Yale University Press refuses to republish danish cartoons

[Nitro]

... yeah, those ones that satirize elements of the islamic faith and depict the prophet Muhammad, and sparked an international outrage, embassy burnings and so on. Jytte Klausen, a professor at Brandeis University, has written a manuscript about the cartoons and reactions to it, and wants to have the cartoons included in her book. Yale University Press, "after consulting with Islamic, diplomatic and counterterrorism experts" has firmly decided against the move.

story link: http://www.cbc.ca/arts/books/story/2...oons-book.html

Should an academic book be allowed to contain reproductions of original materials? Of course! It shouldn't matter how distasteful the images are, if they are important to the understanding of the material they should be included. Should a book about Hitler be disallowed to contain excerpts from Mein Kampf? Should a documentary on the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandals be barred from showing the materials the world found so shocking? What good is freedom of conscience if the press cowers in fear and will not publish important information? Democracy itself only works when members of the electorate can explore and discuss important issues (not the only condition, but an essential one).

While a publisher should maintain the prerogative not to publish the materials, I am disappointed that academics would yield and let violent extremists become our thought police.

If you haven't already, you may view the original cartoons (12) that caused the uproar here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...eds-ansigt.png

or a partial translation to English found here: http://www.aina.org/releases/20060201143237.htm

[partietraumatic]

personally i agree with the decision. Its part of their religion that the prophet should not be shown in images. Fair enough,we should respect that.

Originally Posted by partietraumatic

personally i agree with the decision. Its part of their religion that the prophet should not be shown in images. Fair enough,we should respect that.

I am not part of their religion. I mean if every religon had their way that would mean I couldnt work on sunday because I would offend christians. I couldnt buy cow meat because it would offend hindu. I would be force to eat kosher so I wouldnt offend jews. If they dont want to see the dipiction then dont look at it.

The topic the writer is presenting is only about the uproar caused by the picture(s).

"It's not just the dozen Danish cartoons that are being omitted from the book: no illustrations of Muhammad will appear."

Thats like writting a book about art...without art, describing the monalisa to someone who has never seen it ("there is this lady and she is sitting and kinda smiling"). Sure some books can get by without illustrations but on a topic of this I'm surprised the university cannot follow their own writting guidelines.

Ahem. My thoughts mirror Rowan Atkinson:

I have always believed that there should be no subject about which one cannot make jokes, religion included.
-- Rowan Atkinson, remarking on proposed legislation outlawing religious hate speech, in a letter to the Times of London, October 15, 2001


In simpler terms, you can believe what ever you want to believe, but I hold the right to mock it. And BESIDES, it's an academic book reviewing the cartoons and their effects. You simply can't have the book without them.

[olides84]

Well the Danish cartoon thing played out interestingly a couple years ago.

In Europe, various newspapers republished the cartoons and that led to a lot of confrontations. The newspapers did it because they wanted to prove they had the freedom to do it, and that the muslims who lived in european countries didn't have the right to stop them from being published in a "free" country. It was pure and simple 'baiting' in my opinion. There's a lot of that here with various right wing, nationalist types.

But in the US, no newspapers showed the cartoons. Was it because there is less freedom of the press in the US? No, not at all. I think there is more freedom to say what you want against anything (religions, groups of people, etc.) in the US than almost anywhere in the world. The USA has Nazis, KKK, hate speech, etc., totally protected by law. So there was no need to publish them just cause you could, and because they were offensive to a large group of people, the newspapers just didn't do it. For all the faults of race relations and religious controversy in the US, it is still much healthier than how it's being dealt with in Europe right now.

[Ionless]

Religion is a topic that is sensitive, and I think it's better this way.

What would you feel if someone painted a satire of God (I'm not a christian btw) and put it in a way you would feel uncomfortable and outraged?

[Greggers]

Making fun of religion isnt the same as making fun of race, gender, sexuality, blah blah blah.

If someone makes a *joke* about something you actively choose that should be fair game. Your not born Christian, Muslim, ect. You are born without religion. If we dont let people joke about that, then why things like.....people being fat? We should just cross all humor that offends anyone off the list while we are at it i guess.

Ill use a cliche: "Learn to take a joke".

If we are talking about hate speech, well thats different. As far as i know, this was a cartoon meant as a joke. Sure, it might offend someone, but that does not make it "hate". Some of the best comedians are also some of the most "offensive" ones.

[littledinosaurs]

Originally Posted by Greggers

If someone makes a *joke* about something you actively choose that should be fair game. Your not born Christian, Muslim, ect. You are born without religion. I

I think that the cartoons should be published and that most any topic should be fair game for a joke, but i find this statement to be kinda wrong. Choosing something does not make it any more far game than anything else, and in a lot of situations you can argue that children all over the world have little choice in what their religious affiliation is.