Aren't the cartoon protesters now demanding establishment of religion?

[FormerRepublican]

I was reading the latest on the Danish cartoon protests, and it would seem that the demands Muslims are making to end the controversy would be a violation of the establishment of religion clauses in the Constitution, which I suspect would cause problems in European countries, as well.

Some of the quotes that concern me are:

"In Beirut, Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah urged Muslims worldwide to keep demonstrating until there is an apology over the drawings and Europe passes laws forbidding insults to the prophet."

and

""Nobody should blame the Muslims if they are unhappy about the images of the Prophet Muhammad," Sherif said. "It's forbidden to create a hate program to show that the prophet is a terrorist while he's not. Don't ask us to try to make people understand that this is not a campaign of hate."

Nasrallah, a black-turbaned, bearded cleric, demanded an apology for the cartoons and laws to prevent a repetition.

"There can be no settlement before an apology and there can be no settlement before laws are legislated by the European Parliament and the parliaments of European countries," he said.

Islamic nations should demand "a law committing the press and the media in the West that proscribes insulting our prophet. If this matter cannot be achieved that means they (West) insist on continuing this," he added."

Yahoo Link

Passing the kinds of laws they are demanding would come awfully close to an establishment of religion - at least under our own laws it would. It's basically blackmail by the protesters to force European countries to establish Islam as the state religion. Could this be the underlying purpose of the Imams who spread the fake cartoons, and whomever is spreading the countroversy to countries where the issue hasn't even been a major press story?

What do you think?

[JohnnyRingo]

1. I may hold an unpopular opinion on these Muslim protests...

but I liken it to Catholics burning down steakhouses on Friday.

And now they want their religious beliefs to become law of the land?
I'll respect anyone's religion if they can keep it at the church/mosque.

[demosincebirth]

4. What I tell them is the join the 21st century and stop living

in the dark ages.

"Catholics buring down steakhouses on Fridays??" What does that mean?

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

7. At one time Catholics were forbidden from eating meat on Friday

nm

[TechBear_Seattle]

17. Humorous story about that....

Before Vatican II, all Catholics were required to engage in a "minor fast" every Friday, which meant abstaining from meat, marital relations and various other "pleasurable activities."

Back in those days, a young Jewish man moved in to a predominantly Catholic neighborhood. On Friday afternoons, this man would grill a steak to have with his Sabbath dinner. Needless to say, the aroma of sizzling meat drove his Catholic neighbors to take strong measures.

They befriended him, helping him out with yard work and agreeing to take in his mail while he was on business trips. Eventually, they started inviting him to Mass, and before long had talked him in to taking catechism classes. Finally, within the space of a year, they had him converted.

At his baptism on a fine Sunday in late spring, the priest sprinkled some water over his bowed head and said, "You were born a Jew, but you are a Jew no longer. Now, you are a Catholic!"

That Friday, the neighborhood breathed a sigh of relief. Until, that is, the smell of a cooking beef wafts through the open windows and backyards. In alarm, the neighbors peer over his fence to see him pulling a half inch T-bone steak from his barbeque.

"You can't eat that!", many of the neighbors exclaimed in dismay. "That is meat and you are Catholic!"

"But fish is ok?", the man asks.

"Yes it is"

So he picks up a glass of water, dips his fingers into it and sprinkles some over the steak.

"You were born a cow, but you are a cow no longer. Now, you are a salmon!"

[TallahasseeGrannie]

5. I think your opinion is not as unpopular as you might think

even here on DU.

Most of the thread I have read criticize the fact that it was done, but also criticize the violent response.

It appears that these folks are making demands that none of us have the right insist upon. Frankly, I'm about ready to stop listening to the news, reading onlines, etc. It is just so ... well, enervating. Will it never stop? Why is our species so damned stupid?

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

6. It's like Right to Lifers setting fire to an abortion clinic

Religious kooks of any belief system are assholes waiting to happen.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. But we all know that not all Catholics are burning abortion clinics

Anyone here would laugh at the notion that every Catholic is a right to lifer ready to shoot doctors who work at women's clinics. Well, just as most Catholics aren't this radical, most Muslims aren't violent. I could go even further because though many Catholics who aren't violent still believe in the "right to life", many many Muslims don't believe that any religion should be forced on a people.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. From emails I get from Muslim groups

and from Muslim message boards, I get the distinct impression that those who are asking for this are in a distinct minority and have other agendas besides the obvious one. Rest assured that all Muslims aren't protesting, and all Muslims aren't violent. What moderate Muslims are seeing is a propaganda war to make the western world think that a vast majority of Muslims are like the extremists who are getting all the press.

Like most Americans, I believe in seperation of church and state, and I don't know of an American Muslim who thinks otherwise.

[FormerRepublican]

20. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

In fact, I read an editorial from the Arab press that said basically the same thing.

I do think there are other agendas at play here, and some effort is being made to manipulate parties involved.

Some say that the Syrian protests could not have occurred without government sanction. That puts their protests firmly into the realm of political manipulation rather than religious ideal. IMO, it could also be an attempt by various political players in the ME to push back against Western powers who referred Iran to the security council, have made increasing demands for this and that, etc. Political, not religious.

The sad part is that the political nonsense is giving a lot of people an impression of the religion that is not positive. There's always fallout from that kind of thing.

But it should also remind those who do espouse the mainstream form of the religion that their religion is being hijacked for political purposes so they can respond accordingly.

It's just sad that people are dying over this foolishness.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ms. Clio]

29. Rock fucking on

Thanks.

[FormerRepublican]

35. Ah - so you read my mind now? You know what my motivations are?

You know everything about me from about 150 words in a post? Congratulations on your ESP!

Personally, I get angry at the continued usurping of fundamental rights I hold dear. One of these is being allowed to NOT practice a religion if I so choose. I've been among the most vocal here in complaining about Bush's attempt to usurp our right to free speech and his illegal spying.

The whole cartoon controversy is about the right of Muslims to DICTATE what a Danish publication can and can't do. Were the cartoons offensive - h*ll yes! But lots of offensive things are published in this world every day, including deliberately! I would denounce any violence that followed those actions as well. Muslims protesters in other countries half way around the world, who don't even live in the country that published them, are demanding an end to freedom of expression through the rule of law.

What right do they have to censor what I can or cannot say? They have no more right to do so than YOU do!!

I agree with the above poster because they have a reasonable response that DOES NOT violate my or anyone else's rights. I RESPECT that!! I SUPPORT that!! I have absolutely NO ARGUMENT with that whatsoever.

What I do argue with is a violent response to free expression that in the end is merely a political tool to accomplish an unknown objective.

As a woman, I also DO NOT WANT a fundamentalist religion having any say over my life whatsoever. I respect their right to believe as they choose, but they WILL NOT impose their beliefs on me!

If you don't like what I have to say, read the Constitution. I'm not forcing you to read or respond to my posts.

[Lolivia]

60. Do you live in Denmark?

If not, I'm a little confused at your comments. No one is talking about what can or cannot be printed in US papers. The US constitution governs that. The US constitution does NOT govern what is printed or not printed in Danish papers.

Danish law actually outlaws speech that is racist or blasphemous - and it is Danish law that governs what is printed in Denmark, strangely enough.

I'm not saying there aren't issues with the response to the cartoons - but the idea that what is printed in Denmark is somehow going to affect your rights as an American is a bit perplexing.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

23. "Their religion is being hijacked"

This is the part that is so very frustrating for me. For one thing, as I have said in numerous posts, the MSM does not give moderates much air time at all; the emphasis is on those who scream and shout their extremist views, even when they are in the minority. For another thing, Islam isn't structured like Christianity, which is the religion most Americans know most about. There is no central leadership like the Pope. Instead, there are many local shaykhs and imams and other people who have a certain following. There is no compulsion in Islam to follow a religious leader and follow their edicts; in Islam the emphasis is on the individual and God, period. I'm not saying that there aren't Muslims who agree with certain religious leaders, I'm just saying that a Muslim doesn't think they will go to the nether regions because they disagree with a particular cleric. That means, of course, that moderate and liberal Muslims can say whatever they want, but the extremists don't have to listen to it and feel that they have to obey.

[breakfastofchampions]

28. Then when exteme Islam is attacked

Moderate Islam shouldn't feel offended, because they are seperate.

[Roho]

30. man you are hateful

78 posts about radical islam in one day.

Typical Insannity listener.

Let me guess, you believe that the US has intelligent bombs that can tell the difference from 30 thousand feet.

Let me guess, you think the US has smart white phosphorus that only burns to death the bad muslims.

[breakfastofchampions]

33. If terrorists attack you

they don't ask if you apoligized for their actions on an internet message board and let you go if you did. Me and you both are infidels.

You choose to bow down to extreme Islam. I don't.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakfastofchampions]

37. Congrats

and I truly hope it stays that way. But denying that people are out there trying to take away our right to live free of their religion isn't going to make them go away.

Even the moderators can't make them go away.

[Ms. Clio]

38. Is this mysterious group anything like the world conspiracy

of international bankers?

Do tell us more, you seem to know so very much about this mysterious enemy trying to "take away our right to live free."

I am captivated!

[Roho]

41. didn't you hear..

Osama wants sharia law in Huston.

The thing that drives me crazy is watching the Dem's try and out politic the repubs on this. It seems clear the Dem leadership thinks that the US couldn't invade Iran because of the resources already used or deployed in Iraq. They seem to think that the best way to show the moron swing voter they are tough on defense is to make Iran look like a huge threat then blame bush's Iraq policy on his inability to deal with it.

Fools gold.

[Ms. Clio]

43. That's a very interesting analysis

Honestly I hadn't even gotten that far with this BS, but that's all too sadly plausible.

[breakfastofchampions]

65. Not really a conspiracy

But there are organizations out there trying to kill us.

Al Queda is a good example.

[Ms. Clio]

66. Ah, yes, the ever shadowy, always convenient al Qaeda

Still, that is a small band of political-religious extremists, entirely unconnected to the billion other Muslims in the world -- in fact, the Bin Ladens are much more closely associated with the Bushes than with most other people on the planet.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

32. I am not, but

there have been many posts here that have said that I needed to stop these people, or that I shouldn't be violent. The overall impression I got was one of "all Muslims are the same". That is why I have been posting to let people know they are not.

[FormerRepublican]

40. I agree that it's important for the moderate voices to have a venue in...

...which they might be heard. Perhaps those on DU can help work on this. I wish I could do more to help. Do you know if there are any organizations who are working to get the moderate message out that I might contribute to?

I had previously read much of what you describe. I had been told by others that in many Mosques, moderates were trying to say that terrorism and violence was wrong (and in fact the moderates were the larger numbers), but that the extremists didn't listen and controlled the message. From what I understand, it's compounded by a reluctance to publicly 'argue' with other Muslims. I'm probably not explaining that right, but you'll know what I mean.

It really does concern me that the voice and image of Islam is being shaped by people who I personally consider pretty crazy. I do have a knee jerk negative reaction to those people - whew! I've actually read quite a bit about Islam and I know that most of what's written bears no relation to some of the violent things that don't respect human rights.

I read your post earlier that talked about the rights women had under Mohammad, and I found that to be the case in my reading, too. For example, I know that honor killings practiced in some ME countries and attributed to Islam are actually not Islamic - though the perpetrators would like people to believe they are. There are many other examples of this as well. IMO, using Islam to excuse tribal customs that violate human rights is just a cop out designed to ensure the continuance of the status quo. This is very similar to what a lot of right wingers in the US are doing to support their extremist abortion views.

This is the reason why it's so important that we find some way for moderate voices to be heard. As is often the case, sometimes the most vocal are the most violent and extreme because they have an agenda for change that is not always in society's best interests. They figure if they scream really loud they'll overcome the rational response of a sensible majority. Decent people generally don't advertise to the world - "hey, I'm decent!" Before long, the extremist view is the only view that is being heard. This is compounded by the very human tendency to be influenced by the voices we hear, and this affects both Muslims and non-Muslims. The more the extremist message is propagated, the more who come to espouse that view simply because it's all they hear, and even more others who internalize a very negative view of Islam.

Religion is all about the highest of human ideals. I've often commented on some of the other religions that espouse a value for women, and how it would be sad if the rhetoric regarding abortions and all that nonsense from the right wing changed one of the best parts of those religions. I feel the same way about Islam. It would be sad if extremist voices managed to silence the high ideals contained in Islam. The world would be a lesser place for it.

Sometimes I wonder about the future of this world we live in.

[Roho]

45. please spare me

you are being called out (by me) for your xenophobic racist generalizations and now you pretend to be understanding of the poor moderate Muslim masses that can't get heard.

remember this...?

FormerRepublican (1000+ posts)
Wed Feb-08-06 09:50 PM
Original message
Why do we keep making excuses for Muslim violence?

I guess I'm getting a bit frustrated by conversations I've had with people in various threads. I've watched news reports about people killed over cartoons with absolute horror, yet I read over and over again on DU that it's the newspaper's fault for publishing them. What - the newspaper pulled out guns and said "All Muslims, kill over these cartoons or we will kill you instead"?

Why do we keep making excuses for this kind of violence? If we were living in pagan Europe, would we be making excuses for the Celts when they engaged in human sacrifice? Would we give the Incas a pass as they sacrificed virgins and tore out living hearts? Do we make excuses for the Catholic Church abuses in the Inquisition? Why do Muslims get a pass when no other religion on earth gets that kind of treatment from DU?

Why is violence OK as long as it's Muslims who commit it?

[FormerRepublican]

48. And you are illustrating the very problem I described.

The point I was making was that a violent response to free speech was not acceptable. I was objecting to the fact that many on DU made excuses for it. It is not racist to defend a right I personally value that is guaranteed in the Constitution.

Second, I have read HUNDREDS of posts that attack various Christian enties for their violent and extremist views (which I firmly agree with), while at the same time any objection to Muslim violence is attacked - just as you're doing now (which I strongly disagree with).

Why the double standard, Rojo? It reminds me of men who make the laws to benefit themselves, but expect woman to stay at home barefoot and pregnant. I believe in the same rights for everyone.

And after reading many of your posts, I'm discovering that your views are just as extremist and repulsive as Hezbollah's (albeit in a different vein). Congratulations, you are the first person I've placed in my 'ignore' file.

[Roho]

52. Sure thing.

I'm sure you put me on ignore so you didn't have to provide a link proving I have ever condoned violence of ANY kind.

Let me guess calling me an extremist like those in Hezbollah came out of the same play book as calling Osama a friend of Michael Moore.

[Xenotime]

61. * is trying to establish Muslim as the religion in america.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. The Europeans don't use the American Constitution

Sure, the Muslims in question are demanding establishment. But most European nations have no laws prohibiting it. In fact, any nation that is constituted as a monoarchy has an established religion, since all European royalty is connected to religion.

I think Denmark has a royal family, too.

--p!

[Ready4Change]

8. True point. n/t

[Lolivia]

3. Denmark doesn't have an establishment clause

In fact, they have a state religion (Lutheran).

http://www.um.dk/Publikationer/UM/English/Denmark/kap1/1-14.asp

So Denmark obviously doesn't have a problem with establishing religion.

Denmark also has laws that prohibit speech that is racist or blasphemous.

I'm not condoning the reaction to the cartoons - just pointing out that you can't apply US laws to foreign countries.

[Leopolds Ghost]

26. Denmark already has laws that prohibit speech that is blasphemous.

So... where's the beef?

The same paper that published these cartoons rejected similar cartoons
depicting Jesus for this very reason.

(and also because it is an anti-immigrant newspaper, and that is the
only real issue behind these cartoons -- lots of "enlightened" DUers
don't seem to understand this.)

[CJCRANE]

9. Britain just implemented laws that outlaw

incitement to religious hatred (which covers all bases - Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc).

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

11. Let's do that here!

Falwell, Robertson, Fred Phelps and any other number of RW preachers would be out of business.

[400Years]

10. Something is Rotten in Denmark (it was all intentional)

Rotten in Denmark
Flemming Rose and the clash of civilizations


The publication of 12 cartoons in Jyllands-Posten, a Danish right-wing newspaper, that caricatured the prophet Muhammad was clearly a provocation – and it has had its intended effect. The editor responsible claims the genesis of the cartoons was the alleged reluctance of artists to illustrate an upcoming children's biography of Muhammad: they are supposedly too afraid to step forward, fearing violent retaliation. All this before anyone had so much as raised their voices over the matter: now, of course, the subject dominates headlines throughout much of Europe and the Middle East.

Riots throughout the Muslim world, demands for the expulsion of the Danish ambassador from a number of countries, attacks on the Danish (and Norwegian) embassies in Beirut and Damascus – this incident couldn't have roiled relations between Islam and the West more if it had been planned that way, which raises the question: was it? Is something rotten in the state of Denmark? We don't know, and probably will never know, but it is worthwhile looking into the origins of this particular incident, because a very definite odor is wafting in from the general direction of Copenhagen.

To begin with, the real impetus for the demonstrations and declarations of outrage coming in from all across the Middle East wasn't merely the publication of these rather juvenile scribblings in Denmark, but their republication in several European countries. If this wasn't a coordinated provocation, then it is certainly an amazing coincidence that it bears all the earmarks of one.

Secondly, let us examine the venue – a newspaper that today describes itself as "liberal" in the classical sense, but yesterday openly supported fascism – and particularly the man most responsible for starting this ruckus: Flemming Rose, the "cultural editor" of Jyllands-Posten, who commissioned the cartoons and now is at the center of a rapidly-escalating controversy.

<snip> (reluctantly - excellent read)..........

http://antiwar.com/justin /

[Name removed]

12. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jody]

14. They're demanding separation of press and religion. n/t

[FormerRepublican]

16. How so?

They're not demanding that ALL sacred/religious views be respected, but only Islam's. How is that not directed toward a specific religion?

[Roho]

18. Who is they? n/t

[Bridget Burke]

24. "they" are all Muslims, who are totally identical in every respect!

Those who have rioted & made death threats are exactly like those who expressed their feelings about a direct insult in a polite way. And they are just like those who've pretty much ignored the issue. Osama Bin Ladin is just the same as the Pakistani who runs the corner store. A Saudi prince cannot be distinguished from a hematologist born in Lebanon.

The Houston Chronicle ran this piece today (may need free registration--or use Bugmenot):

My problem with the rude, crude Muhammad cartoons

By CLARENCE PAGE

In September, the editor of a Danish newspaper decided "to test cartoonists to see if they were self-censoring their work, out of fear of violence from Islamic radicals." A dozen artists accepted the editor's invitation to make light of the Prophet Muhammad, and submitted work equating Islam itself, not just Islamic extremists, with terrorism, the oppression of women and other bad things......

Of course, editorial cartoonists, in particular, are not doing their job very well if they don't provoke somebody into outrage on a regular basis. But offense should have a point to make. While there always is something in the paper that will offend somebody, we should try to avoid unnecessarily offending anybody.

That's my problem with the Muhammad cartoons. They seem to be intended primarily to do nothing more than provoke Muslims, including the vast majority of law-abiding Muslims who never did the cartoonists any harm....

All of which makes me wonder about the timing of this controversy. Since the cartoons first appeared five months ago, I cannot help but wonder why the controversy is firing up now. I suspect that the cartoon uprisings, like similar eruptions we've seen in the United States, are not about the cartoons. They're really about those long-simmering fears, suspicions and resentments between Muslims and mainstream European society.

Recent riots in France indicated the great wellsprings of resentment just beneath the surface of this controversy. As turbulent as America's past has been, Europe has yet to deal nearly as well with its own boiling pot of diversity.

www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/3646020.html

Of course, someone assured me yesterday that the Europeans have a right to live among people who look like them, speak like them & think like them.

Edited to add: The writer does come out against violence & threats as a response to the cartoons. But he does think people have a right to feel the insult.

[Hatalles]

39. The constant "they" is troubling...

... those that refuse to differentiate between the crazies and the rest are xenophones in my book.

[FormerRepublican]

51. Welcome to my ignore file.

[Roho]

53. I guess

I was the first in your ignore file but I see not the last.

Who knows maybe your ignore list will top O'liely's enemies list as the "must be on" list of the year.

[Bridget Burke]

57. If someone puts too many people in their Ignore file...

Does that make him "Ignorant"?

(Maybe we can throw a party in here.)

[Roho]

59. lol

I'm interested to know why my post telling a user above that I had alerted on them was removed yet the post saying I was bowing to radical islamists that wanted to kill me remains?

Are we only allowed to anonymously snitch on others here?

[FormerRepublican]

42. They as in those I indicated in my original post above.

In this case, the head of Hezbollah and all he manages to influence to his way of thinking (since he was trying to convince people to his point of view in a public forum).

[SidDithers]

22. As wonderful as you think that document is...

why would do you think Muslim protesters in Beirut, or anywhere else, would give a flying fadoo about the the US constitution?

Sid

[FormerRepublican]

44. I don't. My concern is their demand that laws be adopted...

...to reflect their values, or they will continue violent protests. I'm uncertain as to what the establishment laws are in Europe, but in the US they're very strict. If Hezbollah (the head of which made the statement today) demanded that the US adopt the laws they wanted or they would continue violent protests, we could not comply. It would be unconstitutional.

In many ways I do see this as a culture clash. Our values are abhorent to them (them as in those in the news article, since people on DU get riled if I don't specify who 'them' is), and their (same 'they') values are abhorent to us. This inevitably causes conflict. IMO, the reasons why the conflict isn't peaceful is that it's being driven by political motivations of the organizations involved.

Hezbollah (the 'they' we're talking about in this case) is a proxy for Iran. Iran has recently been referred to the Security Council over their nuclear activies. They would have a political objective in inciting violent, rather than peaceful, protests. Same for Bush, although I doubt Bush and the CIA would have enough influence in Syria to stage mass protests.

[Ms. Clio]

46. You write, "I'm uncertain as to what the establishment laws are in Europe?

Don't you read the responses to your own threads? Lolivia and others have provided a great deal of information about establishment laws in Europe - namely, that Denmark not only doesn't have an establishment clause, but has an established state religion -- Lutheranism.

She and I have pointed out that LAWS ARE ALREADY IN PLACE IN DENMARK THAT RESTRICT BLASPHEMY. Other European countries forbid, on paid of fines and jail terms, speech that denies the Holocaust.

But now we get down to the real essence of your Islamophobia -- "the clash of civilizations" thesis. Your notions about "Muslim culture" sound just like Daniel Pipes, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence. I could give you dozens of citations to quotes by "experts," politicians, academics, etc. throughout U.S. history who expressed THE EXACT SAME FEARS AND PREJUDICES about immigration from Ireland, Italy, Poland, Russia, Mexico, etc.

But you do not seem to be here to actually learn very much about the real world or its history.

[Roho]

49. Rock on to you too

You have much more patience than I have. I hope one day I can be as polite as you are. People reading this but not posting will be drawn to your rebuttals before mine and I envy your ability to keep it civil.

[Ms. Clio]

55. Years of deleted posts ;)

You learn to walk the line.

Just be careful with even mild "personal attacks," like "you're full of it." An asshole can always make an issue of just about anything here.

[Roho]

62. thanks for the advice

I've had a couple deleted in this thread.

Interestingly though the posts calling me a coward or an appeaser remain, and the post that calls me an extremist like those in hezbollah also remains.

Do you think perhaps "some people" read the rules very closely to see what they can and can't get away with?

Like calling someone a coward is cool but an asshole isn't. Or calling someone an extremist terrorist is alright but troll isn't?

[Ms. Clio]

63. Honestly, the bigger this place gets, the more arbitrary it all seems

Alert on the posts that call you a terrorist, but try not to let it bug you.

Easier said than done, sometimes!

And you might ponder the exquisite hypocrisy of the valiant defenders of free speech alerting on your posts.

[Roho]

64. I have and do

Thanks again. Maybe we'll meet again in another thread, I'm outta here before I get in trouble.

[FormerRepublican]

50. Welcome to my ignore file.

[Ms. Clio]

56. This is so damned funny

Thank you thank you for a really good laugh.

Oh god, I've fallen and I can't get up.

Must. Breathe.

[Lolivia]

54. Nicely said n/t

[Ms. Clio]

58. Thanks

I really appreciated your informative, useful posts on this otherwise bullshit thread.

[Roho]

47. but

"they" (cia) have enough influence in Syria to send troublesome (innocent) Muslims there to be tortured.

"they2" (hezbollah) have called for or been responsible for violent protests over the cartoon?

Or did "they2" call for demonstrations and you are now asserting that because of the violence "some" have engaged in the protests need to stop all together?

If it's the later are you not promoting an end to someone's free speech rights,rights you would defend to your grave?

[LittleClarkie]

25. Cartoon protestors

For a minute there I pictured Spongebob and Tinkywinky.

Nevermind...

I must need more caffine.

[Zenlitened]

27. "... laws forbidding insults to the prophet." Ugh. Really shows the divide

... between Western liberalism and fundamentalism. Of any stripe, because I can easily imagine an American mullah-- er, congressman, proposing a law that forbids "blasphemy" of the christian god.

And it seems to be a short hop from "don't criticize my religion" to "god says I have the right to kill you."

:scared:

[Ms. Clio]

31. You are aware that blasphemy is actually illegal in Denmark?

Article 140 of the Criminal Code allows for a fine and up to four months of imprisonment for demeaning a "recognized religious community."

You do know that several European countries prohibit speech denying the Holocaust, and punish it with fines and jail terms?

"Western liberalism" is apparently quite selective.

[Zenlitened]

34. Yep. And I think it's a sign of how they've been shoved off-course...

... by religionism.

Edited to add: There is no way to define "blasphemy" and still uphold the ideal of free speech.

As for Holocaust denial -- that's a classic example of the price of freedom. We can't make it illegal to say stupid things, because someday someone will come along and try to make our own speech illegal.