There is a difference between freedom of speech and provocation

[JCMach1]

This cartoon is at the heart of the matter



Written across the bomb (in Arabic) are the tenets of the Muslim religion...

"There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet..."

Provocation? Absolutely! It doesn't excuse violence, or violents acts... However, it is actively trying to secure such a reaction.

[JCMach1]

1. Some more thoughts on this

If you understand Islam, you realize that the cartoons DO rise to that level.

While free speech allows for provocation in language, there is a moral imperative not to employ it.


Sure I can call somone the worst names, but probably I won't. Sure I could scream about race and religion using the worse terms. More than likely I won't.

However, there are peaceful ways of dealing with such provocation and many formulas to follow (Gandhi, MLK).

Sometimes, even that doesn't work....

Rulers like Bashar Assad and others milk an issue for political gain...

And yes (gulp) REALLY angry people sometimes do bad things, but don't forget the media manipulates and distorts the face of anger.

SO, they are not JUST cartoons. They imply a religious and moral slur against all Muslim people. Does that give anyone the right to attack and burn?

No, it only takes a COALITION OF THE WILLING acting to burn it down. Muslims have learned well from the Bush Doctrine.

[no name no slogan]

2. I liken it to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater

The only reason the publishers ran the cartoons was to provoke a reaction (hopefully violent, from the publishers' point of view) from Muslims. That, to me, is despicable.

Freedom of speech is a great thing; however, when you have this freedom, you also have responsibility to use it wisely.

[PsychoDad]

3. They obtained the reaction they wanted.

It's also telling that cartoons depicting Muhammad(saw) and Islam in a negitive way are ok while the same newspaper refused to run cartoons of Christ.

Peace.