That's the problem with this plan. It doesn't recognize the degrees of antagonism involved. It posits that there is "being OK with cartoons of Mohammad" and "being so not ok with those cartoons as to be incompatible with civilization", and excludes the vast middle ground.

Or, to the extent that it acknowledges that there is a middle, it posits that any social or cultural price is worth paying to demonstrate that we can't be pushed around by a tiny, virtually powerless minority whose actions aren't in any way influenced by these cartoons anyways.

Lets not beat around the bush; this protest was born out of fear.

And so the extremists aims are met.

There are a huge number of rational people.

They would like to even the odds a little.

To do that, they will do things to move people from the "rational" column to the "extremist" column.

Being members of a tiny extremist minority, they have little direct ability to move anyone anywhere.

So, instead of simply trying to persuade more Muslims to support their ultimately futile cause, they provoke us into doing the persuading. By making Muslims into "others". Because when the KKK marches in Skokie, we're uniformly disgusted. But when thousands of people draw cartoons of Mohammad, they're lionized.

You have to be --- literally, you have to be willfully ignorant to believe that death threats to cartoonists are designed to cow us into not depicting Mohammad.

What bothers me about this whole thing is not that we're offending Muslims. What bothers me is that we're so easily manipulated.

Or was it actually just someone murdering someone who was critical of Islam, because they didn't like the fact he was critical of Islam?

But in this case fear. It is their most powerful weapon by far.

Individuals and the media can be manipulated into raising their profile and spreading fear. There is an excellent book called "risk" by dan Gardner which deals with the topic in great detail.

So how does reacting to bunk threats (threats, not actions) like this fit?

It's fear; pure and simple.

As to the first bit - your just constructing an idiotic scenario that doesn't exist. The attackers in Sweden are not deliberately trying to cause fear - thy are just trying to hurt a guy. However at some point in the background is someone who understands the impact of their actions on a wider scale.

Many men exist within the echelons of terrorists. Many may not communicate together - but they don't really need to. The plan is brutally simple and uncomplicated; cause terror.

I don't think it is possible to claim there isn't a climate of fear in the western world. We see it every week almost.

you said:

"The attackers in Sweden are not deliberately trying to cause fear - thy are just trying to hurt a guy."

What I was trying to say was: of course they were creating fear, they must have know that they were, wich is why I find the statement "they did not want to create fear" puzzling.

if nothing else the protest is confused - who is it directed at? Extremists? I fail to see how playing their game is clever.

Sure, they might be caused by gays initially feeling scared when they're alone and isolated. But joining together to march for something you believe in is an attempt to overcome this fear by uniting.

That's the way I see Draw Mohammed Day. Safety in numbers. It's a response to fear, not an expression of fear. South Park was censored because the TV executives were scared. We want to show we don't have to be scared.

This isn't really showing unity thought. The threats are non-credible but you are giving them credence. It does feel a lot like a fearful reaction. And very little to do with unity - because the chosen symbol alienates Muslims from the protest.

Think of it this way; if someon blogged random death threats because of a cartoon of George w bush would weaigh and ignore it? Why the double standard here then?

There is no credible threat, but some appear afraid enough to see it as one.

These threats are highly credible.

I'm sorry if many muslims are offended by this, but that's really to do with their own lack of self confidence. Nobody's lost an eye, limb or a life by the actions of Mohammed drawers. It's a picture, for goodness sake!

Perhaps we disagree about what a positive symbol is. I happen to believe the artistic result of freedom of expression is a positive symbol.

But this protest is reacting to the wider majority of empty threats.

The rest of your post is just worrying. You may not understand why offense is taken at a picture, I agree and to me it seems silly.

But that doesn't give us the right to essentially say "shush, you're being silly. Let us get on with our protest please". It's a bit patronizing :-)

think of it this way: all Muslims are discluded from this protest. How is that unity?

(also, this ain't freedom of artistic expression. It's a deliberate attempt to get at the terrorists with imaea they don't like... That's a negative image in my mind :-))

(though "win" is a relative term - "further their aims" is more realistic)

The social contracts are codified in our laws. And the laws says that blasphemy is legal.

The other, Christian, side of the Swedish krona: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_%28exhibition%29

And those laws, equally, don't say that it is illegal to be offended by blasphemy.

As much as I would fight for the right of people to draw Mohammed I would fight for an individual Muslims right to feel offended by that drawing.

Nobody's talking about legality.

Blasphemy used to be illegal all over the Western world, but isn't anymore. Death sentence were metered out in e.g. mid 19th century Sweden -- for much less than Ecce Homo (see previous comment) and Piss Christ.

It is important to lampoon and jeer at ideologies/religions, especially those that insist they have the ultimate Truth and are above criticism.

(Racism/slavery went the other way; it used to be accepted -- but like intolerance to blasphemy, it was put behind us, at least in the West.)

As a Christian I certainly don't like Jesus constantly being mocked -- but I also think he is perfectly capable of defending himself. Christianity has a clear response. Jesus is our hero. When he was mocked, tortured and murdered he laid down his life. Most of his closest followers died in the same way. The whole question is central to Christianity.

Does anyone have any examples of a concise response that a "peace-loving Muslim" might give to an "extremist Muslim?" ... why do more Muslims not speak out more often against extremists?

While it's fun for some to mock part of someone elses religion and I absolutely advocate free speech we need to see this as what it is. It's trolling. If you want to stick it to the extremists then do something the moderates can unite with you against them. No moderate could support EDMD because it specifically goes against the teachings of one of their holy books.

Rather than ask for a response that a peace loving muslim might give an extremist muslim, ask yourself what a peace loving Christian would give by way of a response to an extremist Christian should Jesus be mocked. There you will find your answer.

Interestingly (or perhaps not) this doesn't just apply to Mohammed. This applies to all prophets in Islam, including Jesus and Moses. It's because idolatry is the worship of something other than god and to muslims there is only the one god, although he's the same god as the god in all Abrahamic faiths, just interpreted differently.

The same way Christians should be constantly and publicly apologetic for the crazy abortion clinic bombers?

My impression from Muslim friends is that they do, but internally - and I can't blame them. Muslims face an increasingly cold attitude from people in America, and unity against the face of discrimination is important. Without speaking from personal experience, I suspect that nobody wants to get into an internal witch-hunt (who's the extremist bomber?!) that will simply fracture the community.

Perhaps they would be more willing to speak out against extremists if they thought the rest of their country had their backs. But let's face it - looking at this discussion (and knowing that attitudes in the general population is markedly worse), we don't. The moderates are between a rock and a hard place - on one side a public that fears and loathes them, and on the other a bunch of murderous fiends that look like them, and claim to be one of them.

The French got their church out of their daily lives -- and don't seem exactly nostalgic for its influence... I'd guess they use the term to mean that they come from a culture with Christian influences.

(I call myself "Protestant atheist".)

That's abject nonsense. Intentionally offending people doesn't make them grow up. It makes them feel aggrieved.

(I acknowledge that many idiots on the Facebook page were intentionally offending people)

But what this is really about is intentionally defending our freedom of speech whilst at the same time accepting the necessary, but unintentional, side effect of offending people.

But frankly, who cares? These people can choose whether or not to be offended by this. If they think we're stupid so be it, they don't have to engage with us.

What's childish is the notion that there's no cost to offending people, or that the cost must not matter because there's a principle attached to it. You have free speech whether or not you choose to use it to offend Muslims. Muslims will tolerate your free speech, because that's the social contract, and we enforce the social contract with the enormous, virtually unstoppable resources of Western Civilization.

We knew that before this demonstration, we'll know it afterwards. The only thing that's going to change is that many tens of thousands of people will be pointlessly alienated so that people like you can feel good about themselves.

The only thing that's going to change is that many tens of thousands of people will be pointlessly alienated

I disagree with that. I hope that -- and the reason I support this movement is that -- we will all feel stronger as a society which values freedom of expression.

It certainly was not about feeling good about myself. I feel bad about offending anyone, but I think demonstrating our belief in free speech is more important.

Thanks, you've put exactly into words the idea I've been struggling to sketch out for the last few days.

Given that you have that impression, I understand why you reacted the way you did, but your impression is incorrect.

It's like saying that when I use a gun to defend my house from a burglar wearing a red hat, that my aim is to kill people with red hats. Completely missing the point.

The aim of this movement is to defend free speech (my house) from extremists (burglars) not people who happen to be muslim (wear red hats).

I might also add that the Swedish artist discussed now (Vilks), has a history of provocation in his work. Not only for muslims. He also made a cartoon of one of these, which imho clearly overshadows the Muhammed reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judensau

I would avoid saying "HN demands" anything, since this thread shows that people's views here are all over the map.

I think you're misinterpreting their intention. Rather than saying people don't have the right to be offended, they're saying people don't have the right to kill over the offense.

The point is that some things are more important than avoiding offending people (particularly, I might add, over something so ridiculous as drawing a picture).

Why is it so hard to extend the same courtesy to Muslims?

Posting something on the internet (or broadcasting a TV show) that no-one has to see if they don't want to is something entirely different.