Response to political cartoon editorial
submitted by Greg Miller
February 20, 2006 —
I found your February 6 editorial, "Publishing cartoons irresponsible of media," to be sophomoric, reprehensible, and vitriolic. In this piece, the Vanguard chastises publications in several foreign countries for printing cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad negatively. According to this editorial, "Islam strictly forbids any depiction of the prophet, let alone a negative one." The offending publications defend their decision to print these cartoons by invoking the hallowed "freedom of press." The Vanguard begrudgingly admits that these papers have the right to publish what they want but "simply because we have the right to print what we like does not mean we have to."
The editors have difficulty understanding why a paper would want to offend such a large percent of the population (Muslims). To answer this question they site a French column that states "No religious dogma can impose its view on a democratic and secular society." The editors identify this as "Islamaphobia" and then go on to attack America for being intolerant.
It appears that the editors are so blinded by the mantra of the politically correct, that they are unable to grasp the actual and arguably valid reason to print such cartoons. The peaceful Muslim majority gives tacit approval of the extremists to use Islam as an excuse to engage in terrorism. By the majority's silence, they allow Islam to become nothing short of a front for terrorists.
The final and most grievous offense of this article is that while the editors mention that Islamic demonstrators have destroyed the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Syria, they don't condemn this violence. The editors will be glad to note that the European Union has just announced plans to develop "guidelines" (censorship) for journalists. Damn those people that express a different opinion than the Valley Vanguard editors.
Greg Miller Student