I wrote in my previous post on this topic (the so-called offensive cartoons portraying Mohammed and the Muslim backlash) that the repeated mantra of tolerance has caused the application of a double standard, wherein we are to avoid publishing offensive materials to spare people's feelings (although this rarely applies to Christian groups), but we are to tolerate violent backlash as the just result of our "offensive actions."
I concluded that we cannot both have our cake and eat it, as the pundits are fond of saying. But that is apparently what is going to happen, as both the Vatican and the US government have condemned the offensive nature of the cartoons in official statements, although the Vatican noted that no offensive documents targeting any religion should be tolerated. While I don't agree with either position, at least the Vatican's is consistent.
Since my last post, the Danish embassy (the building that also housed the embassies for Chile and Sweden) has been, according to multiple news sources, "torched." More statements have been made to the effect that the cartoonists, and perhaps everyone in the nation in which they happen to live, should be killed. And while official statements have been made condemning the offensive nature of the cartoons, none have been made regarding the fires as of yet.
I'll repeat: we have condemned the cartoons, but not the ensuing violence. Perhaps this is because people have grown attached to the idea of "negative responsibility," that "we are responsible for the violence because we published the cartoons." This idea is largely a result of Utilitarian thinkers of the past few centuries but is remarkably popular in the present day. The people behind the fires are rational, thinking beings, like the rest of us, and are accountable for their actions. We are not accountable for what other people choose to do. For a more detailed philosophical opposition to the doctrine of negative responsibility, see Chapter 3 of the book Utilitarianism: For and Against by Smart and Williams.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Kudos and thanks for the update. You make such a valid point in your post.
I think that the violence has been attacked more than the cartoons itself throughout the nation's newspapers and the blogosphere. I think that it is just so easy to say "Hey, those doing the violence are bad!" that we run out of steam on that issue and go to the murky waters of free speech vs religious taboos.
Objective observers can only really have one point of view that makes sense on the violence, but there are a million little nuances (I guess all that Frey stuff has been bored into my head) to the freeedom of speech vs religion issue.
Well you dont use right to bear arms and shoot someone's dog. People need to learn how to respect their fellow man. They need to learn they're no better than anyone else.
You don't shoot someone elses dog because that violates the dog-owner's rights. Noone, atleast so far, has the right to avoid ignorance, hatred, and offensive material.
I'm taking this out of a purely lawful system and thinking of respect for people. I don't think these people should be prosecuted or anything, just shoulda never done it in the first place. It's demeaning, condesending, and doesnt stand for democracy.
The freedom of the media in the west is not unlimited or impartial. Their is a great need to monitor and control. And the European should not forget that this so-called media was also one of the cause of World War in the past.
Interesting how the middle eastern people get so upset over absolutely anything they disapprove of, and blame their bad behavior on some body else.
My question is why aren't they enraged over hostages being decapitated and shown on TV? or why are the horrible actions taken by some fanatics who professed committing these acts for their faith not condemned?