Upstream. A Mohawk Valley Blogzine.

Monday, February 06, 2006

Muslim Cartoon. View Here What The New York Times, The Times-Union And The Rest Of The Press Are Afraid To Print

The cover of RollingStone that the press did not mind printing.
Copyright 2006 RollingStone

The Cartoon That The Free Press Is Afraid To Print Posted by Picasa




Upstream neither approves or disapproves of the cartoon that appears above. Actually as cartoons go, it is not that exciting. The cartoon is posted here for a number of reasons. First, our so called free press has not published it, primarily because the press is not free. Too many newspapers are shackled by fear of revenue loss through advertising boycotts. Many are also shackled by political ideologies that dictate what they feel is fit to print. Secondly, it should be printed simply to show we really believe in the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. Finally, if we are going to have an intelligent conversation and debate over the cartoon, it is necessary for people to view the offending material.

The clash between Islam and the Western world cannot be ignored by those of us in The Mohawk Valley. There are a growing number of Islamic immigrants in the valley. Many leading doctors and businessmen in the valley are Muslim and are assets to our communities. We now have an Islamic Center in Schenectady.

As a person who posts often on the subject of injustice, I have been very disturbed about the way two Muslim leaders in Schenectady were setup and arrested.

Equally disturbing is how New York City police invaded a Muslim cleric's home in in nearby Bethlehem , NY.

If you are a Muslim and are offended at my posting these cartoons here, I understand your feelings. I was offended by the recent portrayal of Kayne West as Jesus on the cover of Rolling Stone (see above). I grew up in a Fundamentalist Baptist Church that believed it was a sin to portray Jesus or God in any pictorial or graven form.

As much as I would like to burn down the corporate headquarters of The Rolling Stone Magazine, I am not going to do so. In the end I believe that the truth of Christianity, Islam or any other religious or political ideology will prevail by the persuasiveness of its arguments.


Christians have been split over the years as to whether or not Jesus and God should be portrayed in portraits or sculpture. The debate is not as strong as it once was. Oliver Cromwell's hatred of portrayals of Jesus, the saints and other religious art, which he considered idolatry, led to the destruction of much art in Scotland and Ireland and gave rise to the word iconoclast.

Anyway, if you are going to respond to this post, I hope you will do so after thinking long, writing, revising, waiting and re-reading your comments before posting.


5 Comments:

  • I agree with most of what you post,
    however I feel that the US is sitting this one out to show europe just how crazy and unrational these nuts are. Now everyone can see that the only thing that matters to them is there invisible boogey man that they call god. I hope the free world wakes up and finds a way to not buy there oil and then they will have to be nice or starve. And I for one am rooting for the latter.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:34 PM  

  • I must admit, I havent re-read this as much as you requested, but its not a comment born out of some passionate disagreement, so I hope it'll fly.

    Firstly, I think it's worth noting that this blog is the first place I've actually laid eyes on this cartoon that the media has been talking so much about. I appreciate that.

    Part two of this comment is a question:

    "In the end I believe that the truth of Christianity, Islam or any other religious or political ideology will prevail by the persuasiveness of its arguments."

    I'm not entirely sure what you're refering to here. Do you mean "prevailing arguments" as the overall doctrine rather than semantic arguments over what is and isnt idolitry?

    By Blogger York Staters, at 1:18 PM  

  • Hello to you and your readers,
    Peace to everyone.

    I am a Muslim and we are quite a few to believe that the situation has gone too far. I respect your views and agree with most of your ideas and comments, but ...

    Imagine for one minute if anyone had dared to ask a question about the "Massacre of Jews" by nazi Germany in WW2. You know the “HOLOCOST”.

    I am not saying contradicting, as a revisionist would, but just asking a simple question, would you have published it on your site?

    If you had, then the world would have broken loose on you. But I am sure that you would not. When it comes to a Muslim anything is allowed. We, Muslims, condemn any and all kind of violence, about the cartoons. And I strongly condemn, verbally, the cartoonist. They should have known better, and if they did not, they must be ignorant.

    Freedom of speech is not and should not be differently applied. When Muslims will understand that Western "Justice" will be equally applied, they might react to your views accordingly. But as long as you say something and practice another... we will feel afraid and have strong doubts about peace for our kids.

    Let’s practice what we preach.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:51 PM  

  • Why Denmark Must Issue an Apology to Muslims
    Christopher Bollyn – American Free Press

    The following comments are taken from an email sent to Prof. Mikael Rothstein of the University of Copenhagen and Flemming Rose, the editor of Jyllands Posten who commissioned the anti-Muslim cartoons. In this letter I strongly urge that Denmark, and those responsible like Rose, immediately issue a formal and complete apology to the Muslims of the world.

    Thank you for your note. I am an American journalist who has lived in the Middle East for years and have a degree in History with emphasis on the Middle East. Having lived among Muslims, I have a good understanding of their religious values. This is why I responded so quickly when I became aware of these cartoons that Flemming Rose had commissioned and then published.

    About, Flemming Rose, allow me to clarify my line of questioning a bit. My question of Flemming Rose's religious persuasion is not the point. The real issue is where does his loyalty lie?

    The anti-Muslim cartoon scandal is clearly turning out to be a key event in the Zionist Neo-Cons' "clash of civilizations," the artificially constructed struggle to pit the so-called Christian West against the Islamic states and peoples.

    We know that Flemming Rose is a colleague and fellow of the Zionist Neo-Con Daniel Pipes. He has visited Pipes in Philadelphia and written a friendly biographical article which is featured on Daniel Pipes Danish website.

    As you know, Pipes is a radical Zionist of the most extreme sort - a hard-line Jabotinsky sort of Zionist. You know, the Iron Fist-Iron Brain, kind of Zionist - the kind that considers Ariel Sharon to be soft on the Palestinians.

    We know that there are radical Zionists among Danish Christians as there are millions of Christian Zionists in the USA. The real question is what does Flemming Rose believe?

    Is he a Christian Zionist who is leading a kind of Danish crusade against Islam?

    Is he an atheist who does not care about or respect the beliefs of Muslims?

    ...or, is he a closet Jew who denies his Jewish roots and waves his Danish citizenship while waging a poorly-disguised Zionist campaign against Muslims and Arabs?

    Because of Rose's close connection with Daniel Pipes, his position as "cultural editor" and his physical appearance, I suspect the latter is the case. I think Rose is a Zionist agent who has created this scandal for a strategic purpose.

    Rose should be arrested and interrogated for his actions in creating hatred and hostility against people of another religious group. Why is his crime against an entire people not considered a crime in Denmark?

    If holocaust skeptics are arrested and held in jail for raising questions about the holocaust, why is Rose allowed to wage media terror and offend millions of Muslims with impunity?

    I think this scandal has actually been created and is being manipulated by a hidden hand in order to foment racial and religious hatred in Denmark and across Europe and the Middle East. Why else would the Danish government not do the sensible thing and issue a formal apology?

    You do realize that the crisis will continue and deepen until the Queen or the Prime Minister issue a formal and heartfelt apology, don't you? This could become a religious and civil war between Europeans and Muslims. Europe has had a few such wars in the past.

    How much does Denmark want to lose before it does the only proper and sensible thing and issue an apology? Do they want Denmark and Europe to suffer more?

    Muslims imams are now calling for the heads of Flemming Rose and those responsible for the cartoons. He should immediately issue a sincere and public apology to the Muslim people. If he does not do so, I fear his life will be in danger.

    Furthermore, if he continues to refuse to apologize, it only proves that his effort, which has lead to such hostility, was intentional all the way. If that is the case, he should be arrested and put in prison because he has been directly responsible for the insult he has caused millions of Muslims and the consequent damage he has caused to Denmark and the Danish people.

    The damage to Denmark's image, prestige and economy is likely to be severe and long-lasting. Danish lives are clearly in danger.

    As a religious scholar of high standing, Mr. Rothstein, you and other concerned citizens should urge the Queen of Denmark and Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen to issue an apology as soon as possible. Otherwise the crisis will only get worse and the relationship between Denmark and the Islamic world will never be repaired. Who could possibly want such an outcome?

    Muslims have a strict code of honor and Denmark has committed a grave insult and affront against Islam - therefore, there is only one way out and that is to issue a sincere apology and ask for forgiveness - and then pray and work for peace.

    Christopher Bollyn

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:56 PM  

  • By the persuasiveness of its arguments, I meant simply that in the arena where various religious and world views compete, the truth has nothing to fear. In the end it will persuade by its logic and beauty. Violence as a means of persuasion doesn't work in the long run.

    By Blogger Dan Weaver, at 4:04 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home