Danish Politiken: We're Sorry You Were Offended

Via HuffPo:

COPENHAGEN — A Danish newspaper on Friday apologized for offending Muslims by reprinting a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb-shaped turban, rekindling heated debate about the limits of freedom of speech.

Danish daily Politiken said its apology was part of a settlement with a Saudi lawyer representing eight Muslim groups in the Middle East and Australia.

It drew strong criticism among Danish media, which previously had stood united in rejecting calls to apologize for 12 Muhammad cartoons that sparked fierce protests in the Muslim world four years ago.

Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen expressed surprise at Politiken's move, saying he was worried that Danish media no longer were "standing shoulder to shoulder" on the issue.

Apologies are like a social lubricant. Sometimes they are required to keep the moving parts of society running smoothly. But at other times, an apology is unnecessary--like a lubricant that prevents you from grasping a necessary tool in order to use it. To my eye, social criticism is a valid and necessary part of any national discourse, and sometimes, it will offend.

To use an example relevant here in the US, let's say there was a hypothetical journalist who embraced the possibly racially-biased work of a reputed bigot. He might be offended if he were called out on it--objecting to the word "racist" as being highly inflammatory--

But what are you supposed to call it?

So, if a cartoon calls out some Muslims as embracing extremism--and some of them do--is that offensive for no reason? Or is it reasonable to express what the cartoonist sees as a harmful truth? I find that I question both the need for the apology (even though it was apparently accepted to an extent) and the sincerity, since it does seem to be an "I'm sorry you were offended" apology.

(Sometimes I sincerely wonder if I'm turning into one of those cranky New Atheists I've been hearing about in faitheist Op-Eds....)