Monday, February 06, 2006


"Principles are one thing, sympathies another. In principle I support the right of any newspaper to print cartoons of Mohammed and the right of anyone else to reproduce them. As far as sympathies go, can I just say that if you side with a group of effete right wing pseudo intellectuals in making sport of a decent, inoffensive and hardworking group of people like my Muslim neighbours, then you ought to be fucking well ashamed of yourself. Repeat this statement on your own website. Refusal to do so is equivalent to self-censorship."

Having sympathy for an individual is one thing, but to self censor for sake of not offending an entire peoples? I don't buy it.

Sure, we could not print the image with the accompanying words, but the offense would still be the same. But maybe blowing people up is reason to not print them. Being made to be afraid because someone will riot, is that our cause not to pause?

The guy working at the restaurant isn't the guy the illustrationis drawn for, and would probably not incite him to burn down buildings. Maybe he'd spit in someones food, but I doubt it. Just like anything inflamitory, it's going to affect those who want to be incited by it.

So what. It offends me to think that people will burn a building for an illustration. I say publish it in the New York Times. Why does a religion think they have control over what other countries or religions say about it? Is it insensitive, sure, but so are a lot more things to belly ache about.


At 12:32 PM, Blogger Mary and the Widow's Son said...

Check out this entertaining archive of depictions of Mohammed (Mohamet, Muhammad, however it's spelled this year) from down through the ages.

Also, here's a ytmnd of the bombhead Muhammad you're sure to enjoy, created by a very warped but creative friend at

At 2:48 PM, Blogger John Hardy said...

Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons

At 6:06 PM, Blogger Masonic Traveler said...

From the Danish paper...

"Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today....they were offensive to readers and were not funny."

Offensive and funny? Blowing people up in the name of religon is offensive and not funny.

I appreciate the story, but I'm not buying it. Maybe it's a contextual issue of time. What was not funny (or relevent) then may be more so today.

At 6:16 PM, Blogger Masonic Traveler said...

Is this any more or less offensive?

At 7:05 PM, Blogger Dinah Lord said...

Mr. Hardy-
I may be mistaken but it seems that you are implying a certain level of hypocrisy on the part of Jylands-Posten. Just dropping in a link without comment can sometimes result in misunderstandings.

I apologize in advance if that is not the case.

The article you cite goes on to explain the situation and IMO it is a case of apples and oranges.

The call for Mohammed (pbuh)cartoons went out when an author was unable to find an illustrator for his book on the prophet. Jylands Posten was wondering if freedom of expression was being stifled due to political correctness. This was explained when they undertook the project (OAN they sure got their answer, didn't they?)

The Jesus cartoons in question were unsolicited, and according to the paper they also didn't meet their standards for editorial cartoons. Even worse they lacked wit.

To carry the fruit analogy further, it sounds like a case of sour grapes on the part of the artist to me. I could be wrong.

You know what happens when you assume...

Having said that I would also like to add that in the sight of the Lord there are no republicans or democrats. Just souls.

Cheers - Dinah


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home