Insight into the cartoon controversy

I haven’t known where to begin, in linking to posts about the controversy now raging over the Danish newspaper’s publication of the cartoons. Here’s a piece that I think is very interesting, written by a Danish professor who is a Lutheran, and shared via a listserv. I’ve gotten his permission to share it more widely. I believe it’s a perspective you won’t likely read other places:

"Dear American friends,

you probably all heard about the controversy caused by cartoons in a Danish newspaper picturing Mohammed. Paul Jersild asked me about my thoughts and I wondered whether it might be of some interest for some others.

A long story of cause could be told. But very briefly, my understanding is this. In the end of 2001, a few months after 911, a new Danish government was elected. The two ruling parties are liberal (in the original sense, not social democratic) and conservative. But they are dependent upon the so-called People's Party which is nationalist and xenophobic, arguing very aggressively against immigration in general, and against Muslims in particular.

So, during the last 4-5 years, Danish immigration laws have been strengthened and stretched right to the limit of what is compatible with Human Rights Conventions. Inspired by this party the whole government claims to fight a culture war against social democrats and social liberals. This has caused quite a significant shift in the intellectual climate in Denmark which was known as tolerant, relaxed and supportive of human rights and international peace keeping. In 2003 the government joined the "coalition of the willing" and there are now about 500 Danish troups in Iraq.

Now what is of special interest to our group is the fact that Lutheran faith plays an important role in the politics of the People's Party. Two prominent MPs are pastors in the Lutheran Danish Church. They belong to a group called Tidehverv, originally inspired by dialectical theology, anti-pietist etc. During the last decades they have emphasised Christians' obligation towards their nation and people, hence anti-EU and xenophobia. They lead a very aggressive polemic against Islam. So I think the publication of the cartoons was inspired by this aggressive, hateful rhetoric.

The 'idea' was: We in Denmark have a very open discourse on the problems of immigration. We do not put limits to ourselves and our freedom of speech because of poltiical correctness. In the beginning, no one even thought about apologizing the offence against Muslim citizens. But after the international turmoil both the editor and the prime minister felt forced to give in, but they tried to show that freedom of speech is not negotiable. So the editor sawpid: "We do regret that Muslims felt offended - but we do not regret publishing the cartoons" - the prime minister sawpid: "I personally would never offend a religious person".

A few days ago most of the Danish Lutheran bishops were interviewed in a Danish Christian newspaper. Sadly, most of them were primarily occupied by the fact that the Danish flag has been burned. Only two used the word 'reconciliation'.

So, my good sisters and brothers, I think there is a lot to do for Lutheran ethicists in Denmark.

With the best memories from our meeting in Phoenix.

yours,

Svend Andersen"

Professor of Ethics and Philosophy of Religion, University of Aarhus, www.teo.au.dk