So... twelve dead in Afganistan, the suspension of aid work in Chechnya, a burnt out embassy in Lebanon, and open threats of decapitation on violent marches through London... over what? Twelve staggeringly unfunny Danish cartoons? Or is there more to it than first appears?

"Behead those who insult Islam", "Massacre those who insult Islam", "Annihilte those who insult Islam", "Freedom of Expession go to Hell", placards of extraordinary anger and directness, and sentiments that I could readily agree with, except... these London marchers clearly hadn't seen the cartoons in question, or even appear to have a firm grasp on what "insult Islam" really entails...

The funniest cartoon had as it's punchline the title above, depicting crudely represented suicide bombers being hurridly met at the gates of what we must presume to be Heaven by Mohammed...

And here, of course, we have our big problem: certain popular brands of Islam forbid the depiction of The Prophet, on pain of death it now transpires for certain sects...

Now, to me, and indeed many of you, this seems a little harsh. Indeed one of the damned cartoons depicts Mohammed leading a donkey through the desert, beautifully rendered with full reverence for such a religious leader, by way of illustrating the frustration felt by the artist at being forbidden from illustrating a book of Qur'an stories for children.

Harsh or not, people have lost their lives this last fornight as a result, so maybe we could turn over some of the points this debacle has thrown up?

Some context first. The cartoons were published in October 2005 to little response from the 270,000 Muslims in Denmark, certainly nothing of the sorts of things we have witnessed over the past two weeks. Only when they were presented before council members of the Arab League in Egypt, Syria and Lebannon accompanied by three other images (a photo of someone presumably pretending to be Mohammed with a pig's head, Mohammed with a robe saying "the paedophile prophet Mohammed", and one with him being humped by a dog...) did things start to heat up. The original twelve Danish cartoons were all very tame, even by political cartoonist standards, but they were combined with the other three to"... give an insight into how hateful the atmosphere in Denmark is towards Muslims". The pig-head photo has since been traced back to France (it actually depicts an local farmer's entry into a "pig squealing" contest at an argicultural fayre) the origins of the other two are still unidentified.

Regardless, the twleve do indeed show Mohammed: crime enough for some without added insults. For example: christian Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey called them: "...cartoons lampooning the prophet... deplored by all people who wish to see peace and harmony prevailing in our fractured world..." Christian Lord Mayor of London Ken Livingstone (recently convicted in court for anti-semitic remarks directed at a journalist) without a trace or irony called them "... bordering on racist..." At least arch, Catholic, roaringly homosexual, New Labour puppet-master Peter Mandelson appeared to have at least glanced at them: "... pretty crude and pretty juvenile..." Indeed, bar Mandelson, anyone not at all connected to Islam seemed to be lining up to say something bland, predictable and blatantly uninformed by the actual cartoons themselves...

Then we have the complete lack of irony on behalf of those in the Islamic communities who lived up to the depictions of themselves in the offending cartoons. Never will I forget the banner "End free speech" being waved aggressively down a bleak February London street, it will follow me to the grave...

So...

(1) Respecting religious beliefs

Would have to rank pretty high in this discussion, so let's start here.

a)Did the October publication of Jylland Posten interfere with some peoples' relationship with their god?
b)If yes, where there grounds for doing so?
c)Are there ever grounds for stepping in between a human and their commune with the Divine?

(2) Respecting freedom of expression


a) If a Muslim who does not believe that depictions of Mohammed are forbidden by God, should they illustrate a book of children's stories featuring The Prophet if they want to?
b) Should a non-Muslim illustrate a book of children's stories featuring The Prophet? Are there any exceptions to your answer: specific people, situations, etc?
c) Should a person ever be permitted to draw a dog soddomising The Prophet, as in the example above? If yes, are there any victims you would restrict people from drawing a dog soddomising, e.g. a child, your sister, your mother?

(3) The partisan nature of the whole affair


a) How biased do you feel the reporting of these events has been?
b) Without the other three additional pictures, do you think that there would have been quite such a violent response?
c) Can anyone locate a picture from these world-wide demonstrations that does not show a visibly violent Asian man displaying anger at the camera? How relevant is this if I then told you scenes like these only occured in the London marches in front of me when journalists shoved a camera into the face of the crowd?


(4) The cartoonists stereotyped some Muslims as violent, aggressive and filled with hate towards the West...

... and then some Muslims publically displayed themselves to be violent, aggressive and filled with hate towards the West.

a) Where is the self-awareness here? What really motivated these human beings to march, to burn, to kill?

Morningstar,



I don't see how a cartoon could do that, although, if it could, I'd think there was something wrong with the person's relationship with their god already. I (as a person who has at least grown up Muslim even if I can't really claim to be a 'believer') found them pretty flat and unfunny, but I don't see how they would disrupt the faith of someone who actually had any. I found their stupidity more offensive than their content and the only one that rang true was, like you said, the one you used for the title of this thread. But, again, I fail to see how this would disrupt a person's relationship with their god. I can, however, see how this would disrupt the relationship between the cartoonist and a religious person, specially given the current world political climate.




First off, I was taught, along with countless other Muslim children before and after me, that all portrayals of Mohammad are forbidden (the reason being people's tendency towards idolatry or something), but, as far as I know, that applies to Muslims only (Which makes sense--why would I follow the tenets of, say, Judaism if I'm not Jewish?).
As for c), basically, yes insofar as a person has the right to draw what he/she chooses. But I would have to assume that such a drawing was meant to provoke a strong negative reaction. The argument that it demonstrates the strength of freedom in the western world is puerile at best. And, for the record, Muslims would find such a portrayal of any of the prophets or religious figures from Adam on down offensive--as far as Islam is concerned, they are all sacred, so you're probably not going to find any counter portrayals of Jesus or Moses or Abraham coming out of the Muslim world in response.



I've only seen some coverage on BBC World which I thought was pretty biased. I've since stayed away from these news reports because I find the situation so unutterably stupid.

The BBC segment I saw had the anchor interviewing a middle-eastern expert (Arab-British, I'd say) about the reaction of Muslims to the cartoons. The anchor was fairly dismissive of the response and suggested that religious leaders claimed there was a conspiracy to defame Islam in the Western media--a claim that he laughed off as very improbable. Now, I don't think there is such a conspiracy per se, but think about it. You print a bunch of silly cartoons that you know are bound to offend the sensibilities of a group of people. When you don't get a reaction, you re-print them and other people pick them up and print them in their countries as well. It would make sense if they were particularly funny or pithy or whatever, but they're really not. All they are is an attack on a person who died centuries ago and who has not a whole lot to do with anything current. (If you want to take issue with Islam, I'd suggest attacking Allah instead of shooting the messenger, so to speak.)

b)The three additional pictures seem to have been added when there was no response, so maybe. But there would be no response at all if religious leaders would stop inciting it. The people protesting on the streets of my city don't really know what they're protesting about as numerous interviews with them has proved. They've been told their prophet has been insulted by the west and are being asked whether they'll let it pass. What are they supposed to say? Yes?

c)No. And I think that's the point.




Their leaders. I insist that if you want to rid the world of Muslims, all you have to do is insult them and they'll kill themselves over it. It's ridiculous. I don't see how we've benefited from having our cars, banks, schools, embassies, buildings, roads, and buses demolished. Yeah, that really showed the Danish, huh? Uneducated, unemployed, poor people are very easy to exploit if you claim that the one thing they do have--their faith--has been attacked. But they really don't know why they're protesting. In one rally, they kept calling Bush a dog. WTF?

I've said it before, but really, the stupidity of everyone involved, from that idiot editor to these moronic mullahs and their asinine addresses to their congregations (over loudspeakers that make them clearly audible in people's homes) is apalling.

On a different note, I received an email a while ago that read 'what would Muhammad do?' Normally, I delete these without reading them, but since this was from a surprising source, I opened it and found the first bit of sense I've come across so far. Mohammad, as most prophets usually are, was often the victim of personal attacks, whether it was a woman who apparently emptied her trash on him every day, or people who threw stones at him as he passed by. The story--and I'd forgotten I'd heard it before--goes that he never reacted . The day the woman didn't turn up, he went to her house to ask her if she was ok. The people who stoned him, he forgave.

There's a thought.

Also, Muslim-Danish tensions were high *before* the publication of those cartoons, due at least in part to allegations of abuse by Danish soldiers to Arab Muslims.

It just added insult to an already serious injury. Publishing those cartoons was never about free speech.

The concept that I find mind boggling is why do those who profess themselves to be Christian, why are they NOT as offended when someone portrays their God in a negative light?

I mean, the protests and furor around this issue also contains an anti-imperialism sentament, but for the most part, these people actually are so devote to their religion they would basically riot when someone speaks out against it in a negative attack, while Christians merely ignore such remarks, and then claim that they are somehow better? I mean, when was the last time a Christian died for their beliefs? If you thought your home, job, family, etc. could be taken just for believing in Christ, would as many people in the states be all pro-Christian? Would they be Christian at all? It's easy to slap a bumper sticker on yer family van and wear your WWJD t-shirt, but how many of those people actually go out and protest when someone attacks their religion?

It's easy to be a member of a religion when you live among others like yourself, are protected by a large army, and never have to do anything to prove your faith.

You also have to think, no one challenges Christianity with their religion. In fact, the basic tenants of all religions are so similar they work together, except when governments try and work their politics into them. I mean, the Bible never spoke of 'freedom of speech'. In fact, I remember the third commandment being 'thou shall not take thy Lord God's name in vein'. That wasn't a suggestion. And that would be surpressing speech if the politicians took their religion to heart. But their personal (or national if you will) politics trump their religious beliefs. So why is it so hard for them to come to terms with a group of people who are so pious they put their religion first? Most members of the US congress claim to be religious, but actively put politics before their own beliefs, and then critisize those in other countries who do what they claim to do.

And the biggest thing people miss when they look at this is that religion and politics in Muslim countries go hand in hand. The law is based on their religion. Chrisitans in the west claim this is true, but in reality, yes it was based on it centuries ago, but now its all politics. So when you attack a Muslim countries political views, you directly attack the religion as well. Even though you claim your attacking the government, you are in reality attacking both. And when a nation that mentions God in its pledge, writes it on its money, and has various other ties to Christianty in its ranks attacks another government then claims to be neutral when it comes to religion, well, don't expect everyone to believe you.

That's actually a really good point you made there, and not one that I'd thought of. I mean in my faith tradition, martyrdom infers instant sainthood. You'd think Christians would be a bit more trigger happy.

(1) Respecting religious beliefs

a)Did the October publication of Jylland Posten interfere with some peoples' relationship with their god?

I don't think that for the most part, that the cartoons in Denmark were really that terrible. There was one depicting Mohammed with a bomb-shaped Turban, and I think that one did cross the line. But the examples you stated above from outside Denmark are really terrible. I think it's safe to say that many Mulsims had the right to be insutled by these cartoons, and in our day of extreme western racism towards any Mulsim or Middle-Eastern looking person, it is treading dangerous ground to make fun of them without making yourself look really bad, unlike mocking Christianity. I don't think it interfered with any personal relationships to God, but it did set back any progress we could have hope being made in understanding eachother, even if that progress is a smidgen above nil.

c)Are there ever grounds for stepping in between a human and their commune with the Divine?

No. Freedom of religion is a beautiful thing, even if I don't have one. I find it hard to deal with when people use religion to further their own narrow-minded conquest of hatred, but their faith is not the cause of their problem. They merely found an outlet for excuses.

(2) Respecting freedom of expression

a) If a Muslim who does not believe that depictions of Mohammed are forbidden by God, should they illustrate a book of children's stories featuring The Prophet if they want to?

Yes. Religion, and the holy books that go with it, are open to interpretation. Look at Christianity, with it's many different sects. There are some points in the Bible that one sect follows that others don't. They are all Christians, they just read into the scriptures differently. Islam is the same.

b) Should a non-Muslim illustrate a book of children's stories featuring The Prophet? Are there any exceptions to your answer: specific people, situations, etc?

This one we are not ready to deal with, as I stated above. Until a different religion is tolerated, it should be respected under their own means. If the majority of Mulsims think illustrating Mohammed is wrong according to their teachings, then non-Mulsims should stay away from it. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but for pity's sake, use it with moderation and respect.

c) Should a person ever be permitted to draw a dog soddomising The Prophet, as in the example above? If yes, are there any victims you would restrict people from drawing a dog soddomising, e.g. a child, your sister, your mother?

Personally I do not think anyone should have the right to depict other human beings in any demeaning ways. But I will not stop them. I sadly cannot make anyone stop from thinking and behaing in a certain way, as much as I think they are despicable. Something like that can be barred from being published, as editors have the freedom to choose what they put in their papers, but yet, everything will be shown the light of day in the age of the internet; there are no rules here. So this is a hard question to answer. Ultimately, my answer is no.

(3) The partisan nature of the whole affair


a) How biased do you feel the reporting of these events has been?

All reporting is biased. Because reporting is never completely clear of opinion. This particular example has been greatly biased on both sides. In Canada there is a huge debate raging about the publication of all of the Danish cartoons in a Jewish newspaper. My personal opinion has already been stated above. Freedom of speech is great, but responsibility comes with the territory. I think Ezra Levant is incredibly irresponsible and disrespectful for running with the cartoons. But I hated him before this event anyway. :O

b) Without the other three additional pictures, do you think that there would have been quite such a violent response?

It's hard to say. I mean, the western world already looked deeply racist towards all Arabian people, and because of that, the cartoons look more like a reinforcement of that stereotype more than anything at this point in time. I do recall someone saying something along the lines of 'If they think I'm a violent terrorist, I may as well act like one.'

c) Can anyone locate a picture from these world-wide demonstrations that does not show a visibly violent Asian man displaying anger at the camera? How relevant is this if I then told you scenes like these only occured in the London marches in front of me when journalists shoved a camera into the face of the crowd?

I bet it is really hard, seeing as how the media is pure sensationalism, they will show what the general concensus wants to see.

(4) The cartoonists stereotyped some Muslims as violent, aggressive and filled with hate towards the West...

... and then some Muslims publically displayed themselves to be violent, aggressive and filled with hate towards the West.

a) Where is the self-awareness here? What really motivated these human beings to march, to burn, to kill?

The biggest problem with our world today is the black-and-white attitude towards human relationships. 'You're either with us or against us'. Look at the freedom fries crap that went on when France had the gall to tell the United States: 'I don't agree with you'. There is no such thing as two sides to any issue. Human beings are multi-faceted creatures, and so are our relationships. True friendship involves beign able to tell the other that they're wrong without making enemies of them. Sadly, nowadays most people, or even whole nations or religions, refuse to see it that way. They think that if someone is different or disagrees with them, they are the enemy that must be destroyed.

That's where the point I mentioned above comes in, there have been Muslim's so angered by the assumption that they are violent, they threw their arms up and proclaimed, 'Fuck it! Fine! I give up! You think I'm violent, then I fucking will be!'. It's very common to get sick of trying to be a certain way and no one notices, simply due from biased media sensationalism, and I know I for one am ready to give up on people sometimes [which is a pretty minor comparison to this but still relevant].

Fascinating answers to very real problems, and several angles that never occured to me as I posted.

"Who seeks to gain?" may be a cynical tool, and sometimes throw up more questions than answers; in this case we have many culprits to consider, none of whom it appears suffered directly from the actions of anger... I find that to be perhaps the most vexatious part of the whole affair, as if these shit-stirrers can squat in their bunkers while marking the rest of us as targets with total impunity.

First of all, you can't be racist against a religion.

I think it illustrates a big gap between Western and MiddleEast development.

The cartoons was published as a direct response to the fact that many illustrators was affraid to make illustrations for the Childrens book, because illustrators would get death threats, JP just did what they and others have done s many times before.

The muslims are a demanding people they want respect for everything but don't give any in return, they don't respect our views and values and why sub,it to a religion that clearly goes against both the Human Rights and the Geneva Convention and use Sharia law. Democracy is based on the majority win but the majority can speak but they can not make a veto.
Even in saudi Arabia it's illegal to wear a cross, now ain't that "racist" - (now i feel offended)?.
The muslims Countries don't have anything to say in our Country , in any other Country or in the EU parliament as they are not even a member and to put Kofi Annan as a spokesman is just sad as he can not be objective, i lost alot of respect for him.

JP did the right thing and the editor is in my opinion a hero and they also just won an editorial award for printing the cartoons and having the guts to debate (btw i subscripe to that newspaper B).

We need this debate and it shows that there is a clear difference between "us" and "them", it's also hard for me to accept the "most Muslims like it that way" - that is not true, i don't think it's funny being a woman under sharia or a law that opens up for cutting a hand off for stealing, it's just Babaric.

There are alot of "moderate" muslims (if you can cvall them true believers) that says so and think it's about time that the middleeast wakes up and instead of blindly being lead by some religious leaders stand up for Democracy and that is some Muslims that is saying that.

Mohammed was a war leader who did like little girls, broke with conventional warfare and etiquette, it even shocked the people at his time the brutality and hadics (sp?) were produced on line, you could order hadics (sp?) for your specific needs.

Lastly ther are no difference between us other than believes so how can they come and claim more respect and rights than others?!.

Could write somuch more but it's already quite lengthy.

Twisted, do you even know any Muslims or do you just believe what Fox news says?

And on another note, I think that most people don't take kindly to the invasion of their countries. Or finding out that your 'ally' just sold weapons to your 'enemy'. it can easily build a grudge.

You have a very generalising attitude. By the way your saying it it seems like you don't understand that the government does not speak for the overall population in any country. So you see the terrorists on TV, and read stories about the laws in some nation, do you really think that all the people in the country are like that? Tell the Americans on this board how you think they are because their president is Bush.

Do you know where else these kinds of human rights violations are taking place on a large scale? There are other people other than Muslims that are 'undeveloped'. Also there are horrible disgusting violent crimes commited against women in your own country, your city, your street. It's just a smaller scale. Even us good wholesome Westerners rape, torture, and mutilate men, women, and children. Sometimes for fun, or because it gets us off.

Not all the 'Muslim countries' have Sharia law, some enforce it worse than others, they're not all the same. Generalising accomplishes nothing. And there are non-Muslim countries that commit hideous warcrimes, such as rolling over little boys with tanks or shooting them, for throwing rocks.

These cartoons were not just an insult to the terrorists, whom in my opinion do deserve it, but also to my Muslim friends and co-workers, who are shamed by the terrorists, but truly love their religion.

And what you said about Mohammed can be easily said about any other religion. Virginity is the highest virtue for women in Christianity. Most of what is written in the Quran is very similar to what you will find in the Bible concerning moral code. And how many battles and massacres were done in the name of the good Christian God?

Your attitude is the exact same thing I was complaining about earlier. Black and white thinking.

But I don't want to start a fight. If you want to believe your thing, go ahead and do it.

I don't think that what the Conquistadores and others did many hundreds years ago can be justified as an argument since we have moved along way since then.

I think the cartoons depicts the situation quite well, you see how they riot and destroy, burning down our embassys and burning our flag, the situation is that now no matter what we do or say they will continue to make demands and i hope that we never excuse and the government can't excuse anything since it don't control the media.

For many many years the Imslamic (note "Islamic") has portrayed israel and other western countries and nazis refeering to the holocaust and how evil and mean we are, but for some reason it's ok. It annoys me that if you say you are a "muslim" you can get away with alot of things and proclaims special treatment and rights.

About invading other Countries i really can't say much as we are not an active warfaring nation, yes we do have troops in Afhganistan and Iraq because we are allied with the USA but we are doing peacekeeping operations heck we even trained the police.

Muslims are no better than us or deserve other rights than us as i said earlier we are both equal and freedom of speech is not negotiable, Freedom of Speech can't be defeated by totalitarians regimes or threats, it's our right, that is also why it shocks me how people can actually say "Down with freedom of speech" etc. as in the Brittish Demonstrations, our forefathers have thought hard for what we have today, the woman have fought hard for their freedom and nobody shall take that away.

The Bible and Quran is very similar yes, but the Quran has been interpreted by a man called mohammed who claimed he was a prophet but most likely he was just a Dictator, like when Chirac says he is Jesus or Napelon. We shall be allowed to make fun of religion both Islam, Christianity, Budhism, jews etc. that is the only way we can move forward and have an open debate.

Isn't there a haiditch (sp?) in the Quran that says: "The Heathens (non-islamists) kill them where ever you find them" and "By all means shall we conquor and make all Countries into an islamic state"?! please correct me if i am wrong, you can only get smarter .

Islam is an toatlitarian religion and as such can never work with democracy, it feeds on fear and it needs one leader to survive. The Muslims should get out of the darkness and move forward, as again this Moderate muslim says: "Those Countrys need to learn how a Democracy works" but it is of course not up to us to come and tell them how to live ther lives just like the arabian nations has no right to get special rights or laws in the European parliament or telling us how things should be.

As the situation is right now Western and Arabic nations will not be able to live side by side because Democracy is the complete opposite of a totalirian regime/religion.

There have been many discussions about ethiqs here but peple are alowed to exercise Freedom Of Speech, like once when there was this movie which had Jesus both naked and having sex, yes you could see his genitals and all, not much uproar there was a little bit but it quickly faded out and we moved forward and learned something new, notice we only debated it.

Virginity is a virtue (silly IMHO) but how can a person honstly belive that they will get 70 Virgins (or how many it is can't remember) in heaven by killig himself, i would think that just like in the Bible suicide is one of the worst sins you can commit.

Imagine if we burned an Arabian flag or burned an Arabian embassy all hell would break loose, but i think we in the west has been too naive, which is why this debate is good and we needed it, for too long time naiviti has ruled.

Twisted Illusions: one- please get a spell checker. Really.

Next: I don't want to close this thread, I really don't since useful and civil debate has been the norm here throughout. However, this is a hot-button issue and we all knew it was only a matter of time until somebody stormed in with the "Muslims are evil and Islam is at fault" argument. The next time it comes up, this thread is gone.

The bible also can and has been interpreted to suggest all heathens be slaughtered. However, I don't blame all Christians for the insanity of the extremists. So must it be with this thread and Islam. We can debate the justifications, freedoms, and ethics of these violent protests/protestors. But these are, by and large, still extremists that are using violence.

I will not see any religion vilified by the acts of the extremists. Not on this board. We do not have a freedom of speech act here and the condemnation of a religion is out-of-bounds. Muslims are as welcome here as Christians, Pagans, Jews, Zoroastrians, and worshippers of the great flying Spaghetti Monster.

This is the only point I plan to make in this thread: There is no "they". There are the actions of individuals. Some have wisely chosen peaceful means to express their anger over the situation; some have chosen to denigrate their own cause and people through the use of violence. However, remember that should the actions of mobs and extremists really be used to speak for the whole, none of us would escape the vilification.

Captain Nevarre
...disappointed...

I also tried to make it clear that it was the extremists i was refeering to, hence why i mentioned the moderate muslim and quotes from him Nasar Khadar has started a group of moderate Muslims to exactly counter the extremists, he is from Syria but speaks fluently Danish and has gained much popularity amongst danes and other moderate Muslims.

I did not intend to offend anyone, but just as well as i caan critisize any political leader, i should also be able to come with some critism of other things. I do come from a Country where we are used to making jokes about everything including religion but not to insult but to debate it and move forward.

Again i did not post to offend anyone.

The main thing that insults the Muslims about this is one of their very basic principles. The depiction of any holy figure is a sin and a great insult in Islam. Most, if not all Muslim countries have illegalized the depiction of holy figures. I would be pissed off if I saw someone burning a cross, me being a Christian. I can't blame the Muslims for being angry, but using violence to protest is too much in my opinion. Unfortunately, it often is the only way to get people's attention. Another problem is that if they did just say, "That's an insult", pretty much no one would even listen, let alone care. It's a problem, and a lack of understanding between both sides, let alone a lack of acting rationally.

Twisted_Illusions, while I accept that you did not set out to offend anyone and that you made a distinction between moderates and extremists, I find the manner in which you made that distinction rather telling. You used the term "moderate Muslim" and "Muslim", not "extremists", not "fundamentalists", not "nut-jobs". Just "Muslim".

What that suggests to me (and I understand that that may not be your actual position) is that "Muslim"=extremist, and that those Muslims who are not extremists are a sub-category labeled "moderate Muslims".

Now, I could go off into a rant about how it is in fact the other way around. I could point out that Islam, just like any other religion, has different sects and schools of thought and that these manifest variously throughout the world, and that, just like Christianity, Hinduism, or any other religion, some are more forward thinking than others. I could explain that Islam values life as much as the Bible or any other holy book or that suicide is in fact a sin in Islam as well. I could also point out that the Hadith are not found in the Quran but are a set of saying attributed to Mohammad. I could add that there is also a line in the Quran that says 'unto me, my religion; unto you, your religion'.

But why bother? These fundamentalists have robbed all those who carry the title of Muslim (not 'moderate', not 'wishy-washy', not 'ex-', not Shia, not Sunni, just plain old Muslim) of their right to just be Muslims and to not have to explain or point out such things all the time. You have to have a position, you have be on the defensive, you have to apologize constantly--the label itself makes everything you say political (a lot like being female in a number of circles). And at the same time you have to put up with even more rubbish from the fundos who keep whipping the uneducated into a frenzy over things that they really don't understand and that can therefore be twisted to manipulate them.

And as for free speech, Article 140 of the Criminal Code allows for a fine and up to four months of imprisonment for demeaning a "recognized religious community."
But ok, if a you still think it is ok to print material that offends more people than there are in your entire country, then certainly those offended have the freedom to burn your flag in their own countries. It's just a piece of cloth, after all.

As I've said earlier, I find the whole situation entirely unnecessary, from the printing of the cartoons themselves to the furor over them that has already raged on far longer than it ever should have.

See, thats the problem with the states these days. One of my biggest personal issues is the issue of greed. The 'I deserve this cuz I'm american' issue.

I mean, just because your neighbor has a plasma screen TV doesn't mean you deserve one. Also, in the same vein, if your neighbor wins the lottery, you should be happy for them, not have a 'I deserve it more than they do' attitude.

I see that alot there. Like with that statement. Special treatment angers you? Why? Because they do something you can or you don't believe in? How does it affect you? Do you want them not to get angry when someone attacks their religion or are you angry because no one gets that upset when someone attacks your own?

Or is it you feel you should be able to attack someone elses religion if they can attack yours?

I'm all for equality, but if your neighbor comes from a different culture and background, you have to realise that they might do things differently.

Most people in the states have never been outside their own country, theirfore have not been introduced to any foreign culture except what they see on TV, or the few foriegn nationals that have immigrated to the states, and obviously have had to subdue their culture to some extent to 'fit in' in to the american society.

It's just sad to see people angry at the fact other people live in a different culture and express themselves differently.