Op-ed "giving into Islamic wrath makes us all hostages

[southsider2k5]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...1,4590784.story

 

Giving in to Islamic wrath makes us hostages

 

Leonard Pitts, a syndicated columnist based in Washington: McClatchy/Tribune newspapers

Published October 3, 2006

 

 

In 1989, photographer Andres Serrano exhibited a photo he called "Piss Christ," depicting a crucifix submerged in urine. It raised a furor and was condemned on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

 

Nobody was killed.

 

In 1999, artist Chris Ofili exhibited a painting he called "The Holy Virgin Mary," in which the mother of Jesus has an exposed breast made of elephant dung. It drew a rebuke from the mayor of New York and crowds of protesters.

 

Nobody was injured.

 

Last year, a Danish newspaper printed political cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, one showing him with a bomb in his turban. There were weeks of rioting across Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Africa. At least one person died in Somalia, five in Afghanistan, a hundred in Nigeria. An untold number of people were injured. Property damage was in the millions.

 

You may think the point of the foregoing parallel is that Christians react more maturely to provocation than Muslims. You would be mistaken. After all, Muslims in America, surely as offended by the cartoons of the prophet as Muslims anywhere else, did not riot or kill. Their protests were confined to statements of anger and letters to editors.

 

No, the point has less to do with religion than with culture. As in, some cultures value freedom of expression more than others. Some realize the person who is not free to speak his or her mind is not truly free at all.

 

And some know courage is the price of that freedom.

 

Which brings us to Germany, where an opera house in Berlin recently ended a production of Mozart's "Idomeneo" that featured the severed head of the Prophet Muhammad. The opera, which premiered in 2003, also included the severed heads of Jesus, Buddha and Poseidon, part of director Hans Neuenfels' protest of organized religion. But it was security fears specifically related to the Muslim prophet that led Kirsten Harms, director of Deutsche Oper Berlin, to cancel the production.

 

Many Germans have condemned the decision, led by Chancellor Angela Merkel, who warned that "self-censorship out of fear is not tolerable."

 

I agree, of course, but I also empathize with Kirsten Harms. Certainly it was only a matter of time before the production came to the attention of world Islam; one marvels that it escaped three years without detection. And we all know what would have happened then. It's one thing to risk one's own building, one's own crew, even one's own life for the principle of free speech. But who'd want to live with the knowledge that their opera caused riots and deaths all over the world, further destabilizing an already fragile and unstable planet.

 

So I understand Harms' thinking. But I disagree with it.

 

For too long, radical Muslims have behaved like the spoiled children of the planet, throwing temper tantrums--violence and the threat thereof--to get their way. Any seasoned parent can tell you that giving in to tantrums only ensures more tantrums.

 

Better to teach the child restraint. Better to teach him to share. In radical Islam's case, to share the planet with those who are not of their ideology. To behave with tolerance if not acceptance.

 

I do not argue provocation for its own sake, which is why I disagreed with papers that reprinted the cartoons of the prophet. There was no point to it; it was the journalistic equivalent of one school kid insulting another's mother.

 

This is different. Neuenfels uses provocative imagery to make a political point. Most of us would disagree with that point, but his right to make it should never be in question.

 

This is what the rest of the world must teach radical Islam, but we can't if we retreat in fear from our own principles. Yes, the danger is real. Offend the crazies and they will destroy property or take somebody hostage. But the alternative is worse. To give in is to destroy more than property.

 

And make hostages of us all.

 

----------

 

E-mail: [email protected]

[Jenksismyhero]

I completely agree.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

If muslims dont like it when someone takes a little swipe at Mohammed then thats too bad. Its called free speech. I also find it truly ironic that certain people are so up in arms that the government is supposedly taking their freedoms away in the terror fight while those same people gleefully surrender their right to free speech to a mob of islamofascist thugs.

 

Pathetic.

[mr_genius]

If muslims dont like it when someone takes a little swipe at Mohammed then thats too bad. Its called free speech. I also find it truly ironic that certain people are so up in arms that the government is supposedly taking their freedoms away in the terror fight while those same people gleefully surrender their right to free speech to a mob of islamofascist thugs.

 

Pathetic.

 

so true

 

[Reddy]

If muslims dont like it when someone takes a little swipe at Mohammed then thats too bad. Its called free speech. I also find it truly ironic that certain people are so up in arms that the government is supposedly taking their freedoms away in the terror fight while those same people gleefully surrender their right to free speech to a mob of islamofascist thugs.

 

Pathetic.

 

a) its a small chunk of muslims that would go to the extremes you talk about

B) its against their religion to depict muhammed... so... shouldnt they get upset? well i guess not... its against christians religion to commit adultry... or to covet... or... ya know, lots of things that christians do.

c) the article is right in pointing out that the problem is CULTURE, not RELIGION

[EvilMonkey]

a) its a small chunk of muslims that would go to the extremes you talk about

B) its against their religion to depict muhammed... so... shouldnt they get upset? well i guess not... its against christians religion to commit adultry... or to covet... or... ya know, lots of things that christians do.

c) the article is right in pointing out that the problem is CULTURE, not RELIGION

When the small percentage numbers a billion, you talk about it.

[NorthSideSox72]

When the small percentage numbers a billion, you talk about it.

Oh please. If people elsewhere in the world watch the news about the U.S., and see school shootings and violence on the news, are they right to think that all Americans are violent?

 

Look at broad information. Look at entire countries of Muslims that don't have these issues. Look at the fact that those protests on TV are, what... a few hundred people?

 

Please rejoin us in reality. The religion of Islam is not the problem. Extremism and violence are the problem.

[Rex Kickass]

When the small percentage numbers a billion, you talk about it.

I didn't realize that there were suddenly tens of billions of people on the planet.

[EvilMonkey]

Oh please. If people elsewhere in the world watch the news about the U.S., and see school shootings and violence on the news, are they right to think that all Americans are violent?

 

Look at broad information. Look at entire countries of Muslims that don't have these issues. Look at the fact that those protests on TV are, what... a few hundred people?

 

Please rejoin us in reality. The religion of Islam is not the problem. Extremism and violence are the problem.

Oh come on. All we hear about is how it is a small percentage. Even if it is only 2 or 3 percent, that is still a HUGE number.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Oct 5, 2006 -> 03:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh come on. All we hear about is how it is a small percentage. Even if it is only 2 or 3 percent, that is still a HUGE number.

So then the other 97 or 98 percent is an even "HUGER" number. Why not make a broad generalization about something using those guys instead?

Edited October 5, 2006 by santo=dorf

[NorthSideSox72]

Oh come on. All we hear about is how it is a small percentage. Even if it is only 2 or 3 percent, that is still a HUGE number.

And I guarantee that some 2 or 3 percent of Christians, or Jews or most any other religious group, are fanatic and hateful too. Its human reality.

 

And as Santo said, if you want to generalize, at least try to use the great majority instead of a minority.

[Reddy]

Oh please. If people elsewhere in the world watch the news about the U.S., and see school shootings and violence on the news, are they right to think that all Americans are violent?

 

Look at broad information. Look at entire countries of Muslims that don't have these issues. Look at the fact that those protests on TV are, what... a few hundred people?

 

Please rejoin us in reality. The religion of Islam is not the problem. Extremism and violence are the problem.

[EvilMonkey]

So then the other 97 or 98 percent is an even "HUGER" number. Why not make a broad generalization about something using those guys instead?

Ok, the 97 or 98 % who are not violent fanatics are too scared to stand up to the 2 or 3% of their religion that make them look bad and cause them trouble. You get funny looks in airports BECAUSE of that 2 or 3 percent. You have people watching you (the 97 or 98 percent) BECAUSE of that 2 or 3 percent. Do something about it, and STFU.

[Rex Kickass]

Ok, the 97 or 98 % who are not violent fanatics are too scared to stand up to the 2 or 3% of their religion that make them look bad and cause them trouble. You get funny looks in airports BECAUSE of that 2 or 3 percent. You have people watching you (the 97 or 98 percent) BECAUSE of that 2 or 3 percent. Do something about it, and STFU.

 

By doing what? Overreacting?

 

Like when the 25 year old dark skinned muslim was denied boarding for wearing a t-shirt with Arabic script? Like when they divert flights because someone left a Blackberry on board accidentally from a previous flight? Like when jets divert at the aid of fighter jets because someone has a panic attack on board?

 

Why don't they do that for white people? After all, it was a white person who bombed the Murrow building in Oklahoma City. It was a white person who bombed the Atlanta Olympics. White people regularly bombed the London Underground in the 1970s and 1980s under the guise of freedom for Northern Ireland. So much so that they removed every trash can in the London subways system well before the 2005 bombings. But we don't profile for white people. Why? Because there are plenty of them here in the US. Some would say that there are more white people around the US than any other type of people.

 

A person who appears middle-eastern, Arab, Persian... tends to stand out. And there aren't that many of them, relatively speaking. So it's an easy profile to make.

[Balta1701]

I have a friend here who was on a flight over the Grand Canyon, during the daylight so you get a great view. He's also middle Eastern. He took out his camera and took some photos of the Canyon from above. A few minutes later one of the flight attendants asked him why he was taking pictures of the wing.