Monday, February 20, 2006

New meaning to cartoon violence

I remember watching Elmer Fudd chasing Bugs Bunny with his shotgun blaring, or Sylvester the Cat trying to make a meal out of Tweety Bird.
Cartoon violence is one thing, but now people are killing each other over a cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammed wearing bomb-shaped turban.
The cartoon was originally published in a Danish newspaper last September, but Muslims around the world have protested, crying foul about the infringement of their religious beliefs.
While the staff of the offending paper has apologized, as has the Danish government, journalists and editors around the world are defending free speech.
In the Sunday Washington Post, Danish editor Flemming Rose explained his paper's decision to publish the cartoon.
He said: "When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy."
But sensitivity to possible offense is running so high right now, an African state has banned a planned protest. How's that for free speech infringement?
Where do we draw the line? Why are some Muslims so upset about a cartoon?

1 comment:

Shrips said...

This is a tough situation for me. I understand the anger many Muslims are feeling, but I don't understand why some are responding with violence.
It's amazing to me how we all decry the freedom of speech and expression until we are offended by someone excercising that right. The freedom of speech inherently includes the freedom to offend others, to test beliefs and values, to make each one of us look critically at our own cultures and societies.
It does not, however, cover the right to respond with violence.
Your right to swing ends where my nose begins.