tp:
I am not, because I am not convinced that the Western world has lost the ability to comprehend the offensiveness of someone else mocking what is sacred to oneself.
I believe that it is sufficiently lost to the West that we do need public reminders of its existence elsewhere, such as the view expressed in the article Rowan quoted.
Neither you nor I nor most of the people on this board are typical of Western sentiment and rationality. We are better educated, better exposed to the world, and more tolerant than the average person who does not, in fact, own a computer or have any idea where Iraq or Afghanistan are located much less know their history or hold sympathy for their past sufferings and future aspirations.
Americans in particular are always the first to shell out blood-money for a catastrophe (if it's reported above the fold) but we are not, on the whole, an empathetic People.
(1) Surely something is sacred enough, important enough, to us that we can understand how they feel by analogy.
The only thing I can think of that has analogous strength is the belief in that Genesis should be interpreted 'literally' ! Yet the people who hold that belief seem to be the ones least likely to be tolerant of analogous feelings among 'heathens.'
(2) Agreement that there is value in not doing things that will deliberately offend and hurt other people - concession from the Western side.
We couldn't even get that from 300 well-educated people on a messageboard who claimed that tolerance was one of their most cherished principles.
(3) Agreement that there may be countervailing value in asserting political or other points that may (but does not have to) trump the value of not deliberately offending and hurting other people. This would be an case-by-case balancing determination - concession from the Muslim side.
Generally public figures are not exempt from public critique. Therefore satire against the mullahs or the suicide bombers might rankle but could not be considered heresy. And I don't believe any fatwahs have been issued against criticism of Osama bin Laden.
Satirizing the life of a holy man who has been dead for nearly 1400 hundred years has not been traditionally considered a potent realm for satire. It looks to me as if an exception has been made in this case because a deep-seated prejudice
is behind our dealings with the Moslem world. I continue to think that the cartoons were mean-spirited and politically inept. And not funny.
That's not to say that the mullahs are justified in calling for the death of the cartoonists. A good spanking would be more appropriate, imo.
(4) For religious Muslims (excepting those, primarily Westerners, who already understand and/or agree with this), accepting and understanding how dearly the West holds the secular value of free speech. It would involve them accepting that because of that value, we believe that we have to leave the case-by-case determination up to each individual and encourage them to consider it seriously. And, if an individual fails to do so, or balances in a way that we disagree with, we believe that there is importance in preserving and defending that choice even if we would have not made the same ourselves.
The fruition of this depends very much, I think, on the fruition of #1.
There was a conference this weekend in Philadelphia, bringing Moslem scholars and clergy before a primarly Christian audience to answer questions and explain their religious beliefs; and also, I believe, to represent the moderate, conservative Moslem view as opposed to the radical extremists who get all the airtime. The conference was only covered by public radio ... which figures, in a sad sort of way ... and even among this ubertolerant group there was one woman in the audience who insisted on harrassing the panel, accusing them of disguising their violent foundational world view and belonging to a religion that espouses violence, etc.
tp, I do not disagree with your pov ... I share it in large measure ... but I don't believe that we two (or we 98 ) are typical. Making the world look more like us, though desirable,
is not likely to come about in the immediate future. It will get worse before it gets better. And the problem is not 100% 'them.'
Jn