George Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, once had a spine, but he has traded it for a zunnar.
From the Islamic Society of North America website, with thanks to Prisdon:
Imam Feisal and former Archbishop Lord Carey Call for Calm after Offensive Danish Cartoons(New York., 02/03/06) - A prominent New York City Imam and Chairman of the multi-faith Cordoba Initiative, Feisal Abdul Rauf today spoke for the need for calm amidst the turbulence that has resulted from the publishing of offensive cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in Danish newspapers, and their subsequent republishing in the French, German, Italian, and Spanish press.
In their joint statement Lord Carey of Clifton, former Archbishop of Canterbury, and Imam Feisal said: In our capacity as Muslim and Christian leaders committed to bridging the divides that separate our communities, and as members of the C-100 Coalition of the World Economic Forum, we are saddened and appalled by the cartoons, and the irresponsible actions of papers in Denmark in publishing them. Moreover, we view their subsequent republishing in various other European newspapers as gratuitous and insensitive.
While we recognize the importance of free speech and agree that religions should not be privileged in this regard, the publishing of such insulting cartoons is expectedly being seen by many around the world as an affront to a world faith.
How's that again? We agree that religions should not be privileged in this regard, but the cartoons should not have been published and republished? I do not claim to be able to plumb the mysteries of the mind of such an august prelate, but it does seem to me that he is playing both ends against the middle there. Lord Carey, you can't have it both ways. Either we all have to put up with things that offend us as part of the price of living in a society that protects free speech, free expression, and freedom of conscience, or we don't protect those freedoms.
Could this be an example of what Orwell meant by "doublethink"? To my mind's ear, it does sound like the former Archbishop is engaging in "duckspeak".
Yes, yes...more joint statements, more pleas for calm, more conferences, more Muslim-Christian committees. It buys some time, before the walls of Canterbury come tumbling down.
Comments such as those from the Archbishop are empty platitudes. If he and others who issue such statements are really serious, they should tell us how they would translate their sentiments into a principle of law. Where would they draw the line and why? Not everyone is going to agree with the Archbishop on the question what constitutes "legitimate" criticism, satire, etc., and what is "inappropriate." So how would he define the standards? What are the limits he would impose on free speech? It is very easy, and more than a bit disingenuous, to simply sit back and criticize people after the fact. The tough part is devising a system that would actually accomplish the goal the Archbishop says he supports: free speech and controlled speech at the same time. I hope he will favor us with a few concrete ideas.
The Australian Dhimmy opposition leader took a similar stance..
Mr Beazley said he believed publishing the caricatures was "extremely unwise".
"It's an offensive cartoon and it shouldn't be printed," he said.
"You allow freedom of speech, but nevertheless part of that freedom of speech when you see something being done which you think is silly, which is foolish, you speak out and say so."
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18068174-2,00.html
Interesting how these kind of idiotic comments completely remove the obligation the cult morons have to behave in a civilzed manner if something offends them. They have absolutely NO responsibility in this apparently.
I was considering giving that bozo my vote but this has cleared that up for me. If he becomes prime minister I'll have to get a prayer rug and learn Arabic.
Beazley never got it and he never will...
What a hopeless blow-boy!
We are blessed that we don't have a labor government, when you look at them you get the creeps...
What on earth is wrong with the Church of England these days?
Please, let's not burn neither embassies, qurans nor strawmen here!
NOWHERE in Careys comment does he imply that the cartoons should be illegal or punished in any way. He merely states they were, well, "gratuitous" and "offending to a world faith".
I see lots of things here in Denmark that I think should never have seen publication but I still support the right to free speech that enables just that. I might even call some of them "apalling". I think that's just plain application of the old phrase that "I abhor what you're saying, but I'd die for your right to say it". (Hope I'll never have to choose..)
You're very welcome to disagree with Carey but if you want to accuse him of inconsistency the quoted passage won't do.
nvj-
Carey may not be "inconsistent", but he is an uninformed, pandering, inflammatory imbecile.
Me, I'd prefer to be a little inconsistent. (Since "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds", as Emerson put it).
What he says fails to put any intelligence into the situation, and he has clearly not done his homework on the subject, merely shooting off his sanctimonious loose lips and endangering Westerners worldwide with his tacit acceptance of the false premise: that the Danes were being wilfully and needlessly provocative by publishing the so-called "insulting cartoons".
Carey doesn't seem to grasp WHY they were published, so he should either educate himself about their original intent (to chide fearful Danish children's book illustrators who all refused to illustrate a life of Mohammad, and to show that their fear of an Islamic backlash shouldn't intimidate a free press or free artists from practicing their craft and their liberty), or keep his moronic yap clammed up.
He is an idiot provocateur, playing into the smooth and cunning hands of the master Muslim p.r. manipulators. A piece of sanctifying "Christian" silly putty, who shows his emptyheadedness with such false piety and true stupidity.
Dolts like this endanger us all.
Consistently.
profitsbeard-
This is a very well-expressed critique of Carey that adresses what he actually said. The original post and the comments I reacted to didn't.