Show the Cartoons, or Show Respect?

Much of the Muslim world has been in turmoil over cartoon drawings of the prophet Muhammad. Here at home, President Bush deplored the violence abroad but also made a nod to Islamic sensibilities. But even as the cartoon issue itself began to die down, it regenerated into a larger debate over Islamic versus Western culture.

In its wisdom, a student group at UC Irvine has decided to cosponsor a forum Tuesday night on Islamic extremism and, as a bonus to all in attendance, show the cartoons that sparked the worldwide protests.

Sounds like a fun night on the ol’ campus.

The student group, the College Republicans, probably thinks it’s striking a blow for the 1st Amendment. In turn, I probably should feel grateful, especially since many people think the mainstream U.S. press has lost its way by not publishing the cartoons.

Color me ungrateful. Or, more accurately, not feeling in particular need of being rescued by the College Republicans.

I can’t even say why, for sure, other than I detect a whiff of grandstanding and Muslim-baiting.

On the question of whether American newspapers should have published the cartoons, I don’t know the prevailing sentiment among fellow newsies. A Times colleague recently made an eloquent pitch in print that we do so, and cited collective media timidity as the reason for us not doing so.

Do papers have the right to publish them, even if Muslims are offended? Of course.

But, try as I might, I can’t muster anything near outrage that papers, including this one, have not. Other than just publishing them because we can, is it really crucial to the debate that we see someone’s depiction of an Arab-looking man wearing a bomb-shaped turban?

Is it so difficult to imagine what that looks like? Is our grasp of the debate lessened by not seeing a cartoonist’s depiction of Muhammad?

OK, you might well say, but why not show it, anyway? Why self-censor?

Simple: Out of respect to Muslims who are bent out of shape over it. It’s not as though they’re protesting the drawing of a building or an animal. Muhammad is their most sacred prophet and cornerstone of their religion. Is it that much of a concession, in this specific case, not to reproduce a cartoon that doesn’t enlighten anyway? To me, it isn’t. And I don’t feel cowardly for taking the position.

Maybe I’m asleep at the switch, but I don’t feel any less protective of the 1st Amendment because I willingly forfeit the chance to see Danish cartoonists’ renderings of a man who lived 1,400 years ago.

Debating cultural differences can be done without the cartoons, especially when not showing them simply means we’re extending a common courtesy.

Shawn Steel would hasten to disagree. He’s a former state Republican Party chairman and strongly supportive of the student Republicans. “I support [what they’re doing] in spirit and am pleased that they’re taking this dynamic issue and handling it in a thoughtful way,” he said by phone from the weekend state Republican convention in San Jose. “When people start betraying the 1st Amendment because of temporary situations, then we don’t have one.”

When I suggest that religious sensitivity might come into play here, Steel replied: “Those are weasel words from those who disrespect free speech.” He said it sounds like something a fascist would say.

That’s me, closet Hitlerite.

If I were a practicing Muslim, I’d skip the UCI forum, scheduled for 7 p.m. Tuesday in the Crystal Cove Auditorium. You know what you’re going to hear. You won’t like it. There are times and places to have rigorous debates about Muslim-Western differences, but I sense this won’t be one of them.

Still, I don’t like arguing against an unfettered press, so I’ll give Brother Steel the last words: “We either have free speech uncompromised, or we don’t.”

*

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. He can be reached at (714) 966-7821 or at dana.parsons@latimes.com. An archive of his recent columns is at www.latimes.com/parsons.