Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Alabama Stands Up.

Cartoon from Finland, thanks to Nilknarf at http://rightwingdeathbogan.blogspot.com/

From the desk of http://maccusgermanis.blogspot.com/ comes a hopeful bit of news out of a university in Alabama.
****

Muslim students seek apology from South Alabama student paper
3/6/2006, 11:42 a.m. CT The Associated Press

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — The University of South Alabama's student newspaper will not apologize for reprinting one of the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad that have spurred protests througout the Muslim world, the paper's editor said.

Muslim students at the school have sought an apology since the cartoon appeared in the paper's Feb. 13 edtion. It depicts Muhammad, holding a curved sword, with a black bar over his eyes and flanked by two women wearing burkas.

"We just wanted an apology and for them to not do it again," said Joseph Stewart, a freshman who is president of the school's Muslim Students Association, which has about 50 members. "We're just saying this is rude, it offended a lot of people."

Jeff Poor, editor in chief of the Vanguard, said the newspaper printed the cartoon in support of freedom of speech and has no intention of apologizing.

Dean of Students Tim Beard told the Mobile Register in a story Monday that the administration is considering printing some sort of statement on religious tolerance and freedom of speech, but said the university will not restrain the paper.

"If any place should be a place to discuss philosophy and religion and press, it should be a university," Beard said.

The cartoon the Vanguard printed is one of 12 that were published by a Danish newspaper in September. Protests worldwide, some turning violent, have decried the cartoons as an affront to Islam, whose tradition bars depiction of Muhammad, favorable or otherwise, to prevent idolatry, and many Muslims consider images of Muhammad to be blasphemy.

The Vanguard featured the cartoon as part of an editorial titled "A truly free press must not cower down to extremists."

Poor said the Vanguard's editors decided to print the cartoon partly because the Mobile Register had printed one of the Danish images in an editorial on Feb. 9.

Frances Coleman, the Register's editorial page editor, said the paper has received little response to printing the cartoon, which showed Muhammad wearing a turban shaped like a bomb with a lit fuse. Coleman said the paper printed the image so readers could see what was being debated.

Husam Omar, who advises the Muslim Students Association, said that Mobile's Muslim community found the Register's action offensive, but protests were aimed at the Vanguard partly because of the city's Muslim community's link to the school.

On the Net:

The Vanguard: http://www.usavanguard.com
.

4 comments:

Aisha's lost doll said...

Imagine a caricature of Jesus as a bombhead.

Imagine a caricature of Buddha as a bombhead.

Imagine a caricature of Mo as a bombhead. (OK you don't really need to imagine it)

But why is only one of these an effective statement?

Definition of caricature:
'Grotesque comic representation of a person by exaggeration of characteristic traits'

That's why representation of Mo as a bombhead works and corresponding representations of Jesus or Buddha would just fall flat. Only Mo has the characteristic traits.

dag said...

Look too at the Canadian student newspaper of Jesus having oral sex with a pig. It's not insulting to Christians simply because it's a clear statement of the vileness of the people responsible for it's production and reproduction.

Thd Danish cartoons and those others following from it are direct responses to evil, not representations of evil in the artists themselves. Tis true for the reasons Aisha's Lost Doll points out above.

To report reality is not the same as to purport reality. The one is objective and the other is subjective. One is truth and the other is opinion.

Where is opinion so vile that we refuse to allow it? Never. To shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre is not opinion. To claim editorially some objective truth, even if it leads others to rampage is not opinion or incitement. That violence is the internal expression of the actor himself not of the editorialist.

maccusgermanis said...

I found the article which offended them so.

http://www.usavanguard.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/02/13/43f091aa0508d?in_archive=1

I was a little disapointed by it.

While the cartoons are considered to be in bad taste, and offensive, is it really worth bombing embassies in order to protest over a cartoon?

Bad taste?

dag said...

I looked at the comments on the sidebar and I couldn't believe the number of Muslims there. And the group think, the mindless cliches, and the outright lies and general stupidity make me think there's no hope for these folks even when they have a chance at a secular education in a free country. What have they learned? Nothing much about modern living or democracy or indenndent thinking or Western values. They are locked into a mindtrap that has them totally. I begin to think more an more that Derek is right in that we should simply kick them out and leave them settle their own miseries alone.