For example, I once had the occasion to write a positively *huffy* letter to the editor of the New Yorker in response to a particularly odious Jules Pfeiffer cartoon.

And to the above poster, PBUH stands for "peace be upon him."

Jesus Christ, are you trying to get not to read The Stranger anymore?

Oh, and turns out that your favorite Danish newspaper turned down a series of cartoons lampooning one Jesus H. Christ, saying "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

From The Guardian.

When I cited Malkin the other day, I qualified it with "she's a dangerous nut." FYI.

Stopped clocks, you know?

And do you mean to imply that the paper, by refusing to run anti-Jesus 'toons, is responsible for the violence in the Muslim world? If they had run those 'toons, there would not have been riots, death threats, arsons, etc. Perhaps an uproar, a la the uproar, but no embassies burning, no Catholics rioting, no beheadings demanded, no new 9/11s threatened.

The motives of the paper in question are, at bottom, immaterial (sp?). The principle at stake is what's important.

The "principle" is just cultural condescension and hypocrisy (our faults are irrelevant, their faults are the real issue) mobilized by both sides. This has become, as Robert Fisk called it, not the clash, but "the childishness of civilisations."