Posted on 02/05/2006 8:17:53 AM PST by SmithL
THE CARICATURES of Muhammad that have ignited an international furor are offensive and recklessly off base in portraying the prophet as a terrorist. The cartoons lacked artistic merit or satirical sophistication. We have to wonder: What were the Danish cartoonists and the newspapers that originally decided to publish them thinking?
Still, the global reaction is far more disturbing than the editors' great lapse in taste and cultural sensitivity. The protests by Muslims demanding violent revenge against the cartoonists -- or, in some cases, against Denmark generally -- are an affront in their own right to a religion of peace. They also guaranteed that many millions of people would quickly go to the Internet to see what the fuss was all about.
Strong editorial cartoons can be outrageous, unfair and, yes, irreverent to the most sacred institutions of society -- even to the edge of blasphemy at times.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
no doubt this editor finds nothing reckless insensitive etc etc in say, the emersion of a crucifix in urine..
The liberal media loves Muslims and hates America yet they don't like *anyone* telling them what they can and cannot print. It has been immensely entertaining watching this clash of values among the press.
Have the cartoons been posted on FR? Also Have they been shown in US papers or on tv? Where's our freedom of the press?
When, it is entire existence have the editors of that rag ever demonstrated serious consideration to "culteral sensitivity" to the religious sensibilities of a majority of Americans? Never.
Every new event simply provides another occasion for the LameStreamMedia to demonstrate its natural moral state - hypocrisy.
These were the same guys who think portraying the crucifix in a glass of urine is just fine and dandy.
Of course the editors of the SFChronicle can bemoan the cartoon depiction of Mohammed as a terrorist; they do not read about or know the true history of Islam.
Not an editorial, but:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1995/03/08/DD43307.DTL&hw=serrano+piss+christ&sn=001&sc=1000
....In ``Piss Christ'' (1987) and related works that use religious icons, Serrano equates the persuasive force of highly finished photographs with that of sacred symbols. In that, if anywhere, lies his insult to piety: to suggest that we can no longer distinguish between spiritual response and consumer frisson.
One look at his 10-year retrospective and you can see that whatever people make of it, Serrano's work is a private research into beauty and symbolism, almost academically methodical and neat....
Love the cartoon here.......
http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/
Funny article title for a San Franfreakshow newspaper.
Where has the writer been the last few years?
In addition to the crime waves in European cities which can be attributed to the imported animals, how about this, as to what they were thinking?
Is nothing sacred? ... recklessly off base in portraying the prophet as a terrorist ... a religion of peace
Is it too much to ask these clowns to actually think before they type?
Consider the source.
Absolutely NOTHING in Islam-or about it- is sacred.
Especially not life.
Why are people working so hard to find reasons to respect
that which will destroy us?
And that's the lesson the mohammed followers need to learn.
Through the looking glass, indeed.
They're all over FR, but the easiest place I've found to view them is at http://www.michellemalkin.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.