Does it make no difference that the “missionaries” photographed were actually raised in the Church and were both former LDS Missionaries? Did you know that the photographer was LDS? This is more of a dissent from within than from without and is what distinguishes it most from the Mohammad debacle.

i don’t think the “within/without” distinction so important. when one of the “gay lds missionaries” in the photos or nick of zionide.com attempts to criticize the faith from within, it is treated as if from without. that is how i have treated it in the past (just search “gay mormon” in our search bar at the top of the blog). that is how most lds people treat it. when there is such a material “breach” (if you will) of the teachings of the church accompanied by an unrepentant attitude, that is the only way we know how to treat it (if someone is sinning in other ways, denying that it is a sin, they would be treated the same way whether their problem is adultery, fornication, what have you). people blatantly rejecting (some set of) the teachings of the church are treated as if they have left the church. we can debate this, but i think it is right in the sense that i am talking about it. these people have, often, stopped attending church altogether. this would support the claim that they are no longer “in” the church.

former “insiders” are often treated with more contempt than outsiders, both in the lds church and elsewhere this is probably because they know the sensitive points to attack and tender nerves to strike.

salman rushdie would be the best example. there is, apparently, still an outstanding fatwa calling for his execution because of a book he wrote almost two decades ago. at the time of its publication, riots nearly identical to the cartoon riots took place. people were killed. etc. over a book written by (gasp) an insider.

for a more contemporary example, take irshad manji. she is a feminist lesbian canadian muslim (a delightful combination) and an outspoken critic of a cornucopia of islamic policies/practices:

Manji has been a vocal critic of orthodox Islam, especially the treatment of women by some Muslims. She does not wear a headscarf or chador whereas most traditional Muslim women do observe the hijab. She has criticized the Palestinian leadership and the opinions of some Muslims about Israel. She questions historical interpretations of the Qur’an and advocates the concept of ijtihad, “the Muslim tradition of independent thinking”

in an interview between ms. manji and a muslim scholar from a UC school that i heard on amy goodman’s “democracy now!” the other day, she was constantly derided and ridiculed, especially for her claims to be an insider when (the islamist male claimed) she is actually a complete outsider. it is interesting to me how this posturing goes on in the islamic world, as well.

in any case, what do you think would have happened if irshad manji had put the muhammad cartoons in an art gallery in mecca? stoning? rape? beheading? i think all of these things are realistic possible consequences. it is no coincidence she broadcasts her criticisms from canada, and lives in a dwelling with bullet-proof windows. i don’t think the issue of from whom the criticisms emanate is the determining factor for muslim rage. i don’t even think you have to be inside the lds church or the religion of islam to criticize, study, comment, or admire the faiths.

it is an act of speech that should be commended. We should never quell dissent from within, but face it honestly.

i do not think the “art” featuring “gay missionaries” in salt lake city is commendable, and as it was a little misleading to me (i first understood that this was some sort of reenactment of a mission experience for the two models, which is not true). on the contrary, i think one way mormons with homosexual tendencies could honestly and commendably address the issue would be to talk about how they are dealing with same sex attraction in appropriate church meetings. although we don’t generally do this with sins — discuss them and share them openly– i think this would do a lot more for dialogue and understanding than publishing offensive artwork.

***i should also mention that the most inflammatory cartoons were an inside job:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004505.htm
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004511.htm

Does it make no difference that the “missionaries” photographed were actually raised in the Church and were both former LDS Missionaries? Did you know that the photographer was LDS? This is more of a dissent from within than from without and is what distinguishes it most from the Mohammad debacle. For that same reason it is an act of speech that should be commended. We should never quell dissent from within, but face it honestly.

Your analogy is narrow-minded and disappointing.

was there a need to provoke muslims in the first place?

very good question to ask. the answer is ‘probably not.’ but that shouldn’t be the end of the analysis. what if the cartoons had appeared in the nytimes (or, more likely, the nypost) after the hijackings in september 2001. or in a spanish paper after the madrid bombings in march 2003 or 2004 (whenever they occurred) or in a british paper in july of last year? would they have been permissible under those circumstances? the danish(?) filmmaker, theo van gogh, was stabbed to death in public last year, and a note was left on his chest warning this was the consequence of his insult to islam by making a movie about muslim women.

the muslim population in northern europe is growing, and asserting greater influence. why can’t the danish newspaper serve as the place for non-violent debate? i think it is reasonable, under the circumstances. the whole muslim world (granted, it’s hard to keep track of a billion people’s soulful desires, but for all we know, the whole muslim world) is either celebrating or tacitly approving of the offenses perpetrated by the so-called radicals–even the saudi prince who reminded mayor giuliani after 9/11 it was america’s policies that needed to be changed to prevent future attacks. until islam denounces terror, intolerance, beheadings and suicide bombings as its major form of communication with the west, i think the characterizations are okay by anyone who feels threatened.

if catholics were still inquisitioning people in far off lands, you can bet there would be cartoons of jesus manning the guillotines. as people have noted, this kind of caricature of non-muslim religions goes on daily in the muslim media.

anyway, as i quoted above, is there a need to showcase these cartoons? (“no! they provoke muslims!”) so have the wars america has fought in afghanistan and iraq. arguably, the wars will have a positive effect in the long run. also arguably: there is utility of the expression, “islam sure seems to be a violent religion…..” the utility will hopefully be some social change for the better. or at least some of the most vehement militants will kill themselves off in the stampedes to ransack european embassies.

I personally don’t justify the slanderous depictions of Muhammad in contrast to the extremist responses which I agree are.. extreme. Both the slanderous depiction and the rediculous responses are a disservice to Islam. Ergo I think the U.S. is right (not wrong) to use it’s “bully pulpit” against the papers that ran the slander.

The caricatures of Mohammed are no doubt very offensive to many Muslims. I think that printing them was in bad taste.

Likewise, as you noted Travis, the photographs of two guys dressed up as Mormon missionaries that were put on display in Salt Lake City were quite offensive to many members of the LDS Church. Or, take for example the “crucifix in a jar of urine” scandal from several years ago that riled many Christians across the US.

In any case…the difference in the reactions of the Christian and Muslim communities is not just ridiculous or comical. It is scary. One can only hope that Islam can purge itself of this irrational and psychotic fanaticism.

The irony is just ridiculous.