OPINION & EDITORIAL
Discussion of cartoon publication remains heated
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- SSFC stipend appropriate (December 11, 2007)
- Poor plowing cuts off handicapped access (December 10, 2007)
- Cars that actually help the environment (December 10, 2007)
- Organic food: Deliciously safe (December 10, 2007)
- Diversity deserves attention at UW (December 7, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Vogel's Danish cartoon offensive (February 14, 2006)
- Herald comic crosses line again (March 30, 2007)
- Cartoon forum hostile, unproductive (February 22, 2006)
- Censorship via blackmail (October 10, 2001)
- Readers respond to printing of Muhammad cartoon (February 15, 2006)
by Letters to the Editor
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Printing of cartoon hateful
After I heard that your newspaper reprinted the cartoons, I was deeply disturbed and sadened [sic]. I couldn't help but ask, "why would they do something like this… why do they hate us?" I thought the university environment was supposed to encourage diversity, and learning, not bigetory [sic] and hatred. I personally demand that your paper appologizes [sic], and admits its mistake by reprinting the hatefull [sic] cartoons.
Sajid Nasir
UW-Milwaukee
Herald shows courage
I admire your courage and commitment to free speech. As I checked out the news on channel3000.com I read about your decision to publish the Muhammad cartoon.
I hope that you take a look at www.littlegreenfootballs.com and scroll down until you see the topic The Islamists' War on the Internet, which highlights the struggle of blogger Michelle Malkin because of her similarly courageous stand.
It's disgusting that people who don't like something they read believe that they have a right to commit denial of service attacks and other actions against the right to know.
I wish you well and long may the Badger Herald wave!
Paulette Quick (former journalist)
Madison, WI
Herald no CNN
Hi my name Is Ali Hamdan I am a junior at UWM in the school of business and and [sic] appalled by the recent publications of my religious leader prophet Mohammed. Never would I imagine them to be printed in a Wisconsin news paper [sic], but the ignorance you have displayed will only turn around and hurt you. Other News [sic] outlets such as CNN and Headline News have showed the cartoons but blocked out the face in respect to citizens of this country.
Apparently you are not a real media center do [sic] to the fact of the childish irresponsible behavior you have displayed. Once again let me close off with I have formed an opinion about your newspaper and staff, and will do whats [sic] best in my power to expose your hatred.
Ali Hamdan
UW-Milwaukee
Muslims deserve respect
I was disappointed by your decision to run a copy of the offensive Danish cartoon of the prophet Mohammed. Of course you have the right to do so, just as the student sections at Camp Randall have the right to use puerile and offensive cheers. But one would hope that journalists, aware of repercussions, would exercise wisdom and insight in what you publish. I am a Lutheran Christian and not a Muslim, I do not agree with the Muslim view of such depictions but I do agree that their request is reasonable and honorable and deserves my respect. You could have chosen to deal with this issue in a way that displays more maturity. You didn't. The campus is poorer as a result.
Pr. Brent Christianson The Lutheran Campus Center
Madison
Cartoon highly racist
Respected Badger Herald, It has come to my attention that you have chosen to reprint the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad in your paper. While I do not know your reasons for doing so, I urge you to do two things. First, I believe that you should repeal it as soon as possible and give a written apology to the Muslim Community. As you know, the cartoon had dire consequences elsewhere, and though that is unlikely to be repeated here, it is likely to create similar negative sentiments. Additionally, I, as a Muslim, find the cartoons highly offensive and would take action against, be it in the form of a boycott or spreading awareness against, any such entity that deemed the cartoon fit to be seen. It is not only highly racist, which is shunned in our society of individual rights, it is also in bad taste to demonize a respected religious figure. I hope you make the correct choice.
M. Kheireddine Bouzid
University of Michigan
Incomprehensible
I, as a citizen of a diverse world, am unable to comprehend how anyone with a thinking and open mind could argue freedom of speech in defense of the Badger Herald's choice to publish the Mohammed cartoon. As a fellow journalist, I support with ardor the right to free speech, but there is a point when it is no longer free speech. That point is when hateful words infringe upon the rights of others to freedom.
It is unacceptable to print racist material. It is unacceptable to insult any religion or any race. The freedom of our country includes freedom for all people, to live how they see fit. You have helped to alienate 22% of the world. These cartoons have infuriated many more than that. Muslims are a minority in the United States and in Madison, and already subject to discrimination, how can you deem it acceptable to further this image?
Hate breeds hate. This cartoon is racism. Would you defend the right to publish a cartoon of a white man hanging a black man? Where is your journalistic integrity? Where is your heart?
Molly Crickman
UW-Madison
Herald cartoon hinders public discourse
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are arguably the most important rights afforded to this country by the Bill of Rights, as well as two of the most heavily contested. Men and women have died for their entitlement to be heard, as well as to question authority, dating back to the time of Socrates. Honoring this fact, the Board of Regents founded this university with the goal that "the great state university of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found." How have we come so far from that statement written in 1894? Free inquiry and public debate are the foundation of this country and are the bedrock on which learning of every sort hinges. Every pursuit to impede on these fundamental rights should be curtailed. Perhaps this is what the Badger Herald was thinking when they wrote the editorial "Sacred images, sacred rights."
Undoubtedly, the Herald was driven to respond to the apparent nationwide admonishments to school newspapers that republished the now famous cartoon of Prophet Muhammad with a bomb strapped to his head. Freedom of the press is pivotal to the flow of ideas, especially on a campus of this size. What other venue do we students have to make our thoughts and ideas heard than our student newspapers? And where else should we turn for lively debate on issues that are affecting us here at home and around the world? Freedom of the press is what exposes crooked politicians, what makes us look at the world around us differently and what sheds light into the deepest recesses of society that would otherwise go unnoticed. Unfortunately, my fellow Badgers, one of our school newspapers, the Badger Herald has failed us all.
The function of a newspaper is as the name implies: to cover news in an informative and objective manner. One would hope that this is what the Herald was doing in writing an editorial about the cartoon scandal and republishing the actual cartoons. Their argument that this is a news-worthy story is a very legitimate one. This is a news-worthy story but regrettably [sic] that's exactly what the Herald didn't do. Burying such a highly charged and pertinent issue on the fifth page is not reporting the news. Discussing only one side of the issue, which is what editorials accomplish, is not reporting the news. Making yourself the centerpiece of a story and ignoring the broader implications of the matter is not reporting the news.
By presenting this story in the form of an editorial, the Badger Herald not only failed to report the facts on a story on which every single person on this campus needs to be informed but also took a side on a debate that has yet to fully ensue on campus. Had the Herald simultaneously printed an objective news story about the nature of the problems that are occurring overseas and here in the US, readers would have been able to make a judgment on how they felt before they were subject to the propaganda of a newspaper that felt its freedom of expression was in jeopardy. This also shifted focus away from a long overdue debate about the growing xenophobia in Europe and how we should view the Islamic religion in relation to its use as justification in daily acts of terrorism. What better time to sit down with members of the Islamic faith and ask why are so many Muslims killing non-Muslims in the name of Islam? What do the members of the Islamic faith have to say about portrayal of their Prophet as a symbol of violence and why do they believe that this is an inaccurate representation? When will the Herald stop obsessing about supposedly witty cartoons and entertain subjects of actual substance?
The use of free speech and free press comes with a grave responsibility and no one can argue that freedom of the press should be severely restricted. I'm afraid that a newspaper that already fails to use its ability to report controversial and highly stimulating stories should not need to argue that it has the right to do so. It has already censored itself; no one else has needed to do it to them. The Badger Herald has let everyone on this campus down. In addition to those who have already asked, I would like to request for an apology from the Herald — not for reprinting an undoubtedly racist and hateful piece of artwork, but for standing in the way of free inquiry and open debate. For anyone who is willing to partake in finding the answers to questions that are at the heart of this debate, you are invited to a forum on the cartoons on Tuesday, February 21st and to an Open House on the life of the Prophet Muhammad on Wednesday, February 22nd.
Ayesha Hasan
Free speech not sufficient justification for printing cartoon
The United States of America is a land founded by people who fled religious oppression to establish a country buttressed by the protection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, in the light of the recent reaction to cartoons published in Denmark, I fear that these freedoms we hold so dear are being hijacked, and as an American Muslim I feel it is imperative to speak out.
I am a first generation Muslim in the United States, and I, like all 300 million Americans, take pride in the values and beliefs we uphold in our country. I come from a rich background, my grandmother being of Irish descent and my grandfather of Syrian ancestry. I attended Catholic High School in Milwaukee, all four years of which were enriching and wonderful. This diverse background has made me appreciative of the variety of ideas and cultures that are allowed to flourish freely in our country. The recent mockery of the Prophet Muhammad in 12 Danish cartoons hurt tremendously. Surely, we, as citizens of the United States, would come to the side of tolerance and understanding, yet in the past few days I have been much more devastated by the many that stand in support of these cartoons under the flag of free speech.
I understand that many cultures and faiths outside of Islam view the depiction of religious leaders in a different light, and I have heard many of my friends state that the cartoon "isn't really that bad". [sic] However, this perspective comes from those who does not profess the Islamic faith discussing what is and is not offensive to Muslims. Imagine the uproar if a Caucasian individual were to draw demeaning caricatures of Martin Luther King Jr. or if a person not of Jewish faith were to depict the Holocaust as a farce. These events and people are very sacred to their respective groups and no outsider, let alone any member of the group [sic] would dare defame these very sensitive issues. The same standard should be applied to Muslims and all peoples, for what they hold sacred should never be trumped by one's freedom of speech [sic] for it impinges on the rights of others to live in a tolerant [sic] respectful society. Thus, in all conflicts, we must come together and search for a solution. The solution lies in recognition that these cartoons were offensive and should not be endorsed in any way.
In this respect, the main contention argued by those in support of publishing the cartoons is the right for free press to make commentary on any issue it pleases in whatever light it sees fit. Many have purported that these cartoons are an effective means of discussing many ill trends associated with the Muslim World. The root of the dissension in the Muslim world however, is what message this cartoon sends to the audience at large. The cartoonists could have depicted any individual to make their point and surely a depiction of individuals more closely related to acts of violence and terror would have sufficed. However, the cartoonist chose to select the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), which sent a very insulting message to the Muslim world. It implied that Islam is inherently a religion of violence; it suggested that the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) advocated these acts of violence and was an overall defamation of the faith and belief of over 1 billion Muslims. In any social commentary, we must delineate between what is tasteful and what is beyond appropriate levels of ridicule. The underlying problem is the blanketing, extremely insulting nature of the cartoons that are tantamount to racism and bigotry in the eyes' of Muslims.
This in no way justifies the recent spread of violence in the Muslim world and violence of this sort should never be condoned. Nevertheless, as citizens of the United States of America, as much as we fervently denounce the violence, we should also strongly protest any form of speech that is offensive to a group's race, heritage or faith. Freedom of speech has its limitations. Within our very own country there are marked restrictions on our freedom of speech, where we are entrusted to not use this right to proclaim words of hatred or violence to a group or individual that would lead to dissolution of one's rights to live in a respectful manner.
Are these cartoons truly what our forefather's embodied in their idea of free speech? The right to freedom of speech is a beautiful thing, but at the same time it is not worth defaming what is sacred to an entire community. This is not an Islam versus West issue; it is not even a Muslim versus non-Muslim issue. It is an issue concerning tolerance and respect, a right of all people which has been tarnished by the blind allegiance to freedom of speech, regardless of the content of that speech. I believe these cartoons were not published in malice. However, they were published nonetheless and it is now our opportunity to condemn the cartoons and show the world our love of tolerance and respect to all.
Nasuh Malas
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 8:10am):
still hitting them with the sic attack, eh BH? you stay classy. oh wait, you never were.
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 9:50am):
blah'blah blah it is a flipping cartoon people you know the same thing that is used to make fun of BUSH on a daily basis?? So the Muslims get upset if someone draws a picture of Muhammed well cry me a flipping river. I am offended that so many idiots attend UW should I start burning dormitories of these idiots??? Once again the stupidity of the college masses raises it's head. Funny I don't remember any God promising anyone we had the God given right to live on this earth and not get offended. Besides to all the ignorant hate filled "lets destroy the earth to show our disgrace with cartoons portraying us as violent" Muslims. If the cartoons are so offensive, then let Allah deal with the perpetrators not YOU!!! Maybe you should take a passage out of the Christian Holy Book "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord"...
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 10:01am):
Is it traditionally your policy to print letters to the editor verbatim? I'm genuinely curious.
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 11:00am):
News just broke today that an Australian TV station aired more images of Abu Graib. Now to all of those staunch defenders of free speech and cartoons; what do you think about this? The US argues that these images cannot be shown because of the danger that it will cause US troops. Of course the cartoons have obviously caused violence throughout the world, including deaths, yet they are still being championed as free speech. I agree that both reproductions, that of the cartoons and the pictures, are well within the rights of the media, but it is important that your idea of free speech remain consistant. You can't pick and choose free speech when it is politically convenient. If we start hearing arguments again about how irresponsible it is to air images of Abu from the same people who are defending this then we will know that they don't care about free speech, only about letting certain hateful images out when they agree and stiffling other hateful images when they fear it.
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 11:20am):
How is the cartoon racist? It address religion.
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 1:19pm):
I am a Catholic. Recently there was a cartoon in the Badger Herald with priests in a bathroom stall looking for little boys.
Sure, I was a little offended, but I don't think the Herald is somehow at fault for publishing. They're publishing commentary on the world in which we live...in other words, fulfilling their journalistic duty.
Don't overshadow the unnecessaril violent response to a stupid comic.
And yes, I do think the Autralian station should air those photos. They should've been out long ago.
Free speech isn't easy, but it is necessary.
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 2:11pm):
"Free speech isn't easy, but it is necessary."
Haha, I can't believe you just paraphrased Eazy-E like that.
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 2:13pm):
It says in the solicitation for letters to the editor that "[s]ubmissions may be edited by the Herald accordingly."
I suppose that should read, "submissions may be edited, unless we disagree with you. In that case we'll print them exactly as written just to make sure that those who disagree with us look as silly as possible."
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 4:34pm):
"If we start hearing arguments again about how irresponsible it is to air images of Abu from the same people who are defending this then we will know that they don't care about free speech"
Get back to us if the Australian embassy is set on fire by a mob calling for chopping off heads - then maybe you'll have a point.
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 4:50pm):
Nice to see a news source with guts enough to print those cartoons without apology. Dont' listen to Temple et al. The cartoons, offensive or not, are news. And you are obligated to show us what the outrage is about.
A few years ago some controversy-seeking artist-wannabe displayed a photo of a crucifix in a jar of urine. There were howls of outrage from christians. I was among the offended. But that didn't justify censorship and neither does this.
It's nauseating to see newspapers cowering in the corner instead of standing up to this violent censorship. Any publication is bound to eventually print something offensive to someone somewhere. It's unavoidable in an age saturated with the perpetually offended. If you jettisoned every story that might offend someone the BadgerHerald would be a blank page.
Thanks for showing some backbone.
Art Blair.
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 5:00pm):
"I am a Catholic. Recently there was a cartoon in the Badger Herald with priests in a bathroom stall looking for little boys.
Sure, I was a little offended"
Well now you know that rioting, burning and theatening murder are what you need to do if wish to accomplish anything!
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 5:46pm):
Thank you, Badger Herald. Thank you for standing up to those who would cast off our rights of free speech for the fear of offending others. I am proud to be a dissertator at a university which has a paper that will stand in solidarity with other publications which refuse to submit to subjective notions of offensiveness. Today, the editor of the University of Illinois student paper has been suspended from his post for his bold decision. I sincerely hope that our great university does not take such actions against the Badger Herald staff. We should not bow to those who would control our speech - we should reject actions and decisions like those of Norway, which has just this week made blasphemy illegal. Instead, the University of Wisconsin should stand behind the Badger Herald and its presentation of images which the student population has a right to see.
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 5:54pm):
One thing I would like to know. Have there ever been any comics/statements/pictures etc. published over, say the last 50 years, in newspapers from predominately Islamic countries that comment on any Christian religion. Either it has never happened (which I would believe is HIGHLY unlikely), or all of us heathens and infidels (as we are called) just don't go around rioting, killing people, or destroying of property when it does.
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 5:56pm):
Yeah funny isn't it with the Muslims rioting in the streets, the Australian media decides to run photos of Abu Ghraib that even they admit were taken over two years ago. Why now, maybe to continue to fan the flames of Muslim hatred even more. I mean heck if they quit rioting and the world learns to live together whatever will the journalists do for a story.
Adam Sitte (February 16, 2006 @ 5:58pm):
"It's unavoidable in an age saturated with the perpetually offended"
this was more than a case of being offended, it was a direct bigoted assault on a group of people which served no newsworthy purpose. It is one thing to present dissenting opinion, it's quite another to throw symbols of intolerance at your readers faces... and to claim that they are admirable to do so. the BH's obligation is to report the news, not to provoke controversy. They showed no backbone here, just irresponsibility and immaturity.
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 5:59pm):
What's wrong with writing a bunch of sic's? If you want to submit an article and get respect for it, try and do it correctly. Otherwise, you deserve to be shown for the idiot you are.
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 7:19pm):
Actually it should be spelled "sics" because "sic's" implies that it belongs to sic. Next time try not looking like an idiot.
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 7:33pm):
So many people are quick to condemn the cartoons because they are offensive. Ever since you printed it, lots of different people have expressed their opinions. And that is the point. People are talking and building understanding about the different perspectives that are out there. That is why free speech is valuable and why you guys should be praised for sticking to your guns. We are mature enough not to be censored from the truth.
And another point. A reader wrote "It is unacceptable to print racist material. It is unacceptable to insult any religion or any race. The freedom of our country includes freedom for all people, to live how they see fit. You have helped to alienate 22% of the world." Where are these people everytime someone insults gays? Or makes a priest or Jesus joke? "Tolerance" is popular, but not everbody takes the time to think about it and practice it.
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 8:46pm):
"Where are these people everytime someone insults gays? Or makes a priest or Jesus joke? "Tolerance" is popular, but not everbody takes the time to think about it and practice it."
How does that in any way legitamize the cartoon. I feel that Muslims are slowly being demonized, just as the Jews were previously in Nazi Germany. The racism at that time was legitimized because people were frustrated with the economic/political situation and blamed the Jews and their success as a scape goat. We saw the terrible things that happened then and the cycle is beginning with Muslims. There is a legitimization of vary inflammatory remarks made to Muslims because its "ok" since a minority of Muslims have perpetrated crimes of terror. These crimes are wrong but there are over 1 billion Muslims that are white, black, asian , latino etc... We should not stray away from the focus. The cartoons are wrong, plain and simple. We can discuss the issue, but there is a way to discuss and a way to insult. Paul Temple discussed this point clearly. Thanks everyone and I hope a greater solution can be stemmed from all this.
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 8:51pm):
"but at the same time it is not worth defaming what is sacred to an entire community"
Ever heard of the "Piss Christ"? There was a big stink when some Christain fundies just wanted to prevent the government from paying the bill for it, much less what would have happened if anyone had attempted to prevent the "artist" from showing his "work".
Why is it that only the Islamic blasphemy rules must be observed by all people? Could it be the violence and threats of murder by Muslims?
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 8:58pm):
Pagan Origins
Islam's origins have been traced back by scholars to the ancient fertility religion of the worship of the moon god which was always the dominant religion of Arabia. The moon god was worshipped by praying toward Mecca several times a day, making an annual pilgrimage to the Kabah which was a temple of the moon god, running around the Kabah seven times, caressing an idol of a black stone set in the wall of the Kabah, running between two hills, making animal sacrifices, gathering on Fridays for prayers, giving alms to the poor, etc.. These were pagan rites practiced by the Arabs long before Muhammad was born.
The Crescent Moon
What religion today practices the pagan rites of the moon god? Islam! This explains why the crescent moon is the symbol of Islam. It is placed on top of mosques and minarets and displayed on hats, flags, rugs, amulets and even jewelry. Every time you see the Muslim symbol of a crescent moon, you are seeing the ancient symbol of the moon god.
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 9:15pm):
Surrender on the cartoon front will eventually lead to burkas on all women.
***
Female Reporter Stoned at Turkish Cartoon Protest
"We were doing our job as journalists. But apparently some people found that not covering my head was provocative. They called me a blasphemer while I was sitting on the bus. They threw stones and shoes. As a reporter from Konya I was ashamed."
Aliye Cetinkaya
Sunday, Feb. 12, 2006
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/female-reporter-stoned-at-turkish.html
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 9:40pm):
The BH is simply further fueling hatred targeting Muslims
Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 11:55pm):
Ah, the joys of plagirizing from random websites. Pagan religion, moon God? Care to back that up with something other than the interesting book of interesting author Robert Morey?
I'll quote from the Qur'an for you:
Adore not the sun and the moon, but adore Allah who created them ... (Qur'an 41:37).
For the person who mentioned the female Turkish reporter, I suggest that you read up on the painful history of headscarves in Turkey. This is coming from me, a Female Turkish Journalism major who proudly wears her scarf.
I do find it laughable when people talk about the "courage of Badger Herald." If anything read what ombudsman wrote in today's Herald. The title is "Herald fails to adequately justify publication of controversial cartoon."
While we are in the business of copying and pasting, lets look at what hate speech causes right in the US. "FBI Investigating Mich. Mosque Attacks." " Authorities are investigating a series of attacks on Detroit-area Muslims, including an assault on a cleric who was hit with a shovel and reports that a group of youths threw shoes at worshippers in a mosque." Shoe's seem to be popular choice of weapons for hate crimes.
Finally, kudos to Adam and his intelligent commentary.
Anonymous (February 17, 2006 @ 12:33am):
After reading so much hate filled comments, I wonder about two things:
1- Where is the BH editorial board to come and look at a by-product of their poorly judged decision in a hope of stirring a positive debate? Is this what you guys call positive? To me, it is simply sickening.
2- Are these guys really students of a reputable university like UW or did they drop out of primary school? I wish we could go back to the times of hand written letters. At least the world would not get to know the hatred that is in store in our youth. Shame on you guys. You bring bad name to this community!!!
Anonymous (February 18, 2006 @ 12:14pm):
I am a UW alum who lives currently in Wisconsin. I have moved back here, temporarily, because my husband, an American soldier, is about to be deployed to Afghanistan to help bring peace to the Muslim countries over there. I am beside myself with concern after the Muslims' extreme reaction to the cartoon. It has only heightened my all ready grave concern for my husband's safety in that area of the world. It is entirely obvious to me that based on the reaction of the people there that they are not ready for democracy. They aren't grasping what it means. Freedom of speech is the common easy answer to respond with when supporting the printing of the cartoon. Frankly, it goes way beyond that in principle. Having a free society means that one person has the legal right to live/say/do whatever they wish as long as it does not enfringe on another's rights. Being free in this country means you can stand up and yell at the top of your lungs against another while he is standing and yelling at the top of his against you. Total disagreement in point, but total agreement in both of you being allowed to speak it. Was this cartoon a cheap shot at the Muslim world? Maybe. Was is completely stupid and disrespectful? Of course. But in order to live in a free society, you have to be aware that stupid people live here too. The extreme reaction of the Muslim world only illustrates that they are not equipped to handle what democracy really means. And so it begs us to wonder, will they ever be ready and are we really the ones to bring them to it? I am left wondering that as my husband is preparing to ship over there. I am not sure the efforts here will be worth it. After all you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it. What good is it to bring a free society to people who cannot seem to handle all that it entails? Tolerance is a tough lesson that the US is still trying to master after some 200 years. The Middle East is not even in the classroom on that one. Rioting and killing people over this cartoon is so anciently barbaric, the word civilized society doesn't even seem to apply to them. How do you present freedoms to a place where a senseless cartoon can cause such overwhelming violence? And yet here we are left to witness these weak attempts at change and here we are left to suffer great losses of our family members and fellow countrymen/women.
It truly is a very scary time. I wonder if you ask those writing in asking for the apology from the Badger Herald, would you burn a building, or bomb a embassy, or kill a neighbor because of the cartoon, most if not all would answer no. That is the difference between being in a free society and understanding that freedom has responsibility and rules. Those that react with violence, just don't get it. And so really the question is not can they sustain a democratic government, but rather are they even able to fully understand what democracy means?
Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 9:59pm):
Don't compare your situation (like the pic. of Abu Graib on Australian TV) and the cartoons that were published. If you don't feel offended about it, then just don't drag all of the Muslim into the same shoe. Don't expect the Muslim to feel the same as you.
Anonymous (February 21, 2006 @ 10:13am):
"Don't expect the Muslim to feel the same as you."
I don't, I just expect the Muslim not to murder anyone because of a cartoon. Is that too much to ask?
