We haven't Westernized the Islamic world. But the Islamic world is making progress (however glacial) de-Westernizing us. The Illini Media Company fired Daily Illini editor Acton Gorton for publishing the allegedly controversial European cartoons featuring depictions of Muhammad. The board that unanimously voted to fire the University of Illinois student editor hides behind a vague claim that Gorton didn't adequately discuss his decision to run the cartoons with others at the paper, but its suspension of the paper's opinions-page editor, for the same ostensible reason it fired Gorton, belies that claim. Gorton obviously discussed running the cartoons with others at the paper; he just didn't reach the conclusion the Illini Media Company's board wanted him to. The real reason they fired Gorton is that he provided information on the world's top news story of early February. Isn't that what newspaper editors are supposed to do?

Ah yes, the "tolerance" of the left rears it's head. We're for free speech, as long as we agree!

Actually, thet should be tolerance of most of Academia. I do know some lefties who are for free speech, even if they disagree.

Buchanan's 'Death of the West' says it all.

It's very disconcerting to observe that Western based cultures lack the backbone and resolve to take a stand and push back on what we would consider sub-cultures. Or, at least in our world, cultures that are minorities. Have we become so socially and intellectually evolved that we are over sensitized and politically correct to a fault? Or have we just gotten lazy and weak?

Sorry state.

asdf

I choose both.

asdf, have you noticed however that Buchanan has taken the position that it was wrong to have created and released the cartoons?
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48786

I vote for lazy and weak.

Buchanan has a point, but the fact of the matter is that Muslim terrorists and murderers blashpheme God and sacrilege 'the prophet' more than the Western atheists and Christians and Jews do with a little cartoon.

What matters to them is not the insult against God or 'the prophet,' but who does the insulting.

BS, I don't follow. How are the Islamic terrorists blaspheming Allah and committing sacrilege against Mohammed?

Obi Juan: Let's focus on the blasphemy charge: Islamic terrorists kill random innocent people and claim to do it in Allah's name.

To claim that one's self has God's special characteristics is a form of blasphemy. To kill random people is to claim for oneself a special perogative of God. Thus, it is a form of blasphemy=making oneself out to be God.

Also, to imply that something unholy is true of God is a form of blasphemy. To commit evil acts in God's name is to attribute evil to God, and implies something unholy of God. Thus it is a form of blasphemy=denying that God is really God.

No?

I dunno, how is blasphemy defined in Islam?

All your statements seem to align with Christian theology. Is Islamic theology really a mirror image of Christian theology?

I assume they have different meanings for what is unholy, who is innocent, what is evil, and what is good.

In Christianity to kill the innocent is outright condemned. To even kill the guilty is problematic, and few countries in the West have the death penalty anymore. But in Islamic countries there seems to be little problem with killing the guilty. Are there Imams that speak out against the death penalty in the Arab world?

OJ: I assume that blasphemy has the same meaning in both religions. If it is defined differently in Islam, then it shouldn't be translated as blasphemy.

Also, you don't need to intend to blaspheme to blaspheme. So if Christianity is true then the atheist who says hateful things about J of N is a blasphemer. If Islam is true, I'm automatically a blaphemer for saying its a bunch of bunk. Same with the Muslim who does something evil and then says he is acting in God's name. It doesn't matter if the terrorist thinks killing random people is good or bad, if it is true that it is bad (which many Muslims grant) and he does it in God's name, he is a blasphemer. Good reason, I think, not to go around saying you are acting in God's name.

OB: Although I don’t agree with Buchanan’s overall position that we should have to tread lightly with regard to critiquing any religion and especially Muslims, I think he brings up a good point. Many Muslims are as devout and serious about their beliefs today as Christians used to be. And the bar has been set low by Muslims in terms of tolerance of anything they consider blasphemy against their religion. There was a time not too long ago that anything considered blasphemy against Christians was met with some of the same and many times worse demonstrations of intolerance.

That said, in this day and age, in many countries cultural and social evolution have made it less of a crime to comment on another’s religious beliefs or organization.

This cartoon flap works to demonstrate just how backward some of these countries and their populations are. I think that if certain elements in the West where free speech is the rule take it upon themselves to criticize or comment on Muslims, even if it causes outrage in Muslim communities, it should be understood that cultural differences make it so. But, it’s obviously not because we are dealing with primitives.

Nevertheless, people in the West need to stand up and defend their freedoms however wrong those freedoms are thought to be by the rest of the world.

This is a classic. No military recruiters but plenty of room for a former member of the Taliban. Now that's tolerance!

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opyou164663605mar16,0,2321316.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

A fuller presentation of Buchanan's take on the Cartoon Intifada is part of the two article cover stories of the March 13th American Conservative.

First is this article by Paul Belien on the politics behind the Danish Imams provocation of this flap: http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_03_13/cover.html

Then comes Buchanan's take on how the U.S. should react to this controversy:
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_03_13/feature.html

I think one of the key insights Buchanan makes is to ask, well, to what end do we engage in fanning the flames of Muslim anger? He suggests that there are radicals on both sides that are seeking continued and major conflict between the wets and Islam. Basically, that Osama's desired war between the Muslim world and the infidels is welcomed and eagerly anticipated by the neocon/neoliberal power elite of the west. I think he is right.

The Muslim world and the "infidels" have been at war, nearly without cease, since the 7th century.