Andy Macdonald has already said most of what needs to be said about the column, but Ramsey came on the John Carlson show and left me so annoyed that I have to add some points.
Let me begin by noting three serious factual errors in the column: First, Ramsey says that:
A taboo prevents American newspapers from running cartoons attacking Sharkansky's religion, which is Judaism.
I'll leave it to Stefan to say whether the last part of that sentence is accurate (assuming he wants to), but in fact American newspapers, including the Seattle PI and the Los Angeles Times, have run cartoons that have attacked Judaism. There was, not that long ago, a considerable controversy in the PI over a Ted Rall cartoon, for that very reason. And there have been similar cartoons in the Seattle Times, as Stefan Sharkansy notes in a post he finished about an hour before I finished this one. Of course such cartoons are common in most of the world.
Second, Ramsey says that we have other, similar taboos:
Always there are beliefs, opinions and images that are out of bounds. There are images of Jesus — or Martin Luther King, or the pope, or any person — that may not be shown.
In fact, all three have been attacked with cartoons, and in other ways. This very day, the New York Times — which has refused to publish the Danish cartoons — published a picture of Chris Ofili's "Holy Virgin Mary", which was, as you may recall, made out of dung. Although few attack Martin Luther King now, he was often attacked during his lifetime, in cartoons, and in print. And if Ramsey will take a moment to search Google images with "Pope + cartoon" he will find almost 400 cartoons, including at least one by David Horsey.
Third, Ramsey says that there are 1.5 Billion Muslims. That's almost certainly way too high. There are no official figures for the number of believers, but a useful site, Adherents, gives this summary estimate on Islam:
Contemporary figures for Islam are usually between 900 million and 1.4 billion, with 1 billion being a figure frequently given in comparative religion texts, probably because it's such a nice, round number.
Besides those factual errors, there is an enormous insult in the column. Ramsey implies that all or nearly all Muslims would be offended by the images. In fact, Muslims, for centuries, have created just such images, by the thousands. You can see a representative collection here, though you may have trouble getting through to the site. To claim that all Muslims would be offended by images which they and their ancestors have been creating for centuries is both absurd and an enormous slur on most Muslims. (The Wahabbi sect, which would be offended, is both rather recent and a very small fraction of the world's Muslims. Wahabbis have offended many other Muslims by their destruction of historical artifacts in Saudi Arabia, some dating to the time of Muhammad, or shortly after.)
The conversation with Carlson did not clarify Ramsey's views. He was surprised when a caller asked him about the Abu Ghraib images, and argued that it was all right to publish those because they undermined President Bush. (He did not discuss whether the difficulties those pictures caused our troops were worth the trouble they caused the president, but I fear he would say they were.) No one asked him whether the false story about Koran desecration put out by Newsweek and carried in the Seattle Times should have been taboo, but someone should have.
Although his views seemed muddier after his time with Carlson, I did hear two possible clues to his thinking. In an earlier job, he had close Muslim friends. And, as he candidly admitted, he knows little about Muhammad. (And presumably about Islam, and its often violent history.) If we put those two together, we have a possible explanation for his views on the cartoons, and perhaps other subjects. Knowing little, he took as fact what his Muslim friends told him about Islam. And he has never bothered to do a little digging to check what they said. If that is the explanation, then it is about time he did.
(If Ramsey wants to learn more about Muhammad, let me immodestly suggest he start with my brief essay, WWMD? And for those who do look at it, let me ask you to look carefully at the last paragraph in which I argue that most Muslims behave far better than the founder of their religion did.
I must apologize for the promise at the end to discuss my sources, which I never got around to. Briefly, what I was going to argue is that many modern sources on Islam and Muhammad have been corrupted by political correctness and fear of Muslims. They are not necessarily wrong, but they leave out some of the more dismaying parts of Muhammad's life and the history of the religion he founded.)
More: I was so annoyed that I forgot to mention this interesting fact.:
While Muslims engaged in violent protests worldwide over caricatures of Muhammad have insisted any image of their prophet is considered blasphemous, a prominent frieze in the U.S. Supreme Court portrays the Islamic leader wielding a sword.
And it dates back to the 1930s. Wonder whether Ramsey is struck, as I am, by the fact that it hasn't caused many riots in all that time. And I would like him to tell us whether he thinks we should redo the building.
Even More: The cartoons were published last October in an Egyptian newspaper — and nothing happened. No riots, no demands for boycotts, nothing.
Posted by Jim Miller at February 08, 2006 06:10 PM | Email ThisThere's a lot of different ways a person can go with this thread so I'll boil it down to the fourth grade level.
For me, it ultimately comes down to three world views. (Tired of using multiples of 4). And how those views stack up with this event called the 19th Century.
For those that don't know, the 19th Century was a neat time for mankind because a lot of cool things happened then. Universal Sufferage, Emancipation, the creation of Nation States and the widespread establishment of a Free Press (to name four).
These Islamic fanatics who are burning down embassies and protesting some silly cartoons act as if they were four centuries away from reaching the 1800's. This is obviously a pre-Reformation-like culture we're dealing with. Anyone familiar with pre-Reformation Christianity knows the amount of ignorance, bloodshed and brutality that was prevelent.
There are many people with Bruce Ramsay's world view who look upon the 19th Century as a shameful period of history and have an attitude that we should be apologetic for what was done then and that we should even abandon the principals created by our forefathers. This is aggravating because these people willfully ignore the sacrifices made and the lessons learned.
One of those lessons is the value of a Free Press and its proper use in warning a civilized nation against threats from fanatics who wish to do them in. Other than collecting a paycheck off of it, I'm not terribly certain if Mr. Ramsay is fully aware of its importance and the responsibility journalists have to exercise it properly.
If you want to know what the world was like prior to the 19th Century, visit your average Islamic nation. Or you can simply allow the fanatics to take over the world. If this happens, I'm pretty sure these fanatics will want to try and put Mr. Ramsay and myself against the wall first.
As for the third world view, there are people who were alive in the 19th Century, 20th Century and today who have the right attitude in dealing with fanatics who want to destroy them. The only difference now is that the technology is different but the stakes are still the same.
There's an old saying that was popular back in the 19th Century that I think is still applicable.
"Civilize 'em with a Krag".
I just wish there were a way to convince Mr. Ramsay of the beauty of that philosophy. Or at the very least, the beauty of a Krag.
Posted by: Reporterward on February 8, 2006 07:33 PM""In America we make religious freedom work by not attacking the other fellow's beliefs."
What country does he live in? The right attacks the left as heathens, the left attacks the right as fundementalists. The difference between here and there is that here we don't burn down embassies, we turn the page or the channel.
I find every single cartoon by Ted Rall to be completely and totally offensive, as well as the majority of cartoons printed by the Stranger and Seattle Weekly. But, as Voltaire, I'll defend to my death their right to do it.
If the Seattle Times and the rest of our U.S. newspapers can see fit to report on the story without showing the images, I'd like an explanation of why they published the photos of Abu Ghraib? Couldn't they have reported on the story without the images that they KNEW would inflame the 'Arab Street'?
Apparently our media outlets have a different standard when the story will make people angry at newspaper editors rather than at the U.S. Government. If the story will encourage bombings of U.S. troops, it's probably okay. If it will encourage bombings of newsrooms, well, we can't have that."
You know as well as I do that this KLOWN's job is to be thought provoking as well as challenging or intriguing. He never got past condescending (well, maybe when he was being smug ;'}
In the final analysis, all I have to say is "Ramsay who?"
Posted by: alphabet soup on February 8, 2006 08:33 PMMartin Luther's writ on the Church door was surely hugely offensive. And it had an outcome that was not just 'outrage for outrage sake'.
We can hardly dream of a better outcome than the moderates and the radicals having a schism.
Posted by: Al on February 8, 2006 08:57 PMRamsey is typical of the cowardly LEFTIST KLOWNS who live their lives to spew hate, condemn good and pander to evil.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 8, 2006 09:27 PMThus the desire to impose Sharia worldwide. I can't believe the naivete of Ramsey, or of the King County Journal, which published a similar editorial this AM.
Posted by: South County on February 9, 2006 07:59 AMAs Al said, "We can hardly dream of a better outcome than the moderates and the radicals having a schism."
Posted by: TH on February 9, 2006 08:32 AM"Lions and Tigers and Cartoons, Oh my! Once again the world is tossed into the land of Oz by the minions of the wicked witch of the East. A caricature of Muhammad has been rendered and published! Oh goodness gracious, is it time to riot, again, so soon? Yes grab your pitchforks and gasoline brothers, find the cameras! The great one who is all-knowing and all-merciful needs protection yet again, this time from small men with pen and paper so threatening to the all-powerful God of Muhammad. Does he demand that his followers engage in yet more murder and mayhem to defend his good name? Is the God of Muhammad so insecure in his position and power that even a cartoon is a threat to his preeminence? What a weak god indeed, this fragile and insecure Allah! Of course, when the riots have been finished and enough pain and loss inflicted, ...then the kind merciful, and forgiving Allah can again be promoted by Islam. And the amazing thing is, ..some people who have brains actually still fall for it! Next week someone will parrot again 'Islam is a religion of peace' ...yeah give us a break already."
"Those drawings seem pretty benign to me, none of them seem to depict him raping a 9-year old playing with dolls like the sex obsessed pedophile he was. Now I could understand Muslims being angry at that, but only because it is historically accurate and exposes the founder of Islam for the vile inhumane creature he was."
"The cartoons were much too kind, we need more accurate representations of the personage known as Muhammad, something much less flattering. Muhammad was a twisted man, narcissistic in his relentless pursuit of power and sexual gratification."
"Cartoonists, ...sharpen your pens... How about one showing his hairy butt raping a young woman while her husbands (sic) freshly murdered corpse lies nearby. Now (sic) that it would be particularly funny, since it actually happened."
"Good Muslims, and by that I [Richards] mean the ones who have not yet been corrupted my (sic)Muhammad's example who still have normal feelings of empathy and good will towards all, ...get out of the cult which can only bring you more suffering and shame."
Posted by: TH on February 9, 2006 09:07 AMBruce when we are mopping up Europe in about 5 years, or worse conceding the ground and flying the last of the "infidels" into JFK for relocation to the European refugee camps throughout America are you going to say I had nothing to do with it? I, Bruce “The Man” took every effort to never inform the public of violent religostate expansionism and to not inflame these sword wielding sand monkeys.
Bruce What a MAN!!!
Since 1979 when Jimmy Carter, frustrated by communism's ineffectiveness to destroy America, relit the Muslim world flame it has been stewing and now the pot is ready to boil over. Clinton pushed it in Yugoslavia and left it unchecked with letting bin Laden go. Look at the effectiveness of the mountain driven out of this mole hill by the middle east PR firms. Is Jimmy advising them? What is next burn Paris to the ground?
We have provoked nothing out of them…our very existence is all that is needed to ENRAGE them! What in the heck are we supposed to do then…publishing a few cartoons hardly defeats them but it ultimately has helped draw lines of clarity around them and the Bruce Ramsey’s of the west.
Some will never know what is coming but the rest of us need to prepare for what comes.
Remember this liberals the enemy of your enemy IS NOT your Friend!! He’ll cut your head off quicker than you can gurgle. Get the hell out of the way you liberal cowards we got some a$$ to kick.
Great Post Mr. Miller
Good work. In reality - LIBERALISM is the enemy.
Just as you cannot reason someone out of something that they were not reasoned into (Bruce Ramsay),
you cannot appease savages out of killing innocents in service to impassioned ignorance and enforced stupidity.
You put your finger directly on the core issue:
"The only difference now is that the technology is different but the stakes are still the same."
Cartoons have nothing substantive to do with this uprising. This whole phenomenon is pure orchestrated manipulation of the dumb-shits (liberals) among us who willingly sacrifice reality for partisan pretense. They haven’t had their heads bashed-in or their family beheaded (up close and personal) YET, so for them, it's an academic exercise of pseudo-superiority. The enemy sees our weakness and they are exploiting it. They recognize that many among us, believe that our history is evidence of our evil, and because GW Bush supports those elements of our history that worked, he is evil - never mind the facts.
The question Bin Laden or those of his ilk are asking is: How easily manipulated (liberal, naive, divided) are they really? The obvious problem is crazy’s gaining access to dangerous WMD's, and the willingness of the Ramsay types among us to disable our executive branch from stopping them. Any concession to this cynical game of charades plays directly into the hands of those terrorists who are showing the weakness of their own hand. Democrats and Republicans alike who work to showcase so-called illegal wiretapping are only playing into the enemies’ (terrorists and collaborators within us) deadly game of cynical duplicity and deception.
Let’s hope our countrymen recognize the ruse for what it is and demand a measured but aggressive and unequivocal answer.
Otherwise, as for me, I say that if the liberals win in this game, here's to the beauty of a Krag, or in my case an M1A1.
I've heard Zarqawi, the leader of the so-called "Al Qaeda in Iraq" called an insurgent. The only possible reason I can think of for this is that the MSM doesn't want this war in any way portrayed as a war on terrorism.
It's just another annoying little aspect of the media's coverage of the war, like how my local Fox station likes to report the death toll of American soldiers in Iraq every night, even when the story they just told had nothing to do with a soldier dying. They want us to lose.
Posted by: Palouse on February 9, 2006 04:22 PMEmphatically No.
Thanks very much.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on February 9, 2006 09:04 PM