Tommy Denton

Recent columns

• Gifts for sharpening rhetorical swords
• Bush is feeding China's worst instincts
• Heroism in the face of stupidity, and worse
• Treating oil addiction with a dose of harm

• Column archive

Looking to the right, the gentle reader will note the large photograph of angry Muslim demonstrators in London last week.

That photograph depicts one of a series of violent protests ignited around the world in response to the publication in Denmark -- and now all over the Internet and in some print publications -- of certain political cartoons disrespectfully characterizing the Prophet Muhammad.

For instance, the most prominent cartoon was a caricature of a menacing, frowning Muhammad with a bomb fuse burning from the top of his turban.

Looking to the display at the center of this page, the gentle reader will not see the use of any of those cartoons in question to illustrate the adjoining essays, which examine different aspects of the topic.

The Roanoke Times has determined that, in its editorial judgment, those cartoons were inappropriate for this newspaper.

My colleagues and I discussed the implications of publishing material that was by definition controversial, even volatile. We weighed the competing values that guide journalists every day when they make such decisions: the freedom to do so versus the responsibility for the consequences of doing so.

No doubt, publishing the cartoons for illustrative purposes would erase any ambiguity in readers' minds about the appearance and physical characteristics of the drawings. Seeing the evidence of the cause of so much hostility and violence in distant corners of the globe would give the reader some common basis for evaluating the context of events being reported by the news media.

Yet the cartoons were neither well-rendered artistically nor subtle in their provocative appeal to anti-Muslim bigotry. They sought not to provoke thought or vigorous, good-faith, reasoned debate but to provoke deep-rooted passions.

Whatever illustrative value they may have had, however curious some readers may have been to see for themselves, an editor confronts a balancing test to determine which values, in which circumstances, should prevail.

For us, especially after discussing the range of relevant considerations with President and Publisher Wendy Zomparelli, the decision began to take clear form relatively quickly.

On many issues, visual as well as rhetorical provocations can and should be the order of the day in an open society that encourages tolerance for diverse, conflicting points of view. Freedom to present such contentious expressions is to be carefully safeguarded in such societies.

Yet a precious few issues require a mature, sensible appreciation for core values that go to the heart of human respect, dignity and decency. To debase or otherwise denigrate the deity or major religious figures in the context of religious faith is to cross the line for this newspaper.

We will not publish a satirical, denigrating characterization of Jesus Christ, the Buddha or Muhammad. We unquestionably have the right to do so, but we reserve the right to do what we believe is right: preserving the sense of respect for that deepest core where the human heart dwells in its transcendent search for ultimate meaning.

On the day we decided not to publish the cartoons, I received one message in particular that sneeringly "challenged" this newspaper to summon the courage to defend freedom of expression by defiantly showing the Muslims that we wouldn't "back down."

Such taunts reveal a bullying instinct rooted in passion rather than in reason. The provocateurs unwittingly join mobs of Muslims around the globe who are being manipulated by propagandists inciting them to riot.

The vulgar Danish cartoons, published last September, re-emerged after careful orchestration in the last few months by Egyptian and Saudi officials instructing certain radical Muslim clerics in the art of organized outrage -- a conspiratorial exploitation condemned last week by respected Islamic leaders.

Free expression isn't free. It comes with consequences. Having the right to do something does not necessarily compel that it be done.

The attitude I'm hearing from the brave advocates of publishing the intentionally hateful cartoons appears to have less to do with freedom of expression than chip-on-the-shoulder confrontationalism that only escalates hostility and potential violence.

A lot of good Christians desiring to rub those cartoons in Muslims' faces don't seem to be paying attention to Jesus' own instructions about turning the other cheek and rejoicing in how "blessed are the peace-makers."

They'd rather pick a fight -- from the safe distance of thousands of miles.