Let’s start with a brief synopsis for those who are not to speed on the imbroglio of some cartoons published in a Danish newspaper:

Anger grows over Muhammad cartoon

Protests have spread across the Muslim world over the publication in Europe of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

The drawings, first printed in Denmark, sparked a fresh row when they were re-run in several newspapers, leading to the sacking of a French editor.

—

The row intensified on Wednesday when France Soir, alongside the 12 original cartoons, printed a new drawing on its front page showing Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim and Christian holy figures sitting on a cloud, with the caption “Don’t worry Muhammad, we’ve all been caricatured here.”

Publications in Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain also re-ran the Danish cartoons to show support for free speech.

Islamic tradition bans depictions of the Prophet or Allah.

It should be noted that these were not normal political cartoons published in a day-to-day context but were the products of a “dare” that no paper would be willing to publish cartoons of Allah and Mohammed, especially in an unflattering light.

This context is important, because there was an element of deliberate provocation involved.

Next, a troubling development:

Danish plea for calm on cartoons

Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen has appeared on Arabic television to try to defuse a worsening row over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in European media.

Mr Rasmussen again apologised for any offence but insisted his government was not responsible for newspaper articles.

Since I don’t know the wording of the “apology” I do not know if it was a true expression of sorrow for the publication of something that many Muslims found offensive, or an expression of regret for the reaction to the expression of free speech.

There is an subtle but important difference between the two.

If the Danish Prime Minister expressed regret for the reaction of the Muslims while not apologizing for the free speech which allowed the offensive cartoons to be published, although that is not a response I would prefer, it is far better than a confession that the act of publishing the cartoons was wrong. (NOTE: The response I would like to see is a statement similar to this - “We regret that Muslims were offended by the depiction of Allah and Mohammed as terrorists, especially when any images of these two important figures in Islam are forbidden to those following that faith, but perhaps those same followers should consider why Allah was depicted with a bomb for a turban before they choose to take umbrage.”)

We should not apologize to anyone who chooses to take offense at something that, while offensive, is indeed political speech and therefore protected under OUR traditions, just as making images of Allah and Mohammed are forbidden under the traditions of Islam.

However, it is important that we not stop here, but look deeper, especially into ourselves.

Over at Bloggledygook, the proprietor of that weblog (I need to ask one day if he minds if I use his real name since he has no author listed for his posts) brings up a comparison that I noticed immediately between a cartoon about wounded US troops and offense taken by the Joint Chiefs of Staff versus the imbroglio with the cartoons of Allah and Mohammed (I subscribe to a service that emails me political cartoons, and a different service that had the Joint Chiefs of Staff letter in their news, the parallel was obvious to the most casual observer). I suggest you go read what he has to say and examine the cartoons in question.

I want to comment specifically upon this:

What is instructive is how the lines are being drawn around these two cartoons and what they say about those offended by them and from those defending them.

In the case of the first cartoon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were so offended that they sent of a stiffly worded letter to the Washington Post.

In the second, threats of bombings and boycotts were the reaction.

Hmmm. Letters versus physical threats.

Make no mistake, I am not accusing the author of this post of anything other than a common fallacy, one of blanket labeling.

Yes, threats from people who call themselves Islam have arisen from the publication of these cartoons.

Should we use these threats to label all of Islam?

Let us first discout the indignant over-reaction to “Piss Christ” that some have referred to (scroll to the bottom of the post) and instead choose to look at broader trends.

Refer to the recent remarks of Ann Coulter, “jokingly” calling for the assassination (well, more exactly the poisoning) of a Supreme Court Associate Justice, which I commented upon here at Random Fate.

So, should we label all right-wingers as nut-jobs who believe in killing political opponents who hold high office?

The predictable response is that her remarks were intended as a joke. In remarkably poor taste, but not serious like those Islamist crazies.

Well, then, let’s look deeper.

I’m sure most recall the groups self-named with unintentional but biting irony “pro-life” who published the names of doctors who performed abortions and labeled them as murderers. Groups who also preached that killing a murderer was not a sin. At least one murder of a doctor was encouraged by this behavior of “pro-life” groups.

So, should we label all devout Christians who are truly pro-life as hypocritical nut-jobs?

Let’s look even deeper.

Christianity has a history longer than that of Islam, a history that is arguably more bloody and far more fratricidal even when recent internecine wars between Islamic sects are accounted for, the Crusades and the Inquisition are included, and we should not forget the remarkably intense internal to Christendom wars of the Protestant Reformation.

Again a predictable response, that was hundreds of years ago, but Islamists are murdering people in the modern world.

People who call themselves Christian are not?

Take this example, from not so long ago:

Sabra and Shatila massacre

The Sabra and Shatila massacre (or Sabra and Chatila massacre) was carried out in September 1982 by Lebanese Maronite Christian militias in then-Israeli-occupied Beirut, Lebanon, when Palestinian refugees were killed in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. The Maronite forces stood under the direct command of Elie Hobeika, who would later become a longtime Lebanese parliament member and in the 1990s also a cabinet minister.

To put it simply for those who prefer the math done for them, people calling themselves Christian massacred non-combatants in refugee camps.

Do we now label all Christians as supporting the murder of women and children?

But that was over 20 years ago is the raised defense.

So, what is the time-frame we use to stop our blanket labeling?

Six months, a year, five years…

Perhaps ten?

Or just possibly the wholesale condemnation of groups based upon the acts of the nut-jobs is too simple-minded for our 21st century world, wars, and combats, as some members of the right-wing have labeled the world, these wars, and the combats.

Apparently, then, we should consider expanding our minds to encompass all the facts before we jerk our knees and label all members of a group based upon the words and actions of the lunatic fringe.

Do the math.

—

Technorati Tags: commentary, opinion, some thoughts