Article I disagree with the newspaper's statement that these cartoons were published to provoke dialogue. Rather, I agree with the Oregon Daily Emerald's assessment: "The Insurgent editorial indicates a desire to show Americans why the original cartoons were so offensive to the Muslim world," wrote the editor of the Emerald. "According to the editorial, 'What is "not a big deal" in the US (sic) is apparently a humongous big deal to others. Why should we assume it would not be?' "However, printing home-grown cartoons depicting Jesus on a cross/pogo stick or Jesus on a cross/hangliding apparatus are not inflammatory in the same manner as the anti-Islam cartoons, and therefore fail to produce the intended empathy from Christians to Muslims." Added the paper: "Unlike the Danish cartoons, the Insurgent drawings seem intended to simply incite controversy for controversy's sake rather than making specific social commentaries." I swear... why libs feel it necessary to respond to serious social issues with childish spite and bile is beyond me. There were several cartoons in the Mohammed series that showed a neutral, or even complimentary view of the Muslim prophet. There weren't many shown, but I checked the Insurgent's website and WND, and have yet to find any such cartoons with regards to Jesus. I also am having a hard time finding large mobs of Catholics running around chopping off heads and murdering members of the Insurgent's staff. If anyone can find large scale reports of violence in Christian nations that claim to be a response to this tripe, please let me know. Rather than "encouraging dialogue" they seem to have won the debate for those that they likely consider "the enemy."