OVO

Wikipedia: On 17 September 2005, the Danish newspaper Politiken ran an article under the headline “Dyb angst for kritik af islam” (“Profound anxiety about criticism of Islam”). The article discussed the difficulty encountered by the writer Kåre Bluitgen, who was initially unable to find an illustrator prepared to work with Bluitgen on his children’s book Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv (English: The Qur’an and the life of the Prophet Muhammad).  Three artists declined Bluitgen’s proposal before one agreed to assist anonymously. [...] The refusal of the first three artists to participate was seen as evidence of self-censorship and led to much debate in Denmark, with other examples for similar reasons soon emerging. [...] On 30 September 2005, the daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten (“The Jutland Post”) published an article entitled “Muhammeds ansigt” (“The face of Muhammad”). The article consisted of twelve cartoons (of which only some depicted Muhammad) and an explanatory text, in which Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten’s culture editor, commented: “The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where one must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is of minor importance in the present context. [...] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him. [...]“

On this anniversary of the publication of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad Cartoons, here they are again.  Should you see these cartoons described as controversial, keep in mind the two sides of the debate.  On one side is the 21st Century, the West, freedom of speech, freedom from theocracy and civil discourse (including uncivil discourse).  On the other side is the 17th Century, the Muslim world, censorship, theocracy and murder.  It seems like a no-brainer to me but the later side does have its apologists.  Yes, some of those cartoons were mean.   It remains that words and images never harmed anyone, ever, in all of human and pre-human history.  Mean cartoons have never harmed anyone. The Quran is also mean, but it has never harmed anyone and it never will.  For the same reasons and to the same degree I do not want to ban the Quran, I do not want cartoons banned.  What is it, then, that makes the religion of peace what it is today?  Why is there such violence in the Muslim world and not in the Buddhist world, for example?  What can be done about it?