Posted on 02/05/2006 3:49:52 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
The Philadelphia Inquirer, one of the few U.S. newspapers to publish a caricature of the Prophet Mohammad from a series that sparked a wave of protests by Muslims, defended the action on Sunday by saying it was just doing its job.
"This is the kind of work that newspapers are in business to do," said Amanda Bennett, the newspaper's editor.
The Inquirer on Saturday published the most controversial image, which depicted the Prophet with a turban resembling a lit bomb, and it posted on its Web site an Internet link to the rest of the cartoons.
For many Muslims, Islam forbids images of the Prophet. The publication in Denmark and elsewhere in Europe of a series of satirical cartoons depicting Mohammad has sparked protests in many countries and some have turned violent. Moderate Muslim groups have condemned the violence and urged restraint.
The Inquirer included a note with its publication of the image which read, in part, "The Inquirer intends no disrespect to the religious beliefs of any of its readers. But when a use of religious imagery that many find offensive becomes a major news story, we believe it is important for readers to be able to judge the content of the image for themselves."
The note compared the image with the earlier publication of a 1987 photograph by Andres Serrano of a crucifix in urine, a work which angered many Christians.
Bennett said in an article on the Inquirer's Web site that the newspaper published the Mohammad cartoon to help convey the issue.
"We're running this in order to give people a perspective of what the controversy's about, not to titillate, and we have done that with a whole wide range of images throughout our history," Bennett said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Courage in America.
Finally!
it turns out that a group of Danish imams circulated the images to brethren in Muslim countries. When they did so, they included in their package three other, much more offensive cartoons which had not appeared in Jyllands-Posten but were lumped together so that many thought they had.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/02/04/do0402.xml
Courage it is.
Question is what did we have to fear in the first place?
There's nothing to fear but fear itself, eh?
by saying it was just doing its job.
Nothing like defending yourself with complacency sounds like a bill collection agency or an eviction handler.
Couldn't just come out and say Moohamhead was a fake prophet for cash could they ?
BTTT
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/02/04/do0402.xml
Why were those Danish flags to hand? Who built up the stockpile so that they could be quickly dragged out right across the Muslim world and burnt where television cameras would come and look? The more you study this story
of "spontaneous" Muslim rage, the odder it seems.
(snip)
It rather looks as if the anger with which all Muslims are said to be burning needed some pretty determined stoking. Peter Mandelson, who seems to think that his job as European Trade Commissioner entitles him to pronounce on matters of faith and morals, accuses the papers that republished the cartoons of "adding fuel to the flames"; but those flames were lit (literally, as well as figuratively) by well-organised, radical Muslims who wanted other Muslims to get furious. How this network has operated would make a cracking piece of investigative journalism.
And tolerance groups all over the United States will boycot...
I wonder if the dems are gonna side with the mohamadeans on this,or they'll support freedom of speech?
I don't really see how any intelligent discussion could take place concerning the cartoon without it being shown to the readers.
And I don't think that publishing something in this country takes courage. That is the whole point of a free press: they don't have to worry about politicians being angry for what they print!
Well, people need to know what all the violence was all about. Meanwhile, a muslim protest in NYC at the UN went largely unreported.
Will McCain think this has to do with CFR ?
One of the few U.S. editors with balls is a woman.
Expect the libs to champion freedom of speech? Like when Larry Summers of Harvard spoke his mind about women in science? Like that Neo-Nazi march in Ohio that lambasted African-Americans as violent thugs, that (ironically) started a riot?
No. This was a case of acting 'in bad taste' and stoking 'vulnerable sensibilities.' That's the way things work. If you're a member of a protected group, you're allowed to have temper tantrums like a 2-year-old whenever anyone says anything halfway dispraging or offensive about you, regardless of the potential merits of the claim. It's only when you're NOT that you get called out as being 'thin-skinned' and the concept of freedom of speech gets tossed around. God bless America. </SARC>
The whole thing reminds me of the Rushdie thing. Chain bookstores refused to display Satan Verses. Independent booksellers were putting copies in their windows.
Thank you so much for reminding me of Hyacinth and "Keeping Up Appearances." I just ordered the DVD collection. That show was great.
mind the pedestrian!
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.