A condensed thought or two about those cartoons.
One way of looking at the issue is to say it is about not causing offence – that whilst something may be permissible (legal) it is immoral, or rude. So Jack Straw: “I believe that the republication of these cartoons has been insulting, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong.”
There is something in this. I can’t imagine a cartoon which is gratuitously rude towards Jesus being published in an Islamic newspaper (please point out the error if anyone has proof!) and I can see this as one aspect of a general (religious, ie both Muslim and Christian) view of Western society as decadent, barbaric and uncivilised – a large part of the critique developed by Sayyid Qutb with which I have some sympathy.
However, I don’t believe that that is the principal issue. For the cartoons are not being rude about Mohammed on the grounds of his followers being religious, or not quite. They are – so far as I understand – about the way in which his followers are prepared to murder in the cause of advancing their faith.
In this situation, where it is perceived that one party is intent on causing grievous harm to another, it seems rather beside the point to talk about rudeness – imagine a black man making fun of the Klu Klux Klan – why should we care if the Klansman gets upset???
The issue seems to me to be about two competing arguments. The one which the mainstream media buy into, because it accords with their secular presuppositions and political correctness is that of free speech vs religious respect. The other argument is about the possibility of co-existence between a militant Islamism and any other perspective, whether religious or not. It’s the latter which is more important. I’m doing a Learning Church session on Islam soon – that will be the suitable opportunity to clarify my wider thoughts.