The Islamic Cartoon Controversy -- In perspective

[DJ V Lawrence]

No doubt we are imperfect. They are not perfect either.

But we sure have a quite different way of dealing with imperfection.

I agree. I think this is the first time I've ever publicly argeed with MidTownCoog. I was getting fired up with your earlier comments, but you're right about our the imperfection of humanity.

My question is this: how do you please a mass? Someone will always disagree. No matter how much Americans help, someone will always burn our flag. How can everybody win? Newspaper in Denmark makes an insensitive cartoon. People get offended. How does that newspaper redeem itself?

[MidtownCoog]

Their society has been caught up in a frenzy of rage and denial for far too long. Some cite Napoleon

[Gary]

The mullahs have taken advantage of a strict interpretation of their religion to deny the ability to reason. Without reason, there is no hope.

Boom! These people do not have the ability to reason which is the bottom line.

[Jeebus]

And could you please explain how we can be an "official" Christian nation and a nation of all religions at the same time. Which is it?

Here's what I said:

Finally, we need to make a final determination about church & state at the federal level. Either we are officially a Christian nation, or we are not. Either way, once we draw that line in the sand, radical Islam will have two choices: leave us alone because we are a nation of Christianity and will destroy them if they mess with us in the name of God, or leave us alone because we are a nation of all religions and will destroy them in the name of peace.

Please take note of the use of the words: either, and or and the context for which they were used. This should clear up any misunderstanding you are continuing to have with my original post.

[west20th]

Here's what I said:

Please take note of the use of the words: either, and or and the context for which they were used. This should clear up any misunderstanding you are continuing to have with my original post.

Ok Ok you didn't say we were both. Sorry.

[nmainguy]

If we as a society believe that peace is the key to self preservation, and we kill in the name of self preservation, then aren't we stilling killing in the name of peace?

Don't try and disguise the truth just so you can feel better about your morals. They're just the same as mine, except I'm okay with them.

Please don't presume to know what my "morals" are. They are not "just the same" as yours.

I'm OK with my "morals".

I'm for our constitution from freedom of the press and speech to the absolute separation of church and state.

I'm against constructing "a 20 foot wall that's 10 feet thick along both borders"

I'm against head-in-the-sand isolationism.

I'm against name calling-especially the provacative kind [heathens]

I'm against "the high-way or my way leaders" who intentionally attempt to keep us afraid of terrorists while assuring us we'll be safe with them while they allow a company owned by the UAE to operate some of our ports.

I am against obtuse statements that-while they may make you feel good-have no relation to what is really going on: a small but vocal group of pissed-off Muslims rioting abroad against cartoons published in european newspapers.

I am for spending energy on something we CAN control: Stopping the administration from giving over port operations to a terrorist state and against waisting energy for something we have NO control over: european political cartoons.

Oh! I forgot to add: I am absolutly FOR our peaceful, productive Muslim Americans-who many times come off as more Christian in deed than many of our professed "christians".

[Gary]

Please don't presume to know what my "morals" are. They are not "just the same" as yours.

I'm OK with my "morals".

I'm for our constitution from freedom of the press and speech to the absolute separation of church and state.

I'm against constructing "a 20 foot wall that's 10 feet thick along both borders"

I say this with no malintent, but what do you propose we do with our Southern border? Do we continue to allow illegal immigrants to come over as they are now?

This problem has very few solutions.

[Jeebus]

Please don't presume to know what my "morals" are. They are not "just the same" as yours.

Too bad i wasn't talking to you.

I'm not trying to argue or pick fights, but seconding Gary here, Nmain: what do you propose we do about our weak borders, our dependence on forgeign oil, and the looming threat of radical Islamic fueled retaliation from other countries?

I'm just tired of people saying my answers are the wrongs ones, but provide no alternatives.

[nmainguy]

Gary Posted Today, 04:34 PM

Please don't presume to know what my "morals" are. They are not "just the same" as yours.

I'm OK with my "morals".

I'm for our constitution from freedom of the press and speech to the absolute separation of church and state.

I'm against constructing "a 20 foot wall that's 10 feet thick along both borders"

I say this with no malintent, but what do you propose we do with our Southern border? Do we continue to allow illegal immigrants to come over as they are now?

This problem has very few solutions.

To be honest, I don't have the solution. That does not negate my postion on walls to protect political borders.

Historicly they give a false sense of security from the Great Wall to the Berlin Wall. It's like any "feel-good" law; like a ban against all abortion for example. That would make alot of people feel victorious and virtuous but it doesn't solve the problem: there has always been abortion and there will always be abortion. A rational view would to make it safe and rare. The irrational "feel-good" solution will only drive the poor back into the alley while the wealthy jet off to Switzerland.

I hope I didn't veer too far off your reply-I guess I'm trying to show a bad example of public policy: The instant gratification "feel good" solution. Walling off my country just doesn't seem a rational solution-to a problem that might be blow a bit out of proportion.

BTW: jeebus described walls on both borders-not just the southern ones. One might be more concerned with the thousands of square miles of unprotected grazing land and wheat fields we share with Canada. That wall would surely put a damper on those operations-as well on our relationship with one of our oldest allies.

[Gary]

and the looming threat of radical Islamic fueled retaliation from other countries?

I'll tell you what we do, we turn tail and run like Spain.

[Trae]

I don't know what the deal is on this. These people always make fun of our presidents and people of power in our nation, but when someone makes fun of them, hell breaks loose. Yeah, Muhammed may be their savior, but still...

[Gary]

To be honest, I don't have the solution. That does not negate my postion on walls to protect political borders.

Historicly they give a false sense of security from the Great Wall to the Berlin Wall. It's like any "feel-good" law; like a ban against all abortion for example. That would make alot of people feel victorious and virtuous but it doesn't solve the problem: there has always been abortion and there will always be abortion. A rational view would to make it safe and rare. The irrational "feel-good" solution will only drive the poor back into the alley while the wealthy jet off to Switzerland.

I hope I didn't veer too far off your reply-I guess I'm trying to show a bad example of public policy: The instant gratification "feel good" solution. Walling off my country just doesn't seem a rational solution-to a problem that might be blow a bit out of proportion.

I respect your point of view, but the problem is so out of control that we have to come up a viable solution, and soon. If not a wall, something. Problem is that we'll get no help from Fox, and our current administration is either stupid, or politically neutralized to the point that they'll do nothing as well. I'm starting to believe the latter.

As far as Canada, they've been no help either. Of course I shouldn't go off tangents about other governments when the one we have right here is obviously inept.

[Parrothead]

I don't understand why we have to cowtow to everyone else's position, but when it comes to making our own position we're smacked down and called "intolerant". Ridiculous.

I can't BELIEVE any Muslim gets their panties in a wad over a cartoon. OOH...someone made fun of Allah. Whoopdee-frickin-doo. People right here on this forum make fun of Christians all the time. The best thing Christians can do is just continue to be good Christians. Ultimately, Muslims are going to self-destruct with behavior like this, and it's stupid people in America and elsewhere with their wide-open arms and blind love that have let this go this far.

Lots of folks have the impression that most people are generally good. They forget about the others.

[RedScare]

I respect your point of view, but the problem is so out of control that we have to come up a viable solution, and soon. If not a wall, something. Problem is that we'll get no help from Fox, and our current administration is either stupid, or politically neutralized to the point that they'll do nothing as well. I'm starting to believe the latter.

As far as Canada, they've been no help either. Of course I shouldn't go off tangents about other governments when the one we have right here is obviously inept.

The problem with the Mexican border (and isolation in general) is the economic hit the country must take to enforce it. One need only watch the fight WITHIN the Republican Party to see the different views on this. Bush and some others want a guest worker program because they see the value of lower wage workers. Others want a Berlin Wall, regardless of economic and military (or police) cost. No matter what the costs, 5,317 miles of LAND border, plus 12,500 miles of shoreline (not including Alaska) is almost impossible to defend effectively. I don't have a viable solution to this issue either.

It is important to realize that the US does not have to cowtow or be tolerant of ANYONE. But, there are consequences to every action. Frankly, demonstrations in response to a cartoon are not our concern, except to keep an eye on what happens next. But, if we were to, for instance, bomb every cleric who spouted inflammatory rhetoric, we would find ourselves at war with several Muslim countries, as well as fending off terrorists at every gas station and Starbucks in the country. Is even the most ardent Neo-Con willing to incur the wrath of 1 Billion Muslims? I think not.

So, I think our "tolerance" might more accurately be described as discretion.

[Jeebus]

I hope I didn't veer too far off your reply-I guess I'm trying to show a bad example of public policy: The instant gratification "feel good" solution. Walling off my country just doesn't seem a rational solution-to a problem that might be blow a bit out of proportion.

But at what point do we determine what constitutes an instant gratification from a ginuwine good idea? I understand everyones fear of having a wall along our borders. Many feel that we would become Isolationists. I'm not advising us to build a wall with no gates though! I'm also not advising that we hunt down illegals and throw them out. Here is the long term thought of my "wall now" solution:

Illegal-immigrant workers primarily work in the services sector of our economy. Things such as agriculture planting & harvesting, new construction & renovation, and interior/exterior private home services. It is big business that has created a need for these workers. The more big business, the more workers come over. By walling up the borders, the supply of low-pay, no benefit workers will dry up. This will force big business to increase their employee incentives and cut their profits so that they can continue to keep productivity. This will force them to again hire American workers, and turn out a better product. They will be forced to turn out a better product because they will be more observant of the product their now high-wage employees are creating. The only businesses that fail, will be the ones that continue to be greedy. They will have to learn to balance their money between executives & laborers.

By having a wall we are not becoming isolationists, we're simply returning to a lost independence. The only jobs we will continue to lose will be to big business that can go global (Auto Industry), at which point a smart government would tax them to death for selling out American jobs.

Again, this is just how I see it. Building the wall would cause some tightening of the belt for the short term, but in the long term, we will see greater prosperity.

The problem with the Mexican border (and isolation in general) is the economic hit the country must take to enforce it.

Can you further define what you would consider an economic hit to the US would be?

The only thing I see taking a true hit on a national level is agriculture. The only thing on a regional level would be construction. Everything else that illegals do seems to be things that we've grown so lazy over that we've now out sourced them to illegals (lawn service, house cleaning, painting, etc etc..)

Also Red, I hate that everytime someone mentions building a wall, you throw out isolationism. No one here is saying to not build gates, and even more importantly, no one is saying we should close our seaports.

[MidtownCoog]

Writers issue cartoon row warning

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4763520.stm

[infinite_jim]

What exactly is wrong with the current system on the southern border?

I think we should open up the borders and protect what's vital from within, as opposed to keeping everything else out.

[nmainguy]

What exactly is wrong with the current system on the southern border?

I think we should open up the borders and protect what's vital from within, as opposed to keeping everything else out.

...commie...

[notfromhouston]

[font=Microsoft Sans Serif]Hi!

This is my first time on this forum and I happened to read this thread . I just had to add my part, there was so much i wanted to say but couldn't find the words so i remembered a paper i had recently written and felt it held some appropriate views and here they are:

The essence of a liberal democratic state is the concept of

[Jeebus]

I think we should open up the borders and protect what's vital from within, as opposed to keeping everything else out.

So to use a simple analogy to illustrate how well your idea of a border policy would work: You're saying that if you had a leaky drain pipe, instead of turning off the faucet, you're just going to try and repair the leak with the water still running.

Until we turn off the faucet (close the borders) none of our leaky pipes (illegal immigration issues) are going to get fixed.

[nmm]

Being a Muslim, i thought id share a perspective that perhaps you cant find elsewhere.

Simply put: They attacked the one thing we hold dearer to us then our lives. They attacked the one thing that we hold dearer to us then our parents, our childen, our wealth, our health, our nations, our history, our future, ourselves.

We are able to tolerate living under years of oppression under our rulers, unless and until you go off to the far side; the point of no return.

Quite simply, we take this stuff seriously.

[nmm]

I can't BELIEVE any Muslim gets their panties in a wad over a cartoon. OOH...someone made fun of Allah. Whoopdee-frickin-doo. People right here on this forum make fun of Christians all the time. The best thing Christians can do is just continue to be good Christians. Ultimately, Muslims are going to self-destruct with behavior like this, and it's stupid people in America and elsewhere with their wide-open arms and blind love that have let this go this far.

Honestly, no one takes God seriously in this country. Or not as serious as the Muslim World.

Whereas Christians believe in Seperation of Church and State, Muslims dont. Without religion in politics its almost as if you say religion isnt important enough to be included in our day to day affairs.

And the definition each society holds of their respective religions is also different. For the greater part of the Christian West, religion is something you do on Sundays from 9 - 3. For the Muslim Near East, its something down 24/7, even whilst you are sleeping.

The Christians believe religion is not something to be mixed with day-to-day politics, while Muslims believe it is vital to it.

The West claims religion is something private you choose to do. The Near East has only one definition of religion in Arabic: deen; and deen means 'way of life' ---> hence your dietary, social, religous, political, family, hygenic and sexual laws are all found in one place and actually applied in day to day affairs.

Muslims are much more serious about religion then the West is. Much like how the West is more severe of 'individual rights, or freedom of speech' then the Near East is. All in all both socities respect religion and individual rights, but one takes religion on a more personal basis then the 'freedoms of man' and vice versa.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want a similar reaction in America, tell them that their nation's founding fathers were child molesters, that they are heartlessly cruel in their path to financial prosperity, that their freedoms of speech are overrated and the right to bear firearms only leads to the high crime found in the US of A. Tell them that the ideals their societies were built on belong in the gutter, and the reason they are so screwed up is because they have abnormal working hours for the sake of Capitalist economic benefit; hence their detached and emotionally distressed populations.

But the most violent reaction would be something deeply imbedded in the nation's history. I can only think of ONE word powerful enough to cause the same violent protests and martial law. The "N" word. If you advocate that word to a wide degree, you watch for the results. We already know how the White Supremist march in Florida ended a few weeks back. Think of that on a grander scale.

[RedScare]

nmm, I believe your assessment of the situation, and futher agree with your assessment of the US Christian shallowness. It has often been studied, and found that, while Europe has fewer Christian believers, their belief is much deeper than US christians.

However, your explanation of the expected harsh reaction to disparagement of Muslim beliefs exposes the real conflict, one that most Americans miss as well, that is, my individual right to my opinion. As disgusting as it may be to Blacks, if I choose to believe in White Supremacy, it is my right to do so. As wrong as they may be, it is a Christian's individual right to believe Islam is a violent religion. And certainly, it is a Muslim's right to believe that cartoons depicting Muhammed disparagingly is the work of infidels.

The issue is what to do once the conflict arises. Westerners believe that you are entitled to your beliefs, however repugnant they may be. Many (not all) 'Easterners' believe the state may outlaw those beliefs that conflict with the majority view. They are, frankly, wrong. I am agnostic. I am as strong in my belief as a Muslim or Christian is in his. Why is my doubt in the existence of a god subservient to your belief in Munammed?

The difference can best be shown in the reactions of different groups of Muslims. In the US, offended Muslims wrote editorials, gave lectures, and even organized peaceful protests to make known their displeasure. In the Middle East, there were violent protests, demands for arrest and insistence that different opinions be silenced. Despite the insistence that this is a clash of religious beliefs, it is not. It is a clash of the belief in the right to free expression.

I defend the right of Muslims to express their outrage at the cartoons. I defend the right of the KKK to display it's hatred. I defend the right of Pat Robertson to pontificate on his perverted view of Chritianity. Where I draw the line is the belief by any of these groups in the right to silence the voices of those who hold opposing views, no matter how repugnant their views are or based on how deeply felt your beliefs are.

As an aside, I would caution you not to confuse the calls to violent protest of the imams with the strongly held beliefs of their followers. This is simply a power grab by the imams. If the imams exhorted their followers to peaceful, but vocal protest, the followers would have likely obliged. Since the imams incited their followers to violence for the purpose of intimidating others, the followers reacted accordingly.

[nmm]

You ask 'why is my agnostic belief subservient to the belief of a muslim's' and im gonna tell you its so because the Islamic state is founded on the belief of Islam as the sole genuine belief and not the Western Concepts we find in Europe and North America.

While Islamic Shariah does give the right for non-muslims to practice their faith, they dislike (severely) that non-muslims preach their faith.

Just the same way the Democratic US would disallow a coup in their country with the intentions of establishing a monarchy.

Simply put: the aspirations of the Islamic Goverment are not the same as the objectives of a Secular-Humanist goverment.

There are things that both tolerate, and things that they wont tolerate at all.

The Islamic State doesnt give a damn as to what principles you live your financial lifestyle, whether it be the Socialist view or the Capitalist view or even the Communist view where everyone does an unequal amount of work for the same benefits. As long as Islamic Shariah (law) is practiced in the land.

The West has two concerns (as far as i can see):

1. The 'Bill of Rights'

2. Economy

Whenever the next presidential elections roll around you hear the candidates proclaim how they are going to cut taxes, lead a new economic revolution and how to curtail 'Big Goverment' and give us our rights back. Not so in the Muslim world; quite frankly because they culturaly dont see wealth as an end, but a means to an end.

These two things continously trouble the West, and as a result, the State doesnt really care what religion you follow or through what culture you live your lifestyle. Its just as legal for a Satanist to practice his faith as it is a Southern Baptist to do so. Its just as okay to have adulterous relationships or lead a 'Swingers' lifestyle as it is to be severly monogamous or bisexual.

In conclusion, the Muslims believe that their view is right, so they would promote it in their nations. The same way, the West views itself as right, and they would promote their Secular-Humanist philosophy (and occasionally youll find them institutionally putting down alien concepts. Communism was shunned on the goverment level in the 50s).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Honestly, if your a fan of history, then you know this is nothing new. Throughout the history of man, certain people with the SAME ideas came together to promote their cause. Its been continuing like this for generations and will continue far into the future. Its the nature of mankind.

[RedScare]

You bring up a great point, that the Islmaic State rejects some of the 'rights' that Western Democratic States hold dear. Would you then agree that the Islamic State's right to impose it's will stops at it's border, just as surely as George Bush's right to insist on 'free and democratic government' stops at our own border? I would suggest that it does, meaning that in some respects, both groups are wrong.

The economic obsession of US policy is not a right. It IS a belief that an expanding economy raises the standard of living of all of it's citizens. I believe that an unhealthy obsession with any belief causes problems, including our unhealthy obsession with the economy. In fact, despite protestations to the contrary, the invasion of Iraq was a poorly planned attempt at stabilizing the US oil supply. By falsely claiming that the war was intended to make Iraq free and democratic, the Administration could not install a friendly government led by Ahmed Chalabi. This allowed Iraqis to elect a decidedly non-US friendly Shiite dominated government, with the result being that the US oil supply is LESS stable than before the invasion.

[nmm]

1. However, your explanation of the expected harsh reaction to disparagement of Muslim beliefs exposes the real conflict, one that most Americans miss as well, that is, my individual right to my opinion. As disgusting as it may be to Blacks, if I choose to believe in White Supremacy, it is my right to do so. As wrong as they may be, it is a Christian's individual right to believe Islam is a violent religion. And certainly, it is a Muslim's right to believe that cartoons depicting Muhammed disparagingly is the work of infidels.

2. The difference can best be shown in the reactions of different groups of Muslims. In the US, offended Muslims wrote editorials, gave lectures, and even organized peaceful protests to make known their displeasure. In the Middle East, there were violent protests, demands for arrest and insistence that different opinions be silenced. Despite the insistence that this is a clash of religious beliefs, it is not. It is a clash of the belief in the right to free expression.

1. I thank God everyday he has granted me the gift of being influenced by three cultures. I am capable of seeing the same topic from three different view points.

You say that it is everyones right to believe in what they want, no matter whether its right or wrong. The Muslims would severely criticize you for that. A Muslim would say 'what is wrong should never be tolerated' and they would discourage that wrong. From the Muslims' point of view racism, satanism, and idol worship are wrong.

*****A side thing to understand about Muslims is that they have a very utilitarian belief of their religion. They honestly dont see why religion shouldnt mix with politics. To a Muslim, empty ideas are useless ideas, no matter how good they sound.

Whereas Christians have the concept of 'turn the other cheek' Muslims believe in Jihad. People in the West criticize Jihad (struggle) and characterize Islam as violent but Muslims see it from a very utilitarian perspective. For a people who dont understand why religion and politics dont go together, they see Jihad as an essential way of defending the state, or bracing for offensive wars.

Moreover, the Muslims in turn criticize Christians. While "Christian America" constantly claims Christianity tells them to 'turn the other cheek' they are the only ones in the World today who believe in preemptive strike. A Muslim would say 'Who is the hypocrite? Me or you?' The Middle East widely believes Christianity is nothing more then a 'feel good' drug for the West, and the concept of 'turn the other cheek' is another empty, good for nothing except 'making myself feel better about me' idea. *****

Continuing on, since Muslims believe Christianity, Atheism, and Hinduism dont work, they will try to supress or control these 'failed' ideas. They honestly, from the bottom of their heart, believe Islam came from God, so why waste time on these petty philosophies when clear guidance from your Creator has come to you?

White supremacy (or Black Nationalism for that matter) are both absurd ideas (from the Islamic POV).

2. Yes. You are correct that they want what they deem the wrong opinions, be silenced. See, the way i see it, it IS a clash of civilizations.

Free speech is only useful when its the truth, not when its blatant false propaganda. If anyone remembers the muckraking taking place during the 2004 Presidential Elections in the USA, it was discovered that the Republicans were accusing John Kerry of things he DID NOT do. When it was discovered they were lying, they hid behind "free speech". That crap wont stand with Muslims. To the Muslim, free speech is okay as long as the accusations were made with clear and correct intentions, not for personal gains or for the sake of false propaganda.

In Islam, speech is practiced within the boundaries of certain parameters. If you look at Islamic History, we criticized our own Caliphs, and they took back their opinions if they found the criticisms well founded. Our heros died in jail cells and dungeons dying for what they believed in. But we place limits on free speech, namely you criticize for the right reasons, and you criticize in a respectful manner. The caricatures were certainly not respectful, nor were they done with wisdom, nor did they criticize with respect.

Also, the violent protests are not a character of Muslims soley. It is more or less the type of demonstrations youd see in uneducated, low-class societies. If you noticed, Saudi Arabia didnt have protests. They merely did what they thought would hurt the Danish the most: boycotting with the intention of economic repurcussions. One the other hand, where you find higher aeas of unemplyment and illeducation you had the more violent protests.

A good way for Americans to understand this event would be similar to the Los Angeles riots after the Rodeny King trial. Uneducated societies dont have the same advanatges of educated ones, hence they decide to express themselves not by writing letters or economic boycotting; rather by looting, shooting, and flag burning.

[RedScare]

You did not answer my question. Would you agree that the Islamic State's right to silence it's detractors stops at it's borders, just as George Bush's wish to install 'democracy' stops at ours?

BTW, I applaud and support Saudi Arabia's approach of non-violent economic boycott. They may spend their money whereever they choose. I also condemn the 'violent protest' after the King verdict, if it can even be called such. I think it was opportunistic looting.

[TJones]

I believe that Muslims have the right to believe in their Allah, just as much as Christians have their right to believe in God. Agnostics also have to same right to "believe" that there IS no God, they have still chosen a "belief" so it still all works out for them. Muslims ,however, do not believe that anyone else can choose another belief other than Allah, which makes me question why the hell are they in this country ? Freedom of religion is a major factor in the founding of this country, although it had different meaning when it was written, Muslims who migrate here now need to deal with the fact that when you are a "guest" in another country, that you respect the rules set by that country. Your beliefs are fine to worship as you will, but don't spew off that your religion is "THE ONE TRUE RELIGION !" and try to make out that everyone else is wrong because they don't believe what YOU believe.

[nmainguy]

I believe that Muslims have the right to believe in their Allah, just as much as Christians have their right to believe in God. Agnostics also have to same right to "believe" that there IS no God, they have still chosen a "belief" so it still all works out for them. Muslims ,however, do not believe that anyone else can choose another belief other than Allah, which makes me question why the hell are they in this country ? Freedom of religion is a major factor in the founding of this country, although it had different meaning when it was written, Muslims who migrate here now need to deal with the fact that when you are a "guest" in another country, that you respect the rules set by that country. Your beliefs are fine to worship as you will, but don't spew off that your religion is "THE ONE TRUE RELIGION !" and try to make out that everyone else is wrong because they don't believe what YOU believe.

Though they are eloquent, I'm not sure nmm is quite acurate with his/her broad and sweeping remarks.

I'm not convinced all Muslims are as dogmatic and as closed-minded as nmm suggests. Whether or not a Muslim in native born, immigrant, naturalized citizen or a "guest", they have been welcomed and seem quite happy to be here.

All I see is hard working, peaceful Muslims in the US. If they do indeed harbor some of the beliefs nmm proclaims all Muslims do, then they do a good job at not acting on them.

As I've said before, there is nothing we can or should do about European cartoonists-or US cartoonists for that matter.

That's about all I can say as I am not inclined to debate with a person who clearly detests our "Secular-Humanist goverment" yet just as clearly uses it to his own advantage in this very forum. My guess is that the monarchal dictators in Saudi would not allow such a free and open exchange of ideas-much less the civil disagreement that sometimes occurs among 99% of the posters.

[RedScare]

It has always struck me as odd to use as one's argument that, 'I am this way because I am the only one who is right'. And, it is no more believable when a Muslim says it, than when a Christian does.