It seems silly that somethnig as trivial as cartoons would spark such controversy. But clearly the Danish cartoons have struck upon several critical issues that, on the surface anyway, illustrate some real geopolitical differences in philosophy. But I really think it is more complicated than many make it seem. It ISN'T just religion vs. freedom of speech. In some ways BOTH sides are misinterpreting the other and certainly one side is overreacting.

I know that many have talked about this back and forth, but read on. The issues are important enough to consider from various angles.

First, here is a selection of reactions to the Danish cartoons:

''I share and understand the anger of the Muslims regarding those drawings. However, this can't justify such a disproportionate response'' said France's chief rabbi and chairman of the conference of European rabbis (CER) Joseph Sitruk. "The publication of those caricatures of the Muslim prophet Mohammed by the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten and their reproduction in other newspapers show a lack of honesty and respect."

The Vatican condemned the publication in several European newspapers of caricatures of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed, founder of Islam. Those publications sparked protests across the Muslim and Arab world.

On February 3, thousands of Palestinians demonstrated - men and women separately, brandishing Korans - in Gaza cities as well as in Jerusalem, responding to the call of the Hamas, the Fatah and the Islamic Jihad against the caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper September 30, 2005. They burned and trampled on Danish and French flags.

In Gaza, they were 5,000. Some shouted : "Bin Laden come back. The first time, they didn't understand." On French TV channel "France 2," a Palestinian woman said : "The Europeans havn't apologized enough. They should kneel before Islam. We don't want their products ! The boycott is only the beginning !". A few hours later, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas had still not reacted.

Papers in Syria and Jordan have published the cartoons, a brave move. And, of course, all through Europe papers are reprinting the cartoons, probably both to boost circulation AND to be in solidarity with the cartoonists.

My reactions to these cartoons has see-sawed. My gut reaction was to completely support the freedom of speech side. But I tried analyzing the situation in terms of "what if" these were anti-Jewish cartoons and realized that I may be sympathetic to Muslims boycotting based on their offense, though there is no way I would be sympathetic to the violence that some have engaged in.

But I think it is even more complicated than that. I think there are several issues here:

First, a couple of the cartoons are offensive. At first I interpreted SEVERAL of them as being offensive. On closer inspection only one or two are. The one portraying Muhammend as a dirty ruffian with a knife flanked by two veiled women is based on racial stereotypes just as offensive as portrayals of big-nosed Jewish bankers. It also is a complete misinterpretation of what Muhammed actually preached. The one showing Muhammend with a bomb in his turban is also based on racial stereotypes of Muslims being inherantly violent. Of course the rioters just re-enforce that, but that doesn't excuse racial stereotyping.

Two other cartoons fooled me because I didn't look closely. One SEEMS to show Muhammed with devil horns, which would indeed be offensive. But it doesn't. He has a halo and is thus SYMPATHETIC to Islam, putting Muhammed on an equal footing with Christian saints. Another has a police line-up with Muslims. At first I thought that was racist as well, but once I knew that the caption said something to the effect "They all look alike" when in reality they all look different (including someone who looks like Gerry Garcia!) is NOT insulting to Islam but rather is attacking Western stereotypes of Muslims. Again, SYMPATHETIC to Islam.

The rest seem harmless to me, unless I am missing something.

The second issue is freedom of expression. Those newspapers have every right to publish the cartoons without being threatened. AND the governments of those nations where newspapers published them should NOT censor their media. Of course, Muslims have EVERY RIGHT to boycott those nations, but NOT to be violent.

Third, fairness. The nations where these cartoons were published give EQUAL freedom to those who denegrate any religion or belief. By contrast, many of those Muslim nations that are up in arms about these cartoons are perfectly tolerant of equally or far more offensive cartoons depicting Jews. There is a hypocricy on the part of some Muslims that is at least as offensive as the worst of the cartoons in question. It is harder to understand the level of offense that some Muslims are displaying when they tolerate anti-Jewish cartoons all the time.

A fourth thing is, images of Muhammed have been a part of Islamic Art at various times in history. Now, those images were not offensive in content, but still violate the claim that images of Muhammed are not allowed. I have seen such images, very beautiful ones, in many museums around the world. Will those museums be burned next?

All in all, I have come back full circle, back to sympathy with the freedom of speech side of this. Especially since MOST of the cartoons are harmless or actually sympathetic to Islam. I think the sympathy shown to the Muslims by Rabbis and the Vatican is appropriate and diplomatic. But in the end I think they may be wrong. The bottom line is that once again Islam, a religion just as reasonable and just as any, is being hijacked by its most extreme elements. This is not good when it is done in Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism...or Islam. Reason and moderation are needed on the part of Muslims in this controversy. And I applaud the Muslim papers in Syria and Jordan that are trying to inject such moderation and reason. I hope that view prevails.