EDITOR: Cartoons of Muhammad have been framed as a battle between free speech advocates and Islamic fundamentalists. The premise begs for righteous polarization around opposing ideals. Modern defenders of liberty face off against archaic zealots defending the honor of their prophet.
That spin is a lie.
Editors make judgments about acceptable material every day and tiptoe around things like obscenity, libel, defamation, or sedition. It’s fun to imagine that freedom of speech is absolute. It isn’t. The EU commissioner recently called upon European media to “self-regulate,” implying possible strictures on speech in the form of a “voluntary code of conduct” that would carry no legal weight. The suggestion has journalists escalating their free speech rhetoric to fever pitch. Dozens of papers have reprinted the cartoons in a show of solidarity with Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten newspaper.
Perhaps editors hope republication of the cartoons will desensitize fundamentalist Muslims to the harsh realities of Western-brand free speech, or maybe they just want to flex their free press muscles in a display of power. The first possibility seems highly unlikely to succeed, the second matches the moral arrogance of protestors who would silence the press.
Whatever the intent, republishing the cartoons completely sidesteps a valid component of the debate: Are the cartoons broadly offensive to a large segment of the population? This is not a legal question—you have the right to be a jerk. It is a different question: whether you should be a jerk. It is a moral question. Editors exercise moral judgments all the time. Every opportunity to cause offense has its own context. This is not the Abu-Ghraib Halloween issue, or the Pope vs. Shiavo race to the grave. This is a different question.
Merely asking this question has been characterized as a “justification” of violent Muslim protestors who have made death threats or set fires. Nonsense. We need not preface every argument with moral outrage over actions that are clearly indefensible. All the moral outrage you can muster won’t make embassies unburn, or recapitate an infidel. Moral outrage conveniently shirks its responsibility to find a meaningful response to senseless actions. We shouldn’t fear questions about the nature of the cartoons, as though asking them dishonors some noble tradition of political satire.
Some area Muslims have made it clear they find some of the cartoons deeply offensive. These Muslims are not burning down embassies. They are not threatening to behead staffers at The Stranger. Washington is their home. They are our neighbors and our friends. Telling them to “get over it” is rude and unkind, again, not a legal question.
Here lies the offense created by some of the cartoons. The caricature of an angry-eyed, bushy-faced Muhammad wearing a bomb as a turban is the creation of anti-Islamic European sentiment. It is a racist stereotype that fosters ill will toward Muslims, whether or not they’ve ever bombed a discotheque. The caricature of an angry Muhammad menacingly drawing a dagger while burqa-clad women cower behind him conveys a message: Muslims are violent savages who oppress women. These two cartoons in particular bear more than a little resemblance to the caricatures of Jews published in Der Stürmer during the 1920s and ’30s.
Not all of the cartoons are tainted by racist sentiment, but some clearly are. That taint rubs off on the free speech rhetoric and complicates the moral clarity of republishing in solidarity with a Danish publisher. Does it make sense to rally around racist propaganda in defense of civil liberties? You could argue that only offensive speech requires legal protections, which is fair enough, and that allows reasonable people to present offensive materials in context.
Last week The Stranger reprinted four of the cartoons, along with an article by Bruce Bawer with the subheadline: “Islamic Fundamentalists Don’t Just Have a Problem with Cartoons, They Have a Problem with Freedom.” Side by side with the racist caricatures, Bawer’s article issues a clear moral imperative: fear Islam.
Why preface fundamentalists with “Islamic?” Is it more acceptable for Pat Robertson to call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez because he is a Christian fundamentalist? Fundamentalism is anathema to civilization, no matter what the religious prefix, and Bawer’s larger work addresses that. But by tacking on “Islamic,” and illustrating it with stereotypical caricatures, we drink the Kool-Aid of irrational fear: Don’t fret over the anti-Islamic tensions that have grown ugly across Europe. We shouldn’t “enable” extremism talking about Western involvement in Middle Eastern countries where we prop up brutal dictatorships as it serves our security and oil interests, where we destabilize popular governments that threaten to centralize wealth away from us (cue the “blame America first” sound bite). All of this can be dismissed as liberal hand wringing, apologizing for Western liberty. What does it have to do with the cartoons?
A better question concerns what the cartoons have to do with the violence. Some editorialists would have us believe that any depiction of Muhammad is an affront to Muslims. This is false. Well-known and beloved portraits of the prophet are common in many Muslim communities, similar to portraits of Jesus common among some Christian communities. Some fundamentalist Muslims take an extreme view of Koranic admonishments against idolatry, and shun all representations.
As it turns out, cartoons far more offensive than the Jyllands-Posten dozen were circulated among fundamentalist populations in a deliberate attempt to instigate civil unrest. Our buddies in Saudi Arabia were among the first to use a months-old, dead news story about cartoons to redirect outrage over the stampede deaths during Hajj. Other repressive Middle Eastern governments quickly adopted the device to redirect their own populations’ rage away from governmental failings. It was easy to do. This is not an excuse or a justification of violence, but to pretend that banal cartoons in a Danish newspaper provoked irrational fury actually mischaracterizes reality.
Similarly, it would be wrong to pretend that last week’s republication of four cartoons in The Stranger, along with Bawer’s article, was nothing less than a righteous crusade for freedom of speech. In a liberal Western state, that kind of deliberate agitation is far more likely to provoke anti-Islamic violence than a fundamentalist reaction. It isn’t a question of whether a publication should have the right to print the cartoons; clearly it does.
But The Stranger did more than merely reprint cartoons. It reprinted them in a context that suggested the existence of a great battle between freedom and slavery, heroes and monsters, Western liberty and Muslim bogeymen. If truth is an absolute defense against defamation, last week’s page 17 failed the test. It was fear-mongering garbage.
David Summerlin
To people who continue to argue that it is “unnecessary” for American newspapers to reprint the Muhammad cartoons [“All the Rage,” Bruce Bawer, Feb 9], I’d like to offer the following thought experiment:
Imagine that you stand accused of a capital crime. Maybe it’s murder, maybe it’s blasphemy—the exact charge doesn’t matter, just the fact that your life is on the line. You believe that you are innocent, and that a fair examination of the evidence will result in your acquittal.
But there’s a hitch: your defense attorney says he is worried that a straightforward presentation of the evidence may offend some of the people in the courtroom. When you ask him why this matters, he tells you that he has a reputation for being a sensitive person, and he would really hate to jeopardize it by offending people unnecessarily. So instead of presenting the actual evidence, he’d like to present a description of the evidence, carefully edited to minimize the chance of bruised feelings. When you ask whether this unusual defense strategy might not hurt your chances of being acquitted, he laughs nervously, says “No, of course not!” and spends the next ten minutes lecturing you on the importance of tolerance in a multicultural society.
Question: is this the guy you want fighting for your life?
Matt Ruff
Bruce Bawer’s piece on the cartoon riots is a bunch of racist bullshit. Somehow he makes the leap from a few wingnuts committing arson to the fall of Western civilization in a few paragraphs. Muslims are trying to “turn free, affluent countries into mirror images of their own dysfunctional dictatorships.” We Westerners are headed “closer to full-fledged dhimmi status.” Bawer compares Western opposition to the cartoons with Neville Chamberlain appeasing the Nazis (nice!) and then says “when they’ve tamed Europe, they’ll come after America(!!!!)” How are Muslims taking over the West? Well, they have lots of babies, so eventually they’ll be in the majority. This means the solution is… what exactly? Ethnic cleansing of Arabs and Muslims? Forced abortions? Violent conversion to Christianity?
This isn’t to say that fundamentalist Islam is my cup of tea or without problems, but give me a fucking break. Does anyone besides this asshole seriously think that the US and Europe are on the verge of falling to a bunch of impoverished third worlders whose countries we invade every day of the week and twice on Sunday? What a fearmongering bigoted dick.
We’ve heard this type of nativist racist trash all throughout this country’s history, directed at any one of the numerous non-WASP ethnic groups who all turned out to be just fine. If Bruce Bawer’s ever out of work, he should apply at the local KKK recruiter; they’d love him.
George
Ok, so you showed the cartoons. Feel better? Yea! Free speech! Now I choose to never read your rag again. Freedom is wonderful! CASEY MALONE
I think that Bruce Bawer’s column “All the Rage” was excellent. I appreciate that your paper is willing to stand for our liberties that others are so quickly and easily giving away.
Jerilyn Fitzbuck
Thank-you for defending free speech by publishing the Mohammed cartoons and Bruce Bawer’s excellent opinion piece on them. You are accurate when you call yourselves “Seattle’s Only Newspaper.”
Maryallene Otis, Lynnwood
Bravo to The Stranger for publishing the cartoons and the insightful column by Bruce Bawer. While, as a libertarian conservative, your publication normally repulses and disgusts me, I do admire you for having the courage to publish sometimes-unpopular thoughts. The rest of the local Seattle “media” has refused publication of the cartoons and joined the rank and file national media. The first reaction, of most of us in the West, is “What’s the big deal?” It should be noted that images of The Prophet are not rare or discouraged throughout all of the Muslim world. This is a fiction perpetrated by some practitioners and mindlessly spread by mainstream press who, as we all know, often fails to do any research in stories they publish. Depictions of Muhammad’s Isra and Mi’raj often show not only his face but (gasp!) his whole body too.
This week’s sign of the apocalypse may be that The Stranger and Fox News stand united in being one of the few media outlets to show the cartoons.
Russell J. Atkatsh, Tacoma
I think it’s great to run the Mohammed cartoons. Why not? I think your editorial about them misses some important points, but frankly, what I enjoy from The Stranger is seldom-incisive analysis, but more often enjoyably sophomoric attempts to offend and piss off as many people as possible. (I’m not being sarcastic, that’s really what I like about The Stranger, I can still get behind a good ‘fuck you’ to whoever deserves it, or doesn’t.).
But, just to make the point that you don’t have any special prejudice against Islam (I don’t’ think you do), you ought to run some cartoons pillorying Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, whatever, too. I know you have run plenty such in the past (especially Christianity, I think there have been some anti-Christian covers. Maybe something about the priest child abuse thing?). But you should run them in close proximity (time or space-wise) to the Mohammed ones, just to make it clear that you are equal opportunity anti-religionists, and to spread the offense around to everyone else that deserves it too. Hell, maybe even some kind of contest or call for submissions like the one the Danish newspaper put out?
Jonathan
I would like to personally thank you for just “doing the right thing”. I cannot feel more strongly that every newspaper in the U.S., and news program on TV, should print/air all 12 of the caricatures of Mohammed. Time after time, our “Free Speech” rights have been paraded for various reasons by both forms of media here in the U.S., yet, bewilderingly, it is only in Europe, where they are actually willing to stand up for them against a truly tyrannical force. Bruce Bawer’s article should be read by every news related editor (present company excluded) and the college professors who taught them, as they hang their heads in shame. The word “islam” translates to “submit”. If we “submit” to the demands of those who would destroy those rights and don’t stand up for the right to print these innocuous caricatures, our right to free speech in this country, and everywhere around the globe where people feel this right is as important as breathing air, will soon meet its demise.
Elliott Fine, Bellingham
I wanted to thank you for printing this article, I have been watching the news, reading headlines, and listening to the radio, but nobody seems to want to take a stand. Up until know, I have not found any literature that summed up my feelings on the matter, On the contrary, this article was very informative while also taking a stand. I understand that it may have a bias, seeing as the author also wrote a book on the subject, but I feel the concepts are solid. I worked for a North African owned establishment up until a couple months ago, and the prominent use of force to obtain a desired outcome was astonishing. Anyway, without anymore theorizing, I wanted to thank you for printing this article.
Jeff Ott
Thank you for having the courage to print these pictures. Although I respect Islam as a religion, I am not a Muslim. And since I am not a Muslim, these pictures do not offend ME, (others can choose not to look). I believe that tolerance is what makes us civilized and that information that is obscene to some should still be available for all who wish to make up our own mind. I share in your belief that it’s a dangerous path to self-censor.
Nic
It’s about time you big gubbmint libbruls in Seattle woke up and smelled the car bomb. Pres. Bush will be glad to know that you’ve come around too. You laughed and ridiculed him when he said the Muslims hate us because were free and love freedom, now your admitting He was right all along. Maybe now that you know your ass from the Gorge you’ll support His war against terror and stop bein traytors. An now if you’ll exuse me, Imp goin to a movie theater and yell FIRE! I loves my freedum o’ speech!! Hugh Jerection, Federal Way
Dear Stranger: I despise your illiterate glop of a rag but, my God, I kiss your feet for publishing those Danish cartoons.
Das Andersson
On being the ONLY people in the media to have the balls to print those stupid ass cartoons. It is a news and they should be printed everywhere. I am so damn sick and tired of these GOD DAMN Muslims holding the entire world for ransom… The fact that other news agencies refuse to print them or show them on the TV tells me that terrorism is working.
Teresa
I am really puzzled about one thing. How in the world would Muslims know how Mohammad looked or recognize that it might be their prophet in a cartoon if pictures of him are not allowed? And beyond the iconoclasts how does the rest of the world immediately think that this looks like the prophet Mohammad? Are there depictions of him from the time when he lived? Was Mohammad incensed when someone scratched his likeness onto some surface? What if indeed this cartoon is the likeness of some other person?
Marilyn Kastien
After witnessing the conflagration over the cartoon depicting Muhammad with a bomb for turban, I couldn’t agree more with Bruce Bawer, who succinctly stated his case. While I have sympathy for anyone who is oppressed or lives in a culture steeped in violence, hatred, and anger, the depiction of Muhammad (an apparent sin worthy of death) isn’t really the problem, as I see it; they are simply using this as an excuse to whip up their emotions, lashing out at anyone they see as a possible aggressor(!) against their culture, society, and religion. While they may have long standing and even justified grievances against the West, the fact of the matter is that threatening violence against those who spawned such an amusing cartoon (and I have to admit, I thought it was pretty damn funny, and apropos of the Muslim culture) is terrorism. While I wouldn’t waste a breath in my body supporting the Bush administration’s policies regarding terrorism, especially in Iraq, this is what we are fighting against, in the same manner that free societies have fought against ideas and people that threaten our liberties. What is it that the Western press proposes to shield us from, by not publishing the aforementioned picture? It may be tasteless, but it is a accurate summation of a combined cultural and religious attitude that sees nothing wrong with imposing religious laws that might have been apropos a thousand years ago, but not now. We all saw how it worked out in Afghanistan, prior to the invasion. For Christ’s sake, they don’t even like music, sex, or booze! So for all you appeasers out there, here in America I have something to say: Fuck You! And fuck all those stupid Muslims who had nothing better to do than riot, protest, and burn down embassies while promising death to all the infidels.
Dan Austin
If you are a true believer in free speech and feel this issue is that important, then I challenge you to print offensive depiction of Jesus or a cartoon mocking Holocaust or child porn. Freedom of speech is a right we all should and hold dear; but freedom of speech does not mean offending other people purposely and to incite hate as you are doing by printing these pictures. In Europe it is a punishable crime to incite hate against Jews or claim the Holocaust never existed. Europe created the Holocaust, WWI, and WWII not Muslims. Mr. Bruce Bawer hatred and malicious attacks on Islam are apparent when he uses Islamic term such as radical Muslims, creeping Sharia, this gang and so on. Muslims in Europe have lived as second-class citizens for centuries and are discriminated against without opposition from white majority. Muslims in Europe did not isolate themselves, they were alienated by Europeans. United States and Europe keep sending armies to the Muslims world. I don‚Äöt see Saudi army invading France. The hate is coming from you and people like you who want to justify their racism upon people who wish to live as they please. That is a right and freedom of speech you should fight for. Why a Muslim girl is not allowed to wear her Islamic clothes in public school, why a Christian is not allowed to wear a cross. It is obvious that the west is the one who wants to impose their lifestyle on others.
The Stranger is a trashy magazine driven by greed and looking for free presses to sell more magazines. Thanks.
M. Hammad
Just wanted to send a quick note to thank you for publishing some of the “cartoons” that are driving the world(Muslim) crazy with rage.
Hopefully other papers will get enough courage to stand up and print the cartoons also!
Chris
Kudos for your courageous stand on behalf of our unalienable rights and in defense of those Danes under fire for exercising the same. While I am not a fan of your paper’s politics in general, this time you were spot on. I was particularly impressed with how well informed you were. It’s rare to see print journalists in Seattle actually doing their homework and exhibiting even minimal intelligence and critical thinking these days. Keep it up. I am forwarding the letter below, sent by me today to the editor of the Stockholm Spectator, copied to the Foreign and Prime Ministers of Sweden, to illustrate my further thoughts on the subject, including Sweden’s callow response. I am copying this letter to the Seattle Times and Seattle P-I to let them know that their mealy-mouthed appeasing response on this issue, leaving “The Stranger” as the most courageous of our local print media for the moment, has not gone unnoticed. I think it’s time we took a fresh look at their joint operating agreement. While supposedly intended as a measure to protect Seattle’s news consumers from the ills of having only one daily, I am beginning to view the JOA as a mechanism for imposing the negative aspects of monopoly upon Seattle’s news readers. In point of fact, there is very little, if any, meaningful difference between the editorial positions taken by the two newspapers. By exempting them from application of the antitrust laws, it appears more and more likely to me that the actual impact of the JOA is to enable the two dailies to use up all the oxygen, thereby erecting boundaries to entry by an alternative daily that would offer news consumers a real choice from meaningful competition. I think it’s time to make room for an enterprising entrant to our daily news market. Keep up the good work.
John Sullivan
I would like to remain anonymous on this issue, but I have an opinion non-the-less. My name is Nick and I am a Conservative Christian. Occasionally I read the Stranger, and am not always a fan, to be completely honest. But today I fully respect and endorse your article. It is very important that Americans not be bullied by the Muslims around the world, or be intimidated on what to say, Or what not to say. We need to keep our freedom of speech, it is our right, and being told not to offend a group is truly offensive to me. Like your article said, Christians are demoralized and “ripped on” in the media on what seems to be a daily occurrence. Do I like it? No. But I know it is the right of anyone who wants to disgrace my religion. I would Never call for the death of an artist who depicts Christ in a negative manner. Instead, I would rather pray for that person. I hope that more news outlets like the Stranger are not intimidated and will continue to express free speech. This issue makes me think about our president; every day he is portrayed as incompetent, stupid, and looks very much like a monkey in the comics. If our major newspapers show no restraint in offending our commander-in-chief, like him or not, they should care even less about offending people a world away. I am not calling for more demeaning pictures of Mohammad, just don’t shy away from it because people’s feelings get hurt. Let’s not start down the slippery slope of loosing our first amendment rights.
P.S. Please keep my full name off of this because I run a business and would not like to loose clients due to my views. Also, if this is printed please e-mail me so I can pick up an issue.
Nick
Once again a old geezer like me takes my hat off to the stranger for they’re honest and fair reporting. The cartoons that are causing trouble in Europe are very mild compared to this country’s political history of this medium and I do appreciate the reporter’s view and insight. As Americans we are asked by our fellow American leaders to be tolerant of other cultures. when is that pendulum going to swing the other way? The world may never know.
David
I don’t agree with you guys on much. In fact the few times I’ve read The Stranger while riding the bus I become increasingly nauseated and rarely make it through the classifieds without putting the paper down and pondering the mental fortitude of your readership and its influence on the greater Puget Sound population.
HOWEVER! Bravo to you for hitting the cartoon issue head on. You’re article was full of interesting insights, and common sense that all free countries should be defending. I applaud you for having the guts to stand up and say what everyone is afraid to say. Silence will make the problem worse and will demonstrate a willingness to be bullied into submission. Thank you, Stranger!
RS
I am 15-years-old and I know we all need free speech and I think the Muslims are blowing it way out of perspective.
Matthew
Congrats to you guys for having the balls to publish the “controversial” cartoons of Mohammed! I am sick, sick, sick of religious fanatics bullying those of us who disagree with them! After 9-11, there was an influx of P.C.ness around the tolerance of Muslims. I was one of those who defended peaceful Muslims who didn’t support the attacks, but to incite violence just because of a few cartoons-that’s impossible to defend. Either they start showing respect to other religions (including Judaism), or they shut the hell up. They can’t have it both ways.
Brooke
Hey Stranger, how about printing a full-page Danish flag so we can display it in our windows as a show of solidarity and support for freedom of speech?
Laurie
Dear Mr. Savage, Although I am a moderate conservative, and our political viewpoints are probably diametrically opposed on many political issues I wanted to write and thank you for publishing the Mohamed cartoons. It seems that you were the only editor in the Seattle area with the courage to stand up for the free speech rights that we all enjoy as Americans. Thank you for not backing down to the Islamic bullies and the politically correct cowards that seem to have taken center stage this past week. Even though we may disagree politically I stand with you in protecting our freedom of speech and the press.
Mark R. McDowell
Oh my, what a fascinating article. I am of course referring to Bruce Bawer’s opinion piece, “All the Rage,” which more appropriately could have been titled, “Oh my God, the Muslims are going to kill us all!” Please don’t get me wrong, I thoroughly support Mr. Bowers right to free speech and to use any language he sees fit to expose himself for the shill he is. Besides, in these troubled times, laughter can have much needed healing qualities. But enough of my ridiculing Mr. Bower’s good name as a professional shill, er, I mean Journalist. Let’s remain focused on the issue, namely the Danish Cartoons. Like Mr. Bawer, I too not only support free speech but freedom of the press, in this case the right of the Editorial staff of the Jylland-Posten to use any means of communication to expose their ignorance, arrogance, and bigotry as they see fit while simultaneously claiming the moral high ground. In turn I also support the right of extremist Muslims leaders who have hijacked their religion to express their ignorance, arrogance, and bigotry as they see fit as well as the right of Danish political leaders to express their ignorance, arrogance, and bigotry as they see fit, all while simultaneously claiming the moral high ground. Which brings us to another talking point of Mr. Bawer, the stoic integrity of Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Like Mr. Bawer, I too share a deep appreciation for Mr. Rasmussen. For nearly three years now I have admired the unequivocal skill in which Mr. Rasmussen has licked American and British boot without getting kicked in the face as his administration gave unwavering support to the rape of Iraq. But perhaps Mr. Rasmussen’s skill as sycophant is an inherent ability found in most Danish political leaders who have been almost sublime in their skill of licking British boot ever since Lord Nelson left the Danish Fleet in ruins some two centuries ago. Indeed, it would be tragic if Denmark has to recall it almost 600 strong contingent of soldiers, but obviously Denmark could capitulate at any moment into an Islamic Theocracy. Especially while the rest of those spineless European States sit back in Denmark’s desperate hour of need, bowing to extremist Islamic pressure while simultaneously resisting to any pressure from any extremist elements from say, Judeo-Christians.
Not only do I admire Mr. Rasmussen, I also revere the editorial staff and cartoonists of the Jylland-Posten and their standards of Journalistic Integrity. I haven’t seen cartoons so artful and thought provoking since the drawings of “Sambo.” Again, I do not possess the intellect of a professional Shill, err Stenographer, and err Journalist like Mr. Bawer. Obviously I was under the foolish impression that the best way to count err the views of extremists, be they Islamic, Christian, or Judaic, was to use free speech to expose them for the shams, fools, and patsies that they are. I was wrong. Clearly the best way is to make broad-sweeping negative stereotypes as well as hurl deliberate insulting gestures, in this case against all people of Islamic faith rather than the culpable extremist elements. Again I stand in awe of intellectual giants like Juste, Hedegard, and Bawer himself. Again Mr.Bawer, forgive me. Please do not regard this letter as an act of ridicule but rather a desperate cry for help. I’ve been so confused, living in a country where professional Stenographers, er, I mean Journalists, behave as unpaid PR spokespeople for the Pentagon. A country where the individual has become by decree subservient to the state, which in turn is subservient to a handful of multinational corporations (let’s call it the Mussolini principle). I’ve just been so distracted that I have been oblivious to the Armies of Islamic Fascism poised to overthrow Denmark and the Faroe Islands as we speak. Please save me.
Peter “Dhimmi” Demers
Thank you for publishing Bawer’s article All The Rage in last Thursday’s Stranger. It’s a great article (frankly, I was surprised— but very happily surprised— to find it in the Stranger!) Thanks also for reprinting the cartoons. I hadn’t seen them yet. I think it took courage, balls really, to reprint them, but we have to fight for the freedom of the press. We also have to uphold the right to blaspheme; by being able to print/reprint such cartoons keeps the separation between church and state defined.
Holly Havnaer
I was going into Larry’s on Mercer Street around 6:30am last Saturday‚Ķ a guy I know who sells Real Change came over and said he had just witnessed a strange thing. A cabbie had driven past, stopped and removed all of the Stranger’s from their vending machine. I believe this is not the case of a fan, trying to bring home a ‘collectible’, but a person who wanted to destroy all cioues of that week’s Strangers. I forgot to ask whether the cab driver was Sudanese/Islamic..but I would assume so.. other machines in the Queen Anne area also turned up empty unusually early this week.
Michael S.
I’ll start by saying that I’ve never agreed with many gay issues and have been more or less disgusted with the lifestyle advertising your paper advocates. Aside from that, the article about the cartoons was as concise as it was true. As luck would have it I overheard some coworkers talking about the Stranger publishing the cartoons and just logged into your website to see what all of the fuss was about.
After reading Mr. Bower‚Äös take on this subject I realized that I owe an apology to the stranger magazine. Finally, you have come out and said something that both print and video media has failed to do AND YOU DID IT WITH VELOCITY!
Shortly after 9-11 I read the Koran and realized what has been brewing since the inception of that religion and couldn’t‚Äöt believe all of the false positive statements made about it by powerful people (including one I helped elect to the highest office).
I will continue to vote Republican and oppose gay marriage but wanted to give credit where credit is due. Excellent choice in printing the cartoons and educating the mainly liberal audience you cater to which is in desperate need of some truth in this area. Job well done guys!
RWG
Brilliant article. The best thing I’ve read on the topic in a popular paper. I have a lot of criticisms of The Stranger, but I have to give you credit for having the courage to print this piece. It’s really time for the left to look at what it’s been ignoring and even defending from these Islamic fascists. The cartoon riots may have pushed more of the world into resisting such ridiculously violent bullying from Muslim fundamentalists. Thank you.
Anonymous
Thank you Thank you Thank you! I am happy that a newspaper has the courage to print the cartoons along with an excellent article, LET FREEDOM RING!
Steve S.
Really, thank you. I’ve been fighting with Bunting, Fancher and Strick (Everett Herald) over this for a week. And also Nancy Trott who is the Seattle AP person. Hope they got the message.
Art
Dear Editor, Thank you for running Bruce Bawer’s article “All the Rage”, for reprinting the cartoons, and most of all for introducing your readers to the concept of dhimmitude. Throughout the last five years of our struggle with Islamofascism, the media has conspicuously avoided using this word, which needs to be part of every westerner’s vocabulary.
Tracy Twyman, Portland, OR
Good for you for publishing these cartoons. Yes indeed, evidence of spine in Seattle.
James Croak, NYC
Mr. Bawer hit the nail right on the head! You can take great pride in standing up for freedom of speech by running his article and the Muhammad cartoons. Bravo!
K. Harris, Indiahoma, OK
Thank you for your courage in publishing the Bruce Bawer writings. Thank you.
DP
His article “All the Rage” is just what we need. Thanks for standing up for free speech and not leave that playing field to the right-wing nut jobs.
Markus Roder, Hamburg
ELI SANDERS: I found your article “All the Righteousness” to be really astute.
I’m happy that someone made the comparison to race relations in the US. It’s difficult for individuals that have grown up in America to see religion as an identifying factor since race seems to be what defines the self and the other here
Having lived in Lebanon for two years, I’ve come to realize that an attack on Islam is more than simply an attack on an individual’s religion. It’s an attack on his entire identity. Anyways, thanks for the article!
Natalie
Congratulations on printing the cartoons, confirming a free press and the need for peaceful dialogue.
Jim Hoyne, Colorado
One word: Fantastic! Okay, one more: THANKS!
Michelle C., Charlotte, NC
“All the Rage” by Bruce Bawer is a terrific piece of writing; some of the best I have read on the subject. When CAIR threatens a boycott, don’t back down. John
Dear Stranger, In response to Bruce Bawer’s article published on February 9, 2006, I would like to commend you for your courage and backbone in printing the controversial Muhammad cartoons. It is publications like yours, through challenging unreasonable oppression, which help ensure that our rights stay in check. Bruce Bawer is absolutely right: this is not a conflict about cartoons. It is a conflict about two very different cultures and ideologies. Unfortunately, many of us understand this conflict all too well. The State of Israel has been fighting this war of ideology for the past 57 years – a liberal democracy the size of New Jersey, dropped in a vast sea of oppressive dictatorships. And only now have they realized that the only way you negotiate with intolerance is to separate yourself from it. But separation is a short-term solution to a massive problem that has only begun to confront our western societies. The international community must come together and stand up to those who would deny us our basic rights.
Sincerely, Jonathan Rosenberg
Thank you so much for having the courage to publish these cartoons.
Sincerely, Rob Sivigny
Dear Sir, I never thought I would be writing this letter; however, I had to thank you for being one of the 7 or 8 newspapers in this country with the cajones to stand up for freedom of the press and freedom of expression! I have frequently taken issue with your publication in the past and doubtless will in the future but this time you got it dead on right! Keep up the good work and if you didn’t order anything from the Tehran branch of Eddie Bauer–don’t open the package.
R. Jones
Thank you for printing the controversial cartoons. People, you are all missing the desert for the camel thorn. What we have here is pure squarehead humor. The kind that must hit one in the face to ensure connection with its target. Blunt, overdone, trite, and yes, insensitive. Bear in mind that this comes from the breed of humor that laughs at anvils dropping on feet or any show of underwear, and thinks that toilets are founts of hilarity. These people still think that the song about mama getting run over by a reindeer is clever. So you expect urbane sophisticated wit? Lighten up, y’all.
Buck Pilkenton
The Stranger missed the main story in its Muslim Article. The 12 cartoons were viewed by an imam. He didn’t find them provocative enough, so he added 2 cartoons that were never published. Then he added a blurry picture of a Frenchman in a pig mask and said that was also a cartoon of the prophet by the Danes. Since he was the one who declared this a picture of the prophet, he committed blasphemy. It looks like much of the rioting is over the actions of the Muslims themselves.
Softsofa
Congratulations on publishing the cartoons which should rile my hometown. Berman and Savage clearly ‘get it.’
I now live and work in D.C.; I have an advanced degree from a top ten foreign policy school; I’ve lived and worked in Muslim countries for years and have studied Arabic. Berman’s characterization of radical Islam is spot-on, and I encourage readers to listen and read up on this issue, especially reading the words of the Islamists themselves.
There is a difference between