[lit-ideas] Re: Link to "Mohammed" cartoons
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 08:22:35 -0800
According to my morning paper (the Riverside Press Enterprise), Bush was
more nuanced that the headlines and references had us believe. His
condemnation of the cartoons wasn't quite a condemnation as I see it.
Terrence Hunt of the Associated Press writes, "he defended the rights of
newspapers to print what they see fit. But he felt obliged to tell the news
media they must be sensitive about their power to offend."
The article says that these were Bush's first words on the subject. Hunt
says, "The president spoke out about the controversy for the first time."
Hunt writes, "On Tuesday, Bush had called Denmark's prime minister to
express 'our support and solidarity' in the wake of the violence.
"In the midst of a campaign to blunt widespread anti-American sentiment
across the Mideast, Bush sought to balance his remarks by urging the media
to be sensitive to religious beliefs.
"'We believe in a free press,' the president said. 'We also recognize that
with freedom comes responsibilities. With freedom comes the responsibility
to be thoughtful about others.'"
Further down in the article, Hunt writes, "Bush said the furious reaction to
the publication of the cartoons 'requires a lot of discussion and a lot of
sensitive thought.'"
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of P.H.Lundbech
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 8:02 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Link to "Mohammed" cartoons
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 01:33:08 -0800, "Lawrence Helm"
<lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>I think your "betrayal" emphasis, requiring the reading of Bush's mind, off
>base. He may be mistaken, but I don't believe he is betraying the
>fundamental principle of free speech.
I have checked what happened when and it appears that the US
(including one former president) condemned the Jyllands-Posten
cartoons more than two weeks AFTER Ekstra-Bladet revealed that
imams were traveling around the middle east with the three fake
pictures and at a time when the situation was already getting out
of hand and sanctions were being put on Danish businesses.
They can not have been unaware of this. I refuse to believe that
Bush and his advisors didn't have the facts of the case. It was
in the papers, for god's sake. When they condemned the cartoons
it must already have been obvious that they were no longer center
of the whole affair and that something else was going on. After
all, the Danish government had things under control (by
diplomatic means) for months, before a few imams decided to
spread misinformation to the Arabs.
>We have wrestled with this issue here
>on Lit-Ideas and I'm sure they have wrestled with it in the White House.
Yes, but you would expect The White House to be a little better
informed that people on this list (no offense!).
>Several people on Lit-Ideas have come to the same conclusion as Bush's.
Are
>they betraying the fundamental principle of free speech?
No, but if you read my posts from Feb. 5th you'll see that there
is a lot people on this list wasn't aware of. The same excuse
does not apply to your president.
>We must ask whether it is ever justified to burn embassies and kill people
>when we are offended.
We can co-exist in the same country with newspapers and others
that make fun of our religion, politics and principles. Some
Muslims can't even co-exist on the same planet as people poking a
little fun at their prophet. I think they will have to adapt.
P. H. Lundbech
Odense, DK
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
