Panelists discuss Muhammad cartoons

Freedom of speech and respect for others are the crux of the matter, panelists said.
By LINDA M. LINONIS
VINDICATOR STAFF WRITER
YOUNGSTOWN -- The difference between tolerance and acceptance and each person's understanding of those words figure prominently in how individuals interpret what's sacred in society.
And the value placed on freedom of speech also plays a part.
Those were among the thoughts expressed by a panel at a public forum on "The Sacred and Secular: A Clash about Civilization" Wednesday afternoon at McDonough Museum of Art.
The panel's task was to discuss the Danish cartoon depiction of the prophet Muhammad and the upheaval it created worldwide, stemming from Muslims' outcry against it.
Who was there
Panel participants were Youngstown State University teaching staff: Dr. Keith J. Lepak, political science, peace and conflict studies; Dr. Mustansir Mir, Center for Islamic Studies/religious studies; Dr. Helene Sinnreich, history department; and Daniel Sturm, instructor for the journalism/English Department.
The audience was mostly YSU students.
"There was no immediate violent opposition," Lepak said of the reaction unleashed by the cartoons. "A Danish Islamic leader started an e-mail campaign," he added.
"Saudi Arabia called for a boycott of Danish products ... an economic boycott," he noted. But when the images were published by other European newspapers, "There was a new wave of threats and insults," he said.
Freedom of speech -- how it is interpreted and whether it is accepted -- also plays into the response, he said, noting, "The response to Arab newspapers in the Middle East was to arrest the editors."
Lepak said a tradition of human rights exists in the West, but that's not the case worldwide.
There is some ignorance on both sides, Mir said, noting that the West values freedom of speech.
"You can make fun of Jesus and other religious figures," he said. But for Muslims, "It was freedom of speech versus reverence for Muhammad. How freedom of speech is exercised in respect to others ... that's the essence of the matter."
Another context
For example, he said, the movie title "White Men Can't Jump" might elicit a smile or good-natured sarcasm. But changing it to "Black Men Can't Jump" creates another context.
"There's a different reaction ... it feeds a negative perspective," he said.
Sturm drew a stronger conclusion: "Depicting Muhammad as an Islamic terrorist isn't covered under freedom of speech," he said. "It's criminalizing Muslims in general."
Western democracy divides the political and religious, Sinnreich explained, but in Islam, church and state are connected.
"The West and Muslims are not monolithic," she said.
She compared the relationship to siblings in the back seat of a car who antagonize one another because they can.
"It's similar to what happens with people of different religions," she said. "Tolerance is the first step" in both situations.
Reactions
Sturm referred to a study in which he participated that tallied students' positive and negative reactions to various pictures and images.
"They assigned positive and negative labels," he explained. "It was positive for Buddhism and negative for Islam. We have a biased reaction and a prejudicial view of the world."
Islam is no more violent than Buddhism or Catholicism, but violence is associated with Islam, he contended.
Similarly, he said, the word crusade, used by President Bush in reference to the war in Iraq, "implied the blessing of religious authority."
"In war times, you want to win the hearts and minds of people," he said, noting that newspapers questioned Bush on the use of that symbolism.