“Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images, or any other religious belief.”
Though I agree with most of what was in the article, I think that this quote was misread. Except that the last bit is ambiguous and seems to imply that other religious beliefs are unacceptable (clearly not what was intended), I agree with a literal reading of the rest of the statement.
Note that it doesn’t say that any of the things should be forbidden. Nor does it even say that they are absolutely unacceptable. It simply says that they are all EQUALLY unacceptable (whatever that level of unacceptability is). If we believe that good taste prevents publication of “inappropriate” holocaust cartoons, racist cartoons, etc. because they are so deeply offensive to some, then we ought to believe that good taste prevents the publication of cartoons that are deeply offensive to Muslims.
On the other hand, I believe that the FREEDOM to violate such standards is an ESSENTIAL part of a free society. And, I would support the RIGHT of people to publish such things.
… Leaving a few words in a forum like this can leave a misleading impression of ones viewpoint. So, let me make absolutely clear that I think that the violence stemming from the publication of the cartoons is criminal. There is absolutely no excuse for the threats that have come from those who have apparently been offended by the existence of the cartoons (I’m guessing that most have not actually seen them). My points are simply that we should understand that people are truly and deeply offended by the cartoons, and that this particular article was reading too much into the quote I included at the top of my post.
Carl M
“Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images, or any other religious belief.”
Though I agree with most of what was in the article, I think that this quote was misread. Except that the last bit is ambiguous and seems to imply that other religious beliefs are unacceptable (clearly not what was intended), I agree with a literal reading of the rest of the statement.
Note that it doesn’t say that any of the things should be forbidden. Nor does it even say that they are absolutely unacceptable. It simply says that they are all EQUALLY unacceptable (whatever that level of unacceptability is). If we believe that good taste prevents publication of “inappropriate” holocaust cartoons, racist cartoons, etc. because they are so deeply offensive to some, then we ought to believe that good taste prevents the publication of cartoons that are deeply offensive to Muslims.
On the other hand, I believe that the FREEDOM to violate such standards is an ESSENTIAL part of a free society. And, I would support the RIGHT of people to publish such things.
… Leaving a few words in a forum like this can leave a misleading impression of ones viewpoint. So, let me make absolutely clear that I think that the violence stemming from the publication of the cartoons is criminal. There is absolutely no excuse for the threats that have come from those who have apparently been offended by the existence of the cartoons (I’m guessing that most have not actually seen them). My points are simply that we should understand that people are truly and deeply offended by the cartoons, and that this particular article was reading too much into the quote I included at the top of my post.