"Why hasn't the US Government spoken out? Where are the British?"

They have spoken out-- in favor of the Muslim protestors. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw strongly condemned the cartoons yesterday and applauded the British presss for not reprinting them, and U.S. State Department Kurtis Cooper made a statement that the drawings were "not acceptable."

That's someting I find a little mystifying, considering that letters to the editor which are more offensive and insulting than these cartoons are routinely published in major newspapers across the United States. I fail to see the difference, since these drawings were never presented as representing the viewpoint of the Jyllands Posten itself, but simply of those their artists. They are all editorial statements. Are people not even allowed their opinions anymore?

Perhaps it could have something to do with the fact that a locus of protest over the drawings is in Saudi Arabia? Hmmm.....

I don't see a racist component to these cartoons and I think the comparison to prewar cartoons mocking Jews is historically incorrect: Jews were attacked for their wealth, Jews were considered a cancer on German society, Jews were despised as bankers, communists and owners the press - some of these cartoons told Jews they were not wanted (this is easy to verify through Google). A little context folks: many European Jews strived for integration - in fact, many were secular with little attachment to religion - they embraced European language, dress and culture. Jews typically never tried to impose any aspects of their religion on Germany or Europe in general, nor did they choose ghettoization - it was forced upon them. Jews were scapegoated and hated - religious or not - and these cartoons served the greater goal of estrangement, enslavement and finally, as we know, death.

The cartoons depicting Mohammad all have a political context related to the acts of violence perpetrated in Allah's name - can anyone deny that? Did some Dane invent the 72 virgins - or did that come from the mouth of some mullah? Have we not all seen the beheadings? the burning cars? the burning flags? the women covered head to toe? Have we not all read of the forced marriages? The failure of many to embrace the languages of Europe? Are there segments of the Muslim society who wish to impose Islam on all of Europe? Do some Muslim religious leaders despise the secular countries where they take refuge? Do Muslims integrate, or do they impose, through style of dress and language, an integration of accommodation - on the part of the host country? Was Theo van Gogh not murdered in the street? Was Rushdie not threatened with death? And the list goes on. Are these not legitimate issues for political discourse - even through the medium of cartoons? is it possible for this kind of visual discourse without a generalization of the Arab man in typical Arab garb and bearded visage? The typical Arab woman in veil or burka? If so, I'd love for a few suggestions on how.

With all that, of course Muslim protest is legitimate - peaceful reasonable protest. Boycotts, while ill advised, are legitimate. Marches and sit-ins and letters to the editor all make sense to me. But I think what we're seeing is a basic misunderstanding by the Arab populace of how the press works - these cartoons were not the expression of any government - they were and have been the expressions of a free press, untethered to any political party (such as the Nazi cartoons of prewar Germany) or ideology. And we see flags burning, calls for death, unrelated boycotts (in foreign lands) - not to mention vile depictions in the Arab press and media of Americans and Jews - with a nary peep from European, American or Middle East Muslims.

The cartoons are tactless and designed to provoke - but I can think of a hundred cartoons that would be worse. Christians put up every day with mockery of their beliefs, and they don't threaten suicide bombings in return. Newspapers across the world should publish the cartoons, and our State Department should take a stand for freedom of the press instead of kowtowing to maniacs.

Freedom of religion = you are free to believe what you wish. I cannot force you to make blasphemous caricatures of your religous icons. You can be upset with someone who shares your religous beliefs who breaks your rules... deal with them as you see fit...

Freedom of speech = I am free to not believe what you believe. Because I do not believe what you believe, I am free to make fun of what you believe in -- that is why I don't believe what you believe. If I believed what you believed I'd care what you thought. I don't care what you think. I love you, but I don't care what you think.

Therefore, you have no power over me, and that is what is so infuriating to all believers of all religions...

Religion is about control, that is the one truth shared amongst them all.

Just because you believe in a Heaven and a Hell doesn't really make it too scary for those who don't believe. I could think of nothing funnier than someone threatening me with going to hell.

Great posting, Jeffrey! We couldn't have (and didn't) put it any better.

So many religous people want to punish, if not kill, anyone who attacks their little fantasy world. Could it be that they secretly suspect that their beliefs are self-serving nonsense, and therefore they can't tolerate any criticism or ridicule? Would Christianity have lasted so long if the church wasn't able to murder anyone who dared to laugh at its incomprehensible absurdity?

Well, at least we know that the cartoonists were right to be paranoid about illustrating anything having to do with Islam - as these calls for their deaths, etc., make plain.

If we continue to hobble free speech (which includes the right to publish humor or satire about religion) we will find ourselves in a world increasingly devoid of ANY free thought or expression.

In a free society you have a right to laugh about my beliefs, or any manisfestations of those beliefs, as I have the right to do about yours. (let's face it, people do a lot of just plain hilarious things) And that laughter, satire, or commentary does not necessarily constitute a 'lack of respect' for you or your right to believe what you wish.

Few seem able these days to make distinctions - or to recognize that trying to guarantee that no one will ever be offended is an impossible task, and actually a form of reverse-puritanism. If we all must kowtow to everyone else's itty bitty sensitivities, or their possible sensitivities, or their idea of what is sacred, etc., what will we have but a totalitarian/theocratic regime of political correctness? We seem well on that road already.

Thanks to Salon for providing a link to the cartoons - I have been lamenting that our newspapers and news orgs have written about the flap, but didn't think readers needed at least some access to the images to judge for themselves.

Placating those who don't like free speech used in countries where free speech is the norm is unfair to everyone else, and ultimately destructive. Selective transparent pandering by the US and the UK because of 'contextual' reasons like Iraq, Iran or riots in France simply invites all of us to 'contextualize' perceived offenses to ourselves and demand that because of that crucial context, our sensitivities or beliefs or even ourselves should be immune from any possible offense, comment, satire or examination.

Thus, this means Joe Sixpack's Christian 'Muscular' Jesus cannot be satirized or joked about in our free society because some Christians are currently (make that always) feeling maligned. Watch that context! Or, because making fun of Jesus is too non-pc disrespectful, even if you don't believe in Jesus or any religion. More context. We can't publish cartoons (even ones that have some truth in them) or take a stand for (sometimes offensive) free speech because, of course, the context.

Context, like possible offense, is endless.

Calling for death when someone portrays your religious prophet as violent? (irony alert) Calling for death because your religious tenets of not drawing the prophet must be adhered to/respected by all, even those in a free society who don't share your beliefs? I'm all for due tolerance and basic courtesy to others,

but trying to put one's beliefs or sensitivities above the reach of free speech in a free society is rather misguided, and probably shows some misunderstanding about what 'free speech' means - not to mention understanding the difference between government and the press in democratic societies.

Most Muslims are not violent. Most Muslims are not shouting for death to cartoonists. But if we refuse to comment/joke about the ones who are, and start adjusting our 'free' society to placate the few, we're insulting all Muslims by acting as if they cannot think critically or live with different views.