The cartoons thread

[demon_dave]

the Westboro Baptist's are total loonies and can't be used as an example of Christians because there is only 75 of them. I agree that some Christians are delusional, especially the one's in the deep south of US or deep north of OZ but they are not quite as irrational as Muslims. As far as I know they don't stone people or become suicide bombers but thats a 'yet', I know they bomb abortion clinics so maybe they will start killing themselves and others in the name of jeebus.

 

[Moo]

Its less than the GDP per capita of AUstralia and the highest in the ME, Bahrain is less than 1/2 and Saudi Arabia less than a 1/3 of AUstralia. It must be mentioned that its an inacurate measure as wealth in UAE is in the hands of a few, and that includes rich foreigners

Sorry, yes you are 100% right in that the UAE is lower than Oz, but it is not half in the 05 figures I have. It is a tax free environment here and I am guilty in looking at (well lets say adjusted figures) from the recruiting documents I have.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

UAE 28th with $30000, Oz 18th with $32000

IMF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

UAE 23rd with $24000, Oz 19th with $30500

The big, big money in the UAE is largely with the few but the majority of locals are very well off to. It is the foreigners working in service industry where the great disparity lies.

Thanks for the correction, still does not alter the thrust of my point though - the UAE and countires like it are not poor by anyones standard and they are protesting. I'm just trying to defeat that the only people upset are dirt poor muslims - its almost all of them.

 

[Moo]

Those nutters are threatning wait for it .....................to go to court

Where's the death threats, burning of embasies etc?

Q and Co - not everything is a trap, I only put it here to add to the general debate on FoS .....I didnt make a direct comparrison to the muslim unrest as I know it is different.

I am making the comparrison to the cartoon issue (original topic)- FoS is a line, I am just seeing where people see the line drawn (we would all draw it somewhere ...just differently)

Take it on face value - is this OK under FoS? I think not.

I am only snippy when there are the all muslikms are posts, otherwise I am here to debate points - the muslim violence etc I've done to death. Now I want to alter the debate to FoS ...is there a line and if so where is it?

Now QS ...answer my question or I'll throw an avatar at ya.

 

[Qsaint]

Sorry, yes you are 100% right in that the UAE is lower than Oz, but it is not half in the 05 figures I have. It is a tax free environment here and I am guilty in looking at (well lets say adjusted figures) from the recruiting documents I have.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

UAE 28th with $30000, Oz 18th with $32000

IMF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

UAE 23rd with $24000, Oz 19th with $30500

The big, big money in the UAE is largely with the few but the majority of locals are very well off to. It is the foreigners working in service industry where the great disparity lies.

Thanks for the correction, still does not alter the thrust of my point though - the UAE and countires like it are not poor by anyones standard and they are protesting. I'm just trying to defeat that the only people upset are dirt poor muslims - its almost all of them.

Without turning this into an economics argument GDP (Like all comparisons) has its problems. GDP per capita has even further issues especially for the ME. GDP = private consumption + government + investment + net exports, the UAE has very high govt expenditure (EG Airlines Oil Assets) and lower private consumption. Private Consumption is a measure of the welfare or living standard of the country. Now where this gets real messy for the UAE and SA is that all GDP generated by a guest workforce and rich foreigners can be counted but I'm pretty sure they do not count in the population of the country artificiall inflating GDP per capita.

If we use purchase power parity with GDP per capita AUstralia is 13 th and UAE 30th

In economics, purchasing power parity (PPP) is an estimate of the exchange rate required to equalise the purchasing power of different currencies, given the prices of goods and services in the countries concerned. PPP exchange rates are used for a number of purposes, most notably to compare the standard of living of two or more countries. It is necessary because comparing the gross domestic products using market exchange rates does not accurately measure differences in income and consumption

Wiki

In the UN Human Development Index Australia is 2nd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Human_Development_Index

 

[Moo]

Without turning this into an economics argument GDP (Like all comparisons) has its problems. GDP per capita has even further issues especially for the ME. GDP = private consumption + government + investment + net exports, the UAE has very high govt expenditure (EG Airlines Oil Assets) and lower private consumption. Private Consumption is a measure of the welfare or living standard of the country. Now where this gets real messy for the UAE and SA is that all GDP generated by a guest workforce and rich foreigners can be counted but I'm pretty sure they do not count in the population of the country artificiall inflating GDP per capita.

If we use purchase power parity with GDP per capita AUstralia is 13 th and UAE 30th
Wiki

In the UN Human Development Index Australia is 2nd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Human_Development_Index

Just out of interest how do factors like - no tax here and price on goods factor eg a can of coke is 30c Oz here

 

[Qsaint]

Q and Co - not everything is a trap, I only put it here to add to the general debate on FoS .....I didnt make a direct comparrison to the muslim unrest as I know it is different.

I am making the comparrison to the cartoon issue (original topic)- FoS is a line, I am just seeing where people see the line drawn (we would all draw it somewhere ...just differently)

Take it on face value - is this OK under FoS? I think not.

I am only snippy when there are the all muslikms are posts, otherwise I am here to debate points - the muslim violence etc I've done to death. Now I want to alter the debate to FoS ...is there a line and if so where is it?

Now QS ...answer my question or I'll throw an avatar at ya.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

FoS is very important to the West, whilst I sypathise that some muslims are truely upset, but many others both Govt and individuals have used it as an excuse for violence. I don't think it crossed the line to badly

 

[Moo]

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

FoS is very important to the West, whilst I sypathise that some muslims are truely upset, but many others both Govt and individuals have used it as an excuse for violence. I don't think it crossed the line to badly

I meant the el whacko christians protesting at funerals?

 

[Qsaint]

Just out of interest how do factors like - no tax here and price on goods factor eg a can of coke is 30c Oz here

30c can of coke distorts GDP per capita thats what PPP tries to correct. The worst countries for this are India and China; not that anyones saying they aren't poor but if wages are cheap but goods are also produced domestically are cheap then its a huge distortion PPP tries to correct this.

On Tax it doesn't really matter, GDP measures only finished goods. So if you buy a coke or the govt taxes you for the price of a coke and builds a road they both count. One of the worse things about GDP is that it doesn't take into account borrowing, so a high debt country (Govt and Individuals) like the USA has a very high GDP per capita, but a far greater proportion is based on Debt thaN OTHER COUNTRIES

 

[Qsaint]

I meant the el whacko christians protesting at funerals?

yes thats difficult,I don't think they will be able to stop them

 

[CoggaRules]

Oh great So they only cut the heads off 1 time in ten that people insult their religion - how reasonable Actually, re-reading - it is 9/10!!

naa man, i am not saying that, i am saying they tend to use real dramamtic lines when they are pi-ssed off, hence it tends to ignite the passionate ones more.

 

[CoggaRules]

Oh great So they only cut the heads off 1 time in ten that people insult their religion - how reasonable Actually, re-reading - it is 9/10!!

naa man, i am not saying that, i am saying they tend to use real dramamtic lines when they are pi-ssed off, hence it tends to ignite the passionate ones more.

 

[Frodo]

Well worth reposting GJ's link from locked thread.

That's the Pyramids and sheeps eyeballs on the banned list I suppose

http://freedomforegyptians.blogspot.com/2006/02/egyptian-newspaper-pictures-that.html

 

[funkyfreo]

Do you believe history has shown that the majority of Christians are not peaceful followers of Christianity?

I believe that history shows that the majority of people on the planet are peaceful.

What you are skipping is the fact that history shows Christianity to have a very bloody past. That is clearly what caused our replies to the post suggesting otherwise.

 

[funkyfreo]

Do you believe Islam is a peaceful religion with largely peaceful followers?

I do.

 

[funkyfreo]

It is about religion and the country I am in has a higher per capita income than Aus and they are upset....your theory is flawed.

Where are you again? Are they rioting and burning embassies and killing people? Fair dinkum question, not taking the ********.

Being upset is not the key, being rampantly rabid and violent is the key. Anger in a wealthier nation I would expect to be more reserved.

But then again, maybe in wealthy arab nations they get angry like wealthy lefty uni students get angry and go a bit over the top.

 

[Qsaint]

The UAE didn't go in for much of the violence I think

Anyway Little Johhny pulled up just short today over this

T-shirt slogan branded offensive
Email Print Normal font Large font February 10, 2006 - 10:58AM


rosaries/ovaries T-shirt worn by an Australian Greens senator was deeply offensive to Catholics, Prime Minister John Howard said today.

Australian Greens Senator Kerry Nettle wore the "keep your rosaries off my ovaries" T-shirt earlier this week as the Senate started its emotion charged debate over who should control the abortion drug RU486.

The T-shirt was sponsored by the Young Women's Christian Association.

Mr Howard today said the message was offensive to Catholics across the country.

"I think that was deeply offensive to many Australian Catholics," he told Southern Cross Broadcasting.

He said the Greens were sneering at a religious practice and journalists encouraged it.

"The Greens Party can practically sneer at Catholic devotional practice and think it's funny and to see some journalists standing around grinning as if the whole thing's a joke," he said.

But he said Senator Nettle had the right to express herself and it should not be a criminal offence to make derogatory remarks about a particular religion.

"She has a right to do that - it's a free country," he said.

"It's an expression of free speech and just as I don't believe there should be a law making it a criminal offence to burn the Australian flag ... I'm not trying to stop Senator Nettle doing something like that.

"But I'm expressing the view that it's deeply offensive.

"And it's the kind of silly undergraduate contribution to this debate which is regrettable but that's democracy."

 

[Moo]

Where are you again? Are they rioting and burning embassies and killing people? Fair dinkum question, not taking the ********.

Being upset is not the key, being rampantly rabid and violent is the key. Anger in a wealthier nation I would expect to be more reserved.

But then again, maybe in wealthy arab nations they get angry like wealthy lefty uni students get angry and go a bit over the top.

I'm in Al Ain, on the UAE/Oman border.

No UAE is very moderate but very devout, the women here in AA wear the tradiitonal full cover, no contact between men and women, where I work if you are meeting with a woman and you shut the door - you could be in serious trouble etc.

However absolutely peaceful protests.

I suppose my point is, they are very west-friendly and whilst I have been here for next to no time (5 months) - this issue is 1000 times more important ot them and Iraq.

Whilst they would prefer we were out of Iraq (predominantly sunni here), the whole cartoon has been interpreted as an affront to them personally. I worry it may give an opening to the bad intentioned ones.

 

[Moo]

The UAE didn't go in for much of the violence I think

Anyway Little Johhny pulled up just short today over this

T-shirt slogan branded offensive
Email Print Normal font Large font February 10, 2006 - 10:58AM


rosaries/ovaries T-shirt worn by an Australian Greens senator was deeply offensive to Catholics, Prime Minister John Howard said today.

Australian Greens Senator Kerry Nettle wore the "keep your rosaries off my ovaries" T-shirt earlier this week as the Senate started its emotion charged debate over who should control the abortion drug RU486.

The T-shirt was sponsored by the Young Women's Christian Association.

Mr Howard today said the message was offensive to Catholics across the country.

"I think that was deeply offensive to many Australian Catholics," he told Southern Cross Broadcasting.

He said the Greens were sneering at a religious practice and journalists encouraged it.

"The Greens Party can practically sneer at Catholic devotional practice and think it's funny and to see some journalists standing around grinning as if the whole thing's a joke," he said.

But he said Senator Nettle had the right to express herself and it should not be a criminal offence to make derogatory remarks about a particular religion.

"She has a right to do that - it's a free country," he said.

"It's an expression of free speech and just as I don't believe there should be a law making it a criminal offence to burn the Australian flag ... I'm not trying to stop Senator Nettle doing something like that.

"But I'm expressing the view that it's deeply offensive.

"And it's the kind of silly undergraduate contribution to this debate which is regrettable but that's democracy."

Its official the Greens have not only lost the plot, they have lost the box it came in and the back of the plot remote control.

 

[Qsaint]

Why wasn't Malcolm Labor PM again

Australia forgets its own democratic principles
Email Print Normal font Large font By Malcolm Fraser
February 10, 2006
Page 1 of 2

In 1997, there was an exhibition of photographs by American artist Andres Serrano at the National Gallery of Victoria. Many regarded the exhibition as offensive to Christ. Churches and others objected. The Catholic Church sought a court injunction. The objections were strong. A youngster eventually damaged ******** Christ with a hammer, violence was involved. The exhibition was closed.

That was our reaction to an exhibition that many people regarded as offensive to their religion. The reactions to the Danish cartoons have clearly been much more widespread and violent, that must be condemned. But those cartoons were published in a highly charged political atmosphere.

We have a right to free speech and expression but that right is in some instances circumscribed by law. The worst excesses are covered by defamation laws or laws relating to racial or religious vilification. These set the bar very high and most of us understand that if we wish to live in a civil society where there are broadly harmonious relationships between different groups, races and religions, we must exercise that right with common sense and, hopefully, with a degree of wisdom.

Today we know that Islamic fundamentalists, who won't be changed by logical argument, will use any excuse to stir their supporters to encourage the view that Christian nations vilify and degrade Muslims. Thus the fundamentalists gain new recruits. If terrorism is to be overcome we need to make it much harder for the fundamentalists to use arguments, however superficial, that attract potential suicide bombers.

Unfortunately, in the years since 9/11, the United States and its closest allies have done many things which make it easier for the fundamentalists to attract recruits. The war against Afghanistan was supported, but not the war against Iraq. Iraq had not housed al-Qaeda, it didn't have weapons of mass destruction, it was a secular regime. Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator but so are a number of others, some of whom at times have been called "ally" by the US.

If the resources poured into that war had gone to fight terrorism and extremism, while maintaining a broad-based, international coalition, terrorism would have been significantly blunted, maybe overcome.

But America wanted an emphatic demonstration of American power.

Insurgents in Iraq have all been regarded as terrorists, even though it appears a majority are Iraqi.

The arguments about weapons of mass destruction were false. The decision to go to war was made months before American people were told. Hans Blix was never going to be allowed to finish his report. It would have taken away the main reason for the war. These actions and the falsehoods that accompanied them fractured worldwide support and sympathy for the US.

There is a perception also in the Middle East that the US, in particular, is prejudiced in favour of Israel. This may or may not be true but, while that perception exists, it becomes a reality that infects the politics of the region.

The US has promoted democracy in many parts of the world. In Egypt this has given a platform for extremists. In Iraq it has brought a Shiite regime to power, with close links to Iran. In Palestinian territories, Hamas has won. The United States and others have said they cannot talk to Hamas. Islamic countries are now saying democracy is all right for America if it gives the result America wants.

It would have been possible to say to Hamas: if there is to be peace between Israel and Palestine, your policies are going to have to change but you have been democratically elected and we will talk to you and judge you on your actions from the day of your election.

That would not have violated Western principles. For Islamic countries, all this demonstrates a double standard.

We said we believe in the rule of law, in due process, in the principles of liberty. What about people in Guantanamo Bay, designed specifically to deny access to the law. What about Abu Ghraib? What about the Torture Papers, published by New York University's Centre on Law and Security, which demonstrates that the highest authorities in the US were seeking to find ways in which invasive questioning of detainees could be undertaken with impunity. What about the military tribunals that, from their nature, cannot provide justice?

The British Government has condemned these tribunals. The Australian Government has been prepared to condemn David Hicks, whether innocent or guilty, and renounce its own citizen.

America pursues the rendition program. Individuals are captured, taken from the streets, from America, perhaps South Asia or parts of Europe, flown to a country that will allow questioning under torture.

Our leaders talk of the principles of freedom and democracy and of liberty. But Islamic fundamentalists can point to example after example where Western governments have failed to apply those standards to their own actions.

The great failure, even sin, of the coalition of the willing is the belief that we in the West cannot fight terrorism and adhere to our own principles. Even in Australia, many of these principles have been abrogated. The onus of truth has been reversed, due process abolished and there are provisions that allow the detention in secret of people the authorities know to be innocent of any crime.

Our leaders believe we must adopt tactics and practices too often used by our opponents if we are to beat them. Their faith in democracy is shallow and inadequate.

Terrorism will only be overcome if we adhere to our own principles and destroy the arguments that the extremists can use so ably to attract new recruits.

Malcolm Fraser was prime minister from 1975 to 1983.

 

[Moo]

Posted by Guru Jane

They were published on the front page .of an Egyptian newspaper back in October.

http://freedomforegyptians.blogspot....ures-that.html

What a sting.

This is worthy of being discussed, I know Frodo has re-posted the link but just in case you missed it

If true (and it would appear to be so) - it may help to get this topic where it needs to be at the discussion table....self regulation by the major papers to affirm the right to print but respect the sensitivities and agree not to....is the solution I would hope for.

Do I see the double standard here - absolutely. There was an article here about do not boycot the Danish as the other major paper chose not to print and at least debate is starting to break out.

 

[YankBastard]

TRANSCRIPT OF PRESIDENT'S POWWOW WITH SO-CALLED PROPHET MOOHAMMED TO DISCUSS CARTOON-INDUCED WORLD WAR III

Officious White House Transcript

THE PRESIDENT: Are you there, Allah? It's me, George. I know you probably can't hear me, on account of you're just a low-rent, make-pretend knockoff of the other, way-more-believable invisible man who lives in the clouds, but since Jesus cancelled our usual 1:30 today on account of he's tied up with His new roof-collapsing hobby, I thought I might give you a shout.
Now I'm not really sure how folks go about praying to you, but I did find this little brass oil lamp upstairs in Jenna's tapestry nook, and I thought that... maybe...
[Rubs Lamp.]
if I just…
[Flash of Light & Sonic Boom & NTTAWWT of Thick, White Smoke]
Hello? Who's there? Who is that?
MOOHAMMED: SILENCE, INFIDEL!
THE PRESIDENT: Whoa. Are you, like, Allah?

MOOHAMMED: NO! I AM THE PROPHET MOOHAMMED! PEACE BE UPON ME!
THE PRESIDENT: And also upon me.
MOOHAMMED: SILENCE! HOW DARE YOU SPEAK THUSLY, INSOLENT SWINE!
THE PRESIDENT: Aw jeez – I'm sorry. Please forgive me. I should have known better. Jesus gets awful ********y too when folks don't blow enough smoke up his taut, athletic butt. And since you two dudes are, you know, major competition and all in the salvation industry – I guess it stands to reason that you'd think your turds are Hershey Kisses, too.
MOOHAMMED: ENOUGH! NOW FOR WHAT PURPOSE HAVE YOU INTERRUPTED MY ETERNAL AFTERLIFE SNUGGLINGS WITH MY ALMOST-PUBESCENT WIVES?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you see, I was wondering if you'd heard anything about this hubbub over the drawings of you in the funny pages? Over in Denmark?
MOOHAMMED: OF COURSE! I KNEW OF THESE CARTOONS EVEN BEFORE THEY APPEARED IN THE IMAGINATIONS OF THOSE WHO DREW THEM!
THE PRESIDENT: No ********? How?
MOOHAMMED: I AM ALLAH'S MESSENGER! GOD SPEAKS TO ME AND TELLS ME ALL!
THE PRESIDENT: No way. You mean out loud? And He gets specific like that with you? When He talks to me, it's usually just, you know, like in my own voice inside my head, and there's never any details or nothing. He's usually just all, "Do whatever feels good, G-Dubya! You wanna bomb some A-rab ********hole? Go for it. Hey – there might even be some WMDs over there."
MOOHAMMED: WHAT IS YOUR POINT? SPEAK NOW OR– (Coughs. Hacks. Coughs Some More.)
Yeesh. I think I'm giving myself laryngitis here. Mind if I drop the screaming mimi schtick for awhile?
THE PRESIDENT: Sure thing. You want a Fisherman's Friend[SIZE=-1]®[/SIZE]?
MOOHAMMED: No, thanks.
THE PRESIDENT: Cool. Anyway, your followers are going pretty ape******** over these cartoons, huh? Like, torching buildings and wanting to chop peoples' heads off.
MOOHAMMED: Yeah. And?
THE PRESIDENT: Well I just want to be sure you know that I told the State Department to say that America is opposed to those cartoons. Because if the past four years have taught me anything, it's that some of your followers are crazy-assed mother********ers who just will not quit. And to be honest with you, they're starting to really scare the ******** out of me. So much so that it's getting, like, all ironical that I call them the "FREEDOM[SIZE=-1]®[/SIZE]-Haters" – and yet here I am, totally kowtowing to them and calling for the curtailing of actual freedom.
MOOHAMMED: (Laughs.) Yes, this is plain to see.
THE PRESIDENT: And well, it's just that, even though my religion tells me quite clearly that all your followers are going to burn in Hell, that hasn't stopped me from going through the motions of tolerance. Heck, I've even been doing those Ishtar Dinners every year – and I hate sheep eyes casserole!
MOOHAMMED: We too take perverse pleasure in the thought of your Christians souls writhing in eternal agony.
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, well I guess we'll see who's right. But in the meantime, I thought maybe it would be nice if this cartoon stuff didn't escalate into another World War – especially since I've already stretched America's military so dangerously paper-thin and all.
MOOHAMMED: Indeed you have. (Laughs.)
THE PRESIDENT: So... got any advice on how to calm your people down?
MOOHAMMED: Look, every religious cult has its terrorist lunatic fringe. You Christians have Operation Rescue and The 700 Club, Scientologists have Tom Cruise, and I have a bunch of bipolar, unemployed illiterates who just happen to be handy with plastique. They don't represent the majority. But hey, if your religion can't afford a marketing budget or five entire satellite TV networks, you take whatever free PR you can get, right?
THE PRESIDENT: I guess. So you mean these chanting crazies are like your "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"? You can't really condone their tactics, so you just sit back and reap the benefits?
MOOHAMMED: Exactly.
THE PRESIDENT: Well I can certainly appreciate that. (Winks.)
I guess we should both be kinda thankful that when liberals invented political correctness to criminalize "hurt feelings," they inadvertently gave birth to the absurdist notion that ridiculing the intolerance and knee-jerk hysteria of violent extremists is "offensive."
MOOHAMMED: (Thumbs Up.)
THE PRESIDENT: Alright. Then I guess I'll just try to see this thing through by espousing the cheap cop-out that cracking jokes about ANY religion is not a right. If nothing else, that takes my country one step closer to becoming the same kind of loonybird theocracy that your fringe terror monkeys want.
One thing though...
MOOHAMMED: Yes?
THE PRESIDENT: If this cartoon ******** really does hit the fan, America will have to support the Danishes.
MOOHAMMED: Why is that? They don't even have any oil.
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, but they have something that guys like me value way more than mere money: BLUE EYES.
MOOHAMMED: Fair enough. Farewell, Infidel. [Crosses Arms, Bobs Head & Blinks] [Flash of Light & Sonic Boom & NTTAWWT of White Smoke]

 

[GuruJane]

Posted by Guru Jane

They were published on the front page .of an Egyptian newspaper back in October.

http://freedomforegyptians.blogspot....ures-that.html

What a sting.

This is worthy of being discussed, I know Frodo has re-posted the link but just in case you missed it

If true (and it would appear to be so) - it may help to get this topic where it needs to be at the discussion table....self regulation by the major papers to affirm the right to print but respect the sensitivities and agree not to....is the solution I would hope for.

Do I see the double standard here - absolutely. There was an article here about do not boycot the Danish as the other major paper chose not to print and at least debate is starting to break out.

I posted this it as a separate thread because I thought it was an amazing and unexpected major development in the story and could kick along a whole new discussion, otherwise it would get buried since this thread is now nearly 50 pages long.

I should have PMed Charlie with my rationale at the time but didn't think to - maybe he could restore the other thread and may even lock this one off? What do others think?

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Interestingly, in Dublin today local Muslims are marching to thank the Irish press for not reprinting the infamous cartoons.

I can't find any link to the march on the internet, but it's been on the morning TV news.

I'll keep the thread posted to let you know how it eventuated, if I can.

 

[IntheNet]

Interestingly, in Dublin today local Muslims are marching to thank the Irish press for not reprinting the infamous cartoons...

Will the Christians stage a similar march when offensive Christian images are not printed? Just curious....

 

[Crow-mo]

Cartoon Editorial - NY Times

www.nytimes.com

February 9, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Drafting Hitler

By DAVID BROOKS
You want us to know how you feel. You in the Arab European League published a cartoon of Hitler in bed with Anne Frank so we in the West would understand how offended you were by those Danish cartoons. You at the Iranian newspaper Hamshahri are holding a Holocaust cartoon contest so we'll also know how you feel.

Well, I saw the Hitler-Anne Frank cartoon: the two have just had sex and Hitler says to her, "Write this one in your diary, Anne." But I still don't know how you feel. I still don't feel as if I should burn embassies or behead people or call on God or bin Laden to exterminate my foes. I still don't feel your rage. I don't feel threatened by a sophomoric cartoon, even one as tasteless as that one.

At first I sympathized with your anger at the Danish cartoons because it's impolite to trample on other people's religious symbols. But as the rage spread and the issue grew more cosmic, many of us in the West were reminded of how vast the chasm is between you and us. There was more talk than ever about a clash of civilizations. We don't just have different ideas; we have a different relationship to ideas.

We in the West were born into a world that reflects the legacy of Socrates and the agora. In our world, images, statistics and arguments swarm around from all directions. There are movies and blogs, books and sermons. There's the profound and the vulgar, the high and the low.

In our world we spend our time sifting and measuring, throwing away the dumb and offensive, e-mailing the smart and the incisive. We aim, in Michael Oakeshott's words, to live amid the conversation — "an endless unrehearsed intellectual adventure in which, in imagination, we enter a variety of modes of understanding the world and ourselves and are not disconcerted by the differences or dismayed by the inconclusiveness of it all."

We believe in progress and in personal growth. By swimming in this flurry of perspectives, by facing unpleasant facts, we try to come closer and closer to understanding.

But you have a different way. When I say you, I don't mean you Muslims. I don't mean you genuine Islamic scholars and learners. I mean you Islamists. I mean you young men who were well educated in the West, but who have retreated in disgust from the inconclusiveness and chaos of our conversation. You've retreated from the agora into an exaggerated version of Muslim purity.

You frame the contrast between your world and our world more bluntly than we outsiders would ever dare to. In London the protesters held signs reading "Freedom Go to Hell," "Exterminate Those Who Mock Islam," "Be Prepared for the Real Holocaust" and "Europe You Will Pay, Your 9/11 Is on the Way." In Copenhagen, an imam declared, "In the West, freedom of speech is sacred; to us, the prophet is sacred" — as if the two were necessarily opposed.

Our mind-set is progressive and rational. Your mind-set is pre-Enlightenment and mythological. In your worldview, history doesn't move forward through gradual understanding. In your worldview, history is resolved during the apocalyptic conflict between the supernaturally pure jihadist and the supernaturally evil Jew.

You seize on any shred — even a months-old cartoon from an obscure Danish paper — to prove to yourself that the Jew and the crusader are on the offensive, that the apocalyptic confrontation is at hand. You invent primitive stories — like the one about Jews who kill children for their blood — to reinforce your image of Jewish evil. You deny the Holocaust because if the Jews were as powerful as you say, they would never have allowed it to happen.

In my world, people search for truth in their own diverse ways. In your world, the faithful and the infidel battle for survival, and words and ideas and cartoons are nothing more than weapons in that war.

So, of course, what started in Denmark ended up for you with Hitler, the Holocaust and the Jew. But in your overreaction this past week, your defensiveness is showing. Democracy is coming to your region, and democracy brings the conversation. Mainstream leaders like Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani are embracing democracy and denouncing your riots as "misguided and oppressive."

You fundamentalists have turned yourselves into a superpower of dysfunction, demanding our attention week after week. But it is hard to intimidate people forever into silence, to bottle up the conversation, to lock the world into an epic war only you want. While I don't share your rage, I do understand your panic.



Interesting I thought...