In an editorial, "Too Late to the Party," (March 10), Free Inquiry magazine is castigated for publishing controversial Muhammad cartoons. The editorial maintains that publishing the cartoons was "too late" and "inflammatory."
We published four of the cartoons from a Danish newspaper as soon as we could (being a bimonthly). We did so because we believe that freedom of expression is precious in a democratic society, and we were disturbed that very few newspapers or magazines in America had the courage to do so. Moreover, the theme that they deal with--the bombing of innocent people "in the name of God"--is timely, for it happens almost every day.
Two reasons given for not publishing the cartoons were first, that they might be offensive to devout Muslims; and second, because of the fear that publishing them might provoke violent retaliation. Should we avoid publishing anything controversial that might offend someone in the community? Surely not. The second motive is the more likely one, but this is hardly a justification for the lack of courage, and democracy is unlikely to survive if writers and editors capitulate to vigilante mobs. On the contrary, the cartoons express a powerful form of political satire. Indiscriminate bombing of bystanders in the name of religious faith should not be immune to commentary, particularly when it affects everyone in society. Which is the greater obscenity: to offend the unexamined beliefs of those who would blow people to Kingdom Come in the hope of being rewarded by 72 virgins in heaven (this was mistranslated, it most likely referred to "white grapes"), or to remain silent when men, women and children are murdered and maimed?
I am surprised by the position taken by the editors, particularly at a university, which is committed to freedom of inquiry of all sides of questions--literary, political, economic, moral and religious--and above all the right of dissent.
