re: #193 Charles

Yes, I think there is a big distinction. First, those cartoons were not uniformly negative about Islam — several of them made positive statements. Political cartoons are much easier to see as a valid expression of free speech.

Burning a religion’s holy book is a very different thing. The only reason to do it is as an expression of hatred. It doesn’t make any point aside from this. It’s not criticism. It’s intended only to insult and degrade.

Both of these things are protected by the US constitution as they should be. But burning books is NOT the same as drawing political cartoons.

I’m not going to claim to be an expert on Islam or Islamic culture, but for many Muslims depicting the Prophet is nearly as insulting and degrading from my understanding. I think its easier for us to appreciate burning the Qur’an as offensive because that more closely aligns with Western sensibilities.

It’s a tough call, because that same argument also means that Jones is more likely to have known how his actions would be perceived than the Danish cartoonists.

I would say Jones’s act was worse not because of the perceived level of offense but because he also violated our own cultural norms, whereas political cartoons are somewhat of a hallowed institution in the West.

For me, its a Venn diagram. “Things that offend the West”, “Things that offend the Muslim World”, and the overlap is “Things that offend both”. Falling in that middle area really makes you an asshole, but falling in the wings will simply lead to various degrees of endless debate.