Bjørn Stærk blog - Muhammed cartoons have got everyone confused

John Arthur | 2006-02-04 16:02 | Link

Yes, This is about freedom of speech, and yes, it is imporant to stand firm. If the West backs down, you can be sure there will be another issue in a week or two.

At the bottom of this is the fact that rage and anger is the only thing that makes Muslims respected. They are, for the most part, miserable. They have found that protests such as these give them the respect that they can't get otherwise. After all, they can't protest their corrupt societies or dispotic governments.

And how can any 'disrespect' a man like Mohammad?
Consider the life of the man Mohammed. Read Islam’s own accounts of the deeds of this person. In case you are uninformed, think about the morals of a person that conducted up to 40 raids on unsuspecting caravans and villages; consider the murders and brutal tortures he ordered; ponder the implications of his involvement in slavery and the sexual use of female captives; mull about his discriminatory attitude towards women; meditate on the words of anger and hate directed at infidels; examine the principle of a man who set rules for others, but made special exceptions for himself; and remember the incident of wife-beating recorded in the hadiths - against his favorite wife and child bride no less.

So, how can anybody say that these cartoons show "lack of respect"?

How about a little respect for the innocent victims of the man Muslims so dearly love? How about a little respect for honesty and truth?

John Arthur, USA | 2006-02-04 16:09 | Link

Oh yes, and what about the 3 extra cartoons that Danish Imamas added to the 12 originally published in the newspaper?

These were much more vile than any of the original ones. Why aren't Muslims threatening the Muslims leaders? These 3 drawings were added with the sole purpose of promoting hate and anger. It seems that the 12 published cartoons weren't offensive enough to generate the desired level of hate in Islamic countries. So, Infidels publishing silly cartoons about Mohammad, bad, Muslims publishing vile cartoons about their dear prophet, good. What a great religion is this Islam!

John aka Kactuz

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-02-04 16:16 | Link

John Arthur: They are, for the most part, miserable. They have found that protests such as these give them the respect that they can't get otherwise.

Is this a causal explanation of the approach of Muslims towards European blasphemy, or are you just throwing words up in the air because of the pretty colours they make? I mean, do you literally believe that this sentence is true, that Muslims "learn" that the only way they can get respect in Europe is by being sensitive to criticism? Do you not think it is more likely that they, like Christians, genuinely feel insulted when others say bad things about their religion, and that, like many Christians, having grown up with the firm belief that their religion is obviously True, they believe they have a right to protect it against criticism? After all, Muslims have all the respect they need in Muslim countries, and yet they deal far more harshly with blasphemy there than European Muslims have proposed. If your theory was right, it would be the other way around.

And what does "miserable" mean, anyway? Are Muslims unhappy? Why do you believe this?

And concerning Muhammed as a historical person, is it not more relevant who Muslims believe he was than who he really was?

No, I'm sorry .. It's been so long since I had an Islam debate going here I've forgotten that when it comes to criticizing Muslims, reality is irrelevant. All that matters is pretty words. Never mind.

Anthony | 2006-02-04 18:06 | Link

"And concerning Muhammed as a historical person, is it not more relevant who Muslims believe he was than who he really was?"

Could you please elaborate on that? I personally don't see why that would be more relevant.

You have to remember that for Muslims, Muhammed is considered a perfect human being, and an example to be followed by all people for all time. Naturally, if he were perfect, then his actions and behaviour would certainly reflect that. Considering the kind of person the historical Muhammed actually was (as outlined by John Arthur above), it is worrying that he is held in such high regard.

Whenever confronted with Muhammed's actions, Muslims can conclude that Muhammed was not perfect after all, or they can conclude that since he was perfect, his behaviour and actions were necessarily perfect as well. The latter conclusion should worry us, considering the knowledge we have on Muhammed as a historical person.

Of course, some Muslims would complain that the "allegations" about Muhammed are untrue. This is why I think Muslims should be more educated about who Muhammed really was. (A consequence of this could be that some Muslims would reconsider their allegiance to Islam after learning more about its founder.)

Another point is that it should be possible to criticize the "historical Muhammed" without having to fear the consequences of a mismatch between the stories about the historical and the "religious" (for want of a better word) Muhammed.

"No, I'm sorry .. It's been so long since I had an Islam debate going here I've forgotten that when it comes to criticizing Muslims, reality is irrelevant. All that matters is pretty words. Never mind."

You're resorting to whining this early in the debate? How disappointing.

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-02-04 18:35 | Link

Anthony: Could you please elaborate on that? I personally don't see why that would be more relevant.

Muslims do not care about the historical Muhammed, no more than Christians care about the historical Jesus. They think they do, obviously, but history is science, and the kind of "history" believers care about is the legendary kind. So the real Muhammed is important to understanding present-day Islam only to the degree that Muhammed believe in him.

Let me ask you a question. Imagine that historians decide tomorrow that Jesus did not preach what Christians today say he preached. He did not believe he was sent to earth to die for the sins of humanity, like Paul said, he believed he had been sent to herald a literal Kingdom of God on earth, one that would be created there and then. How would Christians react to this theory? Would they try to adjust their beliefs accordingly, or would they conclude that the historians were wrong? As a matter of fact there is such a theory, not the only such theory but a plausible one. Christians pay no attention to it whatsoever, nor to any other genuinely historical theories about their religion that contradict the dogmas of their faith. Would you really expect them to? And would you, if you believed in this theory, conclude that only this historical Jesus is important to understanding present-day Christianity, and the fake "died-for-our-sins" legendary Jesus was not? Of course not.

It's the same with Muhammed. Understanding a belief means .. well, understanding what believers believe, even if those beliefs are unhistorical, and even if there exist genuine historical theories that contradict those beliefs.

If Muslims believe that Muhammed was a good man, then the Muhammed of Islam was a good man. Even if the historical Muhammed was not. (Actually a better comparison would be between Muhammed and Yahveh .. if Christians and Jews can believe in a good God despite all the horrors in the Old Testament, it's not surprising that Muslims can believe that Muhammed was good.)

You're resorting to whining this early in the debate? How disappointing.

I was just reminded of why I stopped writing about Islam in the first place. I know where this is heading, and 1) it is very very dull, and 2) will end up having nothing whatsoever to do with the Muhammed cartoons.

JohnA | 2006-02-04 21:20 | Link

Bjørn Stærk:
“…And what does "miserable" mean, anyway? Are Muslims unhappy? Why do you believe this?”

I agree with John Arthur. Look at the facts – there are 55-56 countries in the world where Islam is either the dominant or the only accepted religion. According to a 2003 paper published by USC/Center for democratic studies, a fairly strong argument can be made that none of them can be viewed as well-functioning democracies. I think it’s safe to say that this affects the actual liberties the inhabitants of these countries enjoy, or more likely, are deprived of. I read today the argument being made by a German author, Hans Magnus Enzensberger, that if you exclude oil revenues, the sum total of value created in Arab countries equals Nokia’s revenues. I have no way of telling if that’s true or not at this point, but assuming it is, it’s fair to say this and it’s consequences certainly don’t add to happiness in Arab countries. Furthermore, with the exception of a few small gulf states and one large one, are any Muslim countries well off financially? Or culturally for that matter – hasn’t Islam replaced actual culture to a large degree? And what does Islam preach – happiness in this life or the next? Why is it that the majority of civil unrest, as well as regional conflict, take place in or close to Muslim countries? In short, what have Muslims to be happy about?

Palode, Norway | 2006-02-04 21:32 | Link

I guess you would say I belong to the "multiculturalist left", but I would not support censorship of racism in any way. I think the recent debate had showed that the norwegian right and left have pretty much the same view on freedom of speech. Censhorship is society's equivalent to psychological denial. What you try to hide away will come back to hit you in the face.

As for norwegian bloggers posing as knights in shining armour: they are free to do so, but they should expect the ridicule they deserve. And I'm looking forward to see how they tackle all the racist sludge that's starting to seep out of the sewers in their wake.

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-02-04 21:44 | Link

JohnA: Why is it that the majority of civil unrest, as well as regional conflict, take place in or close to Muslim countries? In short, what have Muslims to be happy about?

I took John Arthur to mean that he was talking about European Muslims, but on second reading maybe he wasn't. If so, yes, there are a lot of things that are wrong with Arab countries. Places like Syria, where the Norwegian and Danish embassies were burned today, are dysfunctional societies. But I don't find that conflict as relevant to us as the one between Muslim immigrants and native Europeans. Arab mobs go mad for some insane reason, and their corrupt government asks our government to do something, and our government offers a diplomatic apology -- this isn't news. It's happening to us for a change, and that makes us interested, but it's really just another variation on an old theme. Important for the Arabs, but this pressure won't have any effects on European freedom of speech.

European Muslims, on the other hand, can have an effect, but only because they make modest demands, demands that are compatible with Christian and multiculturalist ideas about blasphemy and racism. So what they do is relevant to us, but it's also a completely different situatioin. We can't throw "the Muslims" into one group here and talk about how "the Muslims" shouldn't burn our embassies over this. Arab Muslism burn embassies. Norwegian Muslims talk to newspaper reporters about the need to protect minorities against hate speech. Which isn't good, but different.

And I still think "miserable" is a lazy way to dismiss a large group of people, and a bad explanation for what's happening. It's clearly on the right track, but it's like "they hate us because we're successful", a simple and vaguely true idea we embrace because it's comforting, but doesn't give us any real knowledge about the problem.

Susan | 2006-02-04 22:35 | Link

I think it is Bjorn who is confused by the Cartoon Jihad, but who projects his confusion on everybody else.

In as mentally asking himself, "How do I stay in the good graces of my Islamophile friend Oyvind and his crowd of sanctimonious multi-cultis while at the same time being completely repulsed by the anti-freedom antics of the Religion of
Pieces"?

There isn't any neutral ground Bjorn. Either you are for freedom and the West, or not.

I was myself forced to choose between freedom and the West, and my own beloved child, a convert to Islam.

I chose freedom.

Anthony | 2006-02-04 22:41 | Link

"I guess you would say I belong to the "multiculturalist left", but I would not support censorship of racism in any way."

Palode, why do you bring up racism here? The case about the Muhammed cartoons has nothing to do with racial issues, and is therefore clearly not racist.

Palode, Norway | 2006-02-05 00:39 | Link

Anthony: I agree - the cartoons and the debate is not linked directly to racial issues. My comment was in response to something Bjørn wrote in the post. My fault, I should have qouted him in my first comment. Bjørn wrote:
"And perhaps even the multiculturalist left will feel some dissonance as they hear the arguments they use for censorship of racism repeated by social conservatives who want to protect the image of a patriarchal and oppressive superstition."

So it's a response to Bjørn tryin to make a point about the norwegian left wanting to censor racistic discourse. He created a false impression, I wanted to rectify it.

JohnA, Norway | 2006-02-05 00:42 | Link

Palode:
“I guess you would say I belong to the "multiculturalist left", but I would not support censorship of racism in any way. I think the recent debate had showed that the norwegian right and left have pretty much the same view on freedom of speech. Censhorship is society's equivalent to psychological denial. What you try to hide away will come back to hit you in the face.”

I disagree. You haven’t got the faintest idea what the political right in Norway thinks about the freedom of speech, simply because they are at odds with themselves about what to believe, and because there is not a single major newspaper carrying conservative or right-wing politics or opinions on the freedom of speech. Furthermore, political correctness, as defined by the “multicultural left” is carrying the day. Could it be because 75% of journalist vote left? Could be a symptom of something that what used to be the leading conservative newspaper, Aftenposten, is run by old communists, while all the leftie newspapers are still run by same old lefties as before, and the unions? If I were a “multicultural leftist” I would start to get bored with all the conformity and consensus, not to speak of the lack of opposition, in the “major opinion-carrying press” as it is today. Thank God for Jyllands-Posten!

Palode:
“As for norwegian bloggers posing as knights in shining armour: they are free to do so, but they should expect the ridicule they deserve. And I'm looking forward to see how they tackle all the racist sludge that's starting to seep out of the sewers in their wake.”

Why should they deserve ridicule? Because their opinions differ from yours and the politically correct left? But of course, that’s the way it works these days, here in our social democratic paradise: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil – there is no evil. You are so supreme in your own conviction of being right that you have lost perspective of history as well as reality, that you’re in for a really big surprise the day the balloon pops.

Andrew X, USA | 2006-02-05 00:49 | Link

Bjorn, you might be over-thinking this.

I see you are focused, probably with good reason, on Euro-Muslims, and others are posting about a broader canvas, and that maybe the dissonance.

But you say "We can't throw "the Muslims" into one group here....", when in fact you can sort out groups in this issue with great clarity.

Question to each resident of Europe, or the West, or the world even...

Does this newspaper have the right to publish these cartoons or not?

If the answer is 'No', the respondent is not an advocate of free society. It really is that simple. Yes, we restrict speech such as genuine security secrets, or speech that might cause a life-threatening panic or the like, but those are not purely issues of "I don't like what you say, so you have no right to say it".

To restrict the latter is an "xxxx" society, but it is not a free one. That's pretty simple.

I won't speak for Europeans, but I know precisely what I would say to anyone who intends to remove my right of free speech based upon their "feelings". I would say.... " [ insert proper spelling of the 'clack clack' of a shotgun locking and loading here.] "

So this is a big and dangerous issue. I do not see how to square the circle. The Islamic faith is hugely political, as to how society ought to be structured, per the prophet. Then it claims that prophet to be categorically off-limits to even drawing, much less criticism.

Well, forget it. I ain't asking for permission to criticize the faith or it's leader, and given the slanders waged against the jewish faith coming out of Islam, it's damn insulting to even hint that I should.

So the question, for European Muslims in particular, is clear... Islamic society or a free one? Because this entire issue is about the rapidly dawning on us all fact that the two are mutually exclusive.

And those who flee the former to come to the latter specifically because of the latter's wealth, freedom, and technology, and then advocate turning the latter into the former, risk raising a raging firestorm of righteous wrath, and a well-deserved one at that.

JohnA, Norway | 2006-02-05 01:04 | Link

Palode:
“So it's a response to Bjørn tryin to make a point about the norwegian left wanting to censor racistic discourse. He created a false impression, I wanted to rectify it.”

Again I must disagree with you, as well as give Bjørn credit for seeing things as they are. The test being one of principle: where is the politically correct left when Christians and the Christian church is being ridiculed, or even blasphemed? Why should Islam receive special considerations? Why should we not question Islam and its teachings, and how it relates to our modern society the same way we question the Bible on issues such as abortion, homosexuality, common-law marriage, and a number of other issues? Why is that you deem alternative ideas to your own as racist (I’m assuming you do, since that is the current consensus in Norway – if I’m mistaken I apologise) – for example the issue of immigration: to have the opinion that free immigration (more or less) is not a good thing, is definitely inferior as opinions go and racist to boot. Who wants to stand out as being a moron and a racist? Because that’s what happens if you do, thanks to the “major opinbion-carrying press”. And it isn’t this actually a limiting factor in our freedom of speech?

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2006-02-05 01:40 | Link

Why should Islam receive special considerations?.

It should not.

Several weeks back, before this whole thing broke out to become what it is today, I was considering to publish some of the cartoons from Jyllandsposten. It wasn't to defend freedom of speech, nor to fight against the stupid blasphemy laws of Norway, it was rather because I thought people should see what the discussion was all about.

I did not publish them, instead ending up - two weeks ago - publishing a completely different picture of Muhammed, a wonderful piece of Persian art.

There were two major reasons for that; the first of them being that I did not like the Jyllandposten cartoons very much. They were not funny, some of them were just plain dull (a picture of a guy next to a camel, come on), others were not that different from cartoons I've seen before, depicting Jews (the kind of cartoons that are occassionally seen in Western newspapers and rather regularily in Arab ones).

The best one of them was the one with heaven running out of virgins.

Now, Jesus and Mo, published by the Freethinker is funny, and so was some of the cartoons published in Het Nieuwsblad here in Belgium (Belgian cartoons were always the best, or what?).

The "written" drawing in Le Monde was a piece of art.

The second reason I did not publish them was copyright. I am no strong believer in the current copyright laws, but I do believe that people have a right to their own work. It is a paranthesis in this case, but is striking to see Norwegian right-wingers in support of the current copyright laws breaking them carelessly when it suits their debate. In short; I would not mind them publishing more Muhammad-pictures, but how hard can it be for a blogger to make one himself or alternatively dig up one that is not copyrighted?

I mean there are public domain pictures out there that make Jyllandsposten look bleak.

Of course, I would not have to like those pictures either, and I would probably not post them myself, just like I would not walk in a Nazi parade just to defend freedom-of-speech for Nazis. But freedom of speech is freedom of speech; and that is not merely an important "value of the West", it is a necessary piece in any ideology that does not want to turn sour.

As I wrote in the post Bjørn linked to; the really illustrative thing about this is what problems we get into when religious conservatism gets to rule.

And in the Muslim world religious conservatism stands much, much stronger than Christian conservatism anywhere in the Western world. Not seldomly, it is also more extreme. The results should not be too surprising, but they are sad; I will join in with the blogger Big Pharaoh on that one:

See ladies and gentlemen, this is what's drawing this region backwards into the abyss of stupidity and irrationality. We invoke religion in everything. We see everything through the prism of religion. Our false religiosity that lacks the power of our God-given mind has crippled our ability to rationalize and make sound judgements and come up with reasonable conclusions.

Then there is the clash of civilizations. Becoming a prophecy that bring itself true; at least anti-Muslim and Muslim extremist (and a few on the moronic left who'll support anyone who's against the US) have one thing in common. That leaves an agnostic praying.

Palode, Norway | 2006-02-05 02:10 | Link

JohnA: "You are so supreme in your own conviction of being right that you have lost perspective of history as well as reality,"

Wow, what can I say. You seem to have well-founded opinions, you are articulate and I guess I would think of you as a smart guy if I met you in a real-life debate. But see, I have a weakness - I'm allergic to some of the debate-techniques you employ. It's not your fault, it's just that when people who do not know me label me like you did in the above qoute, I see no hope for rational discussion. Call me a wuss, but happily I can think of better things to do with my spare time than take abuse on a weblog.

I can only ask humbly that you respect that. If you do, I'll think of you as a stand-up guy. But if you feel the urge to put some more labels on me, or maybe ridicule me, I at least hope you get some satisfaction out of it. I don't.

JohnA, Norway | 2006-02-05 07:30 | Link

Palode:
"I can only ask humbly that you respect that. If you do, I'll think of you as a stand-up guy. But if you feel the urge to put some more labels on me, or maybe ridicule me, I at least hope you get some satisfaction out of it. I don't."

Of course I respect that. I'm not interested in any pissing contest when it comes to discussions, in blogs or elsewhere, but I would hope that you yourself might see that what you wrote is easily perceived in exactly the way you describe above. Because I felt that, I also felt justified in putting it on a point.

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-02-05 09:08 | Link

Andrew X: Does this newspaper have the right to publish these cartoons or not? If the answer is 'No', the respondent is not an advocate of free society. It really is that simple. .. To restrict the latter is an "xxxx" society, but it is not a free one. That's pretty simple.

If so, Norway is not a free society. We have laws against hate speech, as many European countries do. Are we then to conclude that, as we're already unfree, there's no point in denying Muslims even stricter censorship? As you said, you're either a free society or not, very simple, and we're not, so it doesn't matter what we do. But that would be ridiculous. In software terms, freedom is an integer, not a boolean which is either on or off. In the same way, there's a great difference between what many European Muslims want (a real blasphemy law), and what many Arab Muslims want (death to the infidels! or whatever).

So you can't talk about "the Muslims" here as wanting one thing, (or even two). You can't talk about freedom being either there or not, or of someone being either on the Right Side or the Wrong Side.

Are Karlsen | 2006-02-05 11:44 | Link

Bjørn Stærk: Imagine that historians decide tomorrow that Jesus did not preach what Christians today say he preached. He did not believe he was sent to earth to die for the sins of humanity, like Paul said, he believed he had been sent to herald a literal Kingdom of God on earth, one that would be created there and then. How would Christians react to this theory? Would they try to adjust their beliefs accordingly, or would they conclude that the historians were wrong? As a matter of fact there is such a theory, not the only such theory but a plausible one. Christians pay no attention to it whatsoever, nor to any other genuinely historical theories about their religion that contradict the dogmas of their faith.

I think you are badly informed. Yes, there are a lot of theories regarding the historical Jesus. But the reason these theories does not have been widespread, is their lacking of scientific support.

The search for truth and science in the western culture was founded upon christian values - not to be mistaken for church values. There has been done extensive research in western universities for more than 200 years about the historicity of the biblical Jesus, and no alternative theory has proven plausible. There is a lot of pseudo-scientific theories these days, like the Da Vinci Code. No serious historian will agree with those stories.

The authencity of the biblical accounts are very well documented with some scriptures from the first century and a lot of scriptures from the second and following centuries. No other events in ancient times is so well described in contemporary documents as the life and death of Christ. The ressurrection of Christ is not documented, but is made probable. But this crucial element in Christianity is not based upon science, it is based upon faith.

The free and open research and science that is surrounding the christian faith system, is what sets it apart from islam, where free research is still not allowed. This prohibition is as fervorously defended as the prohibition to picture Mohammed.

What comes to the Church, it has not always represented christian values, in defending its own privileges. There you clearly have som parallels to islam.

The question is now: Is there values in the Koran and islamic holy scriptures that can be used to substantiate a reformation of Islam and islamic countries, as has been done with Christianity and christian nations?

If there is not, the process of reformation and liberation of the islamic world, will take some time.

JohnA | 2006-02-05 12:08 | Link

Today's leader in UK newspaper The Guardian:

"... For most Muslims, loyalty to faith will always come before loyalty to the abstract ideals of a modern secular state."

If this is true, how does this fit with democracy and its values?

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-02-05 13:01 | Link

Are Karlsen: Yes, there are a lot of theories regarding the historical Jesus. But the reason these theories does not have been widespread, is their lacking of scientific support.

Indeed, there are as many theories about Jesus as there are authors of books about him. Most of these theories - at least the most interesting ones - are of the da Vinci Code kind. And I am well aware that there's solid historical research being done by theologians and Christians, and that there's broad agreement that the Gospels are our best source for learning about Jesus. But best only means better than the rest, it does not mean "fully reliable". And what you certainly won't find is broad agreement around the Christian interpretation of the New Testament, that every book tells a different part of the same message. You need faith to believe that, and faith has no place in historical science. And once you stop seeing the New Testament as a whole, contradictions begin to appear, which lead to various theories about what Jesus really said and meant.

I'm not going to say that this or that theory is the right one, I'm not remotely qualified to do that. My point was merely that we should imagine that this theory I mentioned is found by a majority of historians to be the most likely, and then ask ourselves how Christians will react to this. There are then only three options open to each Christian: Adapt to history, (which means becoming a very different sort of Christian), ignore history (ie. say the historians are wrong and pretend you have a better theory), or abandon Christianity.

This is what I mean by believers placing faith above history. You believe that historical science supports your religious interpretation of the New Testament, ie. that educated, rational and not necessarily Christian historians who research this topic are more or less of your view. I believe that's wrong, but leave that aside: What I want is for you to pretend that this isn't so, that the historical community as a whole leans towards the theory that Jesus was someone else than you believe he is. Pretend there's a conflict. Then what? Would you investigate their arguments, and place your faith on hold until you'd had time to evaluate them, leaving open the possibility of abandoning your faith? What about other Christians, would they?

Are Karlsen | 2006-02-05 14:32 | Link

Bjørn Stærk,

My view is that the biblical narrative of Jesus has been scientifcally scrutinized. And in the context of this post - I think it is necessary to point out that this is not the case with Muhammad. If Islam is to develope or reform, that religion has to meet science. But so far - if you do independent research on Islam, your life is in danger.

If it was proved that Jesus was not ressurrected from the death, that would have thoroughly undermined the christian faith. I know, it is not proved that he has, either.

The ressurrection is the central point of the christian faith - and admittedly beyond historical evidence. But the biblical narrative, is substantiating that doctrine in a trustworthy way.

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-02-05 15:08 | Link

Are Karlsen: If Islam is to develope or reform, that religion has to meet science. But so far - if you do independent research on Islam, your life is in danger.

Yes, we need a similar tradition in Islam. For instance, I'm curious what genuine historians would think of the Islamic method of evaluating the trustworthiness of a tradition. The Muslims actually developed a historical-like way of doing this. Much like the early Christians tried to determine which books came from trustworthy sources, the Muslims tried to determine the same for their traditions. I'm curious if that method was sound, and what the traditions would like look filtered through modern historical analysis.

The ressurrection is the central point of the christian faith - and admittedly beyond historical evidence. But the biblical narrative, is substantiating that doctrine in a trustworthy way.

Well, only if you assume that the New Testament is a whole. You can obviously never prove or disprove that Jesus was raised from the dead, but you can show that, without the assumption of one message, the authors appear to say different things. A good example is the story about Jesus's birth. Matthew tells one story, Luke another. If you assume they're the same story, (ie. make a leap of faith), you can merge them into one, where the angels sing to the shepherds and the wise men come with gifts, but if you don't make that assumption, and an objective historian can't, they're clearly two different stories.

And why would there be two different stories about the birth of Jesus? Perhaps they're legends invented by later followers of Jesus, legends very similar to the ones that are always told about holy men and founders of religions. Virgin births, gods as parents, signs in the sky, these kind of stories are very common, and were common long before Christianity.

And all this follows from whether you choose to make a leap of faith or not, whether you choose to see the New Testament as a whole, or let the sources speak for themselves. So there is a limit to how far believers can follow science.

Job | 2006-02-05 15:21 | Link

Freedom of speech is is one of the foundations of Democracy, and in theory is non-negotiable. However, all societies have checks on it, mainly as far as opinions disturbing to the ruling powers go. In these enlightened times, most media work within the boundaries of the government's agenda, when they're not actually working to further it. That's true whether you like it or not.

Publishing a cartoon of Mohammed is everyone's right - other religious figures have been and will continue to be lampooned freely, and that's as it should be. But does freedom of speech, for example, cover the sort of cartoons that appeared in "Der Stûrmer" in Hitler's Germany? If you look at them, you'll see that the tone is very similar to the tone used in Western press articles concerning "Islamism". No newspaper or TV channel today could come anywhere close to that treatment of Jewish people.

I'm not anti-Semitic. I'm saying that in the context of the world today, the choice of printing that stuff is seen, and rightly so, as deliberate provocation - we all know that the offensive element is not the depiction of the prophet, but the implication that "all wogs are potential terrorists". It's scape-goating, just like the stuff in "Der Stûrmer".

Pornographic images of Jesus and the Pope probably circulate on the web somewhere, but they are not seized upon and made into front-line news, they are left in the shadows, where they belong. Along with Nazi hagiographies and other deranged expressions of hatred. But some of that shit is more fashionable than others.

The point? The essence of all religious beliefs is the attempt to guide human beings toward the realisation that we are all equally rooted in the transcendent reality of the Universe. Sorry about that, but it's difficult to express without sounding partisan. The truth of all great religions is basically the same; but when they become frozen into dogma, and instruments of power, then they begin to point us in the wrong direction. The same is true of Democracy.

We are right to resist any attempt to impose religious law on our societies. But we should also resist sanctioning the injustice done to others in our name. Pointing out the imperfections in others does not excuse our own descent into savagery. We are not cannibals, we are born to choose not to be.

Job | 2006-02-05 15:26 | Link

Incidentally, for anyone interested in the subject, there's a really excellent book called 'Jesus et les femmes' (Jesus and women) by a French author, Françoise Gange. I don't know whether it's been translated into other languages. She bases her work on the texts found at Nag Hammadi, and untangles much of the teachings of Jesus from the judeo-christian mindset.

Andrew X, USA | 2006-02-05 16:47 | Link

Bjorn -

RE: "We have laws against hate speech, as many European countries do."

Well, you have hit on something. Frankly, here in the states (which has been said by many Europeans to have a lockstep pro-Bush, pro-war, pro capitalist media, a lie, but that's another topic), the issue of hate speech is one of a seemingly endless issues constantly under debate.

And there is a VERY strong argument that, yes, such laws are NOT part of what we would call a "free society", as there is no definition of "hate speech" other than what any arbitrary person might define it as such.

Thus, I am at the mercy of sanction, or even jail, based on speech just because person A does not like it, even if persons B, C, D, E, and F couldn't care less. Tomorrow, it will be person B offended, and all the rest won't care, etc.

This is pandering to the lowest common denominator, and to the ones who whine loudest or react with the most violence or threat thereof.

This is a terrible place for any government to go, and the bitter conflict we see right now did not happen DESPITE such laws, it happens BECAUSE of them. It legitimizes the idea of "I FEEL bad/offended/angry and it's YOUR fault, the state must step in to stop it".

There is no end to this, and if you remove by law the ten things that offend me, I will find an 11th, and you are no longer free. And the children will now run the asylum. And what is this ultra-sensitivity if not inexcusably childish, playground, "Wahhhhh, he OFFENDED me" behavior?

You say "(Euro)-Arabs want a blasphemy law". Why are Arabs in Europe, originally, and why do many stay there? (MILLIONS all over the globe flee their birthland to go elswhere, and have for decades, centuries.) It is either because they like the culture and values of Europe (AND the wealth produced by same), or they hate them and want to change them. It it is the former, why the hell are they asking to change things, and why are Europeans even considering changing them? If it is the latter, who the hell are they to even go there or ask, unless they are literal cultural imperialists like the Christian missionaries in Hawaii, etc? (And of course the Euro-left is oh-so-historically respectful of Christian missionaries.)

Bottom line.... a fifth of the globe is 'Muslim-ruled'. What, that ain't enough?

Blasphemy laws are themselves obscene, and not appropriate for a free society that intends to stay that way.

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-02-05 17:02 | Link

AndrewX: It is either because they like the culture and values of Europe (AND the wealth produced by same), or they hate them and want to change them. It it is the former, why the hell are they asking to change things, and why are Europeans even considering changing them?

False binary. It is possible to like some aspects of a culture and not others. Are you for or against our greco-roman heritage? Yes or no? If for, you approve of slavery, if against, you hate rational thought. Rather, you're for some things, against others. So why do you expect Muslims to be entirely for or against European culture?

Stuart, NY | 2006-02-05 17:16 | Link

Bjorn, it's not that simple a distinction, because greco-roman thought is history, so we have the option to choose what we like and discard the rest. Current western societies are just that - current. If you move to one, you are buying into a whole bunch of assumptions.

The problem with many Muslims in Europe is that to varying degrees, many of them don't buy in.

Andrew X, USA | 2006-02-05 17:28 | Link

Bjorn, I expect them to respect that which created the environment, and KEEPS the environment, in which many have chosen to make their lives, either by immigrating to it or choosing to stay in it.

An aside: The common response to the crass argument, "If you like Cuba/Russia/Arabia etc so much, why don't you live there??" is the understandable "This (here) is my home, and I want to make it better." But, as I said, MILLIONS of humans have NOT answered that way. They have ansered with their feet. They have "gone there". And "there" is..... The US, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe. Well over a hundred million. Well over.

THIS is the classic dissonance between what people say, or even feel, and what they actually do, and the latter speaks FAR more loudly than either of the former.

So given that, why do Arabs in Europe vote with their feet, to go there or stay there?

I will boil it down to one thought. Sorry for the all-caps but I am now screaming...

THEY ARE IN EUROPE ***BECAUSE*** YOU ARE ALLOWED TO CARICATURE MUHAMMED THERE!!!!!

Everything, every single thing, that makes the West the destination of those hundred million boils down to that. And thus it is either non-negotiable, or the West, and that destination and reasons therof, will die.

And the idea that so many will take advantage of that West, while trying to destroy it at the same time and turn it into that which they or their parents DELIBERATELY fled, could inspire a rage in the West unlike any we have seen in decades, and concievably should inspire that.

And when the fire burns, thank the multi-culturalists. They will have done more to pile on the kindling than any other.

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-02-05 19:10 | Link

Stuart: If you move to one, you are buying into a whole bunch of assumptions.

Okay. So when you meet an American who has lived in France for ten years, and you learn that while he was there he freely expressed the opinion that its welfare system was a terrible idea, and that France would be better off emulating the US, you'll reproach him for his ingratitude, right? Because you sure can't live in a foreign society without accepting all of it, that would be hypocritical.

Andrew X: THEY ARE IN EUROPE ***BECAUSE*** YOU ARE ALLOWED TO CARICATURE MUHAMMED THERE!!!!!

No. They are in Europe because there are jobs and money here. Come on, you're whole argument is silly. You're trying to show that it is somehow a self-contradiction to move to a society which you think has flaws. What kind of a defense of freedom of speech is that? Let's say you're wrong, let's say it isn't a self-contradiction to move to a place and then have ideas of how to improve it. Are Muslims then right to want blasphemy laws? Of course not. So why even go that way?

michael farris | 2006-02-05 19:46 | Link

The primary issue as I perceive it and generally being ignored:

Muslims aren't supposed to draw/paint whatever Muhammed. Fine, whatever. But, this does not (cannot) apply to non-Muslims. If I don't draw Muhammed, it's because I'm not interested in him as a subject or I'm being polite, or whatever. It's not because I recognize any prohibition against it because I don't (anymore than I recognize the catholic prohibition against divorce or Jewish or Muslim prohibitions against eating pork. And Muslims have no right to demand that non-Muslims recognize this rule of their religion as applying to them in any way shape or form.

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-02-05 20:02 | Link

Michael Farris: Muslims aren't supposed to draw/paint whatever Muhammed.

Actually that's not a universal rule. Icons and paintings of Muhammed can be bought in Iran, but you don't see Syrian mobs burning Iran's embassy over it, or Iranian conservatives calling it blasphemy, so that's clearly not why Muslims feel insulted. They're insulted by the content of the drawings, which imply that Islam is a terrorist religion.

Are Karlsen | 2006-02-05 20:17 | Link

Bjørn Stærk: And why would there be two different stories about the birth of Jesus? Perhaps they're legends invented by later followers of Jesus, legends very similar to the ones that are always told about holy men and founders of religions.

I would think that several stories differenting in details, is one of the strengths of the accumulated biblical narrative. This is a story not orchestrated by some editor. It is genuine witness stories. Which will always differ.

Virgin births, gods as parents, signs in the sky, these kind of stories are very common, and were common long before Christianity.

The biblical virgin birth appears to be quite unique, which is not the case with the "god as parents". But I don´t think it is quite fair to compare those mythical documents with the historical narratives of the Bible, which authencity and quality is uncomparable.

More information here: http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/borrowedVirginQuestion.htm

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-02-05 22:29 | Link

Are Karlsen: I would think that several stories differenting in details, is one of the strengths of the accumulated biblical narrative.

That depends. Stories that are slightly different but essentially the same may indicate that there are several different original sources, which makes the more reliable, while stories that are exactly the same may indicate only one original source. In the case of the birth of Jesus, however, you have two stories that are entirely different. About the only thing they have in common is that Mary was a virgin and that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. They're the same stories only if you make a leap of faith to read them as one, as if Matthew and Luke knew the same birth story but somehow agreed to split it into parts and divide them between each other.

The page you linked to offers some odd arguments, I'm surprised that you find them convincing. First, the author stresses minor and irrelevant differences - I don't think anyone is saying that Christianity copied any specific existing myths, only that the concept of a legendary birth involving many of the same elements was well known to people at the time, and inspired the stories about Jesus's birth. Second, he assumes that "Matthew" was Matthew, and "Luke" was Luke, an assumption historians will not grant. And if the authors were not direct eye-witnesses, but rather built on a combination of written and oral traditions, it's possible for one story they tell to be legendary, and another true. After all, the overall historical value of the Gospels does not change the fact that Matthew and Luke's birth stories are different.

Third, he argues that the story about the virgin birth of Buddha is unlikely and poorly attested. Well of course it is, it's a legend. The point is that believers like to invent these kind of legends.

As for other stories, the popularity of the myth depends on what you mean by "virgin birth". Mythology has all kinds of supernatural conceptions. Zeus impregnated several women in various non-human forms: Semele as some kind of divine force, Danae as a shower of gold, whatever that means. The goddess Isis was referred to as a virgin and a mother. Mithra was said to be born of a virgin. So was Krishna - and even Plato, and Merlin, in some stories. (As David Stove puts it, the neo-Platonist worship of Plato may have been a high point in the history of religion, but it was a low point in the history of philosophy.) All of this can be argued of course. Define "virgin birth" narrowly enough, and Jesus becomes at least rare if not unique. But the basic elements his story are made out of - virgin mothers, supernatural impregnations, godly parentage - are found in many mythologies.

michael farris | 2006-02-05 22:45 | Link

"that's clearly not why Muslims feel insulted. They're insulted by the content of the drawings, which imply that Islam is a terrorist religion."

And rioting and burning embassies is certainly an effective way to clear that little misunderstanding up.

I do think that the Danish newspapers should have just published _nice_ pictures of Mohammed, which would make the rioters (I'm pretty convinced they would still be there) look even more irrational than they do now.

Andrew X, USA | 2006-02-05 23:20 | Link

Bjorn -

You are in fact a smart guy, and I admire your blogging, so I am suprised that...., well, maybe I'm not explaining it well.....

RE: "They (Arabs) are in Europe because there are jobs and money here."

RIGHT! Exactly! As in, the money and jobs are there..... because they can caricature the prophet Muhammed there! As in, it is NOT a stultified, stagnant, backwards place where innovation, creativity, entrepenuership, and education are stagnated by the SAME pathologies that preclude one from criticizing, much less drawing, Muhammed.

I thought I was pretty clearly saying that "drawing Muhammed" is a metaphor for the entire range of free thought that is mandated in order to have a technologically advanced free civilization.

Is it a coincidence that in terms of every parameter of freedom measured even by the hallowed UN (transparency, press freedom, lack of corruption, representative govt, etc), the Muslim world brings up the rear? Why is this so, and why are Europe and the US far ahead??

Ahem.

Because your are allowed to caricature Mohammed there!!!!!!!!!!! (no caps this time needed)

See what I'm saying? It's not caricature I speak of, it is freedom itself, and with it the RESPONSIBILITY to let others be free as well, and thus NOT get violent over a g**-d**n cartoon, f'r criminey's sake!

And that is the society that millions of Arabs in Europe and the US CHOOSE to move to or stay in. Not a "caricature drawing" society, but a free society, one that as a DIRECT result, then creates those money and jobs you speak of. And then when part of the price of living there is seeing Mohammed, AND Christ, AND the Pope, AND the Jews, AND Buddha, AND the Mormons made fun of or discussed politically, (which Islam certainly involves itself in BIG time), all too many are saying "No way, we are offended with that element of freedom, and want it changed".
Worse than that, those who don't even live there to start with are saying, "No way, we are offended with that element of freedom, and want it changed".

Well, it ain't gonna change. End of discussion with them on that front. We sure as hell are not asking for permission from Muslims to be free men and women, and aren't about to start.

As for many who "move to a society that has flaws and want to change it" as you say, that's all fine, but you are missing that they are moving FROM a society that has flaws, moving because of those very flaws.... and then trying to change their new society, OUR society, by instituting THE SAME FLAWS that caused them to flee in the first place!

That is the problem. And why Westerners who give a damn about freedom must stand absolutely steadfast in this matter.

PHiSte3 | 2006-02-06 06:11 | Link

Maybe we se the start of WW3 here - and MAYBE we should be glad it happens now before more muslims have settled in the western countries ?
Let us hope that we get the first islamic democracy in Irak ; and that the islamic leaders starts loosing control ?

Islam is a static religion with no success at all - no islamic country have any sort of economical success ; the whole religion is a complete failure.

Are Karlsen | 2006-02-06 10:29 | Link

Bjørn Stærk,

There has been written some thousand books dealing with the "synoptic problem", to which you are refering. I would recommend you Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, and the volumes about Matthew and Luke.

Divine intervention will necessarily involve supernatural events. That is common for all religions, as is the case with Christianity. The world of myths has many stories about sexual union between man and gods with following births. The birth of Jesus does not involve sexual union between Mary and God. She was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. That is unique.

Most people will not find it difficult to live with two stories with different viewpoints of the birth of Jesus. It is after all the church itself that has included those two stories in the Bible.

What is the real leap of faith, however, is to believe that Jesus was ressurrected from death to a new dimension of life. Of that follows the doctrine of he being the Son of God.

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-02-06 11:43 | Link

Andrew X: RIGHT! Exactly! As in, the money and jobs are there..... because they can caricature the prophet Muhammed there!

So it follows that if we remove the right to blaspheme a religion, Europe would lose its wealth and jobs, becoming unattractive to Muslim immigrants? But then why was Norway not poor and unattractive to immigrants when Life of Brain was banned for blasphemy in 1979?

Are Karlsen: The world of myths has many stories about sexual union between man and gods with following births. The birth of Jesus does not involve sexual union between Mary and God. She was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. That is unique.

Um. I think you have just demonstrated my point about faith and history. I listed several myths involving virgin births. Look them up, I didn't make this up. Did Zeus have sex with Semele? Depends on how you look at it. Certainly not in any ordinary way, (Semele was later killed when she saw Zeus in his true shape, much like the way one can't see Yahveh and live). Zeus probably got some pleasure out of it, he's that kind of god, while Yahveh isn't, but that's not very relevant, because this difference follows necessarily from the nature of the gods involved. If you're going to tell a Christian virgin birth story, you can't have Yahveh lusting after pretty young women, it wouldn't be in character. But you can retain all the other elements of the story. To say that this makes Jesus's birth unique is to be pedantic, like saying that his divine parentage is unique because only Jesus has a monotheistic god as father, only he is the son of the only God in the universe. True, but irrelevant.

Most people will not find it difficult to live with two stories with different viewpoints of the birth of Jesus. It is after all the church itself that has included those two stories in the Bible.

Indeed. In fact, most people rather enjoy being challenged to believe difficult things, ("different viewpoints" is an understatement). Their faith becomes more valuable to them when they have to make an effort to believe. Think of the trinity, or transubstantiation. So this is another point where science and faith parts ways.

kim sook-im | 2006-02-06 13:30 | Link

They're insulted by the content of the drawings, which imply that Islam is a terrorist religion.

..........this just goes to show how dissociated from reality muslims are in general and the rest of the world goes along with this mantra: islam is a religion of peace!

Are Karlsen | 2006-02-06 16:03 | Link

Bjørn Stærk: Their faith becomes more valuable to them when they have to make an effort to believe. Think of the trinity, or transubstantiation.

Again, the most challenging thing to believe is the ressurrection of Christ. If you believe Christ is God, then the other parts will fall in place.

On the other hand, faith don´t need be a struggle. It is a gift, created in you when you just choose to listen to the story about Christ.

Sandy P | 2006-02-06 18:06 | Link

--Andrew X: RIGHT! Exactly! As in, the money and jobs are there..... because they can caricature the prophet Muhammed there!

---

Starts you on the road to al-Andalus.

Dhimmi-fied.

The real question is, who's stirring the pot? Arguments are made for the Magic Kingdom and/or the socialists/commies.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/

Some nice posters there, BTW.

Mark Amerman | 2006-02-06 19:55 | Link

A couple of comments. I think Bjorn that your
statement:

"One step down on the confusion ladder, Europeans are
right to stand up for freedom of speech, even if the
threat is much smaller than their rhetoric would make
you think."

is contradicted by the situation in England where
people are being prosecuted by the state for making
statements critical of Islam or muslims. I don't
believe England has freedom of speech today and
from the look of things the practical number of topics
that can get one in trouble with the state will
only grow and grow.

I also believe that although in the U.S. the majority
believe in and in fact expect free speech, there
is a serious problem at the universities, documented
here:

http://onthefencefilms.com/video/bw101/

I also spy a certain irony in this statement:

"And perhaps even the multiculturalist left will feel
some dissonance as they hear the arguments they use for
censorship of racism repeated by social conservatives
who want to protect the image of a patriarchal and
oppressive superstition."

In my experience an inability to experience dissonance
from contradictory acts and beliefs is practically
a requirement for being a member of the hard left. But
perhaps that's the meaning that the word "even" is meant
to convey.

Andrew X, USA | 2006-02-06 20:09 | Link

Sandy -

Thanks. I can't explain it any more than I have.

Right now, today, there is ONE primary reason NOT to enact any blasphemy laws.

Because it is what the Islamo-fascists want us to do.

On this day, there is simply no better reason not to do it than that.

Time for a gut-check.

Mark Amerman | 2006-02-06 20:18 | Link

Bjorn,

In response to your comment:

"Do you not think it is more likely that they, like
Christians, genuinely feel insulted when others say bad things
about their religion, and that, like many Christians, having
grown up with the firm belief that their religion is obviously
True, they believe they have a right to protect it against
criticism?"

In the U.S. there are many religions and every religion has
enemies. Ridicule, in fact, is not hard to find. Atlhough
it's no doubt true that almost every religious person believes
their religion to be True and those that criticise them are
severely mistaken if not evil, still, in the otherwhelming
majority of cases the religious person's practical reaction
to such ridicule is to withdraw from and separate themselves
from whatever person or agency is making it.

Is it different, in your experience, in Norway?

In fact one of things distinguishing Islam from these other
religions -- not that there aren't also muslims in the U.S.
also -- is that none of these other religions have a territory
anywhere in the world where people are persecuted for blasphemy
against it.

Probably I'm not making myself clear, but there's a difference
in objective reality here. If you're a Baptist, then there's
no place in the world where Baptists kill people for mocking
Baptists therefore as a Baptist you never have to ask yourself,
"Why am I a part of this?"

Now I do well understand the point you've made in the past about
people not choosing the religion they are born into but still
even if both were born into their religions and neither made
choice originally, the baptist and the moslem are in two different
places, and as adults they are making choices.

Mark Amerman | 2006-02-06 20:37 | Link

Bjorn,

You said:

"It's the same with Muhammed. Understanding a belief means...well,
understanding what believers believe, even if those beliefs are
unhistorical, and even if there exist genuine historical theories
that contradict those beliefs."

And I totally agree. What matters is what people believe now.
The real definition of Islam -- the one that matters to us
living now -- isn't what Muhammed did or even what moslems
believed three centuries ago, it's what moslems believe and
do and say now.

Now I disagree that history is a science. We can conceive
of trying to do history somewhat like a science but in fact
all the histories I've ever read are relentlessly political
and are utterly dominated by the political viewpoints of the
author.

But getting back to the point. What matters is what moslems
do today, not the past. And as an english speaker, it's hard to
get a clear view of that.

Job | 2006-02-06 20:53 | Link

Are Karlsen | 2006-02-06 16:03 | Link

'On the other hand, faith don´t need be a struggle. It is a gift, created in you when you just choose to listen to the story about Christ.'

Of course it depends how you define faith - religious ideals are like tutors for plants - they don't make plants grow, they're just there to help them grow straighter. Jesus has helped a lot of people, but he's not the only one.

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-02-06 22:12 | Link

Mark Amerman: is contradicted by the situation in England where people are being prosecuted by the state for making statements critical of Islam or muslims.

Any examples? Actually I did not say there was no threat, and I believe the history of Norway over the last century serves as a good example of the uneasy relationship even (socially) liberal and democratic Europeans have with freedom of speech. I'm concerned by that, and though the long term trend is positive, a reversal is also possible.

But we should also not exaggerate the threat, as I believe many free speech advocates are in the habit of doing. It's part of the victimizing effects of political activism I wrote about recently. Everyone gets so focused on the need to sell their message, that they let their rhetorics run away with them. Here's a fact: There is no mood in Norway at the moment for banning caricatures of Muhammed. Some Muslims have called for this, and some people are sympathetic, but it is not going to happen. If you want public support for a censorship law in Norway, you must paint a picture of evil and hateful extremists who prey on the weak and trick the stupid. People like neo-nazi's. Talk about protecting Muslims from pictures of Muhammed as a terrorist and most Norwegians will just go "you want what? You got to be kidding me!"

This may change, and I know only the Norwegian situation. My point is merely that we shouldn't be hyperbolic. Firm in our support of an ideal when this is appropriate, yes, but not shrill.

in the otherwhelming majority of cases the religious person's practical reaction to such ridicule is to withdraw from and separate themselves from whatever person or agency is making it. Is it different, in your experience, in Norway?

No, it is mostly a minority of Christians who want to actively protect their religion from mockery. Christians in the West have gradually learned that it is strategically unwise and/or morally wrong to mix religion too closely with politics. This took time, though, and it went against the natural instincts of the believer. Tolerance wasn't something the Church authorities discovered in the Bible and then convinced Christendom of adopting, it was invented by persecuted sects. The reason so many Christians are tolerant today is that many of them can trace the history of their organization back to a time when it was persecuted. Without that memory, without learning about tolerance the hard way, I don't see why they would be much different from the Muslims of today - they weren't different just a few centuries ago. And we can still see that instinct to control and impose in a minority of Christians today.

Now I disagree that history is a science. We can conceive of trying to do history somewhat like a science but in fact all the histories I've ever read are relentlessly political and are utterly dominated by the political viewpoints of the author.

I don't believe that's fair to historians. I've read many good history books, and I didn't see these as "relentlessly" and "utterly" dominated by politics. My impression is that most professional historians care more about accurately describing the past than about drawing paralells to the present. But even when they are political, it's still not clear cut. There are people like Victor Davis Hanson, a pundit playing with history as it suits him, but then there are people like E. P. Thompson, a socialist and peace activist who was also a great historian. The Making of the English Working Class has strong political undertones, but it's history, not propaganda, and it's one of the best I've read. (Yup, I deliberately chose these examples to offend as many people as possible - and no there's no shortage of opposite examples.) With good history, you can filter out the bias and you'll still have good history, with bad history you filter out bias and the whole thing falls apart.

I think we can call history science, but it's a different kind. You need different methods, and you need some way of coming to terms with the fact that there are great gaps that good history will never fill, (leaving a niche for pseudo-historians..) But in the end history is about testing your theories against evidence. It doesn't stand on rock solid ground, but as long as historians don't try do deny this we can still call history a science.

Mark Amerman | 2006-02-07 05:53 | Link

Bjorn,

Responding to your request for examples of "people...being
prosecuted by the [British] state for making statements
critical of Islam or muslims" I went looking. It took
a while before I found an example. And that example is not
precisely on target, but still close enough to make it
persuasive that the situation is as I suggested.

I'll give that sought after example first, but in the process
of searching for it I stumbled across a bit of other material
that I found interesting and related.

They follow after.

from http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/11/20/npage20.xml

Robin Page, a columnist for The Telegraph, has been arrested
on suspicion of stirring up racial hatred after making
a speech at a pro-hunting rally.

Mr Page, 61, was detained in a police cell after being
interviewed about remarks made by him at a country fair
at Frampton-upon-Severn, Glos, on Sept 6.

Yesterday, he vehemently denied having made any comment that
could be construed as racist during the address, in which
he encouraged his audience to attend the Liberty and Livelihood
March in London later that month.

Mr Page also told his audience that Londoners had the right
to run their own events, such as the Brixton carnival and
gay pride marches, which celebrated black and gay culture.
Why therefore, he asked, should country people not have
the right to do what they liked in the countryside.

Mr Page said yesterday: "I urged people to go on the march
and I urged that the rural minority be given the same legal
protection as other minorities. All I said was that the
rural minority should have the same rights as blacks, Muslims
and gays.

"What is wrong with that in a multicultural society? I said
nothing that could possibly be interpreted as racist."

from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=Q14R5JORGXVU1QFIQMGSFF4AVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2005/12/10/ngay10.xml

Lynette Burrows, an author on children's rights and a family
campaigner, took part in a discussion on the Victoria Derbyshire
show on Radio Five Live about the new civil partnerships act.

During the programme, she said she did not believe that homosexuals
should be allowed to adopt. She added that placing boys with
two homosexuals for adoption was as obvious a risk as placing
a girl with two heterosexual men who offered themselves as
parents. "It is a risk," she said. "You would not give a small
girl to two men."

A member of the public complained to the police and an officer
contacted Mrs Burrows the following day to say a "homophobic
incident" had been reported against her.

"I was astounded," she said. "I told her this was a free country
and we are allowed to express opinions on matters of public
interest. She told me it was not a crime but that she had to
record these incidents.

"They were leaning on me, letting me know that the police had
an interest in my views. I think it is sinister and completely
unacceptable."

Scotland Yard confirmed last night that Fulham police had
investigated a complaint over the radio programme.

A spokesman said it was policy for community safety units to
investigate homophobic, racist and domestic incidents because
these were "priority crimes".

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA6CD.htm

Since its launch at the end of 2003, the 'unified regulator'
the Office of Communications (Ofcom) has been happily banning
advertisements (1).

It takes only a single member of the public to complain about
an ad, for a ban to be considered. The largest number of
complaints that has prompted a response from Ofcom to date is
797 - very high only in comparison to the others (2).

Ofcom decided to ban a TV ad for the Renault Megane 225 car,
showing people shaking uncontrollably as the car drives past
them, because a mere 10 viewers complained that the ad could
be construed as mocking those who suffer from disorders that
cause body tremors. It banned a radio ad that punned on the
double meaning of the word 'faggots' (as in the meat product
and homosexuals), because it concurred with three listeners
that this 'highly derogatory term' is 'capable of causing
serious offence'. It decided to ban a radio ad for a college
open day, because a single listener complained about the fact
that the ad referred to supermarket checkout staff as 'morons' (3).

Supposedly a sensitive, 'light-touch' regulator, Ofcom is
actually at the forefront of a new form of censorship that
dresses itself up in ethical credentials, using the promotion
of diversity as a cloak behind which it can restrict free
speech (see 'Communication ethics' and the new censorship,
by Sandy Starr).

[and]

Conversely, Ofcom seems happy for ads that reinforce the
prevailing orthodoxy to be as offensive as they like.
Hard-hitting ads commissioned by the authorities to drive
home a moral point always seem to escape censure. The Department
for Transport's shocking TV ad showing a surreal road accident
in a pub, with a girl being run down by an invisible car and
the man ogling her left bruised and bloodied, was complained
about to Ofcom but was not banned. According to Ofcom, 'the
powerful imagery does have a serious and legitimate purpose',
and 'the majority of viewers accept the use of upsetting imagery
as legitimate in contexts such as road safety, whereas they
would not find the same images acceptable in ordinary advertising'.

from http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D28C.htm

But it is true that this government, while so enthusiastic
in inventing new and draconian laws, seems to be much less
busy in enforcing them. From racial hate laws to anti-social
behaviour orders, from the stalking law to the Terrorism Act,
the letter of the new laws we have today makes such a broad
spectrum of behaviour or activity illegal that you would
expect the jails to be overflowing with otherwise-innocent
people putting one foot wrong. Why isn't this the case?

It seems that this government's main use of the law is not
for the practical purposes of keeping order, but for a more
self-consciously moral purpose. The government is aware that
there is less of a consensus than ever in society about what
is right or wrong, or good or bad. It is aware, too, that
it finds it harder than ever to shape that consensus. So
when our insecure government ministers want to draw the line
today between right and wrong - and show they really mean it
- the first thing they often do is to make a law. It is not
enough to say that racism is bad: it has to be illegal. The
same goes for religious hate.

[and]

But as things go, today's government does not need to enforce
a law for it to have the desired effect. By marking out a
series of - fairly arbitrary - forms of behaviour as being
so bad they are illegal, the government enforces a more
general climate of self-censorship, or 'you can't say that'.

Comedians might not want to make too many good jokes about
religion in the first place; but if they - or their
production company - even suspects that they could fall
foul of the law, they are more likely to hold their tongues.
Christians might have enough sense of the current etiquette
to prevent themselves from voicing their disagreements with
Islam, but the possibility - however remote - of legal
retribution can only increase their reticence.

soren | 2006-02-07 08:42 | Link

I think ridicule of the pious is a common thing in protestant countries. Denmark is still a protestant country even that it doesn't think about it much. It's hard to say you're sorry if you're not.

Job | 2006-02-07 10:37 | Link

From yesterday's Guardian

"In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.

Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

The original reaction to the cartoons in Denmark was mild. They were then reprinted, months later, in a Norwegian paper. Why months later?

Everyone knows that the depiction of Mohammed is a false problem. The real bone of contention is the cultural slur, and the hypocrisy surrounding it. Human beings are once again being set one against the other for purposes that will serve no-one except those who have been helping themselves for a long time at everyone's expense.

No better world will come from the deliberate nourishing of hatred on any side. Divorced from any real sense of humanity, society is already falling into chaos - look at what has happened to us all in the last five years. Blatant lies and manipulation used to cover immense evil, rapacious greed and irreparable human tradgedy. Millions of dead, and opinions like these are brushed off as 'leftist dhimmification'. Straight to hell.

Discussions of comparative religion can be very interesting, enjoyable, and potentially positive. This thread, however, began with a comment on events that had nothing to do with either religion or freedom of speech.

I want to state that I respect the author of this site and the spirit expressed in his rules for posting, and also in articles such as The Iraq War Revisited. We disagree on much, and I'm at a disadvantage, since he's clearly far more widely-read than me. But excluding BS, other posters here have made it abundantly and frighteningly clear that book-learning does not automatically lead to wisdom.

I'm really afraid that Iran is going to get nuked, theough probably not Syria, it's too close to Israel. How many lunatics out there think that's a good idea - in the name of freedom?

A Jesus comment to end with. The one about the straw in your neighbour's eye and the piece of wood in our own.

daumier honore france | 2006-02-07 12:39 | Link

Those of us who Germany has taken away passports to attend a Teheran research session of the law edicted by Reinhard Heidrich at the Wannsee conference know
of what they speak if they never use or mention Hebrew forged terms(two examples:[ 1.] the the Walther & Herbert Bush clan attending a church or chappel always at the eve of a decapitation strike or else a bridge bombardement in Baghdad; [2.]Catholic Cross in the air Imitations: a smile to all those of us who don't hail the Hebrew language of a Pope & Priest decoy as the shadow CINC Kerry did on all tv screens during the burrial("pompes funebres") of Roni Reagan in Washington and Arlington.
I welcome instead the "international festival of cartoons" of "Farid Mortazavi, graphics editor of Hamshahiri"(compare please: Anthony Browne, The Times, February 07 2006 ,"Cartoons""World leaders rally round as crisis deepens") which will in a nice try _d_r_a_w_ us the proof that the Western World [_ _--- actually ---_ _] _i_s__or__i_s__n_o_t_ so free as they pretend. Till today the Western world reacted with interdictions to the Reasons and Causes about the Wannsee Conference Decisions even when it is in form of a funny _Not-Hebrew_ cartoons festival in Teheran(Iran).

Carolyn Spence USA | 2006-02-07 13:00 | Link

After looking at the original cartoons behind the riots around the world, I am more puzzled about the behavior of the muslim world than before. The cartoons of controversy depict the behavior of the followers of Mohammed imposed on his image. For example, radical muslims plant bombs on their persons and blow people up. One cartoon shows a bomb in Mohammed's turban. What is the problem? If their behavior does not humiliate him, why do the cartoons? Perhaps that is why they are so angry. The cartoons show that the reputation of Mohammed is damaged by their actions, and they are embarrassed about it. This would be a good time to exhort muslim friends to repudiate radical behavior.

matoko kusanagi, denver | 2006-02-07 15:00 | Link

this is quite the best analysis i've read.
in the comment threads, still many attack Muhammed and Islam.
i suggest they are never going to get it.

here is a cartoon that i like, that promotes what i really believe, and makes equal fun of everyone, even me. ;)
what the barmaid said

of course, i'm the barmaid.
i think the highest, the ultimate, form of evolution, is the ability to laugh at one's self.

Gunnar, MD | 2006-02-07 15:21 | Link

The second reason I did not publish them was copyright. I am no strong believer in the current copyright laws, but I do believe that people have a right to their own work. It is a paranthesis in this case, but is striking to see Norwegian right-wingers in support of the current copyright laws breaking them carelessly when it suits their debate.

Well, I believe strongly in copyright laws. As usual, Oyvind, you are totally incorrect. Fair use allows:

Criticism and comment -- for example, quoting or excerpting a work in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment.

News reporting -- for example, summarizing an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report.

Research and scholarship -- for example, quoting a short passage in a scholarly, scientific, or technical work for illustration or clarification of the author's observations.

Nonprofit educational uses -- for example, photocopying of limited portions of written works by teachers for classroom use.

Parody -- that is, a work that ridicules another, usually well-known, work by imitating it in a comic way.

Pat, Cleveland | 2006-02-07 16:20 | Link

The pig faced cartoon is a fraud. See:

http://www.neandernews.com/?p=54

One has to questions the motives of an Imam peddling a fraudulent cartoon across the Middle East.

Petr Thomsen | 2006-02-07 17:29 | Link

Political Correctness is the brother of muslim supremacy. Leftists believe they control political correctness, but see how easily it is usurpted by the muslim supremacists. "You may not criticize Islam in any way or form."

If you do criticize Islam, we will send our brave liberal bloggers to attack your writes of speech. To try to limit what you can say and draw.

Because, you see, leftists are in thrall to political correctness, and political correctness is the open door for us to enter and take the reins. We are ready, my kufars. We are most ready indeed.

Gunnar, MD | 2006-02-07 18:18 | Link

I think you are badly informed. Yes, there are a lot of theories regarding the historical Jesus. But the reason these theories does not have been widespread, is their lacking of scientific support.

Are,

excellent post. I was just working myself up to saying the same thing. In fact, there is more historical evidence for the life of Jesus than there is for Alexander the Great or any number of ancient historical figures.

So, how could an apparently rational person say something so ignorant as: Christians don't care about the historical Jesus?

First, for those of you that don't realize this, Bjorn has a strong bias against Christianity. His father was a Lutheran minister and this colors everything he says. This causes him to give extreme deference to a religion/political philosophy that advocates murder and is incompatible with civilized society. (yes, this statement is completely supportable)

Why does he do this? 1) They are anti-christian and 2) it serves his purpose to smear Christianity with the evils of Islam, when the only thing they have in common is that they include the concept of God. We could list 10 religions, and only 1 would advocate violence. Therefore, from a conceptual point of view, it's not supportable that religious world-views are generally associated with violent world-views.

Second, many people fall prey to the non sequiter that scholarship from believers should be disregarded. This is completely illogical for 2 reasons. 1) Imagine if we would only accept research about a round earth from people who don't believe in a round earth. That would limit us to research from the flat earth society, who are unlikely to produce research that the earth is round. 2) If something is true, then anyone who researches and finds information that confirms it, becomes a believer. So, according to this irrational premise, there can be no intellectually honest research by non believers.

I would also like to add 2 more reasons why Bjorn is wrong. 1) The historical Jesus is good and the scriptural Jesus is good. However, not only is the historical Muhammed bad, but the scriptural Muhammed is bad as well.

2) Christianity has no requirement that political laws match church teaching. Jesus advocated no political reforms. Any similarity is due to the forces of democracy, not intimidation. No true Christian would object to the removal of anti blasphemy laws. In contrast, Muslims demand that Islam dominates the religious and political landscape. And they threaten and use violence to back up their demands.

Gunnar, MD | 2006-02-07 18:27 | Link

I'm really afraid that Iran is going to get nuked, theough probably not Syria, it's too close to Israel. How many lunatics out there think that's a good idea - in the name of freedom?

Amazing how you have switched the aggressor with the victim.

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-02-07 19:24 | Link

Mark Amerman: in the process of searching for it I stumbled across a bit of other material that I found interesting and related.

Thanks - I agree, those stories are disturbing.

Carolyn Spence: After looking at the original cartoons behind the riots around the world, I am more puzzled about the behavior of the muslim world than before.

Yup, but look at these three cartoons which they were told were published in Denmark. What role these have played in the riots I don't know, but if they did play one that makes the violence less puzzling.

Petr Thomsen: Political Correctness is the brother of muslim supremacy

You assume that political correctness only exists on the left. But that leaves us without a name for right-wingers who think on autopilot and are careful never to contradict ideology.

Gunnar: First, for those of you that don't realize this, Bjorn has a strong bias against Christianity.. His father was a Lutheran minister and this colors everything he says.

Eh .. what gave you that idea? I actually respect Christanity, including my father's somewhat conservative form of it. I admire the social environment Christians create for themselves, the sense of steadiness and the sound basic values it often gives them. Every time I visit my old church I'm reminded of this, I'm reminded of the unique things Christianity offers to people. As an idea, Christianity is complete nonsense, but the effect it has on its believers can be very positive. As a practical philosophy it's better than many of the secular alternatives. It's tried and tested, so if your life is off track you may be better off with modern Christianity than with some other fad for finding and improving yourself. Same if you want to be part of a community.

But it just isn't true. To me, that matters, a lot, but I realize that truth is irrelevant to nearly everyone. Who am I to say that this lie or that one is better for you? If you want the truth, I'll tell you what I believe, (like I do in this blog), but if you don't, and have found a lie that's good for you, and doesn't harm the rest of us, I won't complain. Many people find that lie in Christianity.

This causes him to give extreme deference to a religion/political philosophy that advocates murder and is incompatible with civilized society.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I rank modern Islam below modern Christianity in most aspects. It's less rational, and does less good for its believers. I just also believe that Islam is not Evil incarnate.

Second, many people fall prey to the non sequiter that scholarship from believers should be disregarded.

I'm not one of them. There's a solid mainstream of Biblical scholarship where people of all shades of belief or unbelief come together in broad agreement, for instance that the synoptic Gospels are our best historical sources for the life of Jesus, and that the early Christians actually did a fair job of selecting reliable books for the New Testament. But then there are issues where believers and non-believers are forced to part ways, often dealing with whether to see the New Testament as a whole or a collection of independent books. My example to Are Karlsen illustrates this. I didn't pick the birth story as representative of the reliability of the Gospels, but to demonstrate that you can't be fully devoted to faith and fully devoted to objective Biblical history at the same time. You can be devoted to faith, and devoted to Biblical history, and make major contributions to the field, but there are some places where you'll have to drop one or the other.

No true Christian would object to the removal of anti blasphemy laws.

If so, true Christianity has barely existed anywhere except in Rome and modern Western countries. That's a bit harsh on the rest, isn't it?

Sandy P | 2006-02-08 00:15 | Link

We really have to pity the great unwashed masses, they're being led down the primrose path. And all those signs in English, too!

The arabs want the UN to do something, like create/enforce blasphemy laws or some such nonsense.
--

I'm really afraid that Iran is going to get nuked, theough probably not Syria, it's too close to Israel. How many lunatics out there think that's a good idea - in the name of freedom?--

????

not in the name of freedom. Self-defense.

Like Sean Penn told and Iranian when he visited last year, that "Death to America" wasn't helpful, some might actually believe what they say--

oops,

have said for 25 years.

And that nice little Iranian rally at the hajj.

Shrinkwrapped has a very interesting post, via Roger Simon:

http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2006/02/what_we_dont_kn.html

The Clock is Ticking II

The well orchestrated Cartoon Wars continue unabated, Iran has tossed out the IAEA inspectors and the referral to the UNSC has been conveniently deferred until next month;
meanwhile, Captain Ed wonders:

Saddam And WMD: Case Re-Opened?

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence wants to reopen a question on what it calls "postwar" intelligence that both Congress and the administration would prefer to remain closed -- whether Saddam Hussein had WMD in late 2002. Its chair, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, says that mounting evidence and testimony point to Saddam's possession of the banned weapons prior to the final UN debates on the invasion, and that untranslated documentation holds the answer...

Sandy P | 2006-02-08 00:18 | Link

Let's have some more fun, shall we?

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008062.php

I question the timing
by Yehudit at February 7, 2006 10:11 AM

Anyone tempted to excuse or sympathize with this latest example of "spontaneous" global Muslim outrage needs to take into account that this was a carefully planned propaganda campaign, designed to guilt-trip and intimidate the West, at a time when Europe and the US attitudes toward Islamist terrorism are beginning to converge....

Sandy P | 2006-02-08 00:25 | Link

Oh, brother, the bbc's putting pbuh after the prophet mo?

There's also this also via Roger L. Simon's place:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB07Ak02.html

Why can't Muslims take a joke?
By Spengler

Religious humor has become commonplace in the secular West, but it came with a price.

More than any people on Earth, the Danes should know the terrible price of religious humor, for the first great Christian humorist arose from their dour midst as if by immaculate conception. "Humor is intrinsic to Christianity," wrote Soren Kierkegaard, because "truth is hidden in mystery". But Kierkegaard the humorist was sent to the Danes after the Enlightenment had laid waste to Christianity, that is, after the...

Gunnar, Maryland | 2006-02-08 02:00 | Link

>> he assumes that "Matthew" was Matthew, and "Luke" was Luke, an assumption historians will not grant.

Some do, some don't. Of course, a degree in history doesn't make up for the fact that some of these people are actually just making wild guesses based on the skimpiest of evidence. I'm reminded of a star trek episode where extremely advanced beings (ironically dinosaurs) were analyzing humans and came to a whole lot of conclusions based on knee jerk reactions to the slightest of observations. It was making fun of what our historians and paleontologists do.

>> Eh .. what gave you that idea?

Many of your statements over the years.

>> But it just isn't true. To me, that matters, a lot, but I realize that truth is irrelevant to nearly everyone. Who am I to say that this lie or that one is better for you? If you want the truth, I'll tell you what I believe

How amazingly arrogant! You have thousands of witnesses to discredit and many miracles to disprove.

Petr Thomsen | 2006-02-08 05:57 | Link

No, political correctness has been taken over by the left. Witness its rule on the universitat campuses and in the medien newsrooms. It is the left holding open the door to the islamists, saying: come in, come in, and do not worry about any damage you do. The more the better. Decadence of the left, bowing to the violence of muslims. It ends with a whimper.

Herbie, NY NY | 2006-02-08 17:35 | Link

I think the debate here might be put in some perspective:

Muslim outrage; here’s a historical review:

Muslims fly airliners into buildings in NYC. No Muslim outrage.

Muslim officials block the exit where schoolgirls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed in Saudi Arabia. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.

A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder in Israel. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.

Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic and anti-Chriatian cartoons. No Muslim outrage

Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.

Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Muslims are outraged.

Job | 2006-02-08 17:38 | Link

matoko kusanagi, denver | 2006-02-07 15:00 | Link

... 'i suggest they are never going to get it.'

I'm arriving at the same conclusion.

So, Sandy P (self-defence!!!) and Gunnar (pro-life!!!), I've read your writings before on this site, and I'm not going to indulge, it will serve no purpose.

In all religions, the spirit of the law is what counts, rather than the letter of the law. Fanatics of all stripes, religious or not, are pointed in the wrong direction.

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-02-08 18:14 | Link

Gunnar: Of course, a degree in history doesn't make up for the fact that some of these people are actually just making wild guesses based on the skimpiest of evidence.

Yes. So we should defer judgment on who the genuine authors of these books were.

Many of your statements over the years.

Then you're not paying much attention for someone who has read my blog for years ..

How amazingly arrogant!

And here I was, hoping for "condescending".

Herbie: Muslims fly airliners into buildings in NYC. No Muslim outrage.

Define "outrage". Riots and embassy burnings? Or "this is utterly wrong and un-Islamic"? I don't remember any of the first kind, but the second was common, especially in the West. Or are you saying that Muslims are insincere when they say that it is wrong to casually murder civilians, and if so does this apply to some, most or all of them? How do you know?

Herbie, NY NY | 2006-02-08 21:01 | Link

Bjorn, I define outrage, at a minimum, as a clear and unequivocal denunciation of such acts by a majority or at least a significant number of Immans of the acts listed and that such perpetrators are subject to a fatwa that they are to be excommunicated or otherwise dealt with under Islamic law and not some wishy washy comment, when asked by Western reporters, that they are not "true" moslems. I would also say, at a minimum, that they might take to the streets to protest the acts listed. Needless to say none which occurred

Hans Kristgian Ruud, Oslo | 2006-02-09 02:53 | Link

One of the latest personas to enter the fray,
Kjell Olaf Jensen, chairman of the Norwegian PEN-club
(an organization presumably comitted to the freedom of speech) has now entered the fray, demanding that Magazinet apologize for printing the cartoons.

Comment from yours truly:

KOJ has himself used freedom of speech to

1 ) say that the plight of Palestinians on the West Bank is similar to the plight of jews in the Warsaw Ghetto

2) compare the Israely Army to the Nazis.

Clearly, to KOJ, freedom of speech should only be used to protect pro-Arabic statements.

kim sook-im | 2006-02-09 12:35 | Link

Bjoern wrote:

..........O.k. some muslims did recoil with horror at the violence perpetrated by other muslims...some did genuinely express 'outrage' , but oftentimes there is a qualifier about how this would not come about if the israelis or the jews did not do this or that , or that the west or that america did not try to be the policeman of the world or something to that effect.

How do YOU know that their 'outrage' are sincere. YOU cannot read into a muslims heart as to his sincerity....and given their penchant for lying and practise of taquiyyah ( yes Oeyvind don't you be nit picking with me !)I can safely say that it is only lip service. Further 99 % of the rest of the muslims living w/in islamdom itself are not the least bit outraged about any violence perpetrated on infidels ( and that exactly is the point that you should be emphasizing )

.........THE TROUBLE WITH YOU BJOERN ( AND OEYVIND SAN) IS THAT THE DEVIL COULD BE STARING YOU BOTH IN THE EYES AND YOU WOULD DESCRIBE HIM AS A SAINT WITH A SMILING FACE)....so addicted are you both to your respective fairy-tale agno-centrism and leftism haaaaaaaaah :)!

Sister Mahapajapati

Herbie, NY NY | 2006-02-09 13:59 | Link

Talk about weird:

"Caricature publisher reported to police
The Muslim Al-Jinnah Foundation will charge the editor of the Christian weekly Magazinet, the journal that published the controversial caricatures of the prophet Mohammed in Norway, with endangering Norwegian lives." From Afenposten

Ingvar H. Rasmussen | 2006-02-09 16:44 | Link

I just wanted to say that I respect what you did here a lot.

A group of the conflict you didn't mention is people just like us that happen to live in the middle east. The debate here must ring incredibly hollow for people that publish their blog or news articles under the risk of imprisonment and torture by both religious fundamentalists and the US military campaign to which Norway had no problem being part until the change of government. It maybe is old news to people here, but reading