Stop playing the victim. The fact is RADICAL Islam has made Christians, Jews, and moderate Muslims victims. The cartoons are simply a response(though not a very nice response)to the fact that Radical Muslims have around the world been engaged in violent and terrorist behavior in the name of Islam. In fact, think of how people responded to the Danish Cartoons in the Muslim world. They responded with violence!

If you want something to be enraged about, how about the fact that on a constant basis, Muslim and Arab newspapers print anti-christian, anti-semitic, and anti-American cartoons of the most offensive nature. How about you become enraged with the fact that the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran is calling for death to Denmark and Israel. Or what about protesting Hamas' continually stated genocidal intentions.

No one on campus or in the Muslim world seems to get enraged by these dangerous, racist, and globaly destabilizing issues. Instead there are protests over Cartoons! Watch out Bugs Bunny!

Free speech includes both the right to speak and the right NOT to speak. There is no contradiction if the Posten chooses not to print filthy anti-semitism right after it printed these very mild jabs Mohammed. In fact, the hysterical and often violent reaction to these cartoons is telling. It shows that the cartoons were right on the mark.

I agree with the above poster. The Islamic world is just so full of hatred! If Muslims truly are a peace-loving, tolerant lot, then it's time they proved it by dropping all threats to annihlate Israel. It may not have been a wise thing for that newspaper in Denmark to print those cartoons, but when life decided to imitate art and the Muslim world exploded with rage, they only proved to the rest of the world that what was depicted in the cartoons was true.

Face it. There is much hatred in the Middle East toward non-Muslims. It's time they started practicing what they preach over there.

The cartoons were right on the mark?

There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. Less than 1% of that number had any "violent" reaction to these cartoons. On the other hand, 100% of that number reveres Muhammad as their model and leader.

So, no, they were not "right on the mark." The cartoons generalized and insulted an entire population of people and by doing so they were stereotypical and racist.

"Racism is unacceptable."
I was totally unaware that Islam was a race. How does that work for converts? How are they transmuted into the Islamic race?

"There was a time when anti-Semitism was.."
and still is today in EVERY Islamic country.

Where is my "Piss Muhammad" and "Elephant Dung Muhammad"?

Cartoons are terrible, but bombing Shiite holy places during worship services is just standard practice for the "Religion of Peace"(tm)?

Submit or Die is the message of Islam and I am not willing to do either without a fight!

It seems many of you are filled with hatred too. I am a big fan of free speech, but its when you start having different ideas of what "free speech" is based on what you are talking about is when I have a problem. The fact that the editor was fired for thinking about Jewish cartoons and not for these ones is very telling. You can't hide behind the sheild of free speech if you have already taken a stance against offensive speech.

I'd prefer they just stopped practicing all together. They seem to take religion way too serious and let it control their very lives in terrible ways. It's sad.

I'm a christian, I think. My point is this I think the cartoon in the Danish newspaper was more anti-terrorist then anti-Muslim. I think it was a statement on the radicalization of Islam. Not that Islam is the only religion being radicalised, for an awful example look right here in the USA, where women are being denied perscriptions because the pharmacist is a Christian. I think the best comic-commentary on today's religious radicalism was the Badger Herald's "Misrepresented".

And of course the nature of the response to the provocation is different. Christians never expressed their objections to these artworks by rioting, burning flags or threatening terrorism. Call it cowardice or prudence, but as a practical matter many editors are reluctant to pour fuel on the fire. Such combustion as there was over "Piss Christ" or "Holy Virgin Mary" never threatened to get out of control, so that editors felt no compulsion to be responsible.

In other words, American Christians object peacefully when the government subsidizes work they consider blasphemous, but they recognize that private individuals and institutions have a right to produce and display such work. By contrast, some Muslims in Europe and the Middle East respond violently to private expression that they regard as sacrilegious.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007961

They are practicing what they preach, convert to islam or die. Cartoons in a newspaper are offensive to me all the time. If you don't like the accurate portrait of the Islamic relegion then stop telling me to be more accepting and start telling your cohorts to stop cutting off the heads of innocent non-muslims.

When a cartoon points out the problem with pedophile preists as a catholic I can be offended. But as a Catholic I am more offended that my church transfered know pedophiles from station to station exposing more innocents to harm. Can the cartoon be unfair to a relegion and the preists who are not chasing down teenage boys. Absolutely, but what is more offensive?

To me it is more offensive to have planes flown in to buildings, buses blown up by suicide bombers, and reporters having their heads sawed off in the name of Allah. But to right thinking followers of Islam it is more offensive to have a cartoon pointing out that heaven is running out of virgins.

I am both shocked and appalled at Ms. Mogahed's blatant disregard for one of the core values and rights upon which this society is founded; a society in which Ms. Mogahed can vote, can travel beyond the confines of her home unescorted by a male, can own property and can demand an apology for an offensive cartoon. Yes the cartoon of Muhammad published by the Badger Herald two days ago is offensive, and yes the original Danish publisher of the cartoon is arguably making a statement tinged with racism. However, it seems that Ms. Mogahed in her response either did not read the article published along with the cartoon in the Badger Herald, or ironically only believes in the exchange of ideas through free speech when it suites her intentions.

Any institutional publication will try to court its readers. As such, they publish articles and cartoons that they believe will capture the minds of their readers through fascination, disbelief, relevance to current issues, and even outrage. The fact that a Danish newspaper, confused as to its own policies, has sold out to political pressure does not make the action right, nor does it give any valid reason for political censorship.

In a PC age when the federal government is courting the religious right, the foundation of our democratic society is being continually bombarded by those who wish to take away right after right, sensor the way we are taught and even the way we think. It is important to uphold those fundamental rights and practices we deem necessary for a free and democratic nation. The right to free speech and freedom of the press is paramount to a democratic society and I would defend anyone's right to dissenting views or to ignorantly spew forth "hate speech," even if by making use of this right, someone advocates destruction of it. The beautiful part of free speech is that if it is offensive, you can ignore it, or turn the page.

Wow, talk about a response that simply serves to reinforce the writer's prior point.

A couple things. The writer makes a good point. To argue that publishing the cartoon under free speech is ok is a joke. That is why there are editors. They decide what is and isn't ok to publish. Furthermore, it would not be ok to publish cartoons of the holocaust. However, the real issue with the Danish cartoons is the response of the public the countries that are insulted by this. As wrong as it is to publish the cartoons, the reaction of the public has done nothing but to reinforce what the cartoons are trying to say. Radical Islam is intolerant and can't follow the same standards they want to impose on everyone else.

The fact that they have burned whole embassies is the real issue here, not printing some silly cartoon (cartoons like this mocking Jews are printed everyday in the Arab media, and cartoons printed mocking Jesus are printed in the American media). Why is it Jews and Christians haven't taken to the streets rioting when blasphemous material is printed about them?

I am posting this comment anonymously because I am afraid of being kidnapped by someone with a towel on their head. The simple fact is that Islam is a religion of hatred, murder, and intollerance. You want an appology toward the collective "you" meaning all of Muslims? Then I demand an appology to "us" the collective western world for the countless acts of terror committed over the DECADES by followers of the prophet Mohammed. The issue is not free speech versus respect. The issue is that Muslims are, simply, evil, and desire to kill anyone who is not Muslim. Sure, there are a few domesticated muslims who live in the US. But just because there are some friendly dogs does not change the fact that there are many more wolves. Go ahead and publish jokes about the Haulocost. We will get mad, but we won't kill over it! Muslims are constantly killing, kidnapping, and bombing. But when someone makes a cartoon, the whole Muslim world goes nuts with blood lust. This is what Muslims are about. This is the nature of the Muslim world. This is who Muslims are. This is your true colors. Stop living in the middle ages. The western world outgrew that way of live 500 years ago. The Muslim world is nothing but uncivilized savages.

The above posts are essentially the same as saying that all Christians are bigotted, racist, hatemongers. Do all Christians support Fred Phelps and his "God hates f-gs campaign?" No. Muslims should not be grouped into one homogenous lot either. Everyone needs to start seeing that while there are a number of muslims violently protesting, there are even more who are doing so non-violently or not at all.

The sad truth is that the cartoons are merely the flashpoint for a bigger tension. The demonstrations are beyond some drawings, to the protesters, it is East vs. West. If we do not approach this with a diplomatic ear, a lot of UW students will find themselves over there very soon.

Leave a Message in the Anonymous Muslim Man Complaint Box

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=3565

I am very doubtful of the claim that only a small percentage of muslims are radicals. If this were true, they why are their streets filled with protests calling for the death of Israel and America? In this country, it's hard enough filling one auditorium with hateful people. But in the muslim world, whenever they see the most insignificant slight toward their religion, entire cities erupt in hatred. Where is this "vast majority" of peaceful mulisms? Why don't the muslim countries demand democracy and free speech in their countries? Why don't they practice tolerance? When such a large portion of a religion is in fact evil and hateful, it's impossible to separate the religion from thate group. People use this term "radical islam" as if there was such a thing as non radical islam. I call for the Muslim world to stop using violence. But they can't. They don't know any other way. The muslim solution to a problem is "kill anyone who disagrees with you."

Hi, um, about this. I don't want to comment on the absurd levels of ignorance and intolerance I see on this message board already, so I won't. Let me just chime in that the right to free speech comes with responsibilities, and includes the right to NOT speak. Let's get out of the Middle East for a second and just talk about Madison. Did this cartoon really need to be printed in the Badger Herald? This isn't a question of free speech-- of course you could print it-- but rather a question of taste. You printed a cartoon that is widely known to be highly offensive under the guise of "free speech," and although the disclaimer article was thorough in its disapproval of the idea behind the cartoon, you still printed the cartoon... and I'm sure more people saw the cartoon than read the article. So, what happened? As you can see just on this message board, it stirred up anti-Muslim sentiment. This doesn't have anything to do with the paper's rights. The whole point of free speech is the ability to freely choose what you say to represent you. That includes choosing what not to say, because it doesn't represent you. This cartoon had no place in the Badger Herald. If you don't want to spread that message of hate... keep it out of your paper, in any context. Don't give it exposure. It's that simple. The article alone would have been fine without the cartoon. In fact, it would have been much better.

Do not blame the newspapers for printing the picture. Do not accuse them of making the issue worse. It is the muslims who have reacted violently to it. What are we to do? Be careful of what we say for fear of making the muslim world angry? "sorry, you can't say that because someone in Pakistan will kill you if he finds out." If the muslim world had peacefully and respectully objected to the picture, then fine. In that case, the newspapers could have said "we appologize for offending your religion." And the muslims could have said "we respect the idea of free speech, but let's be tasteful." But no, that didn't happen. Maybe the picture was in bad taste. But that issue pales in comparison to the bigger problem of islam. We, as a free country, cannot allow the hatred of the muslim world to intimidate us into giving up our rights. If you make a tasteless joke and someone threatens to kill you for it, which one of you is more wrong?

I would like to congratulate the citizens of the United States of America (which of course also includes my almost 2 years old daughter), the residents of the State of Wisconsin, the inhabitants of the City of Madison and last but not the least, the students, faculty and administration of the University of Wisconsin, its student newspapers and in particular the Editorial Board of "The Badger Herald".

And if you are perplexed as to what these congratulations are for then let me be more precise. My congratulations refer to the fact that The Editorial Board of "The Badger Herald" has coined a new term (or rather terms) for 'Racism' and those are: 'Freedom of Speech/Expression/Press' (Reference: 13th February, 2006 Editorial of Badger Herald titled "Sacred Images, Sacred Rights" and the accompanying cartoon). And being a top-class research University, we must be congratulating each other on this new discovery for this is bound to change the face of The United States of America as we know it. And for sure my happiness is multiplied by many folds after I realized that I (along with many other Muslims on this campus) was also highly influential in bringing this discovery to light for it is part of my segregated fees that goes out to fund our student newspapers. And of course, I must not take away the credit from the early researchers that took part in this discovery especially Teddy O'Reilly (Reference: 8th February, 2006 column of The Daily Cardinal titled "No Criticism, No Freedom"), Bassey Etim (Reference: 7th February, 2006 Opinion & Editorial of Badger Herald titled "Muhammad Drawing, Environmental Rhetoric Similar") and the openly racist Editorial Cartoons of the two student newspapers on this topic (culminating of course on the publication of one of the original Jyllens-Posten's cartoon in The Badger Herald).

With this happy discovery, however, I am saddened by the fact that I come from a country/culture that is still living in ancient times. For unlike what the editorial of The Badger Herald champions (i.e. Freedom of Speech a.k.a Racism implies Freedom to Hurt), people in my country still champion that the emotions of human beings are to be given higher regard than the mere words of 'freedom of speech' and that when people talk of 'freedom of speech', it inherently implies that something good would come out of that speech and you cannot merely say something in the name of 'freedom of speech/press/expression' to hurt other people. It is truly unfortunate for me that I am in the middle of a semester and also that I do not have enough money to make an immediate trip back to my country; otherwise I would love to carry this editorial with me and tell people that 'look! What you think is absolutely incorrect. I have come from the most civilized country on the face of this earth and a newspaper in that country has told me that freedom of speech does mean freedom to hurt and in some special cases, like if you are a Muslim, it can also mean racism.' But please do not be disappointed, for I promise that as soon as I get an opportunity, I would make sure that people in my country get a chance to understand that humans are nothing and words are everything.

I am not sure if the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) can help us get a patent on this coinage for if that could be done, then given the fact that many people really seem to like this coinage, the student newspapers of this campus could earn a lot of money from the patent royalty and might never have to apply for grants to Student Services Finance Committee (SSFC). However, before we could apply for a patent on this coinage, I think we need to analyze the editorial carefully so that no one can object to this patent when we do apply for it (and I am sure I would be a given a share of the pie from the royalty).

In the first paragraph of the editorial, it says "... it is upon this premise that much of the maturation of the world has come to include similar declarations of a right to free speech checked only by decidedly minimal restrictions". Of course the key terms here are 'decidedly' and 'minimal'. Now, I would like to ask the authors, who 'decides' these 'minimal' restriction. For example, the last time I checked, Nazism was banned in Germany which was one of the first countries to republish these cartoons. Similarly, I was having a hard time figuring out the last time a newspaper in Israel published an anti-Semitic expression. Moreover, in the US, I was not sure why it is a crime to incite violence and rioting by using the same notion of free speech when all a person would be doing is saying some words from his 'free' mouth. I am also baffled by the fact that why have I not come across an openly racist cartoon against African-Americans in the recent times in which, lets assume. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is portrayed as a terrorist figure ordering killings of Caucasian-Americans. On top of that, I certainly need to have a new eye exam for I failed to notice the following items in my long readership of Badger Herald: Pictures of soldiers torturing prisoners in Abu-Ghraib, pictures of mutilated soldiers and people killed in Iraq, pictures of rape victims etc. So, I guess, the right phrase to use would be 'minimal restrictions decided by the majority on things that offend them or that they deem inappropriate'. For if we use that, then it would make perfect sense to every body: Since Muslims are marginalized in the US, so there is no restriction on saying (or publishing) anything racist against them.

In the second paragraph of the editorial it says "It is in this vein that we look upon a dozen controversial Danish cartoons, with an eye toward the cornerstones of a frank and free exchange of ideas, no matter how insulting or controversial such notions may be." Well, I am sure that publishing these cartoons is a great start towards a 'frank and free exchange of ideas'. Of course if some people have trouble understanding that this was a start towards a free dialogue, then we can safely assume that they still live in places where there is not much knowledge available.

In the fourth paragraph it says "When a parcel of dialogue causes portions of the world to respond not with superior ideas but, rather, violence, it would seem the most civil corners of the world ought to be fully informed regarding just what this parcel of dialogue is." Now, someone was telling me that these cartoons were published initially in Denmark in September of 2005. And that 'someone' went ahead and told me that the 'portions of the world' did respond to this 'parcel of dialogue' (i.e. if you want to call a bunch of racist cartoons as a parcel of dialogue) with superior ideas but every one in Denmark out rightly rejected this as a protest of minority (did someone tell me to recall Civil Rights Movement history?). Now with this, more and more people got involved in the protests (and highly peaceful ones) to the stage that almost everyone in Muslim countries was taking part in these and out of those a small minority resorted to venting out their frustration on the property (not that anyone is supporting this behavior but did again someone tell me to recall Civil Rights Movement and how there were some elements in it that turned to violence but that did not take the gloss off of the movement?). I am sure that that 'someone' who told me everything about this must be a 'violent' nutcase who did not believe in dialogue.

In the fifth paragraph it says "... they are also now the impetus of riots that have caused numerous deaths ...". Now I must confess that I tend to go to the wrong websites and news sources that tell me that it was the NATO soldiers who killed the Afghan protestors (already frustrated by the puppet government in Afghanistan that does nothing for them) and not the protestors who killed each other or any one else. Since this is coming out of the Editorial Board of Badger Herald, so I dare not argue on that and I am planning soon to write to these websites and news sources to tell them of their follies.

In the sixth paragraph it says "... the cartoons in question are clearly newsworthy ...". In the seventh paragraph it says "People have a right to see these drawings and make their own impressions ...". In the eighth one it says "As such, we feel the American readership - and, more precisely, that of Madison, Wis. - is sufficiently mature to handle these images ...". Of course all of this must be true. For if they were not why Badger Herald would choose to publish them. But 'someone' was again up against my ear and whispered this 'while the pictures of tortures of Iraqi prisoners by some US military personnel were also newsworthy, Badger Herald (and for that matter almost all the US newspapers) chose not to publish the most offensive ones'. That same person asked me this 'why is it an unwritten code for newspapers that you do not publish pictures of sexual assault victims?". This whisperer is getting too annoying I guess. I confess my weaknesses on this and would try my best to hush up this whispering person.

In the seventh and tenth paragraph it says respectively "... sufficient grounds for bloody riots (which we firmly believe them not to be) ..." and "No form of speech, regardless of how vulgar or hurtful, should be grounds for a violent reaction ...". Now for these statements, I feel so proud of Badger Herald Editorial Board and would like to ask them of their sources that told them the following things: 'majority of the Muslim protestors are determined to cause rioting and violence'; 'no matter what the circumstances are, Psychology tells us that the crowd is always defined by a handful of people who decide to turn violent'; 'no one in the Muslim world has condemned this violence'; and 'what 0.1% of a sample does defines the whole sample'. Oh, and did that 'someone' tell me to recall the rioting of the 1999 WTO protestors in Seattle?

And finally, in the eighth paragraph it says "Printed below is one of the 12 cartoons in question - the image that many have deemed to be the most offensive. In sharing this, we seek not to offend members of the Islamic faith or insult those who see the image's argument to be comprised of a fallacy. Rather, we print this as a symbol of our continued dedication to free speech and as a means of better informing the debate that has been sparked." Well I am sure that this would not offend the Muslim community and if it does offend someone, they must be a bunch of violent, stupid people living in uncivilized cultures. I am sure that this is a symbol of free speech and that the Badger Herald would follow this with some of the other symbols of free speech that I mentioned in my email and I am sure that it was meant to better inform us of the debate and what better way of doing that than publishing a cartoon that portrays that the entire Muslim population as a bunch of terrorists and I am sure that this is in no way stereotyping Muslims.

But more than all of that, I am sure of one thing and one thing alone: That Racism has been given a new name and that it has been wrapped up in the flavor of freedom of speech and given out to the Muslims world-wide; that the proponents of this racist freedom of speech are more than willing to make another Holocaust happen but this time not for Jews but for Muslims (mind you that to build the case, the Editorial does defend Nazism to some extend in its second paragraph); and that they are doing everything they can to fuel the stereotyping of Islam and Muslims and calling it 'Marketplace of ideas to flourish'.

Now, I have to wait for one more thing: People, who are always the first one to show to the world that they are proud of the openness of America and its freedom of speech on one hand and its respect for the humans on the other, what are they going to do to make sure that America does not become a culture where the notions of 'Racism' and 'Freedom of Speech' take the driving seat and humans are left to make a choice of either give up their dignity if they want to live in America or move back to some other dignified place.

Waheed Bajwa
Doctoral Candidate
Department of Electrical &
Computer Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison

No one ever apologized for the killing of the Dutch filmaker over his film critical of the treatment of Muslim women.

"I don't want to comment on the absurd levels of ignorance and intolerance I see on this message board..."

So what are the levels in the Islamic world? Absurd plus infinity?

No posting so far has called for any beheading or stoning of Moslems.

"includes the right to NOT speak"

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. or NOT speak in this case.

It should be known that of the 13 deaths which have resulted from the protests which took FIVE MONTHS of failed attempts to negotiate, 12 of them were cases of the police/law enforcement shooting and killing the protestors. There were no injuries involved with the damage done to the embassies. Which happened what, 7 times? The fact is any protest in the Middle East is labeled as a riot, regardless of what goes on. We PRAISE protestors of the past for standing up against systematic racism, and yet when Muslims stand up and speak out against blatantly racist attacks they are enemies of free speech? We have every right to express our disdain for the Herald's choice and to both condemn it and ask for an apology.

The cartoon is very much needed in the paper. It is important that everyone see how something so seemingly pointless to many will cause another group to act like idiots. I didn't get up and scream bloody murder when Dan Brown wrote a book that defamed everything I have ever believed in, so why does one group all of a sudden have the right to say that something offensive to them can't be published?

So burning down an embassy is considered protesting? Sorry, that's borderline terrorism. Keep on protesting, you'll keep getting mowed down for being ignorant.

After seeing those cartoons that had caused a lot of controversy, I wished really hard that the Badger Herald would not publish any of those. Not only because I found the cartoons to be offensive, but I also had hoped that maybe somehow Madison would be more of a liberal city that respects the rights and the beliefs of others. I did not have that much of a problem with the article itself that was published, but I did not appreciate the fact that this paper that I thought was liberal, a paper that I had respected, writers who I thought seemed to atleast show some sign of humanity, all of a sudden lost every ounce of respect from my part. It is a decision the editorial board made to publish those articles- a decision that offended many people on campus very close and very dear friends. I'd rather not comment on the larger picture, because although that is equally important, I feel a little ashamed today that so many of my fellow students feel such ways against Muslims. I'm afraid that some of my classmates sitting on either side of me in class might hate me or think of me as a radical Muslim just because of my name. I never imagined Madison to be a university of that sort.
The cartoon was a very touchy subject. I feel that it was a topic that does have a right to be talked about, but I cease to understand why the cartoon was printed on the same page. I think everyone just needs to realize that not all muslims are violent and so called radical. The world is going through a very shaky time and for once, this has come close to home. Muslims are our classmates, roommates, professors, TA's and to associate them with racist comments or as violent beings is very close-minded and wrong.
The muslims on campus are not violent, but they are people. They are people with emotions and feelings and opinions just like everyone else. So when someone for once stands up for their beliefs then why should they be condemned and grouped as radical violent beings?

Nazia Husain

ps. I thought about writing this comment anonymously just in case I would be thought of as a wolf.

You are just like a typical muslim, a pain the butt...if you are really that unhappy with the "West" then leave and go back to where your family is from. People like this are just annoying, "apologize" why no one had done anything wrong, except you, for being ridiculous.

I demand an apology for being offended by this letter to the editor. It is absolutely in disregard of my utter belief in being able to say whatever I want to say, without concern for hurt feelings, people feeling that something I say is racist, or hate speech. Sticks and stones may break my bones, and names have continued to hurt me. I think its time to go protest at the embassy of the Badger for this one. Meet me at Lincoln to protest this misunderstanding of my right to be able to offend other people. Offend away!!!!!!

I can respect your rights, and still poke fun at you. I can respect your rights, and demand that you respect mine. I can respect your relegion, and still poke fun at it. I can respect your relegion and demand that you respect mine.

Where in the world is it unlawful to practive Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and on and on? Only In Islamic countries where a convert from Islam can be put to death for daring to discover another path. In the western world on 4 street corners you can find a Mosque, Synagogue, Chapel or Temple and no person has a death sentence for finding their own path. Talk about the free choice of people making good choices as opposed to sawing off another mans head for discovering Buddha.

" 'I don't want to comment on the absurd
levels of ignorance and intolerance I see on this message board...'

So what are the levels in the Islamic world? Absurd plus infinity?"

Well, friend, I'm not talking about the Islamic world here. It doesn't matter what they do over there. Even if I accept your premise that they are at "absurd plus infinity" levels of ignorance or intolerance, that doesn't give anyone the excuse to be ignorant or intolerant. I thought "we" were supposed to be above that sort of thing. Does that make any sense? I feel like it should.

" 'includes the right to NOT speak'

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. or NOT speak in this case."

I'm not saying people shouldn't speak out against, well, "evil," or anything else they feel strongly enough about. However, I am saying people should be very careful in how they present their points if they want to be considered "good men" and I don't think that happened here.

This next thing is more for whoever looks at these:

"You are just like a typical muslim, a pain the butt...if you are really that unhappy with the "West" then leave and go back to where your family is from. People like this are just annoying, "apologize" why no one had done anything wrong, except you, for being ridiculous."

I just want to know how that quote made it past your own standards for deletion: "offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevent comments." Maybe you let it go so that someone could debunk it later. Or maybe you knew that no one would take it seriously, because it was written anonymously with the sole purpose to offend, and obviously doesn't contribute anything. I don't know, but either way, you might want to reconsider allowing that kind of drivel on what's otherwise a reasonable forum for debate.

In response to the comment made that Muslims should go back where they come from...well...all I have to say is...it's a shame that you can be so ignorant to consider Muslims as a separate entity of this society. Muslims have the same right to live in this country as you do. So...please...take a class and learn something about this country and its great pride in diversity. If people are unhappy by the west, then why SHOULD they just turn around and "go back home"? What would that accomplish? And if you plan to state a ludricous statement that it would eliminate terrorism...don't even bother. Your argument has no foundation. Muslims, just like anyone else, have EVERY right to reprimand this lack of respect for Islam.

The 1st ammendment is a principle we all hold very dear, but when that act transcends the limitations by hurting individuals and giving false connotations to something we must object. As a friend stated today, we live in a tolerant society...but we shouldn't have to tolerate intolerance.

First I am wondering why these comments with "offensive language, personal attacks" are still here.
I am disturbed that there is this many people who believe in anti-Muslim bigotry that they came here to post their hate speech. Why are all these comments anonymous? Is it maybe because we live in the 21st century United States where hate talk is not tolerated? Calling all Muslims "pains in the butt" and telling them to go back wherever the came from is hate speech.
I am truly saddened that I attend a university where there are students who hate me based on my religion.

"...the openly racist Editorial Cartoons..."

Again with the "racist" canard? There is no "Muslim race". It a religion open to all who are willing to submit to the will of Allah.

Unfortunately all others must be murdered, be enslaved or if they are "People of the Book" pay tribute.

The response to the Danish cartoon shouldn't be violent. But you can't justify printing the offensive cartoon in the Herald by using the example of a small group of protestors who all may or may not have been violent. Showing Muslims a few examples of violent acts doesn't justify you to offend all of them. Muslims aren't happy that they are misrepresented by groups of radicals that occupy the media much more than them, but what can they do about it? Don't trouble them for trying to erase this wrongful image.
Telling Muslims to flee this country is as anti-American as you can get. I am all for freedom of speech, but how about some showing some tact. And editor, SERIOUSLY, how many blasphemous comments are you going to allow on this article?

"Muslims, just like anyone else, have EVERY right to reprimand this lack of respect for Islam."

I agree completely, as long as the "reprimand" doesn't include beheading people or burning things down.

As far as Muslims going someplace else, well I have to insist that they do, if they want to impose Sharia law. Living in the USA means not executing apostates and blasphemers. Can't even whip or cane them I'm afraid. If you want that, you should move to Saudi Arabia or one of the many other Muslim countries where that kind of behavior is acceptable.

The Spanish seem to be budding dhimmi, maybe Andalusia will soon be an available destination.

"there are students who hate me based on my religion."

I see no hate based on religion - only disgust with those who excuse murdering bullies who riot and burn when displeased.

All this over cartoons? Go to Saudi and wear a cross - you'll be beaten and/or arrested. Schoolgirls were forced to burn alive because they didn't have their hoods on. How's that for tolerance? Religion of peace my hairy butt.

Muslims are told to go back to where their family is from if unhappy with the matter!? I'm a Muslim. I'm unhappy with the matter. Yet, my family has been in America for 400 years. Where shall I go?

My family fought in the American Revolution to substantiate the very freedoms everyone holds so dearly. We are not against freedom of speech, we are against ignorant, misused, and irresponsible freedom of speech.

No arabs fought in the revolutionary war. Only black slaves who may have been Muslim, though most were not. Most Muslims a few years after the War were giving America a hard time in terms of Piracy of American ships done near Algeria. The Marines were forced to kick ass and take names.

"And editor, SERIOUSLY, how many blasphemous comments are you going to allow on this article?"

Allowing "blasphemous comments" is the very essence of freedom of speech. Murdering people because of what they say will NEVER be acceptable - I hope.

"Piracy of American ships"

Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute. The Marines remember the "shores of Tripoli".

***

One of the unpleasant realities that the young and still untested United States had to face at the turn of the 19th century was the threat of piracy against its merchant shipping in the Mediterranean. The leading European powers had long dealt with the threat by paying tribute we would now say protection money to the rulers of the Barbary States of North Africa: Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis, and Morocco. At first the United States followed suit, but in May 1801 the Pasha of Tripoli was overthrown by a usurper who brazenly demanded more and, when it was refused, declared war on the United States.

President Thomas Jefferson decided to fight, despite the fact that the Navy had been nearly dismantled after the Revolution. In August a blockade of Tripoli was established by Commodore Richard Dale, who had fought with John Paul Jones. The blockade, small and ineffective at first, continued for nearly four years and gradually, with reinforcements from home and some borrowed vessels from the King of the Two Sicilies, took command of the waters of the Barbary Coast. The naval war is best remembered for the daring raid into Tripoli harbor led by Lieutenant Stephen Decatur in February 1804 to burn the captured U.S. frigate Philadelphia.

In November of that same year the former U.S. consul in Tunis, William Eaton, landed in Egypt with a tiny detachment of Marines under the command of Lieutenant Presley N. OBannon. Gathering irregular troops from the countryside as they went, they trekked some 500 miles across the Libyan Desert in MarchApril 1805 and on April 27 stormed and occupied the Tripolitan stronghold of Derna. The Marines on that day raised the U.S. flag then featuring 15 stars and 15 stripes for the first time over foreign soil. Tripoli signed a treaty of peace on June 4, and other Barbary states quickly followed suit. State-sponsored piracy in the Mediterranean was ended.

The Tripolitan War may well be counted the first instance of Americas stepping forth to solve a problem on Europes doorstep, a line that runs down to the Balkans and the Middle East and Central Asia today. More significantly, it first thrust the United States into the unsought role of enforcer of international law against rogue states in league with terrorists.

Having some trouble registering, so I'll just have to sign it at the bottom.

I fail to see what's offensive or racist about Vogel's cartoon. The original 12 cartoons (plus the three actually offensive ones that were dishonestly added to the mess by the Danish imams who stirred all this up), were used to incite hatred & violence all across the Middle East. Thus the most contriversial of the real cartoons is shown as a match being used to ignite a powderkeg of violence. Islam is percieved as being violent because whenever something offends the ummah, thousands take to the streets carring signs that say "Death To The Infidels". A promenant Saudi imam is calling for the cartoonists to have their hands cut off. When Andres Serrano unvieled his work "Piss Christ", fundimentalist Christians called for his funding to be cut off. Perhaps when we stop seeing folks storming the streets demanding the death of anyone who impies that they might be violent, we might be more inclined believe in their peaceful intent.

Jon Glenn

cybrludite@yahoo.com

Hey, I have an idea. Why dont we round up all the Evil Muslims who refuse to "go back where they came from" and throw them in gas chambers? Oh wait, that's so unoriginal.

The amount of ignorance and hate that is being displayed on this message board is an insult to the UW. I sincerely hope most of you are not actually college-educated people, because if so there is really something wrong. You are sounding like my 80 year old grandmother who still thinks "the Jews" are responsible for everything bad in the world.

So cartoons that satirize the hatred and violence so common in the Muslim world are themselves hate speech? Okay, how about publishing translations of some of the hateful filth that are printed, broadcast and preached every day in the Muslim world?

"if they want to impose Sharia law"

Good point. A recent (very troubling) poll showed that 60% of Muslims living in the UK (I couldn't find a similar poll from the US) wanted to live under Sharia law...in the UK. Not in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. In the UK.

Demand an apology?

There are cartoons mocking everything. From God to garbage. There are no riots when Christian, Jewish, Hindu,Wiccan,Satanist, Buddhist, etc. ad infinitums, beliefs are on the block.

There is no heated outrage at the incessant Muslim cartoon disrespect directed at other faiths, most pointedly Judaism.

In short, no one, on the planet, has shown the rampant childishness of those of the Muslim faith who have taken these inoccuous cartoons as an excuse for yet more horrific, barbarous behavior.

"Hi, um about this?" WTF is that? Is David Schwimmer's speaking style really the best tone for written political commentary? Do you use that little construction to convey your superior sense of detachment from the unwashed who post here? Please stop that now. Stop it! It's really lame, and it bears the taint of a kid who affects the look of "concern" all the time. Do you really think that you (and the 15 million or so others of your kind) are being unconventional when you do that kind of thing? Unconventional in lock-step, I'd say. Do you also tilt your head in that oh-so-sensitive way when you need to show disapproval of someone with whom you disagree?

After you have grown a bit, perhaps even gotten a job, I guarantee you that you will shudder when you look back on this kind of thing. Just say what you mean. You're obviously pissed off enough to comment. So comment.

Karen---love that. Um is so contrived...

I'm posting anonymously because I don't want to take the time to register--just passing through. I was following the comments, and came to "Karen Ju" who grew increasingly obsessive as she crafted her profile of the post with the Schwimmer-esque "Um." I noticed a "WTF" at the start of her comments, so I guess some -speak is more equal than other -speak. And her comments add nothing to the debate.

Speaking of which, I agree with the notion of responsible free speech. It's disingenuous to give all speech no value, while asserting how valuable--or powerful--speech itself is. You can't have it both ways--or, more to the point, you can't assign speech an empty value like "free" unless you're willing to allow that freedom into every avenue of your life. This is possible only if you have no line you assert should not be crossed. Which means you have no standards, which means you have no critical faculties, thus no credibility, thus no possibility of impact on others, thus no reason to speak at all, beyond the fact you can. "Freedom," then, becomes a mannequin that talks, "signifying nothing." Freedom without value--or whose only value is its own abstract "freedom"--is an impossibility. One may indeed argue, "I think [and by extension speak], therefore I am," but that's all that you are: An objective Being, ignoring the social contract, instead of accepting the "burden of freedom" as an operating agent active in the civil society. It is at this point you allow yourself the "freedom" to shout "Fire!" in that crowded theater we keep trying to protect from panic and harm.

Karen, you'll have to excuse me. I tend to write conversationally. I don't mean to present myself as assuming a "superior sense of detachment," and "the unwashed" are your words, not mine. If you got past the first four words that I wrote, I'd rather hear what you had to say about that. Considering you've never met me, I think it was presumptuous to lump me with "15 million or so others of my kind." If you'd like to get to know me, I'm not hard to reach. Sorry if I frustrated you and I hope my message wasn't lost in certain aspects of the delivery. Just to reiterate, that message is: this isn't an argument about free speech, it's about the responsibility to refrain from putting things in a newspaper that are offensive and destructive and don't do anyone any good. Unless of course the paper is actually bigoted (which I don't expect is true), at which point people should probably stop taking it seriously altogether.

Sincerely,
Abe Sorock

sorock@wisc.edu
or, you know, I'm on facebook.

Responsible speech is what responsible people engage in. That does not mean that irresponsible speech must be outlawed. There are judgement calls that must be made by responsible people on a case by case basis when dealing with sensitive issues. This happens every day and, every day, someone is offended.

But it is the reaction to the speech (cartoon, whatever) that is the more tangible issue. And it is this reaction that Muslim's must take the time to reflect upon. Is the reflexive call for violence in response to all perceived slights appropriate? Are Muslims beyond criticism, especially from non-Muslims? Can Muslims engage in a reasoned dialogue with those of other religions?

I have not seen any sign of introspection by the greater Muslim community (save for some brave editors in the Middle East, some of whom are now in jail). I fear that when issues are raised over ridiculous things as the swirl on top of a Burger King ice cream container (UK, last summer) that Muslims are not asking for equal treatment, but special treatment.

I hope that the incredible sensitivity of members of the Muslim religion (not a race, a religion) eases and soon. The out of proportion response to the cartoons, whether conducted by 1% or .1% of the population is highly divisive and moving the world to a real clash of civilizations. I truly hope that this does not come to pass.

It amazes me the sensitivity of the Arab World. Dude, I don't believe the HOly MOhomed was anything special but I support your right to THINK so. I do NOT support your BELIEF that we have to walk on eggshells around YOUR way of thinking. I laugh at fat jokes, bald jokes, redneck joke and MY religion jokes, all of which hit close to home but I don't kill someone over them. I believe that if the RADICAL Muslims (That's who we are talking about, you know.), would get out of the streets, get a job, and try to join at least the LAST century in terms of individual and especially women's rights, you'd have a lot less time to burn things that aren't yours and want to kill cartoonist in foreign countries. And your camels might not be so scared too! (That's a joke...get it?)