All (er, some of) The News That's Fit to Print...

"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." -- anti-Nazi German pastor Martin Niemoller


Hopefully you've become semi-conscious of the fact that Muslims all around the world are rioting over 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper. I have a take on it that I haven't really heard emphasized too much in TV and radio interviews, or seen in articles that I've read, but first, a little context that's also been glossed over by too many articles and interviews...

Last summer, Danish author Kåre Bluitgen wrote a book that attempted to explain basic tenets of Islam to children. Being a children's book, he wanted it to be illustrated, but found that many artists were afraid to take the job; it seems that many were intimidated by the murder of Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who had created a controversial film about Islamic culture, as well as other, less publicized incidents. A Danish newspaper, Jyllends-Posten, decided to help out by running a contest calling for artists to submit drawings of Islam's prophet, Muhammed. Innocent enough at this point, right? Wrong. Wahabbi Islam (the sect that is causing a good deal of the terrorist troubles in the world; easily the most radical sect) considers pictures of the prophet a form of idolatry - not all Islamic sects do.

The Jyllends-Posten published the 12 "winners" on September 30, 2005. On around October 20th, 4 Muslim ambassadors complained to the Danish prime minister, with little result. In November, December, and early January, several other European newspapers published some of them as political cartoons.

In the meantime, the 4 Muslim ambassadors toured Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle East countries, along with a large delegation. During that trip, they apparently broached the subject to someone with some political pull, because on January 26th, Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador to Denmark. On January 30th, Muslim gunmen raided the European Union's Gaza offices. Since then, more than a dozen people have been murdered, at least 3 embassies have been torched, millions of Muslims have rioted in the streets of their respective nations (approximately 500,000 today in Beirut alone), workers in India are organizing strikes, and there are already numerous Islamic organizations calling for murders of government officials of Denmark, Norway, and of course, the U.S.

Stateside, only one major newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, has published the cartoons. Leading outlets like the Boston Globe and the New York Times have opted not to print them, offering excuses like this one from the Globe: "Depicting Mohammed wearing a turban in the form of a bomb with a sputtering fuse is no less hurtful to most Muslims than Nazi caricatures of Jews or Ku Klux Klan caricatures of blacks are to those victims of intolerance. That is why the Danish cartoons will not be reproduced on these pages." Victims of intolerance? Really?

On Wednesday February 8th (that's yesterday to those of you who are getting lost), the New York Times saw fit to publish a picture of Sensation, the dung-splattered, pasted-with-pornographic-pictures "artistic" version of the Virgin Mary. Back in 1999, the Times published an editorial entitled "The Museum's Courageous Stand" after then-mayor Guiliani threated to pull the Brooklyn Museum of Art's funding when they announced plans to show the piece. They have also had numerous editorial defending "Piss Christ", a picture of a crucifix in a jar of the artist's urine. The Times has also published a glowing review of "Corpus Christi" - a play that depicts the "life of Jesus", complete with a gay sex scene with Judas. In all three of these cases, the Times has published pictures of the art in question (I'd give links, but as you may have seen with the editorial link above, you need a subscription to see any of it - I get it with my student access to the Times - so links wouldn't do much good).

So which is it? Do papers like the Times publish images of art that is demeaning to religion or not? It seems that there are a few possible answers to the question. First, perhaps they'd like to publish the Muhammed cartoons, but fear for their employees' safety if they do. I suppose I can accept that, but let's see an official give that reason if that's the case. Second, maybe they're unconvinced of the story's "newsworthiness" (Dan Rather, eat your heart out!). That explanation is out the window at this point - even the most stubborn editor would have to admit that it's now "fit to print". Another reason - they've suddenly had a change of heart regarding offensive religious depictions. Not true, given the publication of Sensation yesterday. Maybe Islam deserves "special status" that Christianity doesn't? I don't want to go off on a "Christians are oppressed" rant right now - rather, I'd like to talk about America, the Constitution and journalistic and expressive freedom.

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... For crying out loud, it's the first one! Considering the fact that just about every editorial board in America cries foul over purported First Amendment infringements when it's even proposed that NEA funding for Piss Christ- or Sensation-type art gets pulled, you'd think these pillars of freedom would fight a bit harder for their journalistic rights (BTW, if you think that 'free speech' means that you can continue to draw a paycheck from the very people you just insulted, try telling your boss to go f--- himself tomorrow - let me know how it works out for you).

Some final thoughts:

Do you think that newspapers who publish items that are offensive to Christians really fear for safety, or that somehow Christianity is above criticism? No way. Sure, they may have to deal with calls for boycotts or other negative backlash, but I guarantee you no editors go into hiding a la Salman Rushdie when they publish pictures of Piss Christ.

Don't you think it's ironic that the cartoon depicting Muhammed with a bomb-morphed-turban, which is seemingly a play on Muslims' propensity for achieving their goals through violent means, is being "demonstrated against" by firebombing, looting, flag-burning, and murders?

If all of our newspapers cave to the threat of Islamist violence, then the terrorists have scored a major victory in the worldwide culture clash. Publication of these cartoons by all major newspapers is more important than you think...