Respecting and understanding differences

Lars Vilks has recently become rather famous. I have never cared much for his art, it's a bit too strange for my taste. How ever, lately, conservative Muslims have reacted with anger to his latest work. Apparently, Vilks thought that it would be a good piece of art to make a statue of the prophet Muhammed. Swedish law allows you to publish, make, etc. all sorts of things. We call it freedom of speech, basically you are allowed to do most things if the intent is not to offend. Vilks intent can be discussed, but most likely he is trying to get some attention along with creating a debate on whether or not you can mock anything. To be honest, the statue is rather silly and deserve little attention.

Personally, I think you have the right to make fun of anything. As long as the sole intent is not to offend or humiliate a living person or group of individuals. In a democratic society you can make blows and take blows. Making something holy and making it taboo is not the way of an open society. If I was Vilks I'd make a piece of art mocking most religions. That way, I'd think it was more fair. And perhaps there would be some debate among believers (concerning why some burn flags and others ignore it as a silly piece of art) instead of focusing on a single religion.

As I mentioned earlier, it really deserves little attention. The right thing to do is to protest peacefully at the publisher and criticise those who you do not agree with. An excellent example is the protest in Örebro, they were aimed at the paper and Vilks. I don't agree with them on whether or not it should be published, but it was nicely done and they showed their point of view.

As with all things, there is also the wrong thing to do. For example, if you would go and burn flags. You are no longer criticising Vilks and the paper that published his works. You are instead blaming a group of people, who most of them don't give a damn about Vilks, of being the source of your discontent. Doing so is no longer a protest, but an attack on an open society. You could also proceed to threatening the artist and thus placing you and your beliefs above Swedish law, thereby eliminating all doubts that you are not a citizen who believes in freedom of speech (apart from your own freedom to do and say what ever you like of course). Why not burn a doll of a man who had nothing to do with the whole thing, apart from being the same nationality as the artist.

Why can't fanatics act rationally? Why are they so blinded that they can't see how they should show their point of view (without being considered to be mental cases that are better off locked away from society)? Well, I guess that's what makes them fanatics.