The Blog Herald, under the bastion of free speech, has published all of the anti-Islamic cartoons that are causing the Islam world to be in an uproar.

In my mind, this is sheer idiocy.

Certainly, the publishers have a right to freedom of the press, and freedom of speech (well, I don’t know about the countries they’re in, but in America, they would). Certainly, publishing these cartoons demonstrates freedom of speech and of the press. Certainly, publishing these cartoons is not only a smack in the face to radical Islam, but to noble Islam, as well.

Boston.com (I’m sorry, I don’t have the link) sums up the reasons behind the cartoons, thusly:

HINDUS CONSIDER it sacrilegious to eat meat from cows, so when a Danish supermarket ran a sale on beef and veal last fall, Hindus everywhere reacted with outrage. India recalled its ambassador to Copenhagen, and Danish flags were burned in Calcutta, Bombay, and Delhi. A Hindu mob in Sri Lanka severely beat two employees of a Danish-owned firm, and demonstrators in Nepal chanted: ‘’War on Denmark! Death to Denmark!”In many places, shops selling Dansk china or Lego toys were attacked by rioters, and two Danish embassies were firebombed.

It didn’t happen, of course. Hindus may consider it odious to use cows as food, but they do not resort to boycotts, threats, and violence when non-Hindus eat hamburger or steak. They do not demand that everyone abide by the strictures of Hinduism and avoid words and deeds that Hindus might find upsetting. The same is true of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Mormons: They don’t lash out in violence when their religious sensibilities are offended. They certainly don’t expect their beliefs to be immune from criticism, mockery, or dissent.

But radical Muslims do.

The current uproar over cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper illustrates yet again the fascist intolerance that is at the heart of radical Islam. Jyllands-Posten, Denmark’s largest daily, commissioned the cartoons to make a point about freedom of speech. It was protesting the climate of intimidation that had made it impossible for a Danish author to find an illustrator for his children’s book about Mohammed. No artist would agree to illustrate the book for fear of being harmed by Muslim extremists. Appalled by this self-censorship, Jyllands-Posten invited Danish artists to submit drawings of Mohammed, and published the 12 it received.

A gentleman by the name of Omar Khan makes a valid point against this idiocy in comments to the Blog Herald’s post (above-linked):

Pretty pathetic of you to re-print these cartoons. Freedom of speech comes with responsibility and adding “fuel to the fire” on something that clearly upsets over a billion Muslims in the world is rather a immature way of handling the situation. Additionally, taking a “lash” at radical Islamists by offending a quarter of the world’s popoulation (most of whom are NOT radical) also shows your ignorance in the matter. Let’s be real here - “freedom of speech” is just being used as a smoke screen by many people to justifiy their hostility against Islam.

If you really believe in freedom of speech, publish anti-semitic cartoons and mock the holocaust. Don’t have the courage to do that? I didn’t think so? Think that would be in bad taste? I agree. Is it that hard then to even conceed that there may be things that other people find as distasteful?

He (Khan) links to a commentary by Juan Cole that - in part - states:

Had the Danish newspaper published antisemitic cartoons that showed, e.g., Moses as an exploitative money lender and brought into question the Holocaust, there would also have been a firestorm of protest. For the secular world, the injuries and unspoken hierarchies of race are what cannot be attacked.

I firmly agree.

In fact, The Guardian reported that that particular Danish paper turned down cartoons of Christ, three years ago. The grounds? That they could be offensive to readers, and were not funny.

Gee, it makes you wonder why Muslims are upset, doesn’t it? I mean, I wouldn’t get upset if someone broke a specific law of my religion (in Islam, it is forbidden to depict the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh)). It wouldn’t upset me at all if someone depicted my religious figures in an extremely negative and/or satirical light. Would it, you?

See, here’s the thing. Muslims hold their religion very close, and highly respect the laws and tenemants of their beliefTo some, their beliefs may seem fanatical (and I am not speaking of radical Islam, I’m speaking of noble Islam), and over zealous; however, that is their belief, and we - as world citizens - should respect that belief, as we expect them to respect ours.

I’m all for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. However, I do believe it comes with some responsibility. Printing a cartoon, or two, that had been submitted through normal channels would have been fine, in my mind. However, the reasoning behind the mass submission and publication of these cartoons was not, in any way, the responsible exercise of free speech/press. Printing cartoons like this (regardless of the subject), because someone couldn’t get a book illustrated, or because extremists in a religion (Hindus, about beef, this time) went ape, does not responsibility make.

Jyllands-Posten: Print an apology. Nothing big, you don’t have to go overboard, but print an apology. Be sincere about it, too.

Mulsims: Calm down. I understand that Jyllands-Posten broke one of the laws of your religion, and I understnad it was a pretty big one. I also understand that he did so for a pretty lame reason. But our former President Bill Clinton broke one of Christianity’s sacred laws (that thing about comitting adultery), and you don’t see Christians the world over going ape shit. Look, I know it’s upsetting. I know it’s extremely offensive. Regardless, it’s not worth making this big of a fuss about it. Boycott the paper? Certainly. Boycott subsidiary companies owned by the paper’s parent company (if there are any), sure. Make a fuss about it for a few days - particularly from the important religious leaders of your faith, sure. Let it become a huge, world-wide sore on the face of Humanity? No.

I have five words for Jyllands-Posten: “What would your grandparents say?” (in a shameful tone)

I have sseven words for the Muslims: “How would the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) handle this?”