On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 16:10:25 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Three cheers for Denmark. They did nothing wrong. The people
>have no control over the newspaper than published the
>offensive cartoons, and no one but a whacked Muslim would
>even take offence. The crime of the Danish government was to
>refuse to intervene because it is a matter of freedom of
>speech.

Freedom of speech is a secular idol that we cherish and is often used,
as in this case, to provoke.

The media sources which printed and reprinted the cartoons knew what
they were doing and where this would lead. These were not individual
cartoons part of a daily series or political commentary. They were
commissioned to challenge the religious proscription against
representation of certain images. The paper got what they intended.
If they had wanted to avoid anger and protests, they wouldn't have
used such an in-your-face campaign to break the taboo.

Of course all of us who believe in free speech can support the burning
of the Danish flag and the angry marches as a freedom of speech
actions. Those who condone the plowing down of a McDonald's in France
can understand the passions behind destruction of embassy property.
Those who boycott French cheeses and wines because of international
disputes can understand the boycott of Danish products. These are the
weapons that some people use to retaliate against those who offend
them.

The cartoonists and newspapers have made their point about artistic
expression, freedom of speech, and the value of jerking some chains to
get reactions and attention; the radical Muslims are making their
point about being offended.

The actors are following the script.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!