News-Record.com

The North Carolina Piedmont Triad's top go-to source for News
A service of the News & Record, Greensboro, North Carolina

Home

Off the Record

« Three great movies | Main | A stay-at-home parent can be the best investment in your child's education »

Deadly intolerance

The protests over cartoons in Danish newspapers -- cartoons! -- have escalated into violence with the burnings of the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus today.

Norwegian? What did they do?

Cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad so offended the Muslim world that, apparently, murder and mayhem are required in response.

This represents a clash of values of immense proportions.

Western governments are becoming very apologetic over this affair -- but how much can and should we compromise our ideals to appease the sensitivities of those who demand respect solely on their terms?

Do we have to bow to their beliefs in order to quell the hostility?

What about respect for freedom of expression?

How much harm is done, after all, by publication of cartoons compared to the angry reprisals unleashed?


And let's not pretend that this fury represents the attitudes of only a radical few in the Islamic world. This is the mainstream, and it's very, very frightening.

The cartoons themselves are unimportant, not worth all this anger and destruction.

The intense intolerance these demonstrations reveal, on the other hand, illustrates a grave threat to the underpinnings of Western civilization.

Comments (5)

To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.

mrproduce [TypeKey Profile Page] said:

Here is an item I posted over on "The Front Pew".
This was written prior to the Denmark and Norway burnings. It is plain to see that these folks don't care if one offers an apology or not. You are an infidel and by Allah we will kill you, is their mindset. And to think we have those in this country who would appease this crowd.
===========================================
A piece from one of the out of country newpapers that I read. Can't remember off hand if it was from the London paper or one of the Australian papers. Good article on this subject anyhow. And I must say that I agree with the writer as to how this situation should have been handled.

=================================================
Clash of cultures
Democracies must not give way on freedom of speech

IF any evidence was needed of the dangerous frailty of the relationship between Islam and the West, the explosive reaction to a Danish newspaper publishing cartoons depicting Mohammed provides it. In a culture clash reminiscent of the fatwa Iran issued over the novel The Satanic Verses that led to author Salman Rushdie going into hiding for years, Danish daily Jyllands-Posten's publication of the 12 cartoons has provoked trade boycotts across the Arab world, diplomatic protests, flag burnings and a rampage by militant Muslims in Jakarta. In Gaza, masked gunmen swarmed EU offices and threats were issued to foreigners from the growing list of European countries where the cartoons have been published.

At the heart of the clash, as with the Rushdie case, is the robust and open nature of intellectual discourse that characterises freedom of speech in liberal democracies. Muslims consider images of the prophet distasteful, and caricatures blasphemous. The cartoons at issue include one showing Mohammed wearing a bomb in place of a turban and another showing him calling for a slowing in suicide bombings because of a shortage of celestial virgins. The clash escalated this week after newspapers across Europe reprinted the cartoons and the BBC aired them in a show of strength for freedom of speech. They have every right to do so. Some Muslims might find the depictions offensive, but the right to offend within the law is fundamental to free speech.

As much as the cartoons themselves, the spiralling conflict is the perhaps inevitable result of increasing tensions in Europe as secular societies struggle to accept a rising population of Muslims whose customs and values often chafe against their own. That a minority of Muslims are prepared to resort to violence in protest at Europeans exercising their freedom of speech is an issue the West must tackle head on. Jyllands-Posten's editor this week apologised for publishing the cartoons. He shouldn't have. Liberal democracies must not give way to bullying when it comes to core values.

Brenda Bowers said:

We who believe in liberty for ALL peoples MUST NEVER TOLERATE INTOLERANCE, and yet we do this repeatedly where intolerant groups or individuals are concerned in the NAME OF TOLERANCE. There has to come a point where democratic indivduals and nations are willing to stand firm for RIGHT over Wrong. Christ, who respresented Love for all people, took an intolerant whip to the wrong behaving money changers in the temple. Being willing to confront intolerance is also a part of tolerance. Whether it is in Greensboro, NC or the world outside of our little sphere; whether it concerns one individual, a group or a nation; whether it concerns race, religion or sex. When the freedom of one is curtailed then it is a beginning for the freedom of all to be curtailed.

Jon said:

Where's the apologies from the Muslim countries when suicide bombers blow up innocent men, women, and children?

Where's the outcry of indignation from the Muslim world when Muslim thugs aim their guns at a nonviolent female reporter and threaten to kill her?

Where's the outcry when the Muslim media consistently characterize Jews in ways that are highly offensive?

It should be a two way street, but it seems the Muslim's give little respect toward matters that are sensitive to those who embrace Judeo Christian ethics.

mrproduce said:

But Jon, you can't insult Allah's chosen people. They will cut your head off, burn your cities, rape your wives, and kill your children. Blow up the world because Allah told them to!
All other religions are fair game for them to use as bomb targets and to insult. Expect an apology? Surely you jest!

fred said:

i somewhat agree. there was definately no need for violence. just because someone says or draws something that you dislike is not grounds for violence. i am sympathetic that they are upset and feel offended, but violence is not the answer.

but, it is not nessicarily "mainstream", we werent there, so we dont really know. what we do know is that violence took place and that is unacceptable.

on the other hand, why did the artist feel the need to draw something that he knew would be offensive to people who had done nothing to provoke it?

Post a comment

Users who post comments to this blog tacitly agree to observe the News & Record Online Service Terms of Use and Content Submission Agreement. Comments which do not adhere to the terms of this agreement may be removed and the submitter may be banned from further participation. Please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page to report abuse of this feature.

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Search

Channels
Font Size
Tools
Question, Comment or Suggestion? Please contact us.

News & Record and NRinteractive

200 E. Market Street, Greensboro, NC 27401 (336) 373-7000 (800) 553-6880
1813 N. Main Street, High Point, NC 27262 (336) 883-4422
203 E. Harris Place, Eden, NC 27288 (336) 627-1781
4213 S. Church Street, Burlington, NC 27215 (336) 449-7064

Copyright (C) 2008 News & Record and Landmark Communications, Inc.