Tolerance, to a Fault

Letters to the Editor
letters@nytimes.com
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036

Dear Sir:

In Michael Kimmelman's 2/8 article "A Startling New Lesson in the Power of Imagery" about the Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons, he says the world is dealing with a "new molotov cocktail of technology and incendiary art." He neglects to mention another key ingredient, namely incendiary Imams.

His article cites numerous examples of people defacing art objects they find objectionable, but no other examples of harm to life and limb because of a piece of art.

The argument that pervades this article is, "well, after all, those cartoons did hurt people's feelings." I am sorry that their feelings were hurt. But as any kindergarten teacher can tell you, it's okay to express strong emotions, if it is done responsibly.

It is one thing to boycott goods and withdraw ambassadors from a country. It is another thing entirely to set buildings on fire, and beat up news photographers and journalists who happen to look like they might be Danish, or have some Danish ancestry.

Going back to the boycotting of goods and withdrawal of ambassadors from a country: it is within bounds of responsible behavior, in that it is nonviolent. However, it does not entirely make sense: after all the Danish government did not create the cartoons, a free newspaper did.

So what do the all the violent demonstrations mean to accomplish? The underlying message is that the Danish government should exercise control over its press. If they do not exercise that control, they will suffer the consequences.

I would think this message would outrage a newspaperman. This is, in effect, cultural terrorism. It is an attempt to beat the western world into submission to Muslim ideals, Muslim way of life, a way of life that involves a tight conjoining of church and state, with government controlling the workings of the press. A way of life in which Imams can demand execution or amputation for people doing things which offend their aesthetic sensibilities.

Mr. Kimmelman brings up the "cynicism and hypocrisy" these events have brought about, citing the joint chiefs of staff writing a letter to an editor about an objectionable cartoon that featured a soldier with all four limbs amputated. But writing a letter to an editor about a cartoon is precisely exercising free speech - there is nothing hypocritical in this. The joint chiefs of staff did not, however, suggest that the cartoonist be executed. There's a crucial difference.

I agree with Mr. Kimmelman's observation that "art...like words...can cause genuine pain." Reading his article caused me considerable heartache. However, I am not planning to go out and set a building on fire over it. Instead, I am exercising my right of free speech, which is a mainstay of civil society and actually helps keep violence to a minimum.

At a recent Muslim conference, a speaker referred to the Danish cartoons, expressing a "concern at the rising hatred against Islam and Muslims." I am concerned about that too, but I wonder how inciting violence can possibly be the path to gaining the world's love and respect.

Sincerely,

Carrie Pedersen
New York, NY

Guest Editorialist