Re: Boston Globe Editorial, “Forms of Intolerance”, Feburary 4, 2006>
To a Muslim the cartoon images, satirizing Mohammed, originally published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, are blasphemous. To a non-Muslim they are merely cartoons, perhaps not in the best of taste, but still, simply cartoons.
The Globe’s editorial proclaims adherance to the Ultimate Enlightenment value of tolerance, in not reprinting the cartoons on their pages.
The decision not to republish these images, made as a news decision, is a reasonable journalistic choice, but that decision made as a public demonstration of so called enlightened tolerance arbitrarily imposes a particular, non-judgemental brand of tolerance (read capitulation) upon the newspapers readers.
If those cartoons were newsworthy, but were offensive to Buddhists, or offensive to Christians or offensive to any other faith, I have little doubt that the Globe would print them and if criticized, cite freedom of the press. The voluntary acceptance and defense of this censorship, which is based upon the beliefs of a particular religion and has no binding, moral or legal standing, save for the adherents of that particular religion, belie the journalistic responsibilities a newspaper has to the majority of its readers. This is, after all, not an Islamic state.The Globes’ editorial position, gives credence and legitimacy to an Islamic expectation that the rest of the world must follow the tenets of the Islamic faith or violence will ensue. Take a look here for examples.
Non-radical Islam and its’ followers are entitled to common respect. They are not entitled to our unequivocal adoption of their beliefs, or our voluntary diminuation of our principles of freedom of expression.
Â
Â
Post a Comment