The New York Times has run one editorial so far (from what I can tell) on arguably the biggest story of the month, possibly the year: the massive protests, murders, violence, and destruction following the publishing 5 months ago of some cartoons depicting the prohpet Mohammed. Following standard journalistic practice, I'll pause here to point out that "Muslims consider depictions of Mohammed blasphemous." That statement is a bit incomplete, which most news outlets have never taken the time to point out. The truth: Mulsims of the increasingly, radical, fundamentalist bent that have come to form the broad mass of Islam as it exists today around the world consider depictions of the prophet blasphemous. Mulsims of the more enlightened, scholarly, academic nature that existed several hundred years ago had no such hang ups. That in and of itself might be an interesting story, but despite looking, I haven't seen it anywhere. Probably people are afraid to write it out of the not unreasonable fear of being murdered.
The story is a crucial one about how a significant percentage of the world's population views the freedom of the press. As reported in the AP story about the latest flare up of murders over the cartoon, Grand Imam Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi of al-Azhar University, the world's highest Sunni Muslim seat of learning, said, no, actually, demanded "that the world's religious leaders, including him and Pope Benedict XVI, should meet to write a law that ''condemns insulting any religion, including the Holy Scriptures and the prophets.'' He said the United Nations should then impose the law on all countries." (inside the little quotes are direct quotes, inside the double quotes is text from the AP story).
Let's be crystal clear about the political position of the murderers and their accomplices. 1) Freedom of speech does not extend to the realm of religious statement, or even political statement about religion. 2) Religious pride should be treated as personal property, something to be guarded by the state with the threat of force. 3) The violation of religious pride should be pereceived in the same way as an attack on one's property or life, appropriate to be met with violent force in defense.
This is a radical notion. It certainly stands in opposition to the great majority of Western thought over the past several hundred years and the founding principles of democracy in the West. You would think that the NYT, whose very existence is made possible by those prinicples being challenged, would want to mount a spirited defense? They made a comment about it in an editorial today
, I kid you not, here's the direct quote: "Who needs sophomoric cartoons to inflame the Muslim world when you've got the Bush administration's prison system? One reason the White House is so helpless against the violence spawned by those Danish cartoons is that it has squandered so much of its moral standing at Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib." A few questions: How is it that Bush is helpless? He's not the target of the violence, nor is it his responsibility to try and stop it. I agree with the criticism concerning Abu Ghraib and G-bay, but this sounds quite obviously like a two wrongs make a right comment. Second question: the cartoons didn't spawn the violence. The cartoons were published five months ago. The violence was spawned by a failed ideology being employed by fascist imams trying to exert ever more control over an uneducated, impoverished and easily manipulated people. That the people are so easily manipulated is the latest symptom of the ongoing corruption of Muslim society.
Unfortunately, the one editorial the NYT did write directly on this point is behind the Timesselect wall, but maybe we can glean a bit from the title and first sentence you are allowed to see. The title is: "Censoring Truth." Oops, actually that strongly worded title is actually a tirade about Bush and some NASA thing. The real title is "Those Danish Cartoons." As if the cartoons, and not the murderous anger of the world's Muslims is the real story. The first line is: "Cartoons making fun of the Prophet Muhammad that were published in a Danish newspaper last September are suddenly one of the hottest issues in international politics." Hottest issues? It makes it sound like Capri pants..."Man, have you seen the latest? Burning down embassies because your fragile religious sensibilities have been tweaked? Everybody's doing it!?" Other reports on the editorial include the following quote:
"The easy points to make about the continuing crisis are that (a) people are bound to be offended if their religion is publicly mocked, and (b) the proper response is not to go on a rampage and burn down buildings. If Muslim organizations want to stage peaceful marches or organize boycotts of Danish goods, they're certainly within their rights." Wow, the very existence of the worldview in which the NYT is allowed to exist is under attack, and they make there defense in part (b) of a spineless two part summary of events.
Remember Piss Christ? That's the federally funded work of art showing a crucifix in a jar of urine. Boy, how those Christians went nuts! All those buildings that got burned down, people that got murdered, that was mayhem. What...that didn't happen? And yet the NYT still editorialized against people who would rather not have their tax dollars directed towards a mocking of their values? Yes.
Remember that portrait of Mary (the mother of Jesus) covered in feces? Remember the riots, fires and murders? What!? Not even one murder? What about the NYT, what did they say? "Gratuitous assaults on religious symbols"-- "sounds juvenile." No, that's what they said about the cartoons (really). The cartoons were gratuitous. Covering a (peaceful) symbol of a religion in shit--this is the response: "cultural experimentation and transgression are not threats to civility but part of the texture and meaning of daily life."
Actually, they're right--the only true threat to civility is violence. The greatest threat to a democratic civilization is when speech is restricted in the face of fear of reprisal. The NYT, in their weak and anemic defense, have cast their lot with their own opponents, the agents of their own destruction. This is a big deal...it would be nice if the paper of record would notice.