The publication faced the Islamists alone:
They offered high-handed but paper-thin excuses about not causing needless offense. Their cowardice ensured that publications like Charlie Hebdo and Jyllands-Posten stood alone and exposed, lightning rods for Islamist violence. But many others were targeted anyway — some 200 people were killed around the world in protests after Jyllands-Posten published its cartoons in 2005.
Yesterday, much of the traditional media doubled down on its shameful behavior by again refusing to show the cartoons. Many web outlets, including The Daily Beast, Buzzfeed, and PJ Media, did publish them. One of the first newspapers spotted keeping its head below the parapet was the UK’s Telegraph — its website pixellated out a drawing of Mohammed in a photograph of a Charlie Hebdo cover. The New York Daily News followed suit. CNN ordered its staff not to show the cartoons. The major networks refrained from doing so. The Associated Press claimed its policy was to “refrain from moving deliberately provocative images,” a policy which, it was quickly pointed out, hasn’t prevented it from selling photos of Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ.
Those organizations that bothered to offer an excuse fell back on the “offense” line, but it hardly needs saying that they’ve never felt compelled to extend the same courtesy to Christians or Jews.
The double standard can in part be explained by the fact that the liberals who dominate the U.S. media, and Britain’s globally influential BBC, believe that Islam is to be respected because it’s broadly the religion of brown people and victims of Western oppression, while Christianity can fairly be ridiculed because it’s the religion of white people and Western oppressors. And don’t, of course, get them started about the Jews.
But mostly, it comes down to the fact that journalists of every political hue have long been wary of provoking Muslims because they fear they’ll be murdered, while they know they have nothing to fear from Christians or Jews beyond strongly worded statements and perhaps a boycott.
They are cowards who will not defend western civilization against barbarians.
[Update a few minutes later]
Reminder: If there is such a thing as a moderate Muslim, we shouldn’t undermine them by treating the monsters who did this as Muslim.
[Update a while later]
Europe under siege: This was an attack on perhaps the greatest idea of the West.
The French police killed the terrorists and freed their hostages. Can’t say I did not expect this to happen.
PS: Good riddance.
No, four of the (Jewish) hostages were killed.
Two hostage situations, at the first the brothers who murdered the Charlie Hebdo people killed with no hostages killed, at the second one sole terrorist and 4 hostages dead at the kosher grocery store.
As Mel said, ya can’t torquemada anything.
The will to deal with it does not yet exist, then it will go too far. Doing the right thing consistently never seems to be an option for some reason. Cowards.
Rand’s PJ Media article: More to the point, would most Christians demand, or even think it proper that, after his unrepentant execution, he be given Christian service and burial? Would that not be viewed by many as an insult to Christianity itself?
http://www.juancole.com/2008/12/indian-muslims-refuse-to-bury-militants.html
The Muslim community in Mumbai says it doesn’t want the gunmen who attacked Mumbai to be buried in the Muslim cemetery, on the grounds that they are not Muslims.
A spokesman for the Muslim council said, “”These terrorists are a black spot on our religion, we will very sternly protest the burial of these terrorists in our cemetery . . .”
http://kdvr.com/2013/05/06/report-bombing-suspect-tamerlan-tsarnaev-could-be-buried-in-metro-denver/
“It has recently been reported that the Colorado Muslim Society has offered to provide burial services for Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the individuals who perpetrated the grave and destructive bombings at the 2013 Boston Marathon. This report is absolutely untrue. The individual who has reportedly made this offer does not speak on behalf of the Colorado Muslim Society,” the statement says.
It continues, “The Colorado Muslim Society strongly condemns all acts of violence and grieves with all of America after the attacks in Boston. The conduct of Tamerlan Tsarnaev is abhorrent and contrary to every principle and belief that underlies the purpose of the Colorado Muslim Society.”
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/04/28/boston_marathon_bombings_muslims_torn_over_burial_prayers_for_tamerlan_tsaraev.html
For the religious leaders in Boston, the issue of how to deal with the remains of an alleged terrorist is an ethical dilemma with no clear answer, and little precedence. As a result, it has led to two distinctly different responses from the leadership: those who say Tsarnaev’s acts are so heinous he deserves rejection from the community, and those who believe that every man, regardless of his crime, deserves his last rites.
“It’s not an easy situation to be in,” said Imam Yusuf Badat, who leads the congregation at the Islamic Foundation of Toronto, one of the largest mosques in the city. “They probably fear that people will think they are too sympathetic to the terrorist, or they have concerns about a backlash. That’s likely why the mosques are declining.”
http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-the-scholar/acts-of-worship/prayer/funerals/452080-bin-ladens-sea-burial-un-islamic
Burying Osama Bin Laden (may Allah have mercy on him) at the sea is illegitimate, rather he should have been buried in a Muslim cemetery. This is based on the jurists’ consensus that burial is a well-established right for the dead person.
The Qur’an is clear regarding this; Allah Almighty says, (Then He causes him to die, then assigns to him a grave). (`Abasa 80: 21)
Moreover, burying a dead person in the ground is one of the features of honoring a human regardless of his or her religion or race.
“Moreover, burying a dead person in the ground is one of the features of honoring a human regardless of his or her religion or race.”
ISIS has been honoring a lot of people this way.
“on the grounds that they are not Muslims.
A spokesman for the Muslim council said, “”These terrorists are a black spot on our religion,”
Looks like they recognize that they were Muslim and are embarrassed because of it. Mumbai was really jacked up. They stuck knives in little kids and then stuffed them alive into refrigerators.
And weren’t the people involved in that attack from Pakistan? Regardless of religion, why would they want the job of burying foreigners that were responsible for that attack?
If we shouldn’t treat these guys as muslims, shouldn’t they then be buried some days in the future, unbathed, naked, with their body perpendicular to Mecca. It would be interesting to note those who would them claim disrespect, because of that is a disrespect of their religion, then apparently these jihadist are considered muslim.
Lest others misunderstand, I wouldn’t care if a person claiming Christianity as a religion that none the less murdered half a dozen people was killed, cremated, and their ashes flushed down the toilet. I’d be perfectly fine with that being the solution for these two thugs.
Oops, didn’t click the link Rand… sorry.
“If we shouldn’t treat these guys as muslims, shouldn’t they then be buried some days in the future, unbathed, naked, with their body perpendicular to Mecca. …”
…..with a pork chop stuffed into their faces…..
What I find so mind boggling is:
DO NOT say anything negative or offend anyone about their religion, so say the Cowards….
…and yet, what the Islamic Jihadists and extremists so is say negative things about other people’s religions, offend other people, and then kill them.
I’m betting they won’t get a Muslim burial.
Just about 3 years ago…
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gunman-behind-france-terror-attacks-buried/
(AP) TOULOUSE, France – The gunman who claimed responsibility for France’s worst terror attacks in years was buried Thursday in a Toulouse cemetery, ending a tortured debate over what to do with the body of a man the president called a “monster.”
France is still reeling from the killings of three Jewish schoolchildren, a rabbi and three paratroopers that revived worries about Islamist extremism and shook up the French presidential campaign.
Mohamed Merah, a 23-year-old Frenchman, was buried Thursday in the Muslim section of a cemetery in the Toulouse neighborhood of Cornebarrieu. About 20 men attended the ceremony, hiding their faces from reporters gathered outside.
I’m still betting they won’t get a Muslim burial.
Why would you take that bet? Upon what do you base your opinion?
If there is such a thing as a moderate Muslim. . .
How are you defining moderate? Do you call these people moderates?
Cat Stevens, Shaquille O’Neal, Muhammad Ali, Janet Jackson, Mara Brock Akil, Yasin Bey, Dave Chapelle, Mike Tyson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, or are you labeling moderates as Muslim people who are political but not anti West/American/Christian? Leaving 90%+ of Muslims out of the moderate vs extremist categorization?
“Moderate” doesn’t seem to me to be a label applicable to most Muslims, or Christians for that matter.
“are you labeling moderates as Muslim people who are political but not anti West/American/Christian?”
That is a good question. Who knows what a moderate Muslim is?
While religion and politics are especially intertwined in the Muslim world, someone who is a moderate on religion might not be so on politics and the other way around. I view the political differences as almost a great a challenge as the religious differences but the religious angle is much harder to deal with diplomatically right now.
““Moderate” doesn’t seem to me to be a label applicable to most Muslims, or Christians for that matter.”
Wake me up when Christians are waging a global war of extermination. How are most Christians not moderate?
“Leaving 90%+ of Muslims out of the moderate vs extremist categorization?”
Same applies to Christian, if they’re not interested in getting involved any sort of religious political debate (gay marriage, woman priests, abortion) I wouldn’t call them zealots or moderates.
Cat Stevens agreed with the fatwa against Rushdie. He’s no moderate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Stevens%27_comments_about_Salman_Rushdie
On his personal spiritual website he wrote:
I never called for the death of Salman Rushdie; nor backed the Fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini—and still don’t. The book itself destroyed the harmony between peoples and created an unnecessary international crisis.
When asked about my opinion regarding blasphemy, I could not tell a lie and confirmed that—like both the Torah and the Gospel–the Qur’an considers it, without repentance, as a capital offense. The Bible is full of similar harsh laws if you’re looking for them.[8] However, the application of such Biblical and Qur’anic injunctions is not to be outside of due process of law, in a place or land where such law is accepted and applied by the society as a whole…[9]
He was stupid with his comments, maybe his comments were largely intended to be sarcastic.
Where in the Gospel is it claimed that blasphemy is a capital offense?
Leviticus 24:16And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him; as well the stranger, as the home-born, when he blasphemeth the Name, shall be put to death
And that hasn’t happened in hundreds of years, as far as I know (though perhaps in some isolated incidents). Can’t say the same for the Middle East and Islam, where it’s essentially government policy.
People are allowed to change their mind, I’m still hoping you’ll do so with regard to your support of Goldman’s proposed pogrom against Muslims in France, I’m stunned at how you can square this with your libertarianism. As you may recall, I’ve called this double standard “fairweather libertarianism” in the past.
Most Christian, Muslims, Jews, and Atheists, etc in this world just want to get on with their lives, I’m with them, the hatemongers, a minority of Christian, Muslims, Jews, and Atheists, those who see a solution in promoting hatred and violence, are the enemy, the ones who’ll derail the future I (and you said you) want to see.
Libertarianism cannot exist in a totalitarian culture. France has not assimilated these people. It is reaping the whirlwind.
I liked this link from Instapundit better.
We are in a situation where my third point applies, because the kind of blasphemy that Charlie Hebdo engaged in had deadly consequences, as everyone knew it could … and that kind of blasphemy is precisely the kind that needs to be defended, because it’s the kind that clearly serves a free society’s greater good. If a large enough group of someones is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization, and when that scenario obtains it isn’t really a liberal civilization any more. Again, liberalism doesn’t depend on everyone offending everyone else all the time, and it’s okay to prefer a society where offense for its own sake is limited rather than pervasive. But when offenses are policed by murder, that’s when we need more of them, not less, because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed.
I agree that the cartoons in question were offensive. Their purpose was to offend and mock. There are any number of appropriate names to call the cartoonists. I haven’t seen all of the cartoons, some of them I might have agreed with the points of but I would have acknowledged that the point was made in an offensive way. I also think Piss Christ is offensive and was intended to be offensive rather than a deeply artistic statement. I don’t think anyone should have been killed for either.
I have zero problem with people who are offended by either expressing their views or with the principal that people be allowed to be as offensive as they want. People have the right to be a d**k and other people have the right to call you one. The problems start when uncivil disagreement turns to violence.
In this situation, the people who profit from the first amendment should have shown more support, not without any criticism of the cartoons at the time they were first published but by standing up now after the violence. I think this is especially true for people who champion the right of free speech when it comes to burning flags, masturbating in the children’s section of libraries, crapping on cop cars, or putting a crucifix in a jar of urine. These things are all offensive but the defenders of these actions like them more because of who they offend rather than any principal of free speech.
It’s not hard to come up with other examples where “free speech” is curtailed by decency laws, public displays of nudity a good example. Now, plenty of people might not have issues with far more liberal decency laws, but others might be hugely offended, should laws exist that ban “indecency” just because some are offended? Obviously they do, so how about laws that ban “indecency” against religious symbols and artifacts? Why suddenly are they curtailing free speech to an unacceptable extent?
I’m not advocating anything here, just pointing out that it’s all subjective, and that people who argue that there are absolutes about where decency legislation should stop and free speech should start are wrong in any objective sense, they’re voicing no more than an opinion on an arbitrary issue, no more or less valid than any other persons opinion.
So to argue for legal protection of religious symbols and artifacts from acts of indecency designed to cause offence is no more or less an attack on free speech than arguing for legislation banning full public nudity in down town NY.
In some sects of Buddhism nudity is often acceptable, while causing religious offense can be a fairly serious criminal matter, the opposite of what’s acceptable in NY, the Japanese are also relaxed about nudity in the appropriate public settings “Japanese don’t regard bathhouse nudity as an issue – and consider it puzzling, even amusing, that some foreigners make a fuss about it.”
(The Buddhism thing came to mind because a Kiwi bar manager is currently looking at doing time in Burma for causing offense by trying to promoting the bar with a Buddha wearing headphones.)
Andrew_W wrote: “So to argue for legal protection of religious symbols and artifacts from acts of indecency designed to cause offence is no more or less an attack on free speech than arguing for legislation banning full public nudity in down town NY.”
How are you going to square your legal protections with the following part of the First Amendment, especially in the case of the “press” publishing “offensive” articles, editorials, letters to the editor, photos, cartoons, and finally, news reports of “offensive” acts by others?
“Congress shall make no law… .abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”
Not to mention this other part of the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
(And please, let’s not start a comment string arguing about the literal meaning of the First Amendment’s words; SCOTUS decisions are the controlling factor in real-life.)
Though perfectly valid the points you make are incommensurable with the argument I was making, which was about the subjective nature of the matter, not the legal ramifications.
“Reminder: If there is such a thing as a moderate Muslim, we shouldn’t undermine them by treating the monsters who did this as Muslim.”
True. We should also emphasize that it is their desire to revive an imperial State, the Caliphate, that binds these people together. We need not undercut those who would live with us, but we *must* emphasize this most important of their characteristics. They are imperialists of the sort brought West by the Mongol Prince, Hulagu, to burn Baghdad. This imperialist character is even being recognized for what it is by religious authorities in Saudi Arabia. We should not be lagging them in this.