Bring it, I'm bored. Challenge me on anything

http://www.zombietime.com... ^ For the readers and Pro's benefit, the cartoons in full and readable print. Also included are images from the pamphlet that was distributed BY Danish Imams to Muslims in the Middle East, with the addition of several extra inflammatory images for the sole purpose one would guess, of inciting the populace. "Certain speech and images have little to no place in a sophisticated society. When the editors of Jyllans-Posten decided to publish these cartoons they claimed to be doing so in "an attempt to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship" (http://en.wikipedia.org......). Especially coming so close on the heels of the bombings in London and Madrid, these editors should have been more aware of the need for sensitivity at such a time. Sensitivity for whom? The victims and their families deserve sensitivity, not the religious institutions that may have appropriated such disasters. Although al-Qaeda's involvements in those two cases are debatable, their support of them is not. In that regard, it is not so much a case of free speech as criticising why, in this case Islam, a religious doctrine can produce such violent outcomes amongst its members. The irony being of course that the ensuing protests upon the publication of these images were violent in and of themselves, in protestation of Islam's peaceful nature. The Danish Imams did far worse by deliberately lying to the faithful who listen to them. "Aside from the obvious outrage that the cartoons would cause, as images depicting Muhammad are considered idolatry according to Muslim tradition, some of the cartoons appear to be downright racist." Islam is not a race and there is nothing inherently racist about the cartoon images. A Caucasian Muslim is perfectly acceptable to the religion itself. If you notice on the link provided at the top, the "white" Muhammad is labeled a PR stunt. That is what newspapers do. They make money by sensationalising and selling copies. People then buy said copies; will you admonish the readers who bought the paper as well? (That's the free speech bit). "One of the cartoons depicts a scowling Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, the Muslim shahada is written on the bomb. Another contains a poem blaming Muhammad for the oppression of women. Given the current political climate this seems to be a foolish decision. It is blindly, if not intentionally damaging to inter-faith dialogue." How is this exactly foolish? It is foolish to possibly incite violent religions in case they are more violent? That is backwards rhetoric, and pandering exactly to Islam's Imams. If they didn't want people, media, governments to give them special privileges from criticism they would not aggressively enforce it so much. However they do, frequently. It is for that very reason that criticism must be employed. Satirical cartoons are a valid form of criticism. It can be both a PR stunt and criticism, the two are not exclusive. Inter faith dialogue is between the religions themselves, not a newspaper and an angry mob of protestors threatening to cut off their heads while burning effigies. "This incident is especially curious because of the issue of Muslims in Europe. Muslim immigrants in Europe have found much less acceptance and have found it much harder to assimilate into their new homelands than their American counterparts." Any lack of assimilation (an ugly term) is the fault of the populace itself. There are no laws that force segregation, no non-Muslim schools, public transport etc. Those populaces choose to remain segregated, stay enclosed in their communities. There is nothing forcing them to act that way except the leaders of their own communities. Why should a media source pander to such a choice by not publishing certain content? The answer is of course, they shouldn't. "With this in mind, if the editors at Jyllands-Posten were so concerned with the dialogue on self-censorship, why did they reject cartoons of Jesus Christ that they thought might be offensive to readers (http://www.guardian.co.uk......)? The same editor who found it appropriate to publish the somewhat racist and stereotype-enforcing cartoons about Muhammad responded to the cartoonist who had submitted them with this quote "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." This is laughably hypocritical." "In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten." Last I checked unsolicited offerings of publication were not considered the best basis for publication decision. It really does not matter if it was a hypocritical stance, if both sets were published as you advocate then you would be annoying both Christians and Muslims. If the editor did not find them funny, and as the illustrator said "type that my Christian grandfather would enjoy " then they certainly would not of been a good sale point for the newspaper. It is the editor's job after all to sell them. "The cartoons which the paper instead chose to publish, excuse me, ASKED their cartoonists to create, misrepresent Islam as a vehicle for violence and Muslims as war-mongering, bulbous-nosed misogynists. This was not an expression of freedom of speech, it was a childish publicity stunt done with a complete lack of respect for the feelings of an already alienated Muslim community." Except they do not misrepresent Islam. Islamic culture can be mysoginist and violent. Its culture is highly patriarchal and it actively acts against female advancement and freedom. It produces violence in its "normal" populace. Its Imams promote violent protest. It has a long history of seeking to destroy any person who speaks against it. Salman Rushdie anyone? It was a newspaper, publicity is its currency. Islam's followers can not continue to ignore the fruit of its doctrine and shove to the side as fundamentalism, because frankly it is not and criticism of such doctrines should be employed more often.