real people" are rioting over them. And "real people" are dying in the riots and protests. "Real people" have fought and bled and died to defend the freedoms we all enjoy - like free speech.

And "real people" are cowering in fear. Most of them are journalists. The Poynter Institute "debate" made me think of that classic line on Sienfield that serves whenever someone wants to sit comfortably on both sides of the fence without offending anyone . . . "not that there's anything wrong with that".

The cartoons ARE the story. They ARE news. In that context, it's not really an editorial decision.

The photos showed Americans serving in the military, representing America, committing crimes, presumably in the name of America. The cartoons aren't even close to it.

Don't ignore the issue of nationality. Americans committing crimes. A Danish newspaper publishing cartoons. We're more interested in the actions of the Americans than the Danes. I don't see any comparison.

I've heard two justifications for the News & Record to run the cartoons. 1) Because they are vital to understanding the story and 2) to show we aren't cowards. Neither of them make any sense to me. No one seems at a loss about this story that I've heard from. And publishing some cartoons simply because we can isn't what we do.

John, I am SO not the one to talk to about people entrusted with the public good committing crimes . . . and deserving their pictures in the paper.

(Psssttt. Those gentlemen aren't Danish).

From Drudge this afternoon: www.shopmetrospy.com

For those in the US who cannot find the cartoons in their newspapers, you can buy the T-Shirt now for $18.99.

Only in America (the Danes can read their papers).

Sorry, John....Without making a politically based comment, I must say that I don't buy into your rationalization.

The guiding principle here should be consistency in the application of the paper's policy. I don't see that happening with the N&R in the instances we have been discussing.

Either you SHOULD NOT have published the Abu Ghraib pictures, or you SHOULD have published the Danish cartoons.

Yes, Bubba, consistency is a recurring theme here. The N&R has made an editorial decision not to print the "sensational", "offensive" cartoons - either as the "editorials in art" they were originally intended to be - or the news they now are. It won't publish the cartoons on its website. The paper is exercising its right of free speech by not printing the cartoons - or allowing its readers to make up their own minds.

BUT Roch can throw up a link on The Editor's Blog (hosted on the N&R website) and it will stand - and John (an N&R employee) will not kill the link because he did not "publish" the link himself, he is "not responsible" for the content of the linked site, and killing the link would suppress free speech.

And he wants us to make sense?

Consistency is not the guiding principle. How do you apply it? Why stop at the cartoons? Why do they fall under your consistency principle when other cartoons we don't publish don't? How would we know what we should publish because it's consistent with something totally unrelated to it in tone, news value or taste? What about Janet Jackson's breast? What about Piss Christ? What about a bloody corpse? What about any other news event halfway around the world in which we don't publish photos?

We get hundreds of news stories and photos and editorial cartoons every day that we don't publish. We use news judgment to determine which to publish. You don't like our news judgment? That's fine. I accept that. There are plenty of other options for you.

And like the Taliban destroying Buddahs, the arguments against publishing the cartoons keep "blowing up."

This is great site that reveals that -- yes -- Muhammad CAN be displayed and, in fact, often is! Only recently (or whenever it suits them) have Muslims decided it's "bad" or enough to get violent about.

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/ancient-moslem-illustrations-of-mohammed-with-captions/

And, certainly emboldened by the spine the West has shown over fallout from the "cartoons," Muslims have now decided that Valentine's Day deserves rioting.

http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/10-02-2006/75762-Valentine's%20Day-0

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/11/121928.shtml

What's next? Oh, I know, Mother's Day!

Mom might have to show her face that day to get a nice peck on the cheek from her offspring! Let's RIOT (sort of like, "Let's Roll" but for no good reason...)

But the real burning question is now with this revelation, will the News & Record dare publish St. Valentine's Day photos?!?!!? I'm dying to know!

"There are plenty of other options for YOU."

Actually, locally (and I mean PRINT options in Randolph County - an area you say you serve), there are most certainly NOT "plenty of options". There are three. The Courier Tribune, the News & Record and The Randolph Guide (a weekly publication). In my case, The Guide was the only newspaper that saw fit to print a picture of a doctor protesting in front of a hospital. Even in the face of ethics scandal after ethics scandal, it's still easier to dismiss the lone doctor as "crazy" or "disruptive" than investigate the real reasons she's out there jousting with that particular windmill.

Courtesy of other news publications, I saw Janet Jackson's breast (yawn). I mulled over "Piss Christ" (and dismissed the "art" as the sad and pathetic publicity stunt it was). I've seen picures of bodies bloodied and mauled a half-world away (if I'm interpreting Sue's post on another one of your threads correctly, some would argue we should see MORE of that in the newspapers - because as a society, we seem to be collectively deadened in terms of outrage about the war). Hello? We live in a nasty, dangerous, OFFENSIVE world. We see and hear and read (that's what the free press is for - yes?). If we're grown-ups, we absorb and we process and we think (and we should be teaching our children how to do the same). And we DEAL with it (without rioting or killing). We learn and we grow. When we get the chance.

Thank God for the Internet. And (in this case), Roch.

Thanks for the websites, Jim. I'll check them out. Why aren't the links you and I and others post (apart from Roch) coming up as links?. Actually, the "next" holiday that many in our part of the world celebrate is Mardi Gras (I'm not sure of the date this year). When the photos of that rowdy and bawdy event in New Orleans (a sign of the city coming back to life) are published, do you think it will offend anyone?

You're right JR. I don't like your editorial biases or news judgements in this (and many other instances). But my "local" options are limited.

You and the crew are always asking for suggestions. It seems to me you've gotten some.

Good points Dr.

I think we're not coding them with "a href" tags. I'm simply too lazy to do it.

Ah, Mardi Gras. Actually, the only people who will riot about that will be "displaced" New Orleans residents (many still living in free hotels) who complained a couple of months ago that there should be no Mardi Gras because it would slow down reconstruction (which will leave it -- gasp! -- not as chocolate) in the city.

I could go on and on about the pretzel logic of the idiots in (or "displaced") from that city, but back to the main issue:

J.R., has any newspaper reader contacted you to THANK YOU for NOT running the cartoons?

"a href" tags? Please splain. Not a computer geek.

Try this page

http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/teachingtool/links.html

"Ah, Mardi Gras. Actually, the only people who will riot about that will be "displaced" New Orleans residents (many still living in free hotels) who complained a couple of months ago that there should be no Mardi Gras because it would slow down reconstruction (which will leave it -- gasp! -- not as chocolate) in the city."

Not as Chocolate? I can't even beleive you wrote that.

Actually, Ginger, if memory serves, "chocolate" was the descriptive term coined by the Mayor of New Orleans. Kinda made me queasy then.

You are offended by Jim's remark. I understand. But I offer you a quote to consider from "The American President" (President Andrew Shepard as portrayed by Michael Douglas): "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil who is standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the 'land of the free'? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the 'land of the free.'"

It's sort of relevant to what we're talking about here.

Ginger, don't like what I wrote? Riot!!

Actually, given the "sensitivity" of the News & Record, I suppose it's possible they never published the original quote by Nagin -- who did use the term chocolate (and whom I was making fun of in my post.)

So, Ginger, if you are a regular reader of the N&R, you are forgiven. You probably just weren't "informed" because it would have been to painful to tell you.

But, remember, it's good for you... Don't you worry, the N&R will do your thinking for you.

No one does my thinking for me; I have trouble enough trying to make sense of things as it is.

Mary, if you want to link to an article or another website, here's the html:

Begin with the tag:

Then copy and paste the url directly behind it.

The words: News-Record will then be a link.

sorry- this didn't print above

then, again without a space, close with the tag

Still not printing tags

For those who are interested, I found Jack Kelly's piece to be a good analysis of the Media and the Cartoons issue.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06043/653741.stm

Thanks Ginger. Jim's link was actually a great help with that - and I used it on another post in another thread.

And no. I don't expect anyone does your thinking for you:):):) That's as it should be. And a big part of the point here.

More from "The American President" (a great "chick flick" for Valentine's Day): "America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've got to want it bad, because it's gonna put up a fight." Bubba's last link speaks to that.

It's supposed to be be a day of rest, and I am taking the rest of the day off.

Plus, there is the whole religious angle to consider.

Seems like a bit of back peddling to me. One has a religious angle and the other doesn't? I beleive the Islamist were just as offended by men with "draws" over their head being led by a woman. But then they were busy so didn't have time to wait 5 months to riot over the situation. The story could have been told just as well , in your words, without pictures. If one can, the other can. Unfortunately, it would not have give aide and comfort to the enemy to have printed only the(prison) story(without pics) and that is not politically correct.
In the words of another Danish publisher: Mr Juste had some days before told another Danish newspaper, Berlingske Tidende, "they've won", referring to the enemies of freedom of speech.

That sums up the entire situation. Like it or not.

No, no one does my thinking for me, nor for you Mary, or anyone else, or will force us to think in any way, or be afraid to weigh in and voice our opinions on this or any subject; this is America, we aren't jailed for thinking, questioning or expressing opinions. You have your opinions, I have mine. How I choose to voice them hopefully will be with grace and dignity. You've voiced yours here, and now I'll voice mine.

Out of respect for a diferent culture and respect for religous values I feel the decision by a majority of editors not to publish the cartoons was the right one. I don't condone the violence of those protesting. However, I do believe in free speech. I also beleive in sound judgement. If that's seen as straddling the fence on this issue, then so be it.

Ginger, respecfully and with as much dignity and grace as I can muster, I think that the Danish cartoons are editorial/societal/religious commentary (for better or worse) that has evolved into news.

I perused the print edition of the N&R at Mom's yesterday. Ironically, there was an article about free speech and censorship at UNC-G.

For some reason, I keep thinking about that lone Chinese dissident standing in front of four tanks. He gave us all a lesson in "advanced citizenship" . . . as did a planeful of people over Pennsylvania on 9/11. And I think that the American press dishonors that kind of courage when they call what is, at its very core, FEAR of another culture's reaction to freedom of speech . . . "sensitivity", "sound judgement" and "respect".

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

To say that the decision not to publish the cartoons is akin to dishonoring those who stood against 911 is presumptous and not true. Anyone, I think, myself and I believe and hope, you included or any one of those editors would have tried to do something to stop that plane from flying into the White House. Showing respect for another's culture and religion is not the same as dishonoring those who gave their lives during 911, or to the dissidents at Tiananmen Square. And to promote that the blanket reason why the cartoons weren't published was fear of reprisal is ridiculous. You make American editors out to be cowards, which they are not. If lives were saved by the decision not to publish, I applaud that decision. Editors have reflected on the reasons they didn’t publish, and they make a lot of sense.

Ginger, it's clear that the N&R is not going to publish the photos. I suspect JR is "tired" of the debate because he is weary of finding/posting reasons to defend a decision that he is having a hard time reconciling - way down deep in his journalist's gut. No matter how much the reasons might "make sense", (in my opinion) they just doesn't quite ring true in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

This is NOT really about "respecting" a religion either. Pictures of the Prophet have been drawn before - some of the ones I've seen were not flattering. And the last thing this is about is discouraging idolatry. The Muslim faith is supposed to be about peace and tolerance and turning the other cheek (after all, Jesus was one of their prophets). The religious principle, if something offends, is therefore to look away and not return harm for harm. Love your neighbor. And in free societies, where everyone is supposedly "equal", whatever the provocation (and we of other faiths have had them), one looks and one absorbs (sometimes one complains) and one turns the page/moves on. I cannot reconcile peace and tolerance and turning the other cheek with flying planeloads of innocents into skyscrapers (or Pennsylvannia fields), or sawing the heads off Jewish contractors (I saw that sickening video too - I wonder if Americans would have rioted if more had seen it), or pipe-bombing embassies, or mobs chanting "Death to America", "Death to Israel". The cartoons spoke to that - a few of them very cleverly - and some crassly.

You wanna talk about respect? What about "their" respect for the rest of us - our opinions - our faiths - our culture - our LIVES? Have you seen the cartoons published in the Arab world about us? Do we riot and demand genocide? And I just can't wait to see the "Holocaust cartoons" (that's sarcasm and disgust for an oxymoron). The evidence is in, the flames were fanned by fanatics for political purposes . . . the cartoons are excuses, not reasons. However "provocative" the toons may be, they are commentary and they are news - and they are fair game in a society that says it values freedom of speech and religion above all. The American press IS hiding because of fear. And in this environment, it's okay to be scared. Just own up to it. And admit that it was not "sensitivity" or even political correctness that "won" the day - but the tactics of terrorism.

You yourself said that we all had the right to have opinions about this issue - then you turn right aroung and call mine (not to mention Ben Franklin's) "ridiculous". Yours (and JR's for that matter) is not "ridiculous" - but it just happens to be one I do not agree with. I believe a few days ago that I was probably in the majority. After a few more days of politically-correct sensitivity training by our press outlets, I sense I will probably be in the minority.

God bless America.

The real problem with this that no one has pointed out that is JUST as problematic as everything we've already pointed out is this:

NOT publishing them won't be viewed by these rioting folks as smart, enlightened and reasoned.

The people who are rioting and causing all this trouble over the publishing of the cartoons will simply view the decisions of not publishing them as a vindication of their rioting.

They won't think, "See, all the papers are so smart and noble in their Journalistic Endeavors by not publishing them."

They WILL think: "Whoo hoo! Our rioting worked! We've made them cower in fear and they aren't publishing them. Hey, this rioting thing really works! Let's do it about everything that remotely bothers us!"

These people can NOT be reasoned with.

Mary, I am going to re-run the article that appeared in the Der Spiegel for the benefit of Ginger and a few others who have evidently not had the opportunity to read this compelling piece. It addresses well your comments on respect toward others. It addresses you comments on "all being equal" which we know that women are not equal under Islamic law or religion. It also addresses the fact that fear was and is one of the greatest reasons for not posting the cartoons. It also addresses the fact that because of fear we give up a precious freedom that I and many have stood in the gap, fought to defend, and bled and died for. There is no excuse for fear of reprisal, it is basically cowardly and I call it as I see it and as I have seen it for many years now since the politically correct crowd has clouded the clear thinking of freedom. When I read the post by some who would sacrifice that freedom for the sake of appeasement, I see "The Wall" and the names of my friends and comrades in arms and I weep. I see the white markers spread out all over Arlington with the names of those who fell before in this cause, and I weep. I see the names and faces of so many and through my tears, wells up an anger. May God forgive me.

Muslim dissident Ibn Warraq, in Germany's Der Spiegel, on why the West must stand firmly with the Danish
February 06, 2006
THE great British philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty: "Strange it is that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being 'pushed to an extreme'; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case."

The cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten raise the most important question of our times: freedom of expression. Are we in the West going to cave in to pressure from societies with a medieval mindset, or are we going to defend our most precious freedom: freedom of expression, a freedom for which thousands of people sacrificed their lives?

A democracy cannot survive long without freedom of expression, the freedom to argue, to dissent, even to insult and offend. It is a freedom sorely lacking in the Islamic world, and without it Islam will remain unassailed in its dogmatic, fanatical, medieval fortress; ossified, totalitarian and intolerant. Without this fundamental freedom, Islam will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality, originality and truth.

Unless we show some solidarity, unashamed, noisy, public solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, then the forces that are trying to impose on the free West a totalitarian ideology will have won; the Islamisation of Europe will have begun in earnest.

This raises another more general problem: the inability of the West to defend itself intellectually and culturally. Be proud, do not apologise. Do we have to go on apologising for the sins of our fathers? Do we still have to apologise, for example, for the British Empire, when, in fact, the British presence in India led to the Indian renaissance, resulted in famine relief, railways, roads and irrigation schemes, eradication of cholera, the civil service, the establishment of a universal educational system where none existed before, the institution of elected parliamentary democracy and the rule of law?

On the world stage, should we really apologise for Dante, Shakespeare and Goethe? Mozart, Beethoven and Bach? Rembrandt, Vermeer, Van Gogh, Brueghel, Ter Borch? Galileo, Huygens, Copernicus, Newton and Darwin? Penicillin and computers? The Olympic Games and football? Human rights and parliamentary democracy? The West is the source of the liberating ideas of individual liberty, political democracy, the rule of law, human rights and cultural freedom. It is the West that has raised the status of women, fought against slavery, defended freedom of inquiry, expression and conscience. No, the West needs no lectures on the superior virtue of societies who keep their women in subjection, cut off their clitorises, stone them to death for alleged adultery, throw acid on their faces, or deny the human rights of those considered to belong to lower castes.

Mp,

Thank you for publishing the article. I don't think it's accurate to portray the Vietnam War as the struggle for our right to free speech, although I understand and deeply respect our soldiers and the fact that each person who fights for our country fights for its freedoms.

Jim,

I don't riot, unlike many others in our country. The only time I have ever protested it was done in a non-violent manner. As I responded to you and Mary, the News and Record's decision not to publish these cartoons isn't akin to the newspaper doing our thinking for us, although both you and a few vocal others seem to feel it is. It seems to me that the right to a free press also includes the right not to comment.

Mary,

I haven't seen any of the cartoons published, the Danish or the Arab. You are entitled to your beliefs, as I am to mine, but it is sad when an open civic discussion deteriorates into a us vs. them mentality, which seems to lump together and make scapegoats of all Arabs, intimating that they have no respect for our lives, which it seems to me this thread has degenerated into. For that reason I'm not going to debate it further. Free speech also means the right to exercise choice and not to comment.

Ginger, I was sick and down for the count most of yesterday . . . and I thought Mr. P had a good ending to this thread, so I let it go. I don't think this forum has "deteriorated" - just because you and I disagree on the nature of the argument. I think it's swell that the conversation has evolved. That's what happens when people can think/speak freely.

The point is, I have seen the cartoons. But I had to go somewhere else to find them. And I now have a frame of reference that you don't.

Mr. P "stood in the gap" and I stood in a courtroom, so we have that frame of reference too.

JR has talked about the adequacy of words describing pictures. I disagree - strongly. The best example I can think of is the video of masked terrorists holding down Nicholas Berg (that was his name) and crudely/viciously sawing his head off - and him screaming until he couldn't anymore. Words do not do it justice.

The cartoons spoke to that kind of senseless violence - the kind that now has a young Christian-Science reporter begging for her life on videotape. Is that videotape not "offensive"? Should we see it?

It IS very much about "us vs. them". It's about simple basic human rights - and free speech - and the politics of terror/fear. In the culture that you want us all to embrace/"understand" (and not "offend" by keeping our silence and averting our eyes from "silly" cartoons), you and I would not be having this conversation (at least openly) because we are of the "lesser" sex. If being "enlightened" means that I have to "understand" terrorism and mass destruction (with or without the weapons of mass destruction) and mass murder/genocide in the name of God (no matter who does it), then I can tell you right here that I do not want to be "enlightened".

The Muslim faith is a billion strong. I've seen the voters come out for elections in Iraq (may God/Allah bless them), but where are the "million-man" demonstrations for peace and progress and rebuilding and normalcy? Where are the voices of reason AND THEIR OWN RELIGION that should be telling these rioters and terrorists/"insurgents" to get over it and go home - to STOP the violence? If the Muslim faith is truly about peace and tolerance and living in harmony, then it should not take American firepower - and American blood/lives - to STOP what is going on.

The American press exercising its "right not to comment" is a cop-out. More than "a few" people think so based on what I've heard about this "on the street". The press is - we are - afraid of the words - or in this case pictures - because of the sticks and stones. And that is what I find very sad.

Well said Mary and a good way to cap off this discussion.
The more I read about your stand in the courtroom, heck I believe I was safer ducking the VC than you were taking the full load in the court. I must say your got in some dang fine hits. Your story like mine will someday be told and the truth will out. So never falter and never fear. From one "warrior" to another who has survived our battlefields, I say, "Welcome Home"!

And Ginger, remember it's all about freedom, no matter what the description of freedom may be called. Anytime tyranny can be halted, freedom of speech, freedom of choice and any other freedom one may wish to add will come to the surface and not only survive but flourish. Tyranny was stopped in South Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia.

I was far safer in the courtroom than you were in the jungle, Mr. P.

"Never falter, never fail" are words from a song we played to end my Daddy's funeral: Johnny Cash & the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band jammin down on "Life's Railway to Heaven". I take your words to heart and thank you for the encouragement. The truth will indeed out. And I "fear not" the liars anymore.

Prompted by another "train" of thought on another thread, I just got through reading some reviews on Amazon.com . . . about Jerry Bledsoe's book, "Death by Journalism" (which I read when it came out). This thread has been about free speech. In Randolph County a few years back, a N&R journalist took free speech way too far. In 2006, the N&R - on so many issues - is exercising its right "not to comment".

Heavy sigh.

I am not condoning violence under any circumstances. What I am trying to say, and what you are twisting, is that you can't lump all arabs together in some sort of us vrs. them mentality and make scapegoats of people who are not responsible for the violence.

I thought this thread was dead - that Mr. P and I killed it two days ago. Ginger, I don't think anybody here is making anyone a "scapegoat". We're basically expressing frustration with hypocrisy.

America is supposed to be the "home court" for freedom of religion and free speech. Apparently, it's not. Because you cannot say or do anything in the mainstream press that might be "offensive" to anyone. And to print anything, you've got to have three lawyers and the corporate sponsors sign off.

Americans poured tea into Boston Harbor before we were even technically Americans. Over twoandahalf centuries, we've been a pretty rowdy/hardy bunch. When did we get so sensitive?

The Muslim faith is one of peace and tolerance, yet the SENSELESS violence over CARTOONS continues, NO ONE in the clerical leadership is standing up to condemn it or STOP it - but rather MAKING EXCUSES, and people are DYING. I know it's not a popular train of thought in this part of the world, but sometimes NOT speaking up when badness is happening right in front of you (and especially in the name of your God) DOES make you responsible.

John and the N&R are now making a fuss over the Rhino publishing some of the toons . . . even not-so-subtly critiquing the way it was done (a few of the toons apparently stood on their own on page 62). My question is, where does the N&R get off dissing another paper that, by the N&R's own admission, had the right to make its own decision about what it printed? John exercised his "right not to comment" before the Rhino made its decision. He ought to continue exercising that right now.

And I'm still mulling this over: the Rhino printing the cartoons is news, but the cartoons themselves aren't?

I've got some news for JR. Down East, at least one TV station showed the cartoons on their evening news program (and even in promos for the evening news) - in the context of THIS is what is causing the riots. Of course, I've found the folks down East to be a very straight-talking and pragmatic lot compared to the more "enlightened" Piedmont. But it shows that even the mainstream media is now divided.