A Pilgrim’s Digression

All weekend, across the Muslim world, thousands have been rioting, burning embassies, and generally trying to intimidate the western world. Now in Afghanistan, four of the protestors have been killed while trying to storm the United States Air base in Bagram.

Are these Muslims angry about the invasion of Iraq by the United States? Are they angry about Muslim terrorists murdering other innocent Muslims in the name of God?

No, they are angry because several European newspapers printed cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed, sometimes unflatteringly.

They justify their anger and violence out of a sense that once again, Islam and its practitioners have been disrespected. So, apparently, the best way to demonstrate that Islam is worthy of respect is to put on a thuggish display of violence.

My question is, why won’t the American media publish these cartoons as a show of solidarity with Europe, with whom we are culturally and politically aligned? The Danish embassy has been torched; all across the Middle East, people are burning Danish flags and burning Danes in effigy. In Iraq, one of the Sunni insurgent groups went so far as to call for Muslims to “catch some Danish people and cut them into pieces” (Washington Post, Lebanon Protesters Set Embassy Afire).

How does America respond? By condemning the European newspapers that published the cartoons. By essentially condemning freedom of speech, the one right that is the cornerstone of a free and democratic society.

CNN’s reporting on this story has been particularly chickenshit. The editors have consistently blurred the cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban to the point that it is indecipherable. I am really quite astonished by that. CNN says it is not showing the cartoons out of respect for Muslims, but really, isn’t that just an excuse for cowardice?

To some extent, CNN can’t be blamed for being a bit gun shy. After reports of American soldiers desecrating the Koran stirred unrest in Afghanistan and elsewhere, I imagine editors across the media landscape are betting they will also be blamed for any anti-American riots that would result from printing or showing the cartoons.

Yet I still can’t help but feel a little piqued that we live in a supposedly free and brave society, a society that “does not negotiate with terrorists,” and yet here we are turning our backs on a friend, Denmark, whose newspapers did nothing wrong by challenging the Islamic ban on depicting Mohammed.

Denmark has at least 500 soldiers in Iraq today. Why should they keep them there, if America won’t support them when the Islamic fanatics turn up the heat?

I have little sympathy with those who claim offense at these cartoons. In an article today, The Washington Post tries to discover why American Muslims aren’t reacting violently to the cartoons (hint: maybe they don’t know where to buy Danish products to burn). The conclusion seems to be that because the American government has reacted with cowardice by condemning the cartoons, American Muslims are largely satisfied, though still angry.

Even so, some of the excuses for the violence that I’ve read, coming out of the mouths of U.S. Muslims, are just astoundingly stupid. One Washington area teenager is quoted as saying, “If somebody showed a picture of the pope with a bomb on his head, that would cause a great public outcry. Nobody would be talking about freedom of speech.”

Sorry, but that comparison is a non starter: Christianity and in particular the Pope and pederastic Priests are routinely caricatured in the media. Sure, there may be occasional protests by Christians. Yet no embassies have been burned by a single Christian, as far as I know. Back in July 2005, a cartoon in Harper’s Magazine depicted Jesus as a Republican, teaching kids about Homophobia and “disdain for Mexicans,” among other values. Where were the Christian riots?

Another Washington-area teacher, Uzma Unus, is quoted as saying, “Technically, you have the right to walk into a crowded theater and yell ‘Fire.’ But is that responsible?” I hope Unus does not teach law, because apparently no one has told her that “technically,” you can’t walk into a crowded theater and yell fire. It’s against the law. That’s the only limit to free speech: where your speech results in injury to someone else.

Now, one might make a case that a newspaper that publishes these cartoons is, in effect, yelling fire in a crowded theater. That may be CNN’s reasoning for not showing us the cartoons. However, to take the analogy to its ridiculous conclusion, when the theater patrons respond to a yell of fire by burning down the theater themselves, can the original person who yelled fire really be held solely accountable?

And to what extent should our media censor itself because of an anticipated negative reaction? If the story in question serves a high purpose, I think the story should run and damn the consequences.

In the case of the Koran desecration story, if that story had been true, certainly it was not only the right, but also the duty, of the media to publish the story.

However, does breaking the Islamic ban on publishing a depiction of Mohammed amount to such a high purpose, or does it amount to only a provocation? I think it serves a high purpose. In a free society, no one is immune from criticism, and there are no sacred cows. Sorry, Mohammed. If Jesus can be depicted as a hippy, and Pat Robertson doesn’t take to the streets and burn down his local Whole Foods store, then anything goes in a free society.