Redstate

First, "Jesse Jacksons of the Islamic world" is probably the best line I've seen in a month on this site.

Second, "The difference is that those types are a very small minority in the West and the majority in Islamic countries."

Do you have any sources that show the majority in Islamic countries are violent?  I have seen studies showing a majority oppose the U.S., support others being violent (although not all Muslim counntries), and harbor malicious feelings toward some groups (often Jews).  But I am skeptical that a majority is actual involved in the violent acts like the burning of the Danish embassy in Syria.  Don't get me wrong a violent minority is scary enough, but we need not exaggerate the threat to recognize that it exists and it is consequential in today's global world.

...creates much of the delicacy in this controversy.

There has been a tremendous amount of (interesting) debate among non-Muslims, here and elsewhere, about whether Islam in itself harbors or sanctions a tendency to violence. But whether it does or not is emphatically a side point in this debate. Whether the passion to avenge tasteless insults with murder is exhibited by the majority of Muslims or by a relative few is also beside the point.

It's obviously important not to tar all of Islam with the brush of extremism. But there is no denying that many Muslims are creating an environment of extremism which demands a vigorous response, and they are doing so in the name of their faith.

We must accept the risk that our necessary response to the violent extremists may be seen as a slander of Islam, even though it is not. This situation proves, as if more proof were necessary, that the Muslim world must be moderated, if for no other reason than self-defense. If our attempts to do so fail, then continual war will be the result, and we must not shrink from that either.

That Wahhabism has come to dominate the Islamic world and given Wahhabist teachings, accept as fact that the majority of them are rather fringe.  Perhaps I'm wrong.  But I'm not inclined to think so.

I modified my post slight to account for that.

misses the point.

To summarize:

• A Danish newspaper prints the cartoons.
  • Muslims in the middle east riot, threaten to kidnap Europeans and burn Danish businesses.
  • Other European countries print the cartoons to show solidarity with the Danes.
  • Muslims in Europe riot and threaten open warfare in their host countries.
  • European Muslims have a documented history of murdering people with whom they disagree.
  • No Muslim organization or leaders have publicly denounced the riots or called for calm.

  
  

• Fringe groups in the US bomb abortion clinics.
  • Said fringe groups are immediately and publicly denounced by all mainstream anti-abortion groups, Christian denominations and major independent Christian churches.
  • When the perpetrators are captured and brought to trial, any demonstrations are peaceful.
  • No recorded terrorist actions taken against law enforcement by fringe groups.

  
  

• Tom Toles publishes a cartoon that is deemed offensive by the US military and many pro-military groups and individuals.
  • The Joint Chiefs of Staff send a letter to the Editor of the WaPo protesting the cartoon.
  • No cruise missile attacks are recorded against WaPo or Toles.
  • No incidents of a US Marine Corps Battalion Landing Team with air support are recorded against WaPo or Toles.
  • There is a peaceful, although sometimes loud debate, about the appropriateness of Toles cartoon.

So, the comparison with Islam and action which could be said to be comparable in the US is exactly what?  In point of fact, Muslims are acting precisely like terrorists and no, repeat NO, Muslim organization and NO prominent Muslim leaders are standing against the terrorist factions.

I'm not interested in the "Religion of Peace" argument until I see some "responsible" parties start making unequivocal statements against the terrorists.  Until then, they all pretty much look like the public face, and that public face is currently burning Danish flags and threatening jihad against Danes and Europeans in general.

Amen.

they can picket, protest and boycott all they want, no one can argue that.  But once they storm buildings, lament not killing Rushdie because of the bad example it set and threaten beheadings (amongst other things) it goes over my head.  In other words, there are no comparisons.

protesting over a picture of Mo' are two different things.  A few years ago here in New York City, they showed a played that had Christ as a homosexual.  I took offense in that.  I'm more than willing to stand infront of the theater to protest such a thing. however, Im not going to try to censor the people that put the play together.

Back to my point.  I dont think you should compare the blowing up of abortion clinics to what's going today with the moslem protets. After all, there were only less than five abortion clinics blown up.  Less people died from blown up abortion shops than from Newssweek's koran-in-the-toilet story.

I think mbecker908 has captured my thoughts pretty much exactly, except that I would also point out that Christians responding to "The Last Temptation of Christ" did not call for the "beheading" or "butchering" of those who produced the movie, or for Hollywood to experience a "real holocaust" or "another 9/11." Neither did they kidnap various Hollywood producers or set studios on fire.

So, whatever you might think about the laxness modern Christians feel for defending their faith, there is no proper analogy for any such activity in modern times.

Let me say one other thing about "I guess we would still be siding with the Danish if it were Christ..."

I am not left to guess. I'm certain of it. If there were a runaway Christian faction which responded to Danish cartoons depicting Christ in such a violent manner as this, you and I both know we'd be denouncing them in the strongest terms, as well. So, I think your duplicity argument does not hold much water.

what Jylands-Posten claims as the original reason why they did this last year.

According to them, and I guess i am inclined to accept their reason, they were concerned about a growing tendency to self-censorship when it came to Islam; between the lines of their self-censorship argument is the unspoken reason for the self-censorship: fear. Recall that the murder (slaughter might be more accurate) of Theo Van Gogh in broad daylight on the streets in neighboring Holland was still fresh in everyone's minds. Jylands-Posten claims that their action responded to a claim by a Danish author that no illustrator was willing to illustrate a book on Islam out of fear for their lives.

In the original context, Jylands-Posten's actions would seem to be in the best traditions of modern journalism. Did they know that Islam prohibited images of Mohammad? Most likely. Did they know that this would upset Muslims? Most likely. But did Jylands-Posten have a legitimate reason to bring this to the fore? Absolutely. They were prepared to stand up against threats and fear created by the Muslim population of Denmark; this fear was not created by the Lutheran population, not the Catholic population, but solely by the Muslim population.

I am not Danish, and unlike in years past, have not spent long periods of time in Europe so I have no personal knowledge of the current environment. All of my knowledge of whatever climate of fear exists comes from the press and blogs. But a compendium of press reports and blogs would certainly leave the impression that many people in Europe do indeed live in fear of the Muslim population and with just cause. And this is not just the normal uneasiness that always accompanies an influx of aliens with a different language and different ways; this is a palpable fear of assault, murder, rape, and other violence borne out not by rumor but by fact.

sporting a crown of thorns.  I think I'm going to go trash the Five and Dime, demand the death of all and sundry, and have a blast.

No, not going to happen.

There is a culture incompatible with civilization, and that's what we witness, with this and everything else.  It seems to be that either you play by their rules or expect a fatwa, often one issued by a non-religious leader or similarly unqualified source.

probably slim, but I think there is ample evidence that the violence isn't condemned and in many cases is celebrated (lest we forget the Palestinians dancing in the streets after 9-11).

When a Christian wacko in the US kills somebody, Christians don't take tot he streets and celebrate, we more often than not condemn the action.

That I think is the difference.  It isn't so much that the violence is the intention of the majority, but that the violence is accepted by the majority.

When's the last time there was an abortion clinic bombing... 1996?  Folks always seem to bring that up as if it's some recent thing that happened multiple times.  More people use the "abortion clinic bombings" line as red-herring to avoid debate and imply some sort of moral equivilence, when the 'clinic bombing' canard is not relevant here, at all.

I would say that the number of "christians" "willing" to blow up abortion clinics, as evidenced by those that have proven such willingness by actually conspiring to do so and taking action by doing so successfully or unsuccesfully,  is so infintesimally small as to hardly qualify as a "minority." Rather, they are an aberrational freak.

But, while I do support free speech, I, as a Christian, can identify with a truly pious, non-jihadist muslim seeing their faith made fun of.

Had Christ been depicted in the cartoon, I believe it the right and responsibility of every Christian to protest.

However, to go further, by threatening violence and terror, one would have to admit the little regard he has for the tenets of his religion, and find himself demonstrating by act, a fight for cause of only himself, which cannot be confused with religious fervor.

I agree entirely.

I'm sorry, but protesting against a disrespectful depiction of your god's prophet is not the same as demanding the nation it originated from be burned to ashes.  There is a civilized response and an beastly response.

As I said, the protesting has gone beyond what is acceptable.  But, protesting in and of itself I have no problem with.  Definitely, what they are doing now is beyond absurd and proof that Islam has yet to graduate beyond the 13th Century.

Publishing those cartoons, which aren't even funny to begin with, but just offensive for their own sake, was a bad behavior by this Danish media outlet.

The response in parts of the Muslim world was worse.  It was far, far, far worse at times.  But, a worse response to a bad behavor doesn't excuse the original bad behavior.

Freedom of speech is not license to trample everything people hold dear in this world, without suffering any social consequences.  If that's what we actively present it as that, though, by not even bothering to scold this bad media outlet, we risk 'proving' to the Muslim world that being a conservative in a free country is a lost cause.

Is it?

This sounds like the same kind of journalistic double-talk that American reporters use all the time.  "Oh, we're not taking a side!  We're just highlighting a controversy, allowing both sides to come out, and allowing the reader to make up his own mind!"

My guess is, not one non-Arabic-language newspaper in the region would be willing to print the anti-Jew, anti-Israeli cartoons that are routinely printed in the Arab world (and sometimes translated on MEMRI).  Would they be willing to fight censorship by publishing those?

Not a chance.  Hating Judaism still isn't quite respectable in their eyes, but hating Islam and Christianity are still OK in leftist circles.  They, like the leftist media here, only bring up controversies that further their own personal biases.

overstate the threat.

You said:

I have seen studies showing a majority oppose the U.S., support others being violent (although not all Muslim counntries), and harbor malicious feelings toward some groups (often Jews).

It may be true that the majority are not actively involved in the violence, but how many is too many?

Total active duty US troops represent less than 1% of our country's population.  Yet our influence is felt around the world.

What is scary enough for me is that many of these Muslim countries are awash in petro-dollars and have a majority that feel the way you describe above.  The fact that the violent ones don't constitute a majority is less than reassuring.

all I can do is refer you to the Jylands-Posten's article that accompanied the cartoons (Googling this is left as an exercise for the serious student). As I said, editor said that they were concerned about self-censorship. What possible reasons would there be for self-censorship?

• respect for religion? That apparently doesn't apply to other religions and institutions in Denmark, all of whom are apparently fair game.
  
• fear of retribution? I doubt that anyone in Denmark is afraid the the local Lutheran pastor is going to march in and stab a reporter for criticising Lutherans.
  

-------------------

I beleive that Jylands-Posten is generally considered to be right of center, not leftist.

If it is, then I wish they'd have chosen a better way to make their point.

thanks,

You may be correct, but I am not well-read enough to know.  I am less sure that in Southern and Southeast Asia as well as West Africa and America that Wahhabism is the norm.

"Palestinians dancing in the streets after 9-11"

"we more often than not condemn the action"

Every Muslim nation condemned the 9-11 attacks.  The Palestinians were notable because they were a distinct minority and at odds with even the totalitarian Muslim leaders.  Put otherwise, Muslims "more often than not" condemned the action.

the point needed to be made and the time had come to make it.

And if you think about it what better way that something as "innocuous" as an editorial cartoon. They are simple, people are used to seeing them in newspapers, people understand that they express opinion, they don't need some breaking news story to anchor them --- actually pretty good vehicle for placing this issue in front of the public. As I recall from the original story the newspaper actually solicited the work from the Danish editorial cartoonist union. And, in retrospect, the intensity of reaction to what a westerner would view as a 'simple cartoon' has clearly driven the message home far more effectively than a long series of print stories trying to make the same point.

In context, aside from the Theo Van Gogh killing, the people of Denmark were already aware of increased Islamic violence in their and neighboring countries. Sweden and Norway, the natural partners of Denmark, have major problems with crime attributed to Muslim immigrants and I'm sure this has been all over the Danish press. For example Malmo Sweden is essentially a no-go zone for non-Muslims and there are even occasional news reports in this country about ethnic crime, especially assault and rape, in Malmo.

most of the day.

It occurred to me a while ago that in addition to the things I noted above, try and take a copy of the Bible into most Muslim countries.  Take out an ad in the local newspaper and advertise a Christian meeting.  Attend a Christian church.  Attend Synagogue.

Oh yeah, in many, if not most, Muslim countries the practitioners of the "Religion of Peace" will have you thrown into jail, executed in the public square or, at the very least deported.

If you are local, just try converting to Judaism or Christianity and see what happens to your family after they kill you.  Ahhhhhhhh, nothing.

The fact that Muslim protests have been over the top, and the context of the War on Terror, have obscured the fact that these cartoons were intentionally offensive and - specifically because they mocked not misguided Muslims or imams but Muhammad himself - over the line.

And Kanye "I'm addicted to porn" West posing as Christ isn't? The Madonna covered in elephant dung?

I am, I think decidedly with Paul on this one. The issue is not the right to free speech, which is not per se absolute. The issue is the fact that this absurd response to what is an admittedly offensive cartoon (cartoon!) is starting to raise serious questions in the minds of many people about whether Islam is interested in assimilating into Europe, or only dominating it.

9-11 may have been a bad example, because there was a political consequence attached to not condemning the action-even Arafat condemned the action, but are you really arguing it was a heartfelt condemnation.

Suicide bombing in general isn't widely condemned-at least among middle Eastern Muslims.  

So if there is this massive majority of Muslims who condemn suicide bombings, especially those by Palestinians in Israel, they are a silent majority.

I have said it before and will say it again, just because you can do something, that doesn't mean you should do it.

Sure the press has the right to publish offensive things.

And I think Muslims have every right to be offended.

I think what bothers me here though, is the over the top reaction to the offense.  If a newspaper or magazine prints something that offends my faith-I admit more times than not I may simply express verbally, and likely wouldn't even bother with a letter to the editor, but writing the offending publication is certainly a legitimate avenue of protest.  Even holding "we are offended" type signs in protest don't bother me.  But the threats, calls for people to be killed and the burning of buildings is just rediculous.  No offense should justify this kind of reaction-it reminds me of angry toddlers who often react out of proportion to what angers them-maybe the Muslim world needs to grow up.

Mbecker

In the spirit of "free speech" etc. I do support your right to write whatever you like, however, you should get the facts right first:

Several Muslim organizations are condemning the acts of violence in Syria and other places. (E.g. the Swedish Muslim Council "sveriges muslimska rad"). Other organizations, including the Norwegian Muslim association, have called for calm and offered to mediate.

So, please do not make things like this worse by spreading lies.

I applaud their intervention at this late date.  Better now than never.  You point to a hopeful fact I've missed.

Maybe you can add some others that I've missed.  How about any Muslim organization in Britain, Germany, France or Spain that has spoken out against violence?  How about CAIR?  Do we have a list of mullahs who are supporting the cessation of violence?  How about one, just one, Muslim government official, on behalf of his government calling for a cessation of violence and supporting freedom of the press?

By the way, mediation isn't what's needed here.  What is needed is a firm rebuke of the tactics of Muslims worldwide who, when they find any affront, threaten the civilized world with violence, jihad and death by terror attacks.  And it's nice their condemning the Syrian attacks.  How about calling off the dogs with respect to jihad?  And where were they when the film producer was murdered?

Sorry, but the international face of Islam is a face covered with a shawl, open only for eye holes, guarding the identity of a terrorist.  Not all Muslims are terrorists, but it certainly seems as though all terrorists are Muslims.  

I think it's interesting that finally, after more than three decades of acts of terror by Muslims in Europe beginning in Munich in 1972 and carrying forward to the bombings in Spain and London and the endless riots in France, that the Europeans may be figuring out that Islamists are their enemy.  They certainly act that way.

At the end of the day, the problem is not westerners spreading lies about Muslims.  The problem is the worldwide acceptance of terrorism as a legitimate tactic by Muslims and the nearly complete silence from Muslim religious and government leaders when they should be rejecting violence as a tactic.

Are all Muslims guilty of terrorism, beyond a reasonable doubt?  Of course not.  The preponderance of the evidence, however, weighs very heavily against them.

Your mistake is thinking of Islam as primarily a religion when it is primarily a political ideology which has a religious packaging because of its 7th century origin. Mohammad was violent. He plundered, slaughtered, terrorized, conquered and oppressed. The cartoons weren't off the mark.

You compare these cartoons with potentially similar ones directed towards Christianity. I compare these cartoons with potentially similar ones against Nazism and communism. Once you put Islam, original (i.e. Salafi) Islam, in the category of political ideology, these cartoons are mild and appropriate.

If a political ideology can shield itself behind a religious façade, it will secure for itself immunity from criticism which is unhealthy for a well-functioning democracy. I argue that our press has failed to join their Danish colleagues in solidarity.

"9-11 may have been a bad example, because there was a political consequence attached to not condemning the action"

And there is a political consequence for not denouncing abortion clinic bombers.  I think the analogy holds.  "Most object" probably applies to Muslims and violence just as it does to Christians and violence.  The worry is about the size, scope, and ability of the violent minority.  We should not downplay that threat, but we should not overstate it's size as well.

"Your mistake is thinking of Islam as primarily a religion when it is primarily a political ideology which has a religious packaging because of its 7th century origin. Mohammad was violent. He plundered, slaughtered, terrorized, conquered and oppressed. The cartoons weren't off the mark."

Because most of the ones I know consider it a religion where they worship God and try to do good by Him.  It's about as much a political ideology as Christianity is... you know trying to affect people's view of abortion, same-sex marriage, and whether one can pray in schools.  I guess that's pretty much a political group that just masquerades as a religion.

And if you really want to get into attacking a religious figure, we can rehash the whole history of Christian religious leaders and their problems.

How many Islamic religious leaders condemned the attacks? How about subsequent attacks? How about condemning Al Qaeda altogether? Or condemning the idea of Jihad? How about condemning the current calls for a new holocaust and such?

Sorry, but a few politically pressured figureheads making statements tantamount to "don't blame us" is hardly an example of widespread condemnation in the Islamic world.

that many of the 'condemnations' are for western consumption. Much like Arafat, say one thing in English and another in Arabic. Remember that it isn't lying and deception if it's in the service of Islam.

Erick: I normally agree with your arguments, but with all due respect, isn't your argument here a cheap copout?

The government in a democratic, freedom-loving nation has no responsibility for monitoring or critiquing speech. The government protects that freedom. Period.

You may personally be offended by questionable works of so-called art such as "Piss Christ" that offend your Christian sensibilities, but that's just too bad. Tough cookies. Get to used it.

So what's this garbage about "responsibility in that freedom"? If Danes (or Americans) want to make fun of Islamic piety, that's their right. There's no shortage of stuff in Islam and other religions that deserves to be mocked, or at least questioned.

Either you believe in freedom of speech or not.

Most Muslim dominated nations are ruled by a Political-Theocracy or a Dictatorship. Some not yet dominated nations are being 'taken over' by the implementation of Sharia Law (Islamic Law.. special rules for muslims, but not for you unless its good for the muslim and then it's ok).

Let's look beyond Religion, beyond Culture, beyond Race... and lets look at the base reality and compare them to the Bill of Rights and a few choice Amendments. I'll bold the passages that more than not DON'T EXIST in Muslim rule (in whatever form it has taken). To me, it's pretty obvious that freedom, as we know it, is non-existant in the Muslim ruled world. It can be a trap to discuss this religion, this culture in a sense of what it is or what it is supposed to be.. it ends up being a discussion of semantics.

Look at what IT IS NOT and recoil.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. (Assuming Jihad lets you do whatever you want. It's clear Mohammed did.)

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (Going to have to stay away from some of this since Kelo.)

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIX

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

As others have pointed out, the issue in America is more about how tax dollars sometimes get used to fund (at least in part) garbage like the 'piss christ.'  There is no getting used to that, as it should never happen, and would never happen if the object of derision was of another faith.

"And while I think their outrage has been disproportionate to the offense, at least they are willing to protest the mocking of their faith instead of being willing to accept the secular world's constant peeing on their faith."

There is plenty of protest and anger and outcry over the common and numerous assaults leveled by Hollywood/media on Christianity in the United States.  Such protest just helped to get that horrible "Book of Daniel" show canceled.  I'd agree that sometimes the response to such insults is weak, and that it should be stronger, but still, our way is preferable to murdering the offenders, as many followers of the Religion of Peace seem willing to do.

Face it, large-scale immigration of Muslims into Western nations is just a bad idea.  

There's no need to rehash anything. Jesus gave one example and Mohammad gave another. You're confusing religion (or ideology) with sociology. A doctrinal creed, like a religion, is determined by the texts and the example of the major religious figure. Sociology is a superficial study of people---a nominal group---who may or may not practice the religion/ideology they profess. The only way to know if they do is to ascertain the religion independently of the behavior of nominal adherents.

It's a common mistake. I talk about this often.

recommendation regardless of public funding...that's just vadum's way of saying the only tolerance he accepts is his brand of intolerance.  Peaceful dissent is always acceptable, even when naively or unintelligibly applied (as in the case of the anti-war protesters, IMO).

The more of this nonsense that goes on the harder it gets to accept your argument. All of the 'condemnations' of 9/11 and every event, attack, riot, disruption since then have done absolutely nothing to ameliorate subsequent events.

by Piss Christ and the dung Madonna.  I refrained from bombing the exhibits or shooting the "artists".  I am offended by Tom Toles cartoon the WaPo and I am offended that Ted Ralls is still breathing.  Not planning any bombings or killings there either.  Flag burning is offensive, but I'm opposed to a Constitutional amendment to stop it.

Generally speaking, I'm OK with keeping offensive behaviour legal.  Mostly because people who behave offensively hurt their cause.  Example:  if you think the federal government should spend more money to "help the poor" and the best case you can make is to burn a US flag, don't expect much support for your cause.

With respect to the ongoing flap about the cartoons, the Muslims were obviously offended by them.  As soon as they took to the streets and started burning down embassies and threatening people with kidnapping and death, their behaviour instantly became much more offensive that that of the cartoonists.  Such behaviour says, to me at least, "we have no ability to make a rational case that what the cartoonists did was wrong so we are just going to start killing people so you won't mess with us again."

When Piss Christ was the talking point, I don't recall anyone suggesting (although I'm sure you can find a citation somewhere) that the "artist" didn't have the right to put a crucifix in a quart jar and pee in it.  And then display it.  The real point of debate was not the "art" as such, it was that the NEA (my tax dollars) paid for it.  That is a perfectly legitimate debate.

Muslims are not debating issues.  They are attempting to hold the world hostage, and they are sliding rapidly down the food-chain of complaints.  They've been offended by US policy in the Middle East for decades and have used that as an excuse to engage in terrorism.  Now they are down to using cartoons as an excuse for terrorism.  They are rapidly becoming a parody of victim-hood and they may just find that the West won't play anymore.

This whole issue just reaks of stupidity on all sides:

1.  People of all stripes take religion too seriously.  It's pretty silly that we can laugh at our political leaders but our religious leaders are off base.  Why can't people just accept that because something was written down 10000 years ago doesn't mean it's right today?
   
2.  Satire and criticism are fine, but picking fights is another issue.  The Danes could've verbalized rather than visualized and this would've gone without notice.  

"Saved" is satirizing religion.  "Book of Daniel" is baiting (and just bad tv).  And I don't even like the Religious Right.

3.  Now we're gonna have to explain to schoolkids who the Danes are.  They just popped up outta nowhere.

This post is entirely inaccurate in that its central thesis relies on an implied moral equivalence between Christian forms of protest and Muslim forms of protest.

When the movie The Last Temptation of Christ came out, Christians protested, but they didn't burn down the movie theatres, or threaten the lives of the producers or actors.

When the lousy TV show The Book of Daniel recently came out, Christians verbally criticized, but no one at NBC had to fear for their lives.

As for the abortion clinic analogy, that too is way off base.  The bombing of abortion clinics is in no way a mainstream form of Christian protest.  To state that "In the West, we have Christians willing to blow up abortion clinics" is a disservice to Christians everywhere.  We don't have Christians willing to blow up abortion clinics; we might have a few deranged individuals willing to do that, but that in no way is representative of any form of Christianity.  I know you qualify that statement by noting that only a "very small minority" of Christians are willing to blow up abortion clinics, but that too is a disservice to Christianity.  The very small minority is so small as to not even be considered a part of Christianity.  

In short, this post is entirely inaccurate.  There would be no problem if Muslims were bombarding the Danish newspaper with emails and letters, or threatening a boycott of Danish items, as Christians perhaps would do.  

The big difference between Christian forms of protest and Muslim forms of protest is the difference between nonviolent protest and violent one.  That is the whole point.

Re:  It's pretty silly that we can laugh at our political leaders but our religious leaders are off base.

Our civilization actually has a tradition of spoofing religion, even in ages when blasphemy was a capital offense. The Greeks and Romans had satyr plays, rather obscene burlesques in which the gods cavorted as drunken lechers. And in the Middle Ages there was a Feast of Fools (from which our Mardi Gras partly descends) in which the Church and even the saints were given the bawdy treatment.

Does Islam have any tradition of being able to laugh at itself in like manner? If not, that is a big, big part of their problem. No person, and no culture, should ever take itself 100% seriously.

Sounds vaguely like they're burning down the Reichstag to me. I think the media should speak a little more frankly about this, especially this guy Ahmadinejad.If NOAA and the other weather services had told the people of New Orleans that a patch of unsettled weather was expected to pass over their city on August 29,2005 and left it at that, most people would claim that a disservice had been done. All of this glib talk about the wonders of diplomacy is, frankly, nonsense. Lets bring up some of the diplomatic low lights of a different period when world history came to another point of inflection. British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, traveled to Munich, Germany in September 1938, to discuss Hitler's demands regarding the Sudeten Germans living in Czech territory. Hitler kept Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of a sovereign nation, waiting in an ante-room while he went over the plans for the army's attack should the Western Democracies not give in to his demands, a deliberate insult.  Chamberlain left Munich after agreeing to the German's demands in their entirety, in a desperate attempt to maintain peace at any price. Hitler and his foreign minister, Von Ribbentrop, were incensed that Chamberlain had deprived them of their war and agreed that the next time they were not going to be cheated out of their war. In the meantime, the Japanese, keenly aware of how graciously accommodating the Western Democracies were, began to make their own plans. In the negotiations between the Japanese ambassadors and the United States, that immediately preceded the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese were prepared, if necessary, should the United States somehow agree to their present demands, to present a list of additional, new, demands. Negotiations then, as now, were a charade. Today, the Imams, have called on Iran, should it obtain nuclear weapons, to use them to destroy Israel, arguing that Israel's destruction would be complete, with only minor damage to Iran. Apparently an end of times belief occurs, not only in Christanity, but Islam itself. Supposedly, a mythic figure, the Mahdi or "hidden Imam" is supposed to appear. Iran's president has announced funding to prepare the mosque for the "hidden Imam's' return. He, apparently, is well aware that he will soon have Armageddon at his fingertips and is possessed of a religious certainty he will escape unscathed should he use it. WWII claimed the lives of some fifty million people over its six year course, there is every reason to expect that fifty million people could perish in the first thirty minutes of the next one. Sixty years ago, the world found that the only way to deal with a megalomaniac crazed with the idea of racial superiority and a hatred of the Jews, was to destroy him, negotiations were an exercise in futility. Today the world is faced with a megalomaniac crazed with a religious certainty and ironically, also a hatred of the Jews. Are we again faced with the same choice? Are we in the same state as announced by a character in an HBO mini series, "we're already dead, but we don't know it"  

wide spread support.

Name me one major Christian leader that encourages or defends the bombings of abortion clinics or the murders of abortion providers?

I don't see much effort towards the same from the Muslim community-the voices are getting louder-but to be honest it often seems like the condemnations to date have a "but" attached to them, and the main voices of condemnation are often condemned themselves (a good example being Irshad Manji-who is a Muslim woman, but is willing to call Muslim violence for what it is, but she has had multiple death threats against her, and calls for her death).

Every time I head a Moslem condemn violence, all I can see is Claude Rainnes in Cassablanca, justifying shutting down the nightclub where La Marseillaise has just been played as an act of open defiance against the Nazis (one of the all-time greatest scenes in a movie)

Rick, the nightclub owner:

"You can't shut me down.  What's the charge?"

Prefect of Police :

"I'm shocked, Shocked I say, to find that gambling has been going on in this establishment"

Croupier (proferring a wad of bills to the prefect):

"Here's your winnings monsieur"

Prefect of Police (pocketing the money):

"Oh, thank you very much".

that bombs abortion clinics (which I think is totally unacceptable) with one that is willing to stab people to death, chop their heads off and burn down their buildings over a 10 minute video, or a couple of drawings says something about the value that the latter places on human life, which is at least as important as their size, scope and ability.

... whether Islam is interested in assimilating into Europe, or only dominating it.

I wonder how this will affect Turkey's bid for E.U. membership.

What do you mean? I just simply pointed out some incorrect statements.

If you know your enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles" Sun Tzu.

 "If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat." Sun Tzu continues....

So, may I recommend you to study the difference between Islam and terrorism first? The enemy is not Islam, but some western behavior (Invasion of Iraq, Danish cartoons etc) will make Muslims think that western culture is an enemy of Islam, and then we will all have a problem.