Sometimes, Freud told us, a cigar is just a cigar.  Sometimes, though, it’s a cracker.

Apparently, there’s a huge wave (that’s media speak for at least two similar incidents) of people using Roman Catholic communion wafers for something other than their intended spiritual purpose.  Earlier this month, it a University of Central Florida student:

Webster Cook says that, instead of eating a Eucharist wafer as he was expected to do during the Sacrament of Holy Communion, he smuggled the blessed piece of bread out of mass.  Once blessed, the piece of bread  is viewed by Catholics as the true Body of Christ.

[...]

Webster gave the wafer back, but the Catholic League, a national watchdog organization for Catholic rights claims that is not enough.   “We don’t know 100% what Mr. Cooks motivation was,” said Susan Fani a spokesperson with the local Catholic League.  “However, if anything were to qualify as a hate crime, to us this seems like this might be it.”

The firestorm set off PZ Meyers who, in a post titled “IT’S A FRACKIN’ CRACKER!” raged,

Holding a cracker hostage is now a hate crime? The murder of Matthew Shephard was a hate crime. The murder of James Byrd Jr. was a hate crime. This is a goddamned cracker. Can you possibly diminish the abuse of real human beings any further?

So, naturally, our intrepid biologist had a plan:

Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There’s no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I’m sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won’t be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I’ll send you my home address.

Shockingly, this spawned more outrage.   For example,  crunchy conservative Rod Dreher responded with a post titled “P.Z. Myers, Coward” and filed it under “anti-Christian bigotry.”

If P.Z. Myers had any guts, he would put out a call for someone to send him a Koran so he could blow his nose and wrap fish in it. After all, it’s nothing but frackin’ ink on paper, right? So what’s stopping you, Big Man? It’s easy to s— on what Catholics regard as sacred. But just try doing the same thing to what Muslims regard as sacred. Let’s see what you’re made of.

Dreher quickly notes that he’s merely being ironic and wants to see no harm come to any Koran.

Responding to these various criticisms, Myers retorts, “Your personal sense of the sacred in a piece of bread dough is absurd to me and imposes on me no sense of obligation.”

Doug Mataconis begs to differ: “Call it crazy if you want. Call it without scriptural foundation even. It’s what they believe, which makes their reaction somewhat understandable in my mind.”  Further, Myers “did this knowing what the Eucharist means to Catholics with the obvious intention of offending them by doing so. While he may not have committed a crime, he did act like a thoughtless jerk whose actions really aren’t worthy of being defended.”

Megan McArdle is “flummoxed” by those who defend Myers under the “JUST A CRACKER” defense.

Would it be okay if I spraypainted obscenities on your mother’s grave because it’s just a piece of highly compressed igneous rock with some lines chiseled into it? How about if I photoshop your a photo of your now-grown child onto a piece of child porn, because after all, no one’s actually hurt by this–it’s just a piece of paper.

If you reduce symbols to their base physical constituents, then of course it sounds silly to get all excited about them. Nonetheless, you’d probably be pretty damn upset if someone dug up a relative’s grave and desecrated the corpse on the grounds that it’s just some rotting meat.

People do not live without symbols. The fact that you do not share someone else’s symbols does not give you the right to descrate them. Desecrating other people’s symbols is the act of a bully and a boor.

Previously, she called the stunt “really, really juvenile” and  observed, “Desecrating a communion wafer because Bill Donohue is an officious jerk is like paining swastikas on the tombstones of a Jewish cemetery because Abe Foxman said something that pissed you off.”

I fully agree with Megan and Doug that Myers’ behavior here was boorish.  Rather clearly, his aims were to offend the religious sensibilities of millions of people while looking all clever to his atheist friends.  Those aren’t admirable aims.  Further, someone who’s a guest at a place of worship ought to show some respect for his hosts.  Doing otherwise is just bad manners.

At the same time, though, Myers is right:  He’s under no obligation to pay obeisance to what he believes to be the silly rituals and beliefs of others.  During the whole Danish Muslim cartoons thing, certainly, I didn’t think that Western cartoonists were wrong to draw cartoons of Mohammed, regardless of whether others — even a billion others — believed that doing so was blasphemy. Ditto when Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses and earned fatwah from the Ayatollah Khomeini.  People have a right to express themselves and others have a right to be offended by that expression; violence, however, is not an acceptable response.

A communion wafer isn’t a headstone.  The latter is, after all, private property.  Webster Cook and, presumably, those called to action by Myers were given the wafers freely by people not expecting to have them returned in usable condition.   Taking one under such conditions isn’t a crime, let alone a “hate crime.”

Perhaps a better example for non-religious folks is the burning of the American flag in protest, an act that so enrages millions that laws have been passed to prohibit it and, once the Supreme Court ruled it to be protected speech, has even sparked calls for amending the Constitution to ban it.  While it’s perfectly legal to do burn the flag — and it’s a very powerful way of making a point — it’s also something that will likely earn you widespread scorn.

If people want to think Myers and Cook are horrible people, they’re free to do so.  That’s the cost of taking controversial stands.  Death threats and similar responses, however, are not.

Photo:  Daylife/Getty Images

Good line, purportedly from Jon Stewart:

Obama is not upset about the cartoon that calls him a Muslim extremist. Who gets upset about cartoons? Muslim extremists.

via Steve Garfield.

See “New Yorker Obama Terrorist Cover” for background and commentary on the story.

UPDATE:  Amusingly, I see via Memeorandum, the hubbub goes on.  Obama is continuing to beat this dead horse:

Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday that the New Yorker magazine’s satirical cover depicting him and his wife as flag-burning, fist-bumping radicals doesn’t bother him but that it was an insult to Muslim Americans.

“You know, there are wonderful Muslim Americans all across the country who are doing wonderful things,” the presidential candidate told CNN’s Larry King. “And for this to be used as sort of an insult, or to raise suspicions about me, I think is unfortunate. And it’s not what America’s all about.”

Obama blamed himself for not being forceful enough in challenging some of the rumors about him, including that he is Muslim. Obama is Christian.

This is bizarre on so many levels.  First, Obama clearly knows that the cover was a satire and one which is helping him.  Second, he seems to be implying — while touting all the fine things Muslims do — that “Muslim” is some sort of slur.

Meanwhile, even those on the Left are defending the New Yorker.  Editor Katrina vanden Heuvel and others at The Nation :

[A]s comedian Bill Maher observed, “If you can’t do irony on the cover of The New Yorker, where can you?” I tend to agree.

[...]

It’s interesting how through time, especially in these last years, images seem more powerful, troubling, provocative and threatening than words. Why is that? Hard to fully fathom. Perhaps the speed with which images, unmoored from their original home and context, zip around the 36/7 Internet? Whatever the full range of reasons, it seems to me that one fact is that a caricature is almost by definition provocative, often offensive. It’s a misrepresentation, an exaggeration for effect, a parody.

While I understand why many object to this cartoon–and to images which they believe reinforce stereotypes (and there are many at The Nation who found the New Yorker cartoon offensive), I believe satire–even if it flops or offends –has a place in our culture and politics.

She then has some of the magazine’s cartoonists weigh in. Steve Brodner’s take is especially keen:

So basically we have the Wolf Blitzers pretending not to get this to rev up ratings which rely, largely, on the “outrage of the day.” However, in that process a dialogue is forced, satire is discussed, the truth about Obama is put on the table. And so, even if it’s taking the long way to get there, Barry Blitt’s strong image does what we need it to do: put these issues up for discussion and in a very real way, educate America.

Christopher Hitchens has a withering piece for The Mirror. Some excerpts:

Satire, according to Jonathan Swift, is “a mirror wherein every man will commonly discern every face but his own”.

[...]

Ludicrous as it might seem to have John McCain enlisted as an art critic, and obvious as it should be that the New Yorker would never do anything deliberately to hurt the Democratic nominee, it remains the case that a Newsweek poll has just found 12 per cent of voters believing that Obama is a practicing Muslim and another 12 per cent (possibly the same 12 per cent) convinced that he used a Koran for his swearing-in ceremony at the United States Senate. These are of course exactly the sort of people who do not read the New Yorker, or go in very much for the ironic and the satirical, so that as usual the aesthetic effort is somewhat lost on what ought to be its target audience.

[...]

If reassurance is what was wanted, it would have been nice to hear Barack Obama agreeing with the New Yorker’s people that the cover was (a) a joke and (b) a pro-Obama joke and then adding (c) that he and his wife “got” the said joke. No such luck. A statement of extreme lugubriousness from Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton announced that “most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive – and we agree”. So in other words, the Obama team disagrees strongly with those readers who don’t see it as tasteless and inoffensive, as well as those who interpret it as an attempt to draw the sting from a whispering campaign against Obama. Take that, you broad-minded and humorous rabble! Satire can do no more.

Finally, Salon’s Gary Kamiya makes the unkindest cut of all:

It’s official: The Bush era has made liberals so terrified of right-wing smears it has caused them to completely lose their sense of humor. Much as I hate to repeat one of Rush Limbaugh’s flat, stale and unprofitable applause lines, that’s the only conclusion I can draw after witnessing the left-wing blogosphere’s bizarre reaction to the New Yorker cover. . ..

[...]

I don’t know what lugubrious planet these people are on, but I definitely don’t want any of them writing material for Jon Stewart.

[...]

If you satirically depict Obama as an Islamist terrorist, in this view, you are only reinforcing and giving broader currency to right-wing smears. Since the essence of satire is exaggerating negative stereotypes, this means that satire itself is off limits. Or, at least, all satire except that which the cowering — but oh so semiotically sophisticated — left-wing commentariat deems to be sufficiently broad-brush and polemical to pass its funny test.

If nothing else, this controversy has apparently revived the word “lugubrious.”

A tenured, conservative professor has been ordered to take cartoons off his door because they offended someone.

Getting one’s own office can be a rite of passage right up there with defending a dissertation or receiving tenure — and many professors’ lairs are reflections of their own attitudes and beliefs. Usually, it takes just a quick glance at the door, as anyone who’s taken a stroll down the hall of an academic building can attest: What a professor finds amusing, outrageous or just plain interesting is there for all to see.

At a public university, such common displays of individual preference would presumably fall under the protections of the First Amendment. But not when such displays are offensive to others, according to officials at Lake Superior State University, which threatened to reprimand a tenured professor whose door boasted cartoons and other images of a conservative political bent. In a March 26 letter to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which had been monitoring the case and publicized it on Wednesday, an outside lawyer representing the university reiterated its argument that because the professor “acted in an unprofessional and insubordinate manner, his actions cannot be considered protected speech.”

The first complaints date back to 2005, and the professor, Richard Crandall, was ordered to remove the materials from his door in 2007 (he eventually complied). Items included a photo of Ronald Reagan, pictures mocking Hillary Clinton, a sign posting a “Notice of the Weekly Meeting of the White, Male, Heterosexual Faculty and Staff Association (WMHFSA),” and various cartoons about abortion, Islamic terrorism and other topics. One depicts two hooded women looking over a photo album. One says, “And that’s my youngest son, Hakim. He’ll be martyring in the fall.” The other replies, “They blow up so fast.”

The university argues that the postings contribute to a hostile environment and therefore do not fall under First Amendment protections, although such arguments have not fared well historically in the courts.

No joke. No abridgment of free speech — unless it’s controversial.

Story shared by Chris Lawrence via Google Reader. Cartoon via Political Humor.

Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders has debuted a new film that compares Islam to fascism. No rioting has yet ensued.

Iran and Indonesia on Friday condemned a film by a Dutch lawmaker that accuses the Koran of inciting violence, while Dutch Muslim leaders urged restraint.

Islam critic Geert Wilders launched his movie on Thursday evening. Titled “Fitna”, an Arabic term sometimes translated as “strife”, it intersperses images of the September 11, 2001 attacks and other Islamist bombings with quotations from the Koran. The film urges Muslims to tear out “hate-filled” verses from the Koran and starts and finishes with a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad with a bomb under his turban, originally published in Danish newspapers, accompanied by the sound of ticking. The image ignited violent protests around the world and a boycott of Danish products in 2006. Many Muslims consider any depiction of the Prophet as offensive.

Iran called the film heinous, blasphemous and anti-Islamic and called on European governments to block any further showing. Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation and a former Dutch colony, also condemned the film. “We are of the view that the film has a racist flavor and is an insult to Islam, hidden under the cover of freedom of expression,” a foreign ministry spokesman said. “We call on Indonesian people not to be incited.”

The Dutch Islamic Federation went to court on Friday to try to stop Wilders from comparing Islam to fascism, saying he incited hatred of Muslims. “A substantial number of people will associate Islam only with violence,” lawyer Ejder Kose said.

One wonders where they’re get such an impression? Perhaps this explains it:

Dutch authorities reported a calm night in contrast to the unrest that swept the country after the murder by a militant Islamist in 2004 of Dutch director Theo van Gogh, who made a film accusing Islam of condoning violence against women.

Dutch security officials raised the national risk level to “substantial” this month because of the Wilders film and perceptions of an increased al Qaeda threat. Wilders has been under heavy guard because of Islamist death threats since the murder of director van Gogh. Support for his anti-immigration Freedom Party rose in anticipation of the film to about 10 percent of the vote.

To be sure, there’s a childishness to Wilders’ antics, which are clearly designed to poke a stick at Muslim sensibilities. But the constant rioting and resort to violence at these provocations rather bolster his case.

Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said in a televised speech on Thursday he rejected Wilders’ views and was pleased by the initial restrained reactions of Dutch Muslim organizations.

The European Union supports the Dutch government’s approach and believes the film serves no purpose other than “inflaming hatred”, the Slovenian EU presidency said in a statement: “The European Union and its member states apply the principle of the freedom of speech which is part of our values and traditions. However, it should be exercised in a spirit of respect for religious and other beliefs and convictions.”

That’s fine so far as it goes. On the other hand, not resorting to criminal violence when films and cartoons irritate you is a minimum requirement of citizenship in a free society, not something which ought bring praise from the prime minister.

And the idea that the EU “supports” freedom of speech by saying that it shouldn’t be exercised in a controversial way makes one wonder if they understand the concept at all. I agree that lumping all Muslims in with the extremists is bad manners, to say nothing of being incorrect. But that’s my view as an individual. It’s problematic when governments and quasi-governmental bodies make these sort of declarations, as it suggests a chilling effect.

The Danish Muslim cartoons that sparked worldwide rioting, mayhem, and murder two years ago are back.

Newspapers across Europe Wednesday reprinted the controversial cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed that sparked worldwide protests two years ago.

The move came one day after Danish authorities arrested three people allegedly plotting a “terror-related assassination” of Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist behind the drawing.

Berlingske Tidende, was one of the newspapers involved in the republication by newspapers in Denmark. It said: “We are doing this to document what is at stake in this case, and to unambiguously back and support the freedom of speech that we as a newspaper always will defend,” in comments reported by The Associated Press.

Newspapers in Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands also republished the drawing Wednesday as part of their coverage of Tuesday’s arrests.

The image, by Morgenavisen Jullands-Posten cartoonist Westergaard, was one of 12 cartoons about the Prophet Mohammed originally published in September 2005. Westergaard’s cartoon depicted the prophet wearing a bomb as a turban with a lit fuse.

Count me in:

Others: Michelle Malkin, Ed Morrissey, Howie@The Jawa Report, Fullosseous Flap, Y.A.C.R.W.B., PoliGazette, Andy Aplikowski, Pam@Right Voices, Laura@Pursuing Holiness, Kim Zigfeld, Susan Duclos, The World According To Carl

________

See these cartoons in full size here.

Related posts below the fold.

Al Qaeda Video: Sea of Blood in Denmark, Norway, France
Comedy Central Censored Mohammed “South Park”
Manifesto Against Islamist Totalitarianism
Jyllands-Posten Wins Prize for Defense of Free Expression
D.C. Denmark Rally Photos
D.C. Rally for Denmark at Noon (Updated)
D.C. Rally for Denmark on Friday
Cartoon Violence Pits Muslim Against Muslim
Censorship by the Muslim Mob
Nigerian Christians Riot, Kill Muslims in Retaliation
Iran Supports End to Cartoon Violence
Muslim Cartoon Rage Latest Example of Religious Virus
Why He Published Those Cartoons
Nigeria Cartoon Riot Kills at Least 15
Cleric Offers Million Dollar Bounty for Murder of Cartoonist
Bama Riots Over Bear Bryant Cartoons
The Islamists’ War on the Internet
Pakistan Rioters Burn KFC, Pizza Hut, and McDonald’s
Cartoons as Emotional Torture and Intellectual Terrorism (Leopold Stotch)
Moderate Muslims Speak Out (Leopold Stotch)
Danish Muslim Cartoons: Blogger Hypocrisy?
Egypt Published Danish Cartoons During Ramadan
Danish Cartoons & Abu Ghraib Photos (Leopold Stotch)
Hypocrites? (Steve Verdon)
Danish Muslim Cartoons: What Would Mohammad Do?
Iranian Paper Launches Holocaust Cartoon Competition
Danish Muslim Cartoon Protests Kill Six
Dutch Muslim Cartoon: Anne Frank and Hitler in Bed
Danish Muslim Cartoon Controversy in Context
Danish Embassy in Syria Torched over Muslim Cartoons
Danish Muslim Cartoons ‘Offensive,’ Says U.S. Government
Muslim Day of Anger to Respond to Cartoons
French Editor Fired Over Muhammad Drawings
French and German Papers Republish Danish Cartoons
Danish Newspaper Apologizes for Muslim Cartoons

Over at The Glittering Eye, Dave Schuler extends the argument he’s made in the comments of my tongue-in-cheek post on the fact that the media continues to ignore the ethnic-religious component of the rioting in France.

He argues that the problem goes beyond religion and is ultimately about assimilation and “giving the descendants of immigrants a stake in the country that’s the only one they’ve ever known.”

He’s right. Indeed, I allude to that even in my glib observation that, “Clearly, not much has been done over the past two years, since the last set of youth riots, to integrate the youths into French society.”

How to go about that, though, is the question. The politics of race and ethnicity is especially difficult in an era where we’re supposed to simultaneously pretend that cultural differences are immaterial and yet revel in the wonderful diversity that different cultures add.

Despite a history that includes slavery, racial apartheid (Jim Crow), and ethnic cleansing (the Indian wars), the United States has done relatively well in assimilating those from alien cultures into our own. Since the passage of the 14th Amendment, all who are born on American soil are automatically endowed with all the rights of citizenship and people are considered “Americans” by their fellows regardless of racial, religious, or ethnic background so long as they speak the language and obey the rules. That’s not the case in much of Western Europe where even a third generation German-born Turk is still a Turk, not a German.

Still, removing legal barriers to citizenship clearly isn’t enough. While not on the scale of the Muslim riots that are now in their second go-round in Paris or those that happened across Europe a couple years ago owing to some cartoons in a Danish paper, we’ve had our share of race riots in the United States even in the post-Civil Rights Act era. The riots following the Rodney King verdict in Los Angeles are the most noteworthy, but there have been several lesser ones involving outraged blacks and Hispanics over perceived police brutality; those in Miami (1980), Crown Heights (1991), St. Petersburg (1996), and Benton Harbor, Michigan (2003) are the most notable.

To be sure, these are rare events. That those old enough to have lived through them remember them vividly is a testament to how unusual they are. Still, they happen.

The idea that we should deal with the “root causes” is all well and good but it’s not clear exactly how one goes about doing that. Nor should the fact that there are legitimate grievances be considered justification for mayhem.

Photo credit: The Age/Reuters

Monday’s essay by Christopher Hitchens defending the term “Islamofascism” drew quite a bit of blogospheric reaction. Matt Yglesias responds to it with what amounts to a straw man and yet backhandedly makes a valid point.

[The term] provide[s] a spurious patina of unity and sameness to diverse phenomena involving Muslims Behaving Badly so that al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, Assad, Saddam, Iraqi insurgents, Somali Islamists, plus sundry oppressive folk practices common in portions of the Islamic world like female genital mutilation in parts of Africa, “honor killings” in parts of South Asia, etc. The question to ask ourselves is what, if anything, is accomplished by devising and deploying a term that unites all those phenomena.

No reasonable reading of Hitch’s piece does any such thing. He asks, “Does Bin Ladenism or Salafism or whatever we agree to call it have anything in common with fascism?” and then identifies several characteristics:

• “movements … based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind.”

• “hostile to modernity (except when it comes to the pursuit of weapons)”

• “obsessed with real and imagined ‘humiliations’ and thirsty for revenge”

• “chronically infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia”

• “inclined to leader worship and to the exclusive stress on the power of one great book”

• “a strong commitment to sexual repression—especially to the repression of any sexual “deviance”—and to its counterparts the subordination of the female and contempt for the feminine.”

• “despise art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence”

While there may be important differences, these factors do make Salafism very similar to Mussolini-Franco-style fascism.

The problem, as Matt’s post illustrates, is that the label “Islamofascism” will be misused and misunderstood, both through legitimate confusion and intentional distortion. Our enemies will use it as further evidence that the West considers Islam as a whole a threat akin to fascism and our friends will use the word lazily in a way that will help fuel this misperception.

Further, there is a lumping together of the domestic policy of pre-modern societies and the much more dangerous attempts to export Salafist theology. It’s the latter, not the former, that should be the focus of Western concern.

German and U.S. authorities have thwarted what a massive Islamist terrorist plot against about to be launched against American targets in Germany.

FT’s Hugh Williamson:

German security forces have prevented a terror attack in Germany that could have been more deadly than the Madrid and London bombings, top security officials said on Wednesday.

Police on Tuesday arrested three men who had planned simultaneous car bomb attacks against US military and civil targets, such as pubs and discos, Monika Harms, federal chief prosecutor, said at a press conference in Karlsruhe. The men – two Germans who had converted to Islam and a Turkish national – are alleged members of ‘Islamic Jihad Union’, a little known terror group linked to Al Qaeda that has its roots in Uzbekistan, Ms Harms said.

The group had obtained 12 barrels of liquid weighing 730kg to be used in preparing explosives. This could have resulted in the equivalent of 550kg of TNT, Ms Harms added. “This was one of the most serious terror attacks ever planned in Germany” she said. “There could have been a very big death toll” as the amount of explosives exceeded those used in the Madrid subway bombing and the London transport bombing in 2005, she said.

The men – who in 2006 had trained in terror camps in north Pakistan – were driven by “a hatred of US citizens”, according to Jörg Ziercke, president of the BKA federal crime agency. US authorities were involved in investigations that led to the arrests, he said.

The alleged terror cell had been under surveillance since December 2006, when one member was seen spying on a US military base in Hanau near Frankfurt. The group started gathering the explosive liquid in February and in August rented a holiday apartment – reportedly in Oberschledorn, western Germany – to build the explosives. The group had gathered incendiary devices, cables and other equipment, Ms Harms said.

[...]

Security officials in Berlin said the arrests may be linked to raids and arrests in Denmark on Tuesday, when, according to Danish police, eight people with alleged links to Al Qaeda were detained in order to prevent an attack.

Germany’s interior ministry and BND foreign intelligence agency have been warning for several months of an increased danger of Islamic terror attacks in Germany, possibly linked to Berlin’s military involvement in Afghanistan.

Noah Barkin and Sabine Siebold of Reuters report, “Harms could not confirm reports the accused had been targeting Frankfurt international airport and a major U.S. military base in Ramstein. But she said they had been seen scouting out U.S. installations such as discos, pubs and airports.”

AFP adds:

The minister said one of the men arreseted had links to the Islamist scene in Neu-Ulm in southern Germany. German investigators have suspected for several years that a mosque in Neu-Ulm is used as a base for extremists planning attacks.

A leading member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative Christian Democratic Union, Wolfgang Bosbach, said the men had probably been planning attacks to coincide with the sixth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

Der Spiegel has the most detailed description of who the suspects are:

According to information obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE, the three men were Daniel S. from the state of Saarland and Fritz G. from Neu-Ulm in Bavaria, both of whom are German converts to Islam, as well as Adem Y., who is believed to be from Turkey.

WaPo has a very long report from AP’s David McHugh that contains more quotes and details about the investigation. Particularly noteworthy, though, is the political reaction:

Chancellor Angela Merkel said in an interview released Wednesday that German troops would remain in Afghanistan for several more years, despite recent setbacks in the region. “To walk away would send the wrong signal,” Merkel told N-24 television.

[...]

The European Union’s top justice official said Wednesday that the threat of a terror attack remained high in the 27-nation bloc. EU Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner Franco Frattini said the EU executive would push ahead with plans to set up an EU-wide airline passenger data recording system despite privacy concerns. “The threat of new terror attacks continues to be high,” Frattini said, citing Spain, Italy, Belgium, Britain and Germany as countries where the risk has been the highest.

While many of these massive plots, particularly those uncovered in the UK, have turned out to be Keystone Kops amateur efforts, this one appears quite serious:

“These weren’t just sort of half-professional terrorists — these were very dangerous, highly professional men,” Schaeuble said.

Schaeuble said he had “no knowledge of any link” with the Danish arrests of eight suspected Islamic militants accused of storing explosives in a populated area of Copenhagen with the intent of carrying out a terror attack. But the German interior minister added there was “a strong parallel” between the two investigations and subsequent arrests.

A U.S. government official who did not want to be named called the German terror plot “the real deal,” adding that U.S. authorities “have been working this case real hard.”

Thankfully, some highly professional intelligence and law enforcement people were on the case. And, whatever tensions might exist over Iraq, the level of US-German cooperation here was what one would expect of longtime allies:

“We have met repeatedly with our German counterparts on a variety of security measures and consider them to be among our most important allies,” the DHS spokesman said.

German authorities had alerted the U.S. European Command in Stuttgart of a possible terrorist threat to American installations, but not specifically Ramstein, Capt. Jeff Gradec said. Neither EUCOM nor Ramstein is taking any extra security measures, the U.S. military said.

[...]

CNN’s International Security Correspondent Paula Newton said intelligence officials have been calling for more cooperation to combat terror plots in Europe, in particular the faster transfer of information between different countries. Europe is at high risk, officials say, due not only to the Iraq war, but also the NATO mission in Afghanistan, to which many European countries contribute, she said, adding that the Muslim population in Europe is beginning to feel more alienated than it has done in previous decades. “This brings Europe to the battleground,” Newton said.

Like America on September 11, 2001, Europe has been part of the battleground for several years. Indeed, there have been numerous attacks on European soil already, including the Madrid and London bombings and the French Muslim riots and the widespread mayhem over the Danish Muslim cartoons. One wouldn’t think a wake-up call necessary at this point.

Berkeley Breathed has up this Note to Opus readers:

The Opus strips for August 26 and September 2 have been withheld from publication by a large number of client newspapers across the country, including Opus’ host paper The Washington Post. The strips may be viewed in a large format on their respective dates at Salon.com.

That’s the end of his commentary, although he illustrates the page with this large single panel:

Q&O’s Billy Hollis excoriates these papers as “complete and utter cowards” who “have voluntarily handed over their own freedom to publish to the over-reactive sensitivities of medieval fanatics.” Ed Morrissey dubs it “Dhimmitude” and notes that, in running Breathed’s previous installment, they had “no problem satirizing Jerry Falwell and Christian beliefs of the afterlife.”

Editor and Publisher’s Dave Astor reported Thursday that,

At least 25 of the 200 or so “Opus” client newspapers might not run the Sunday-only comic’s next two episodes, which feature Islamic references and a sex joke. That’s according to Washington Post Writers Group Executive Sales Manager Karisue Wyson, when contacted today by E&P. WPWG Editorial Director/General Manager Alan Shearer added that more than 25 clients might not use the strips because the syndicate hasn’t heard from about 150 of the 200 papers it alerted. “Whenever something lands close to the edge, we give editors enough notice” in case they want to run substitute comics, said Shearer.

Berkeley Breathed’s Aug. 26 and Sept. 2 strips — which comprise sort of a two-part series — show the Lola Granola character wanting to become an Islamic radicalist (and wear traditional Muslim clothing) because it’s a “hot new fad on the planet.” Content also includes what Shearer described as “a sex joke a little stronger than we normally see.”

Wyson said some client papers hesitated to run a sex joke and others won’t publish any Muslim-related humor, whether pro or con. “They just don’t want to touch that,” she said. Violent protests took place after a Danish paper in 2005 published cartoons picturing Muhammad. Shearer told E&P that WPWG checked with a couple of Islamic experts to see if the “Opus” strips might be offensive, and they said the comics were OK. But he understands why some papers might still be wary.

Like Morrissey, I was a big fan of “Bloom County” during its run but I never cared for the “Outland” sequel or this one. And this particular installment doesn’t strike me as funny, not because it’s insulting to Muslims, but because most of the panels amount to wasted space. Still, it’s ridiculous not to run the strip.

What’s especially ironic is that Breathed manages to insult two religions in a single panel:

Somehow, I don’t think these papers were objecting to making fun of the Amish.

The full strip is thumbnailed at right. See my Danish Muslim Cartoons page for the collection of strips that sparked mass mayhem and instilled fear in the Western media establishment. See my Danish Muslim Cartoons category archives for previous posts on that subject.

Pakistani Religious Affairs Minister Ijaz-ul-Haq declared that terrorism was “justified” in response to Salman Rushdie being awarded a knighthood by Queen Elizabeth.

Pakistan demanded on Monday that Britain withdraw a knighthood awarded to author Salman Rushdie, as a government minister said the honour gave a justification for suicide attacks by Muslims.

Angry protesters in several cities torched British flags and beat them with their shoes in protest at the accolade for the Indian-born writer of “The Satanic Verses” and chanted “Death to Britain, death to Rushdie.”

Rushdie, 59, was forced to go into hiding for a decade after Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989 issued a death sentence over his book “The Satanic Verses,” claiming it insulted Islam. Iran has already accused British leaders of “Islamophobia” after Rushdie — now Sir Salman — was awarded the knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II on Saturday to mark her 81st birthday.

“If somebody has to attack by strapping bombs to his body to protect the honour of the Prophet, then it is justified,” Pakistani Religious Affairs Minister Ijaz-ul-Haq told the national assembly. The minister, the son of military dictator Zia-ul-Haq who died in a plane crash in 1988, later retracted his statement in parliament and said he meant to say that knighting Rushdie could spark terrorism. “I was explaining that if the British government awards a knighthood to Salman Rushdie — whose only credibility is that he wrote a blasphemous book — then such action with encourage extremism,” he told AFP. “If someone blows himself up he will consider himself justified. How can we fight terrorism when those who commit blasphemy are rewarded by the West?” he said.

He said Pakistan should sever diplomatic ties with Britain if it did not withdraw the award, adding: “We demand an apology by the British government. Their action has hurt the sentiments of 1.5 billion Muslims.

I’m not sure what Rushdie has done to merit a knighthood and it’s hardly surprising that Muslim fanatics have been sparked to riot over this; after all, we saw weeks of rioting and several deaths over some newspaper cartoons. Still, it goes without saying that the Brits have every right to decide which of their artists to honor in this way.

This is further evidence, if any were needed, that Pakistan is a poor ally, indeed, in the battle against Islamist extremists. We’ll see if Pervez Musharraf expels ul-Haq from his cabinet and disavows these remarks. My guess is that he won’t.

Christopher Hitchens returns to his boyhood home in London’s Finsbury Park neighborhood and explores the recent radicalization of the UK’s Muslims.

The British have always been proud of their tradition of hospitality and asylum, which has benefited Huguenots escaping persecution, European Jewry, and many political dissidents from Marx to Mazzini. But the appellation “Londonistan,” which apparently originated with a sarcastic remark by a French intelligence officer, has come to describe a city which became home to people wanted for terrorist crimes as far afield as Cairo and Karachi. The capital of the United Kingdom is, in the words of Steven Simon, a former White House counterterrorism official, “the Star Wars bar scene,” catering promiscuously to all manner of Islamist recruiters and fund-raisers for, and actual practitioners of, holy war.

[...]

It’s interesting that it should be authors from Muslim backgrounds—Salman Rushdie, Hanif Kureishi, Monica Ali, the broadcaster and co-author of the Policy Exchange report Munira Mirza—who are issuing the warnings. For the British mainstream, multiculturalism has been the official civic religion for so long that any criticism of any minority group has become the equivalent of profanity. And Islamic extremists have long understood that they need only suggest a racial bias—or a hint of the newly invented and meaningless term “Islamophobia”—in order to make the British cough and shuffle with embarrassment. Prince Charles himself, the heir to the throne and thus the heir to the headship of the Church of England, has announced his sympathy for Islam and his wish to be the head of all faiths and not just one. This may sound good, if absurd (a chinless prince who becomes head of a church because his mother dies?), but only if you forget that it was Prince Charles who encouraged the late King Fahd, of Saudi Arabia, to contribute more than a million pounds to build … the Finsbury Park Mosque! If you want my opinion, our old district was a lot better off when the crowned heads of the world were busy neglecting it

[...]

It’s impossible to exaggerate how far and how fast this situation has deteriorated. Even at the time of the Satanic Verses affair, as long ago as 1989, Muslim demonstrations may have demanded Rushdie’s death, but they did so, if you like, peacefully. And they confined their lurid rhetorical attacks to Muslims who had become apostate. But at least since the time of the Danish-cartoon furor, threats have been made against non-Muslims as well as ex-Muslims (see photograph), the killing of Shiite Muslim heretics has been applauded and justified, and the general resort to indiscriminate violence has been rationalized in the name of god. Traditional Islamic law says that Muslims who live in non-Muslim societies must obey the law of the majority. But this does not restrain those who now believe that they can proselytize Islam by force, and need not obey kuffar law in the meantime. I find myself haunted by a challenge that was offered on the BBC by a Muslim activist named Anjem Choudary: a man who has praised the 9/11 murders as “magnificent” and proclaimed that “Britain belongs to Allah.” When asked if he might prefer to move to a country which practices Shari’a, he replied: “Who says you own Britain anyway?” A question that will have to be answered one way or another.

Quite.

A society should be able to simultaneously allow freedom of worship and vigorous dissent while drawing a bright line well short of violence. Or, indeed, encouraging the building of madrassahs.

Jeff Goldstein thinks the International Herald Tribune (owned by the New York Times) might be taking entrepreneurialism a wee bit too far when it starts accepting ads “seeking bids from corporations willing to build nuclear reactors for Iran.” He also sees some incongruity in their willingness to do that while inveighing against running the infamous Danish Muhammad cartoons.

Well, sure, if you want to get technical about it. But I would remind Jeff of the old adage that a foolishly consistent, small minded hobgoblin and his money are soon parted. Or something like that.

James Lileks observes that the list of things that spark outrage and violence from Islamists is long, indeed.

Clip and save, for this may come in handy: If you mock Islam with a drawing or a novel, you get riots and dead people. News of mishandled holy books yields riots and dead people. Insufficiently reverent short films by a Dutchman yields a dead person, specifically the Dutchman.

Now we add this detail: Quoting medieval religious colloquies is a reasonable justification for burning churches, shooting a nun and holding up signs demanding that the pope convert to Islam or saw off his own head. (There have been reports of carpal tunnel syndrome among radical Islam’s enforcers, and they have requested we all help out.)

This is a new twist: Now history itself cannot be discussed. Since it’s difficult to predict what else will enflame the devout, Islam has to be treated with unusual deference, like a 3-year-old child with anger management problems.

But it’s not what we say that truly offends. It’s what we are. The West’s lack of interest in joining the Ummah is an affront in itself, and we broadcast our sins in High Infidelity. If you believed that the West’s apostasy was an affront to God, you’d spend your leisure hours torching straw popes, too.

Oddly, the barbaric reaction to art and other forms of speech is having its desired chilling effect. We’ve had the network behind “South Park,” which doesn’t blink twice at showing blood coming out of the Virgin Mary’s rectum or all manner of vile representations of Jesus Christ refusing to show a cartoon image of Muhammad. The Germans are preemptively canceling operas.

A leading German opera house has canceled performances of a Mozart opera because of security fears stirred by a scene that depicts the severed head of the Prophet Muhammad, prompting a storm of protest here about what many see as the surrender of artistic freedom. The Deutsche Oper Berlin said Tuesday that it had pulled “Idomeneo” from its fall schedule after the police warned of an “incalculable risk” to the performers and the audience. The company’s director, Kirsten Harms, said she regretted the decision but felt she had no choice. She said she was told in August that the police had received an anonymous threat, but she acted only after extensive deliberations.

Political and cultural figures throughout Germany condemned the cancellation. Some said it recalled the decision of European newspapers not to reprint satirical cartoons about Muhammad, after their publication in Denmark generated a furor among Muslims. Wolfgang Börnsen, a culture spokesman for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative bloc in Parliament, accused the opera house of “falling on its knees before the terrorists.” “It is a signal to other stages in Germany, or even elsewhere in Europe, to put no works on their programs that criticize Islam,” he said.

Joe Gandleman observes that the controversial scenes were included the last time the opera was staged, a mere three years ago.

It’s just that some things have changed since then, such as the boundaries of free speech, what art is permissible, how far people who write, draw and perform are willing to go to perform their freedoms to do what they have been able to do for many years, and what is deemed PC (or dangerous to your physical health).

Indeed.

Ed Morrissey overstates matters a bit when he writes, “How does the West lose the war against radical Islamists? One small surrender at a time.” Sensitivity to the cultural concerns of others is, generally speaking, a good thing and the West is learning a lot about the Muslim world. Avoiding gratuitous insults is laudable when done as a result of enlightenment. But it’s lamentable when done out of fear.

Open dialogue with civilized Muslims is a necessary component of stemming the tide of Islamist violence. Surrender of our basic values is not. Indeed, appeasement in the face of terrorism will, quite naturally, yield more terrorism.

Pope Benedict’s statements about Islam’s violent history, which I dismissed Friday as the pope being Catholic, have, ironically, sparked violence and threats of more violence.

Rioting yesterday caused substantial property damage but, thankfully, no reports of injuries.

Palestinians wielding guns and firebombs attacked five churches in the West Bank and Gaza on Saturday, following remarks by Pope Benedict that angered many Muslims. No injuries were reported in the attacks, which left church doors charred and walls pockmarked with bullet holes and scorched by firebombs. Churches of various denominations were targeted.

Relations between Palestinian Muslims and Christians are generally peaceful, and the attacks on the churches sparked concern that tensions would heighten. “The atmosphere is charged already, and the wise should not accept such acts,” Rev. Yousef Saada, a Greek Catholic priest in Nablus, said Saturday.
Ayman Daraghmeh, a legislator from the ruling Islamic militant Hamas group, denounced the attacks. Dozens of police took up position around churches in Nablus to protect the holy sites.

Firebombings left black scorch marks on the walls and windows of Nablus’ Anglican and Greek Orthodox churches. At least five firebombs hit the Anglican church and its door was later set ablaze. Smoke billowed from the church as firefighters put out the flames

The good news is that the violence was contained and is being condemned by responsible leaders. Still, it took months for the furor over the Danish cartoons to escalate to mayhem.

A Somali sheikh has called for Benedict to be hunted down and killed.

A HARDLINE cleric linked to Somalia’s powerful Islamist movement has called for Muslims to “hunt down” and kill Pope Benedict XVI for his controversial comments about Islam. Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin urged Muslims to find the pontiff and punish him for insulting the Prophet Mohammed and Allah in a speech that he said was as offensive as author Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses. “We urge you Muslims wherever you are to hunt down the Pope for his barbaric statements as you have pursued Salman Rushdie, the enemy of Allah who offended our religion,” he said in Friday evening prayers. Whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim,” Malin, a prominent cleric in the Somali capital, told worshippers at a mosque in southern Mogadishu. “We call on all Islamic Communities across the world to take revenge on the baseless critic called the pope,” he said.

Reached by telephone on Saturday, Malin confirmed making the remarks that were echoed in less strident form by other senior clerics in the Supreme Islamic Council of Somalia (SICS). Another SICS executive member, Sheikh Ahmed Abdullahi, vented similar anger at the pope’s “barbarous criticism” but stopped short of calling for his murder. “He must apologise because he has offended the most honorable person who ever lived in the world,” Abdullahi said.

Muslim intellectuals are comparing the pope to Hitler and bin Laden and say his remarks could lead to war.

The recent remarks made by Pope Benedict XVI on Islam are threatening to ignite the entire Muslim world. Op-Eds published in the Arab newspapers slammed the pope even after the Vatican’s apology.

The most extreme opinion was voiced by Hani Pahas in the London-based Arabic-language daily newspaper Al-Hayat, who wrote “the pope’s comments may lead to war; we fear that the pope’s statements may lead to a war that we, Muslims and Christians alike, are trying to prevent through dialogue between East and West.

Hussein Shabakshy wrote in an article published by the London-based Arabic-language newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat “It is clear that such remarks only contribute to the fueling of the fire raging between Islam and the West. There is no difference between Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri speaking from their caves in Tora Bora and the stage of an important Christian saint. Both parties contribute to the world verbal weapons for mass destruction.” “The pope’s latest statement cannot be considered a slip of the tongue or a comic bit from a TV show; the situatio0n here is different, and his remarks are indicative of an important and highly symbolic stance toward the religion (Islam) and the prophet of about a billion and-a-half Muslims,” he said. “These are ignorant comments previously made by Adolf Hitler, who spoke of a supreme white race against all the other races, especially the African race.

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood said a Vatican statement on Saturday saying Pope Benedict was sorry for upsetting Muslims with his comments on Islam did not go far enough.

The former Joseph Ratzinger is a distinguished scholar and intellectual who had to know that what he was saying would create this sort of reaction. After all, twelve cartoons published in an obscure Danish newspaper generated weeks of rioting and murder not so long ago. Considered remarks from the most visible and powerful figure in Christendom that questioned the foundation of Islam were surely not going to be taken lightly.

Then again, the reaction rather proves his point.

UPDATE: Now the pope’s security has been beefed up.

A new al Qaeda video calls for turning Denmark, Norway, and France into a “sea of blood” in retalation for publishing cartoons of Mohammed.

A VIDEO by an al-Qaeda member posted on the Internet overnight calls on Muslims to attack Denmark, Norway and France for publishing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. “Muslims avenge your Prophet …. We deeply desire that the small state of Denmark, Norway and France … are struck hard and destroyed,” said Libyan Mohammed Hassan, who escaped from US custody at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan last July. “Destroy their buildings, make their ground shake and transform them into a sea of blood,” said Hassan, dressed in military fatigues and a black turban, and holding an assault rifle.

Hassan, also known as Sheikh Abu Yahia al-Libi, was one of four Arab terror suspects who broke out of the high-security detention facility at Bagram, the main US military base in Afghanistan.

It was unclear when the 35-minute video, produced by al-Sahab, a media organisation close to Al-Qaeda, was recorded.

Video

Lovely. This strikes me as late in the day to capitalize on the anger over the cartoons, which seems to have subsided weeks ago. One hopes this is just perceived as the rantings of a madman.

________

See these cartoons in full size here.

Related posts below the fold.

Comedy Central Censored Mohammed “South Park”
Manifesto Against Islamist Totalitarianism
Jyllands-Posten Wins Prize for Defense of Free Expression
D.C. Denmark Rally Photos
D.C. Rally for Denmark at Noon (Updated)
D.C. Rally for Denmark on Friday
Cartoon Violence Pits Muslim Against Muslim
Censorship by the Muslim Mob
Nigerian Christians Riot, Kill Muslims in Retaliation
Iran Supports End to Cartoon Violence
Muslim Cartoon Rage Latest Example of Religious Virus
Why He Published Those Cartoons
Nigeria Cartoon Riot Kills at Least 15
Cleric Offers Million Dollar Bounty for Murder of Cartoonist
Bama Riots Over Bear Bryant Cartoons
The Islamists’ War on the Internet
Pakistan Rioters Burn KFC, Pizza Hut, and McDonald’s
Cartoons as Emotional Torture and Intellectual Terrorism (Leopold Stotch)
Moderate Muslims Speak Out (Leopold Stotch)
Danish Muslim Cartoons: Blogger Hypocrisy?
Egypt Published Danish Cartoons During Ramadan
Danish Cartoons & Abu Ghraib Photos (Leopold Stotch)
Hypocrites? (Steve Verdon)
Danish Muslim Cartoons: What Would Mohammad Do?
Iranian Paper Launches Holocaust Cartoon Competition
Danish Muslim Cartoon Protests Kill Six
Dutch Muslim Cartoon: Anne Frank and Hitler in Bed
Danish Muslim Cartoon Controversy in Context
Danish Embassy in Syria Torched over Muslim Cartoons
Danish Muslim Cartoons ‘Offensive,’ Says U.S. Government
Muslim Day of Anger to Respond to Cartoons
French Editor Fired Over Muhammad Drawings
French and German Papers Republish Danish Cartoons
Danish Newspaper Apologizes for Muslim Cartoons