Then surely there must be hundred of thousands of objections to the
inaccurate (and overwrought) characterization of the "show" as
"censorship". It simply is no such thing.
And your use of the phrase "collective morality" is telling, in
exactly the wrong way. We're supposed to be neutral; we aren't
supposed to *have* a morality in that sense. Right now, anyone can see
that we aren't neutral about depictions of Muhammad.
I've said about what was worth saying in this. Of course, the "show"
version is a concession. But what it comes down to at the moment is
that making a moral statement about those illustrations is worth
fighting over the issue forever. My personal view is that the article
shouldn't be caught between the aniconic fundamentalists and the image
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Wily D <wilydoppelganger(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Auto-hidden with "Show" and "Only on a
depictions" page have been
discussed to death 1000X over and rejected - while I agree with
Itaqallah and a few others that the current arrangement it at best
"suboptimal", it's simply that case that too many people that
censoring such an important article to present it from a non-neutral
perspective is simply to intolerable to our collective morality as