What in the world would happen to freedom if any time a group was
"disturbed" by what someone else said or did, it responded in similar
I don't like my secular and religious heros mocked, but these Muslims
take up guns to protect theirs. Apparently Muhammed is not powerful
enough to protect himself. Even the ATFE hasn't issued "fatwas" and
used guns to round us all up (yet).
Be very afraid of any group that uses arms to enforce its ideology.
Larry Lobdell Jr.
Well, it appears the only religion you can openly mock, attack, oppress
and ridicule is Christianity. All others are still considered
Are you kidding, Americans have long lost the freedom to discuss issues
and opinions because people's "feelings" might get hurt. Our
forefathers have rolled over three times in their graves over this
newest method of self-censorship.
I am sad for my children.
I thought it also said to respect Jews and Christians. Why else did
Caliph Umar insist that the three faiths of Abraham coexist?
I thought it also said that you shouldn't force your religion on others,
that someone who converts under duress is not truly faithful.
I have no problem with the Muslims being upset. Just because someone
asserts the "right" to say or do something that insults another group
doesn't protect them from the wrath of the people they insult. It only
becomes politically correct to ridicule a group if that group allows it.
Respecting another's beliefs doesn't mean you agree with them.
Perhaps as nuts as the civil rights riots in the 60's? If the
caricatures were of famous black people, as example, and minorities
demonstrated would that be seen as a blow against freedom?
Does this stifle justified criticism? Perhaps. I can see both sides.
The cartoons in question make a strong point about terrorism in the name
of religion. The reaction could hardly be a surprise to anyone who has
read about Islam. Maybe that was the intent. To whip one side into a
frenzy and call attention to the cartoons.
Well apparently the verses in the Koran that talked about being peaceful and
non compulsion of religion was back when Muslims were being oppressed in
Mecca. Then after Muhammad won his wars and stuff like that they started
acting like they should convert people or die. Also note the Islamic law has
special taxes for those that are not Muslim, and if you don't become Muslim
under those law then you either pay the tax or die. Also the religion itself
is very legalistic, it's do this or die or go to hell or whatever. They are
obsessed with extreme punishment like cutting hands off for stealing. If the
Islamic law gets enforced in the USA you can kiss the 8th amendment goodbye.
It is disturbing that I saw on the newspaper of some Muslims holding a
drawing of some Danish man (probably president/prime minister of Denmark)
with some Muslims cutting his neck and sticking a sword in his mouth. Be
very afraid of groups that advocates violence like that. It's funny people
can call Jesus a fraud, deny the Bible, and no one really cares. The instant
you say something about Muhammad or the Koran you get massive bomb threats
The Qu'Ran does speak about respecting "people of the Book" (Jews and
Christians). But it also talks about killing infidels (all
non-muslims) or forcefully converting them (see Tai Fu's comments later
in this thread). Muslims are selective readers: peaceful Muslims
choose the first verses and violent Muslim radicals choose the second.
The current news stories (and 9/11, Cole, suicide bombers, anti-Jewish
violence) about Muslm fanatics burning flags and embassies and calling
for killing blasphemers (and they get to define blasphemy) clearly
shows which group is most prominent.
I have no problem with Muslims being upset either, but violence
destroys freedom. To imply as you do that violence is a legitimate
expression of the wrath of these people is just plain wrong. These
Muslims are not just upset; they are trying to force everyone else to
agree with their religious understandings, and that I will not do.
Muhammad was a human being and ridiculing a human being is not, by
definition, blasphemy. To make his turban into the shape of a lit bomb
as the cartoonist did was right because it showed how violence is being
used and promoted by some Muslims. And the irony of these protestors
is that they chose to protest using exactly the same violent methods
the cartoon they are objecting to demonstrates. So was the cartoon
You also say "It only becomes politically correct to ridicule a group
if that group allows it." That is false. Political correctness does
not result from the reaction of a ridiculed group. Remember the
"artist" whose "art" product was a crucifx of Jesus upside down in a
jar of urine? That was blasphemy because Christians do consider Jesus
to be divine. Sure Christians protested, but they didn't burn down art
galleries and issue religious edicts calling for the killing of the
"artist." On your view Christians seem to deserve to be be
marginalized because they did not use violence to attempt to prevent
Then you write "Respecting another's beliefs doesn't mean you agree
with them." This shows a fundamental misunderstanding because from the
point of view of radical Muslims to respect Islam is to agree with it.
That's the end purpose of these violent protests; to violently force us
all to agree that saying anything negative (whether it's true or not)
about Islam, Muhammad, or the Qu'ran is blasphemy punishible by death.
Never underestimate the ends they are willing to go to in order to
re-make the world with Islam in total control. It's not Bush, the
Patriot Act, domestic surveilance, etc. that should be our first
concern. Those are issues worth discussing later, but our first
concern ought to be that we prevent the Islamic radicals from re-making
the world as they want it. And because they use violence to promote
their view, the only way to resist them is to use violence in return.
That's called self-defense, and I believe our freedoms, limited or not,
are worth defending.
Larry Lobdell Jr.
Sorry, my other posting was also a response to Alex but that wasn't
Alex Mericas wrote:
This is too general. There were civil rights riots in the 60's but the
most effective forces for change were the non-violent protests (not
riots) led by Martin Luther King and others.
And yes, there were plenty of unflattering caricatures of those leaders
back then - much worse than Muhammad with a bomb for a turban. And
most civil rights leaders, black and white alike, were the recipients
of numerous death threats.
Please take into consideration the differing goals. The civil rights
protests had the goal of having blacks treated as human beings with the
same rights, dreams, etc. as everyone else. The current violent
Islamic protests have the goal of making everyone subject, one way or
another, to Islam. The first was admirable, the second reprehensible.
I have no problem with demonstrations or protests, as long as they
remain peaceful. But when the protests are violent and led by armed
thugs, even if the protests are supposedly religious in nature, the
major casuality will always be freedom.
BTW, the protests in question are not really about religion; they are
about power and control. Anyone who doesn't think so should read
carefully the words of the protest leaders. For them an Islamic
caliphate should dominate the whole world.
I am very afraid because most Westerners don't seem to understand that.
Larry Lobdell Jr.
This is true but only to a point. It says something to the effect of,
"slaughter the infidels wherever they may lurk...unless they pay their
poor tax." Fundamentalists selectively interpret the phrase so that the
"poor tax" part is excluded.
Mohammad preached that Jews and Christians were "people of the book"
and should be treated with as much respect as Muslims.
Jesus never made anyone pay poor tax, he never advocated killing anyone. In
his short ministry he has not taken a single life, but helped countless
lives. He said "all you laber laden come unto me and I will give thee rest".
Muhammad spent his whole life teaching, killing, concquering, and still
can't compare to Jesus's short ministry. Muhammad thinks anyone that breaks
the islamic law should be punished severly, like stoning and cutting hands
off and all kinds of cruel practice. Jesus forgave the thief, the
prostitude, and when he was on the cross he said to the thief that he shall
be in heaven because he believed in him. Jesus rose from the dead, Muhammad
is still dead. Jesus was executed as a criminal, yet he never did anything
wrong, but Muhammad died a rich man, but I am sure he's done a lot of wrong!