What to make of the muslim cartoons and the rioting fallout...

There are three points of note about the whole mess:

1) When someone paid with federal tax money in the form of an "artistic" grant plops a crucifix into a jar of urine and calls it "art"... or if someone graffitis a swatstika on a jewish synagogue... you get appropriate righteous indignation and condemnation as a response. When a newspaper in Denmark publishes a mildly profane cartoon five months ago about Islam... you get riots, bombings, burnings, and calls for holy jihad.

2) Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because you can insult someone or enflame their passions doesn't mean you necessarily should do so, especially given the current situation in the world right now.

3) I'm not one to read the rag known as the L.A. Times, but this week there was an interesting article that put things in historical perspective. Below is in excerpt of note:

"Whatever the religious sensitivities involved, reactions such as these may strike you as threateningly — even viciously — irrational. That's because they are, and there's a reason.

"Back in the High Middle Ages, the three great monotheistic religions — Judaism, Christianity and Islam — reached one of those fundamental forks in the historical road. For centuries, a series of Islamic scholars had preserved the works of Aristotle that one day would lay the foundations for the secular logic and science that have made the modern world possible. Their "rediscovery" by medieval scholars provoked a crisis. They recognized that reason was a powerful tool, but were fearful that using it would undermine faith, which was the basis for authority in all three communities.

"What to do — or, more precisely, how to think?

"Three intellectual giants rose to the challenge. Two of them — the philosopher and jurist Abu al-Walid Ibn Rushd, known to the West as Averroes, and the great rabbi and physician Moses Maimonides — actually were contemporaries, both born in the Spanish city of Cordova. Tradition has it they even met and befriended each other while on the run from the Almohads, Islamic fundamentalists from the Maghreb, who had captured Andalusia and destroyed its storied culture of tolerance. The third was Thomas Aquinas — of whom his admiring coreligionists one day would say, "He led reason captive into the house of faith." Recall that this was an age in which the literate West, not unlike today's Islamists, still regarded theology as "the queen of the sciences."

"Averroes' exposition of Aristotle was so widely admired and influential that when Aquinas took it up a century or so later at the University of Paris he referred to Aristotle simply as "the philosopher" and to Averroes as "the commentator." But while Maimonides and, later, Aquinas — who also read and admired the philosopher rabbi — held that there exists a single truth and that faith, properly understood, never can conflict with reason, Averroes took the other fork. He held that there were two truths — that of revelation and that of the natural world. There was no need to reconcile them because they were separate and distinct.

"It was a form of intellectual suicide and cut off much of the Islamic world from the centuries of scientific and political progress that followed."