Listener Reflections

This is your place to publicly comment on the topics and issues addressed in Speaking of Faith programs. React in a personal way, and put into words what this program meant to you.

Submit Your Reflection about "The Face of the Prophet: Cartoons and Chasm."

Hindi Point of View (March 2, 2006)
To begin with, I do not belong to faith of Christianity or Islam. I'm a Hindu. Even then, the Danish cartoons disturbed me and I understood the frustration — though not the destruction which followed in its wake — of Muslim people all over the world. So, I was very eager to hear a voice that would explain the reactions of people of Islam to the western world. I appreciated the program very much. It was quite gratifying to hear a point of view that explains eastern (middle or far) cultures of religion. I do hope you continue to be a voice for all the things that are important.

Lavanya Ramanujan
Atlanta, GA (WABE, 90.1 FM)

Broad Perspective (March 2, 2006)
Bravo Vincent Cornell! Very good program! Dr. Cornell was really the right person to speak on this very troubling news event. So much media reportage in our times is made in a way that riles up our emotions; and even without such incitement, this news about the Danish cartoons and Muslim reaction was enough to disturb and inflame us all.

Dr. Cornell addressed every angle of the events and issues from the standpoint of common sense, and with his background as an educated American and longtime convert to Islam; he was most qualified to do so. He brought it all back down to earth, so that anyone willing to accept a reasonable perspective on this issue would have been happy to hear this gentleman handle it. (And clearly, many were. It was gratifying to see so many intelligent, thoughtful, and informative reflections from other listeners.)

Bob Salmon
Cranford, NJ (Listens via SOF OnDemand)

Why So Angry? (March 2, 2006)
I thought the program with Vincent [Cornell] on the insult to Muslims of the Danish cartoons was incredibly balanced, interesting, and informative. I'm surprised people reacted with anger! I even wrote to WNYC asking them to replay the program in prime time, or to interview him for a news segment. Don't be daunted, and keep addressing current issues.

Phyllis Stern
New York, NY (WNYC, 93.9 FM)

Counterfeit Cartoons (March 1, 2006)
An aspect of the Islamic cartoon controversy, which neither Cornell or Krista mentioned, was that certain imams circulated at least three "counterfeit" cartoons with the obvious purpose of inflaming the sensibilities of Muslims. Yes, they circulated cartoons purported to have been published in Danish newspapers which were not.

Carol Smith
Mequon, WI (WUWM, 89.7 FM)

Just the Reverse (February 24, 2006)
I found the discussion with Vincent Cornell most insightful. I have one issue with the discussion that may shed light on a bigger problem. Mr. Cornell said several times that Islam fears the West wants to overun them. My point is there is a reverse issue, the West fears Islam wants to overun the West. This issue is bolstered by the inability of western ideas and cultures to be addressed in Muslim countries. Mr. Cornell occupies a chair of Middle Eastern Studies funded by a Saudi prince. Are there comparable chairs at universities in Muslim countries to study Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, and Western culture? Islam should engage in discussion with other religions and cultures. By not doing so, they are making the statement that they are right others are wrong, and the only solution is to overun all other ideas. If they do engage in dialogue, they will enrich all our religions and cultures. If they don't, they may well be overun by their own inability to progress into the modern world.

Paul Gifford
Jessup, MD (WETA, 90.9 FM)

My Bias, Confusion, and Ignorance Come Out (February 23, 2006)
What I don't know about Islam could fill many, large volumes so I appreciate hearing information about aspects of his religion that Mr. Cornell provided. However, I have a bias against any religion whose followers, even if in the minority of believers, trust in violence as a pathway toward peace, enlightenment, understanding, brotherhood, or any desirable and civilized vision toward which mankind might want to strive. I guess I just don't get it — if one's belief in the virtue of the Prophet is so strong, how is it that that belief can be so easily challenged, shaken, or threatened? I grant completely that United States foreign policy toward many peoples in the Middle East has been an abomination. I don't recall, however, that Denmark was a dominant or even significant player in European exploitation of the Arab World. Is it immpossible for some Muslims to make distinctions? And why the almost instantaneous resort to violence? When the Iranian President denies the Holocaust and advocates for the destruction of Israel, do Jews mass anywhere to burn Iranian embassies?

When I was a freshman at the University of Michigan in 1960, I remember well a Muslim student named Hani Baghdadi coming into the student lounge and announcing to me and some other Jewish students that he might come down to our rooms some night and slit our throats. Because we were Israelis who had fought at Suez or drove his family from their ancestral home? Because we were sworn Zionists? Because we had threatened him? Because we had insulted his religion? The answer of course was no to all of these possibilities. And ever since, I have been confused by a religion in which a significant number of followers seem ready to justify violence as a tool of first resort.

Alan Shulman
Sunapee, NH (WVPR, 89.5 FM)

An Apt Analogy (February 20, 2006)
As usual your show give me a lot of food for thought. Early in the show you asked Vincent Cornell why these caricatures elicited so much violence. You indicated it's hard for Americans to understand why since images of Jesus would not do so. As an African American, I understand perfectly well why these images sparked violent protest. Imagine the American press asking cartoonists to depict how they saw Martin Luther King and the submissions show Martin Luther King as black Sambo or as a stud in chains with Coretta Scott King dressed like Aunt Jemima or a scantily clad Josephine Baker. Those images would no doubt spark violent protests in the U.S. as well as peaceful ones. Vincent Cornell alluded to the racial undertones of some of these caricatures. I think they are more like overtones.

Why should Westerners care about how Jesus is depicted since Christianity is seen in the eyes of the world as the religion of the most powerful nation in the world? To my mind, these images are demeaning an aspect of culture that gives meaning to many people who see themselves as oppressed by the dominant power with its dominant religion. They are just one more arrow drawn from the quiver of Western domination and privilege and shot into the heart of those on whom the shadow side of that domination is projected. In this case, the more violent aspects of the Western shadow.

Gigi Ross
Washington, DC (WETA, 90.9 FM)

Respecting Our Intelligence (February 20, 2006)
Congratulations Krista! Last week I e-mailed NPR about their "Oh so mature" decision not to print the cartoons! Not only did you respect the Muslim tradition in doing it, you respected our intelligence and maturity.

Don Gillman
Los Angeles, CA (KPCC, 89.3 FM)

Time to Reflect (February 20, 2006)
I missed reference to the concept of Islam, "submission." Might Allah have a hand in these lessons? Might Muslims submit to cartoons and Westerners to burning flags? Might both see God in the opportunity to think?

Ralph Ashbrook
Bala Cynwyd, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)

Just the Facts (February 19, 2006)
I was very interested to learn from your guest that there have been depictions of Muhammad in past centuries and it is not Islamic Sharia law but the Hadith or commentary that connotes this practice to be taboo. Is that accurate? If indeed that is true, then all these demonstrations, mob burnings and killings are truly criminal with no religious excuses. Also, your guest mentioned that a kind of Reformation was underway in Islam and that a more modern interpretation was coming to form. Where is that evident? In this climate, does he not worry that the idea of reform would outrage the clerics? What is the position at the center on reformation?

Joy Levitt
Wayne, NJ (WHYY, 91.0 FM)

Read the Hadith (February 19, 2006)
It is most interesting that Prof. Cornell says how inspiring the example of the Prophet in the hadith is and never mentioned the passages in the hadith regarding the treatment by the Prophet of the Jewish tribes who owned a great deal of Medina and other lands in Arabia, or his treatment of women captives (Saffiya and Rihana) and other women. Perhaps the reasons Muslims are so touchy about criticism of the Prophet are because 1) he was a military man who ordered or facilitated the murder of many, 2) they know that he was a lecherous womanizer who changes the Qur'an (by saying that he had a revelation) to suit his own very personal desires (Zainab's story), and 3) that he is really vulnerable to any serious examination of his behavior unlike Jesus or even Moses who was punished by God because he killed a man. I recommend that you read the hadith and draw your own conclusions.

Yvonne Arditi
Maplewood, NJ (WHYY, 91.0 FM)

Missing the Point of Political Cartoons (February 19, 2006)
Your guest this evening, Vincent Cornell, has completely missed the point as regards the Danish cartoons. The point of a political cartoon is to underscore an unpleasant reality. The unpleasant reality in today's violent world is that the vast majority of the violence in the world today is caused by Muslims. The cartoons were merely trying to point that out. The Muslims of the world had two choices as a result of the cartoons. One, they could take a long hard look at themselves and realize that their suicide bombings, etc., were responsible for the majority of the violence in today's world and as a group do something to stop all the carnage. Or, two, they could completely miss (or dismiss) the point of the cartoons and escalate the violence against innocent people and continue the carnage and the bombings and the burnings and the murders. It is not too difficult to figure out which of the two choices they opted for. More cartoons are now called for. But if your guest is too dense to get the point of the original ones, more would do no good. They would only serve to escalate the violence further, and further demonstrate how far these extremist Muslims have strayed from the norms of civilization.

Jim Bofenkamp
Coon Rapids, MN (KNOW, 91.1 FM)

A Matter of Tribalism (February 19, 2006)
I heard your show, which I found very interesting, but I thought that you left out a very important issue. This is the issue of tribal societies where the individual does not belong primarily to themselves and where guilt or blame is collective — i.e., thinking the Dutch government should apologize for something done by a private individual or company or honor killings, which I believe has the same source (the girl belongs to the family or clan more than to themselves). I believe this is a completely different issue from Islam. It's just that most Islamic societies/governments are still in a more primitive form of societal development.

In fact, central Europe has still not totally gone past this. I've heard of honor killings among Greek Christians, who had a more clan or tribal culture. Some people feel that WWI and WWII2 were partly about the breakdown of the old non-national empires and the development of Germany into a national state. In keeping the discussion only on religion I feel that your presenting a two-dimensional view. Also, regarding resentment about past colonialism by Europeans, no mention was made of the colonialism of the Ottomans, which left the area in a state of political development unchanged from that of several 100 years earlier.

Tom Kannet
New York, NY (WNYX, 93.9 FM)

Helping Me to See the Deeper Issues (February 19, 2006)
I continue to thank you over and over for bringing such thoughtful conversation to so many of the issues of faith, ethics, and belief. Perhaps none has been more timely than today's conversation regarding the caricatures of Muhammad. It really helped me to see the deeper issues: the history of colonialism, the Western world's ridicule toward and ignorance regarding the Muslim culture, the economic vice that keeps so many in poverty, etc. While the violence is not acceptable, it does help to understand more of the reasons for it. Thank you once again for your sensitive, respectful, and thoughtful work.

Peggy Myers
Hamden, CT (WNPR, 88.1 FM)

Apologia for Islam (February 19, 2006)
As a former financial economist (and therefore no doubt a contributor to most of the third world's ills according to many), and married father of four teens, who is now in now in his third year at seminary, I was truly astonished to see you essentially take the position of being an apologist for radical Islam by virtue of your tendency to agree with virtually everything your Islamic "scholar" had to say. I am sure you don't see it that way, but I suspect many others will.

If such anti-defamation laws are passed to protect all religions from insult, you cannot possibly see that as anything but a monstrous limitation on free speech. Maybe some religions deserve some sharp criticism. Must we live in fear of assassination for it, and then afterwards have people like you say, "Oh, well he asked for it." Suppose, for example, that I have harsh words for the abuse of child brides, an abuse that seems so prevalent in cultures with polygamous marriages, such as among Mormons and Muslims? Or, what if I ridicule the pseudo-scientific "0-meter" that Scientologist's sell to new recruits to help them with their indoctrination. Am I to be subject to criminal prosecution for trying to inform people of such quackery?

Finally, Cornell mentioned more than once the ongoing Islamic "Reformation." Well, good luck with that. I believe the goal of the Christian reformation was to get back to the original pre-Constantine church, or earlier — a decidedly pacifistic and peaceful one. If the Islamic reformation succeeds in restoring Islam to its purest, original form, then that will give us a violent, brutal pan-Muslim regime dedicated to continuing its conquering ways and persecution of non-believers. The distinction is crucial: the apostolic church was universally submissive, pacifist, underground, out of government, compliant, and obedient, whereas restored Islam is all-powerful theocratic government in the truest sense, and one dedicated to militarism, expansion, and persecution. I hardly think that a reformation in Islam will lead to a better world. God help us.

Ed Franks
Pasadena, CA (KPCC, 89.3 FM)

Cartoons of Muhammad (February 19, 2006)
Although Mr. Cornell is doing a exemplary job of not saying that people should not say anything if they don't have anything nice to say, keep in mind that he is saying that exactly. He is implying that if anyone plans on saying, writing, or drawing anything unsavory about something someone else holds dear, they better not — or else! Because holding your tongue is just the right thing to do in a civil society. Also, suggesting equivalence of excommunication with murder and firebombing buildings is just plain silly. Thank you.

Chuck Lima
Cincinnati, OH (WVXU, 91.7 FM)

Respect for Persons, Not Necessarily Beliefs (February 19, 2006)
Vincent Cornell's sincere respect for American freedoms seems to fall short of an unqualified endorsement of the right of free speech. And, with all due respect to the host, whose ability to bring out the best in her guests is remarkable, the endorsement of the idea that self-restraint in matters of free expression is a matter of "moral responsibility" was troubling in today's program. I can't see that my exercise of moral responsibility should require me to avoid criticizing Islam or any other religion. Not insulting someone else's religion is rather a matter of etiquette and good taste. That's not to trivialize the matter of giving insult, because etiquette and good taste are important to me, among many other people. But in the public sphere, free people should glory in distinguishing between respect for people and respect for their habits, beliefs, practices, and prejudices. Only civility mandates the latter.

In the case at hand, I deplore the Muslim reaction, especially the violent kind, to the Danish cartoons and believe the worst that the cartoons and Jyllands-Posten deserve is a spirited rebuttal to the notion that Islam is a violent religion. The opportunity to mount such a rebuttal has been lost in an atmosphere of riot, arson, threat, boycott, and murder, I'm afraid. Avoiding depictions of Muhammad is an instruction that need only be honored by Muslims. The current controversy seems to show that Muslims have more work to do to become accustomed to pluralism than the rest of us, who are bewildered by the attempt to impose on everyone a reverence for the Prophet that only Muslims feel.

Jay Harvey
Indianapolis, IN (WFYI, 90.1 FM)

Imperialist Behavior by the U.S.? (February 19, 2006)
Krista, I value your program very much — articulate interviewing and wonder-filled guests. As I listened this morning I wondered if an understanding of the current administration's foreign policy as "imperialist" and the co-opting of the "religious right" (so-called Christian) is a factor in the overreaction of some Muslims? It seems that many people outside the U.S. are deeply troubled by our behavior — and the poor and oppressed all the more vulnerable and threatened. I think of urban riots here and the more insidious and persistent violence in the cities of today. What do you think? Thanks for your attention. And even more for your work.

Ernest Harris
Bolton, CT (WNPR, 90.5 FM)

Where Is the Shame? (February 19, 2006)
My first comment is directed toward moderate Muslims who take offense at these cartoons but are wise enough not to burn down buildings or kill people over them. My second comment relates to those inciting others to violence. First, I as a Christian represent Christ to the world just as I as an American represent America and Muslims represent Islam. If any of us misrepresent that for which we stand the shame falls on us not on those who would describe it. When Christians behave badly — and particularly when they do so in the name of God — I hang my head in shame. It breaks my heart. If someone draws a cartoon of that, I agree with them. When Americans behave badly, should I take offense when someone draws a cartoon about of it? As your guest said, when Muslims take extremist paths, they offend Islam. When a cartoon represents what Muslims are doing (representing Islam as violent by depicting its founder as violent), is the cartoon the problem or is the problem the Muslims who misrepresent Islam? Where are the protests among Muslims about the true defamation of their faith and its founder? These cartoons do not defame, they describe.

Second, it is an unfortunate state of affairs that in many Muslim countries the general population is poorly educated and not trained to reason and understand. As your guest, Vincent Cornell, said, those who incite this violence are politicians. The violence has nothing to do with freedom of speech or defamation of Islam, rather with political power and control over uneducated and impoverished people.

R. Cummings
Columbus, OH (WOSU, 820 AM)

Why Urge Tolerance? (February 19, 2006)
I enjoy your program as it is, for the most part thoughtful and not dogmatic. While I was very interested in what Prof. Cornell had to say, I am, as always, curious why it doesn't seem to occur to most people that when we are urging tolerance, expressing concern about violence, destruction, misunderstanding if not outright hatred towards different peoples it usually (and for most of history) involves religious belief. I don't necessarily think Islam has been any worse than Christianity in this regard but my point is that this belief that God has written a book that one must follow or be subject to punishment, quite often death, is the cause of most of the need to be urge tolerance and moderation. I'm sorry but we are now arguing about the need for moderation because a cartoonist has insulted someone's imaginary friend who is deemed better than our imaginary friend. Obviously, I am a freethinker (which I prefer to atheist, agnostic, humanist or "Bright") and I'm not so unrealistic to think the majority of the planet will ever give up on the idea of a God who requires absolute obedience and gives specific instructions on things one must hate, but moderation only allows these ideas to continue unchallenged.

Dan Chatfield
St. Louis, MO (KWMU, 91.5 FM)

One Question Not Asked (February 19, 2006)
It was a thoughtful and intelligent program with excellent questions from Ms. Tippet. Noticeably missing, however, was any reference to the Jewish component of this problem, specifically: Why did much of the Muslim protest blame and threaten the Jews and ridicule the Holocaust, in response to a publication in a Christian country? I would have been interested in Prof. Cornell's answer.

Yosi Gordon
St. Paul, MN (KNOW, 91.1 FM)

Stop and Work Toward Oneness of Humanity (February 19, 2006)
If I am not mistaken, "Piss Christ" was not generated by any Muslim, but that's enough of the finger pointing. Whatever happened in the past, it can't help us move toward a better future. The important thing is what are we, everyone of us, going to do now? It is so true that freedom of speech does not mean complete license to insult and inflame. We must try, as much as we can, through experience and interactions, to empathize and try to walk in someone else's shoes before we do and say something that we might regret later. First and foremost, this is a Muslim issue; the moderate and peaceful Muslims must be more vocal in fighting and removing the radical factions within their own faith. And all of us, the non-muslims, should provide all our supports to them. The core belief of all religions do not subscribe to those radical self-righteous ideologies, be it Islam, Christian, Jews, or atheists. Fight all the finger-pointers and work toward world peace and compassion.

H. Bin Lim
Holland, MI (WGVU, 104.1 FM)

Yes, But There Are Still Problems… (February 19, 2006)
First, it was good to hear both Ms. Tippett and Mr. Cornell address some aspects of this issue without avoiding the facts. I was heartened to hear, for example, that the highly publicized forms of Islam such as Wahhabism are in fact not representative of the full breadth of that religion. But I am troubled by other aspects that were avoided. If Islam is truly about social justice, what about the general repression or even subjugation of women in the Islamic world? About the Palestinian election, was every vote for Hamas a vote for good municipal services and financial integrity, not a single vote for the Hamas commitment to destroy Israel and kill Jews around the world? And, concerning the famous Danish cartoons, now that a Pakistani cleric has put a one million dollar bounty on the head of the cartoonist, for the first time in my life I feel threatened if I post cartoons that I myself have drawn. The connection between Islam and terrorism remains.

Paul Simons
Levittown, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)

Images of the Prophet (February 19, 2006)
Although I appreciate your efforts to broaden the dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims, I am repeatedly disappointed by your slant and orientation in these discourses. As a mainstream American-born, practicing Muslim I am disappointed by how Ms. Tippett conflates Wahhabism with Osama bin Laden. Even a cursory review of Salafi Web sites will reveal that the most conservative scholars of Islam have routinely and completely rejected Osama bin Laden and his Qaeda movement. In addition, having lived in Saudi Arabia, I know that these terms "Wahhabism" and "Wahhabi" are practically unknown in the very place, which is supposed to have given birth to the movement. I encourage you to read The Wahhabi Myth and educate yourselves about this term which is so freely bandied about without knowledge.

In addition, it would be refreshing to hear a conservative Muslim scholar on your program. The media (in general) continually lambastes Wahhabism without actually allowing the knowledgeable and conservative scholars of Islam to actually present their views. In the name of intellectual integrity, you should at least investigate their views and pursue them to have them appear on your program.

Matthew Berki
Ypsilanti, MI (WUOM, 91.7 FM)

Social Justice (February 19, 2006)
We consistently find your programs eminently worthwhile. What else would get us up at 7 a.m. on a Sunday. Listening to Professor Cornell, I note that he seems to say that a key component of the Islamic protests is the quest for social justice. What ever happened to our country being concerned for the poor downtrodden people of a country? How is it that we supported a government who did less for their people than Hamas? How is it we support Arab governments who do not support their people? How is it we are not outraged by a group of people who stone a woman reporter because they did not like the way here hair was or the way she sat? Does Professor Cornell have any contact with our government? Is he offended when someone calls me an infidel and says that I should die?

Pat Brosenne
Reading, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)

Tired of the Excuses (February 19, 2006)
Your guest brings up "Piss Christ" — you're correct Christians did not riot and kill. How many Islamists are excommunicated every day let alone once in awhile? How many authors are afraid for their lives because of their anti-Christian or unapproved of by Christian's writings? Parts of Europe were dominated by Islamists also; I am very tired of people who use past periods to excuse their present deeds. If that were a legitimate excuse then what happened to colonial India, or for that matter any other colonial country?

Don Heverly
Flint, MI (WUOM, 91.7 FM)

Tolerance vs. Acceptance (February 19, 2006)
I love the program! But even on your show I keep hearing "tolerance" from many leaders and scholars. One thing that struck me was King Abdullah of Jordan's comments while talking about the recent "cartoons" of the Prophet Muhammad:

"We have to continue to ask ourselves, 'What type of world do we want for our children?' I too often hear the word used as tolerance. And tolerance is such an awful word. If we are going strive to move forward in the future, the word we should be talking about is acceptance. We need to accept our common humanity and our common values. And I hope lessons can be learned from this dreadful issue that we can move forward as humanity and truly try to strive together as friends and as neighbors to bring a better world to all." (King Abdullah of Jordan during his meeting with President Bush talking about the riots inflamed by the Prophet Muhammad cartoons. 02/08/2006)

I think his comments speak volumes to the simple choice of a single word and the paradigm shift that it brings. Thank you.

Scott Nelson
Minneapolis, MN (KNOW, 91.1 FM)

Yet Another Apologist for Islam (February 19, 2006)
Professor Cornell is yet another apologist for Islam. When Christians were insulted by far worse images (cross hung in a jar of urine, virgin mary smeared with animal feces) they were called intolerant merely for complaining about it. Churches were burned and 15 Christians murdered in Nigeria today, the American embassy in Indonesia was attacked today, dozens of innocent lives taken by Muslims, and Professor Cornell labors to explain how we must be more respectful of Muslims. Christians lived as subjugated people under sharia for centuries. It will happen again soon in Europe as the Europeans seek to appease Muslim sensibilities. Europe is lost to Islam. Islam once conquered a great civilization, Byzantium, then took several centuries to destroy it; Islam will soon conquer Europe.

Steve Rose
Boonville, IN (WNIN, 88.3 FM)

Question on Islamic Art (February 18, 2006)
I normally set my clock radio for 7 a.m. on Saturday mornings to hear Speaking of Faith. It is always worth it. Thank you. I enjoyed listening to the program with Vincent Cornell. It was helpful. But there was one issue that I didn't hear discussed, and I believe it to be an important one which I would like to know more about. That is the question of the lack of depiction of the human figure in Islamic art through the ages. The Christian church sought to educate people in the faith through the use of art portraying the Bible stories. The Muslim faith, as I understand it, prohibited this. As a result there is great architecture and great calligraphy in Muslim countries but little or no sculptural or painting portrayals of human beings. Christians are used to seeing images of Jesus, God, and the saints. Some they like, others they don't. Muslims, I suspect, would not want to see any portrayal of Muhammad, no matter how positive. How important is this basic difference, if I am right?

John Goodwin
Demarest, NJ (WNYC, 820 AM)

The Bad with the Good (February 18, 2006)
The final question of the program was "Should freedom of speech be balanced with moral values?" We should hope that individuals would choose to do this. But we better hope desperately that our society never chooses to "balance" or otherwise "optimize" freedom of speech based on someone's or some group's moral values. Freedom of speech allows people to speak claptrap, lies, insults, it allows terrible art, stupid jokes, rude remarks, preposterous rhetoric. So that out of the babble will also come truth, poetry, comfort, prayers, good jokes. You can't have one without the other, or at least not on a scale as large as a country. And since we're all only humans, you're probably always going to have a lot more of the stupid stuff than the brilliant stuff.

I am very glad to hear Professor Cornell talk about Islam; I'm very interested in Islam. I am very sorry that some Muslims believe that a few cartoons can actually threaten a religion. But I'm less worried about them than I am us, in this country, and the way we're asking and answering questions about the value of freedom of speech, and freedom in general. Are the unprecedented freedoms we have enjoyed in America really going to result in a fearful, weak society, easily offended, enraged when we hear anything we disagree with, quick to trade off our freedoms for any little scrap of "security," glorifying our own rights and values and furious when anyone else exercises theirs? We better look at those mobs and learn what it's like when people believe their own freedom comes from God but other people's freedom needs to be "balanced" and exercised "responsibly."

Layne Evans
Norwalk, CT (WNYC, 820 AM)

Cartoons of Mohammed (February 18, 2006)
Thank you for an excellent discussion. It was very enlightening and open. To my non-Muslim ear, I still heard a bit of rationalization, though not justification, for the violent demonstrations against Denmark. The professor seemed to be grasping for a straw by bringing up a Christian excommunication as an analogy to the violence. I agree with the host that there does not appear to be any example of other religions reacting with so much violence as frequently as do the Muslims.

Tom Scalora
Oak Ridge, NJ (WNYC, 820 AM)

Balance? (February 18, 2006)
A simple suggestion: to provide some balance to your discussion of Islam, invite to your program somebody like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Ibn Warraq. There is nothing more mind-numbing than listening to apologetics.

Catherine Hatinguais
New York, NY (WNYC, 820 AM)

A True Voice (February 18, 2006)
I have always enjoyed your interviews very much, and your voice, I might add is like a silver bell. Unfortunately, I am becoming increasingly more uneasy and frustrated with "apologists" for Islam. This space is too short to cover very much — and there is much that I could say. I do not recall hearing of Jews trying to "convert" Muslims during the centuries that they lived together, so why do the Muslims now hate Jews even more than they hate Christians? And since when do the Muslims care that much about what others think of them: the West, that is? There is only one Muslim who has the courage and clarity of thought to call his people what they are. That man is Fouad Ajami, a professor in the U.S. A people that have had for many years a "victim" mentality. They are responsible for nothing. Everything that happens to them is someone else's fault. And that is precisely why they are unable to move forward. Actually there are several courageous Arab women who are also speaking out, but they have not been as visible in the media.

Dolores Heinze
Aberdeen, NJ (WNYC, 93.9 FM)

Inaccurate Preface (February 18, 2006)
Today your program skewed the issue, and did so with the very first paragraph. You claimed the cartoon uproar began with a Danish newspaper editor's request for cartoons about Muhammad. The published submissions proved offensive. But that is not true. It began with a Danish writer, Kare Bluitgen's inability to find anyone to draw him a book cover for his new biography of Muhammad. The illustrators feared breaking a Muslim taboo forbidding pictures of the prophet. In short, this was not about a gratuitous lashing out at an unpopular faith. This was about a newspaper, the Jyllands-Posten, asserting that Danes do not live in fear of the taboo of Islam. The paper was saying, "Not only are we not afraid to draw the picture of Islam's prophet, we are not afraid to mock him."

The point of the cartoons was not to insult or to hurt Muslims, but to establish that religious fanatics and their threats don't intimidate Danes in their own home. They failed in that stand. Islam is now more feared and better able to intimidate than ever. Largely because the world has chosen to distort the issue in the way Speaking of Faith has done. Benjamin Franklin said, the religion of America is freedom. Your program today has betrayed it.

Nathan C. Langston
New York, NY (WNYC, 93.9 FM)

Violence Due to One's Beliefs (February 18, 2006)
I have tried to understand these latest acts of violence in the name of religion. There have been some cartoons depicting a religious group's icon. And subsequently there have been numerous outcries which has unfortunately resulted in many deaths and many more injuries. Where I am stumped at is, can anyone injure or kill someone because someone else has disrespected the memory of someone else? Is that a reasonable act to be conducted by some and considered by others? If someone disrespects someone I treasure, love, and respect, can I go out and kill them? Whatever happened with tolerance? It seems to me that those that expect tolerance when it comes to themselves but conveniently forget the concept when they feel that it's themselves that was insulted. I think that we all should exercise tolerance whenever and wherever necessary. I'll conclude with this thought, I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but I would never think of causing the harm or death of another that insults and ridicules his name. After all, Jesus can take care of himself! Thank you.

Joseph Brown
Bronx, NY (WNYC, 820 AM)

Web Stuff on Cornell's Comments (February 17, 2006)
My comment applies to "Cornell's Commentary on the Danish Cartoons" on your Web site and in particular to the lower right cartoon. It does not seem reasonable to me to comment on this cartoon without at least translating the text. (Which I don't understand as it appears to be in Danish?) Perhaps this text explains more about the topic of the drawing and the intent of the drawer. It seems irresponsible for Cornell (and perhaps SOF) to comment on the drawing without at least noting the text and providing a translation.

Fredric Bailey
Shoreview, MN (KNOW, 91.1 FM)

Hearing the Other Side (February 17, 2006)
Thank you for your newsletter concerning the Danish cartoons. I have been frustrated in my attempts to hear "the other side" of this issue. The media feel justified in condemning what they see as a threat to freedom of the press. And maybe when freedom of the press is at stake there really isn't "another side" to be considered. But I think that this is something the public in a free society should decide. We have a right to know how moderate Western Muslims see this issue. We may not agree with their point of view, but we should be allowed to hear it and read about it in our newspapers.

Your article is the first I have seen that gave me the other side. The thoughts of Vincent Cornell were very helpful and the questions he challenges us to consider should, I believe, be debated by people and governments in all Western countries. I also appreciated the reminder that we in the West have the benefit of a culture that was born after centuries of often bloody struggle. If we do not include that history in our own perspective, we will have difficulty understanding ourselves much less cultures that are developing today.

Lorrie Greenlaw
Scarborough, ME (Listens via SOF OnDemand)

Fear Should Not Be the Determining Factor (February 17, 2006)
Why? Why is there no mention of the desecration and misrepresentation of Christian symbols? I'm not Catholic but I clearly remember when someone decided it was art to put the crucifix in human waste and display it. The Catholic community (and any other person that protested) was basically told to get over it. They were being too sensitive. If they had bombed the art institute or threatened the life of the so-called artist the Catholics would have been held at fault. And the cry for free speech was much greater then. So why are those in the West suddenly so keen on not insulting other people's religious beliefs? If it were sensitivity the outcry would have been just as great back then. No, it is fear. And fear should not be the determining factor for whether or not free speech is allowed.

Jean Twitty
Villa Rica, GA (WABE, 90.1 FM)

Seeing What Isn't There (February 17, 2006)
It should go without saying that a couple of the 12 cartoons were over the line, in bad taste, and should not have been published (of course, that doesn't excuse the resultant violence). But I find Cornell's explanations of why the others (three of the four on your Web site) were offensive and hard to accept. He draws inferences which are not implied. Indeed, the male figures needn't even be assumed to be Mohammed, but can simply be seen as generic male Arab Islamists. His comments about the stick figure cartoon are even more absurd, without any basis I can see.

S. Neimark
Washington, DC (WETA, 90.9 FM)

Understanding the Reaction to the Cartoons (February 16, 2006)
As a cartoonist, and former syndicated political cartoonist, I was at first mystified by the Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons. I myself have just launched a Web-based cartoon strip that deals with the changing spiritual paradigms between the older control-based religions and the newer more personal approaches to spirituality. Though at times I am very sharp in the points I make, I try not to be hurtful, and I would never want to be insensitive to the pain of others, especially those who have been oppressed and marginalized.

Once I learned the background behind the Muslim outrage, I began to understand that the reaction was not the caricature it had been portrayed as in the Western media. I should have known better. You see, my mother was Egyptian, I was raised among Hispanics, my wife is Cherokee, and so am I too by marriage, and I am a Christian minister, recovering from a serious case of fundamentalism. Every group mentioned above has suffered from ignorant stereotyping and shallow media coverage. I should know about media stereotypes, and yet my first reaction was, well — uncharitable. Thanks for you insightful program. Thanks for your respectful treatment of all peoples and faiths, and for all you do to break down stereotypes and ignorance. May we all someday see the divine in one another.

Spyder Webb
Greenville, PA (Listens via SOF OnDemand)

Sacredness vs. Freedom of Thought (February 16, 2006)
What is important to say about "sacred" things is simply that no one has the right to demand that others respect them. In fact sacredness, blasphemy, and the demand for respect are thought control devices intended to silence intelligent inquiry. Respect is something we may give or withhold. It may not be presumed or dictated. It must be earned.

Sacredness, blasphemy, taboo, hell, fears are part of a complex of religious ideas that make mental slaves of us. Holy lands and holy books and holy graven images have caused endless terror and bloody strife. It is time humanity grows past its tribal adolescence. There are real problems to attend to. Our various religious institutions can become a unifying web of human support and kindness instead of jealous sects each with its own ancient mythology. It will start if we ask our ministers, priests, imams, and rabbis to stop teaching children ancient superstitious nonsense that separates us into incompatible cults. It can start in Duluth. We can have open discussions of these matters in our congregations. It requires mental bravery to oppose the blasphemy taboo. But we can do it; it will liberate us!

William van Druten
Duluth, MN (WSCN, 100.5 FM)

Islam and Cartoons (February 16, 2006)
I do think it was in poor judgment to make a cartoon during this hostile climate of tribalism in the world. At the same time, there is freedom of the press. In Muslim publications there are many caricatures of Jews and Christians. And one other important issue is how women are treated under Taliban rule and in countries like Saudi Arabia. If they want to talk about being offensive then look at how Muslim women are treated in some situations. I have heard many first-hand accounts from Muslim women around the world about their brutal treatment by Muslim men. If we want to talk about what is offensive, let us truly look at the real violence that is happening in all of our lives. And I also do know that violence against women is a universal problem. We need to move beyond an us versus them tribal consciousness in the world if we want to continue as a species. No one is perfect. We are all a work in progress. As the Buddha said, suffering and ignorance are universal.

Rebecca Schaye
New York, NY (WNYC, 820 AM)

Strong Enough on Their Own (February 16, 2006)
Aren't you fearful of inciting some sort of Muslim reaction right here in the U.S. by placing these cartoons on your internet page? I appreciate the interpretations and implications of them by Vincent Cornell, but I don't think the cartoons should have been copied and printed. Vincent Cornell's remarks as an American Muslim would have been strong enough on their own to explain the offense. What justification can we have to repeat and further the desecration of the Muslim faith?

M. Tauer
St. Paul, MN (Listens via SOF OnDemand)

How Does One Know? (February 16, 2006)
The irony to me about so much of the outrage about these cartoons is that if the great One is not to be depicted, how does anyone know what he might look like and how can anyone then truly believe the image of the great One is in the cartoons?

Gardner A. Cadwalader
Philadelphia, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)