Posted on 02/03/2006 1:31:35 PM PST by thierrya
US backs Muslims in cartoon dispute Fri Feb 3, 2006 3:28 PM ET
By Saul Hudson
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States backed Muslims on Friday against European newspapers that printed caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad in a move that could help America's battered image in the Islamic world.
Inserting itself into a dispute that has become a lightning rod for anti-European sentiment across the Muslim world, the United States sided with Muslims outraged that the publications put press freedom over respect for religion.
"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question.
"We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."
American Muslims welcomed the U.S. position, although it stopped short of urging American media not to republish the cartoons that include depicting Mohammad as a terrorist.
Cooper said he had no comment as to why the United States chose to pass judgment in a dispute that ostensibly does not involve America.
But the United States, which was founded by immigrants fleeing religious persecution, has previously spoken out against publications offensive to believers of other faiths.
"Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images or any other religious belief," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.
The United States, which before the September 11 attacks was criticized for insensitivity to the Islamic culture, has become more attuned to Muslim sensibilities.
Accusations last year that U.S. officials desecrated the Koran sparked deadly riots in Asia and heightened that awareness.
DIFFERENT RESPONSE IN U.S. AND EUROPE
Major U.S. publications have not republished the cartoons.
In contrast, some European media responded to the criticism against the Danish newspaper that originally printed the caricatures by reproducing the images and fueled anger that has led to boycotts of Danish products and widespread protests.
The U.S. response contrasted with European governments, which have tended to acknowledge the tension between free speech and respect for religion but have generally accepted the newspapers' rights to print the cartoons.
Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations, told Reuters he welcomed the U.S. position.
The State Department reaction "was a strong statement in support of Muslims around the world. It's a reflection of the concern felt by millions of Muslims and I think it will be appreciated," he said.
"It is support for an understanding that with freedom comes responsibility."
But Stephen Zunes, a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and a Bush administration critic, said the United States was responsible for creating far more anger in the Muslim world because of its invasion of Iraq.
"The United States is the last nation that should caution against unnecessarily inflaming sentiments in the Muslim world," he said.
The U.S. criticism of the newspapers also comes after the Pentagon complained over a Washington Post cartoon.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff sent an unusual letter to the editor published on Thursday, denouncing as "reprehensible" and "beyond tasteless" a cartoon earlier in the week portraying Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as insensitive to U.S. troop casualties.
The cartoon portrayed a soldier who had lost his arms and legs with Rumsfeld at his hospital bedside saying, "I'm listing your condition as 'battle hardened.'"
(Additional reporting by Caroline Drees)
"US backs Muslims in cartoon dispute"
No we don't.
I think you are correct that this is just stupidity on the part of the President and the Administration. I think they are trying to be sensitive to the "feelings" of a minority and ended up painting themselves into a corner...taking an anti-freedom position.
I can, but then I've got certain MSM channels blocked. Stick to TV-Land, and most of the stuff on the History Channel (Most especially "Mail Call") and your carpet will be safe.
Mainly because their attitudes about freedom of speech are so close to that of American liberals. Freedom of speech unless we disagree with you, and then we'll shout you down and threaten you.
God help our kids, I hate the thought that someday my kids will be out in this world on thier own, with people like this idiot lining up to ruin this country that i love. This statedept.spokes idiot is just reciting script, but what coward wrote that script. If I knew how i would post mo-toons that i have copied just to spite`em
You're right, in some ways, of course. The language of diplomacy is pretty wishy-washy, overall. But there it is. Right now, we're balancing a lot of spinning plates on little sticks. Actually, we're always doing that.
That's why diplomacy is such a tough gig. Yes, it's all mushy, but that's what happens when you're negotiating with two different sides, I suppose.
Right now, the Muslims are all ticked off by these political cartoons. At the same time, we're trying to do lots of things that involve Muslims and Islamic governments to cooperate with us. So, we indicate that we don't support blasphemous depictions of Muhammed, while saying that we support freedom of the press.
Again, unless we're ready to flatten the whole middle east, what choice do we have? We have to negotiate here. If we're not working toward establishing democratic types of governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, then let's get the heck out of there and let these idiots blow themselves to smithereens.
It just isn't simple. It's never simple.
Let me not put too fine a point on it, then, if we're talking about blasphemy.
The Jewish religion explicitly denies that Jesus was the Son of God. That is blasphemy.
The Muslim religion also denies the divinity of Jesus. That is blasphemy.
The Bhuddist religion denies the existence of God as such. Blasphemy.
The Hindu religion actually accepts the full divinity of Jesus, but says that he came several times under different names. That's not actually blasphemy...but it is error.
You said: "It is wrong to depict any religious leader or icon in a way that will be interpreted as blasphemy by those who follow that religion."
If that is really true, then it is wrong to state the tenets of the Jewish, Muslim or Bhuddist religions at all, because they deny the divinity of Christ, because that is pure and utter blasphemy of the most fundamental, God-denying kind -not like making fun of Mohammed, but making fun of Allah or Yahweh directly.
Are Christians allowed to become offended by Judaism and Islam, whose MERE EXISTENCE is blasphemy?
Sure, they're allowed, but Christians who do get offended like that are idiots.
And so are Muslims who go hog wild because someone makes fun of Mohammed.
The proper response is to tell them to grow up.
"We are being asked to curb our freedom due to the religious sensitivities of others. Since when has that been a standard of free speech discourse in the Western world ??!!
"
Actually, we are not being asked to do that at all. Well, we're being asked, but not prohibited. These images have been published in the USA already. They're all over the web.
Well I called by Congressman to complain but did it in a respectful manner and while explaining I understood the complexity of the issue. Its just that I believe we have seen similar things in US papers in the past maybe I am wrong there. I just dont see why we are commenting officialy on a Dutch Newspaper CARTOON. They are being investigated by the UN human rights commission FOR GOODNESS SAKES. What would the reaction be if the UN human rights commision started investigating an American Newspaer. But I agree with the tenure of your main post. Again not all Moslems believe this crap/ People forget that our allies the Iraqis are moslem. The war is on Radical Islam not all Islam.
What a crock of shit.
And to tell them we will defend the right to freedom of speech with force of arms, instead of apologizing to their medieval sensitivities.
That's not much of a stretch. It's not traditionally a ballsy department.
In this case, it needs to be. Islam needs to be told in no uncertain terms that Western values are non-negotiable.
The problem is, all State does any more is spin, instead of stand up for our core values.
Those very ugly people are warmly dressed. Perhaps they've chosen to emigrate away from their islamic paradise homelands?
I'm not saying you shouldn't be livid, but when has a reporter asked about the blasphemy against Christians and Jews?
Whats funny is this brand of Islam that the Saudis believe in think its horrible that pictures of the Prophet be done at all. Of course this presents a problem since a figure of the Prophet is engraved in Stone at our US Supreme Court. I wonder if they are going to demand we chisel it out lol
I don't know if transcripts are posted on the State Dept. website. Audio and video links are there for press briefings, though.
Your prob right I am trying to find one but it might not be out yet
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.