Freedom of speech or blasphemy? Muslims around the world are currently outraged over a series of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed.
The cartoons were originally published in Sept. 2005 in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, but were subsequently re-printed by newspapers throughout the globe as an expression of the right to free speech, or as coverage of the controversy.
The outrage comes because Islam states that Mohammed may never be depicted in any form in order to discourage idolatry. The papers added insult to injury, publishing drawings that unfavorably depicted the Muslim prophet, including a cartoon where Mohammed is seen wearing a bomb-shaped turban.
Subsequently, violent riots have sprung up all over the Middle East and in parts of Europe which have resulted in the deaths of a few, the injuries of many and the destruction of much property belonging to other governments.
Poking fun at religion and religious institutes is nothing new, but did the newspapers that published the drawings cross the line that separates what is distasteful and wrong from what is just a matter of opinion and free expression?
Initially, no. Denmark has a free press and upholds freedom of speech, so the Jyllands-Posten was certainly within its rights to publish whatever it wanted. It would have taken the same liberty with a cartoon making fun of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism and not given it a second thought.
Also, while there is no way to ascertain what the Danish paper’s true motives were, it probably did not intend for the cartoons to reach Middle Eastern readers. It’s a poor judgment call on its part, but it probably didn’t think the drawings would extend outside of its normal circulation.
However, in the months following September after the cartoon was originally published, other worldwide publications have crossed and are continuing to cross the line by reprinting the cartoons as a collective “Screw you!” to the Middle East.
With the right to freedom of speech comes the responsibility of considering how what you say will affect the rest of the world at large. Spite is not a viable motive to run something in a newspaper, and flaunting free speech on the pages of your publication will only serve to intensify the bloodshed.
To the rioters who feel like your religion has been defamed: It’s very understandable that you’re so angry over this, and it’s fine that you’re publicly banding together to project your collective voice to the world.
However, peaceful demonstrations are one thing. Destructive riots are another. You will never accomplish your goals through violence — all you will win is condescension and opposition from the other nations of the world.
To the publications who have published the cartoons, or are planning to in the near future: People are dying. It’s time to do what you should do instead of what you can do and help put this issue to rest before more lives are lost.
|
|
|
