In September of this year a Danish newspaper published a series of cartoon caricatures of the Prophet Muhammed in an attempt to make a statement about what it perceived to be the fear of Western media to criticize Islamic extremists. These cartoons were then reprinted by a Norwegian newspaper.

Muslim groups in Denmark were outraged at what they believed to be a direct and insensitive attack on their religion generally, and news of these cartoons eventually made its way to the greater Muslim world. Within the past week, violent protests have taken place in several Muslim nations. In Lebanon and Syria, Danish and Norwegian consulates have been destroyed. In Iran a crowd stoned the Austrian embassy. In Afghanistan a man was killed by police after wielding a gun in a protest. In Britain protesters threatened death to those who supported the Danes.

The European response to this violence has been strong as well. Newspapers throughout Europe have expressed solidarity with the Danes and Norwegians and reprinted the cartoons. According to the French daily Le Monde, French President Jacques Chirac has formally and officially expressed solidarity with the Danes and Norwegians. In Germany, Britain, and the United States, while expressing concern at needless provocation, government officials have reiterated the principles of press freedom and the need for governments to abstain from press censorship of any kind.

The problem, of course, is a direct clash of fundamental cultural values. To a Muslim any caricature of the Prophet is blasphemy and unacceptable. On the other hand, since the Enlightenment, democratic Western governments have cherished the notion of a free press and the right to criticize religion. Certainly, few Western governments, if any, would encourage anti-religious activities, but they also would not feel empowered to stop individuals or the media from expressing anti-religious sentiments. This is the essence of living in secular Western democracies.

It appears that this value of free speech is not acceptable to those who have attacked and threatened Westerners over the past week. On the other hand, absolute obedience to religious beliefs is unacceptable to much of the West. Unfortunately, the escalating violence seems to be achieving nothing more than the destruction of property and the deaths of innocents. It is not helping matters.

I wish that I could see some easy answer to put an end to this violence, but I do not. Those individuals and governments who believe that violence is an appropriate response to speech they consider unacceptable live in a world whose values I do not share.

As an American, I believe that free speech must be sacred. I do not like the anti-Semitic cartoons published by some Middle Eastern newspapers, but I believe that they have the right to publish them nonetheless. Personally, I think that caricaturing another religion is wrong and achieves no positive end, but I accept that it is permissible as an exercise of press freedom.

To the protesters, Western beliefs in the value of free speech are themselves utterly unacceptable. In such a conflict, compromise appears to be impossible. Until all parties can find some common cultural ground, however, I fear that the violence will only get worse. To me, this is both terribly sad and frightening for what it may say about the future. I hope that those wiser than I can find a way out of this terrifying dilemma.