The Middle East part 2

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

The cartoons where made by several different artists. One of them was worse than the other - the one where muhammed have a bomb on his head.

The cartoon was simply made to symbolise that some extremist groups actually use the religion (Muhammed) as an excuse to use force to archive their goals.

What makes you assume that it's an "excuse", rather than a religious obligation, based on the teachings of the Quran, Hadiths and Surrahs, as well as other writing and Islamic historical precedants, including the acts and behavior of Mohamed himself?

EDIT: Abs is correct. Open the books themselves and read.

Its not an excuse, its a fact. That is how we work here in Denmark, and how we express our oppinions. Our humour is simply over-rating small things to big ones, to express the way some people think. How it is in Israel is considered regardless here in Denmark.

If you had quoted my entire post, you would see I was merely describing how humour and expressions work here in Denmark.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Most of the support I've seen around my area (Southeast U.S.) is in favor of the newspapers. Letters to the editor in our papers have been fairly overwhelming in support of the Danish. Someone even said the Birmingham News should print the cartoon every day to show solidarity with the Danish.

(excuse me for saying this) How stupid! Showing solidarity by implying that these cartoons represent the general Danish opinion?

Well I may assume it does not! We all have a problem now, we have to defend something stupid to validate something good!

I stand firmly behind the freedom of press, but those cartoons are damn ignorant, silly and tasteless (I say this no matter what the reaction of the muslims would have been).

And looking back at the german history, I must say these cartoons are a flashback in history and reminds me of cartoons of "DEN JUDEN" who were stigmatised as stingy, treacherous..and ungreatful. Maybe this is not what the author meant to show, but this the way it is being perceived

And instead of seeing a jew with a long noose, dark rings under his eyes and a cigar in his mouth we see "THE MUSLIM (Mohammed himself)" portrayed as a suicide bomber!

In my opinion it is the same tasteless approach.... so back then, would we have defended the Anti-jewish cartoons too, just because they were "somewhat" right? After all the common opinion was that the jewish community in Germany was wealthy and highly active in giving out loans with high(est) interest rates. But since we all know of the Holocaust we would never ever even think about posting anti jewish images (and this is good!

But in the end this might turn out to be boomerang for our ideology because the ugly politicans in Iran might dig out an old Nazi cartoons portraying the jew as the one controlling our freedom of press. Would we feel comfortable having to learn that this Nazi stuff could also be part of our freedom of press?

Again, I stand firmly behind the right of free speech and freedom of press.

[EiZei 0]

Again, I stand firmly behind the right of free speech and freedom of press. But the cartoon is racist and it makes me get angry to see a lot of naive americans talking about the bad bad Nazis and still defend their propaganda methods! So maybe I should not take something so far away from you. Maybe I should post funny cartoons about "Niggers" published in the US more than a century ago, would these also fall under the law of freedom of press then?

I don't see your nation's embassy getting burned our murder attempts nor legal consequences if you did that.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Again, I stand firmly behind the right of free speech and freedom of press. But the cartoon is racist and it makes me get angry to see a lot of naive americans talking about the bad bad Nazis and still defend their propaganda methods! So maybe I should not take something so far away from you. Maybe I should post funny cartoons about "Niggers" published in the US more than a century ago, would these also fall under the law of freedom of press then?

I don't see your nation's embassy getting burned our murder attempts nor legal consequences if you did that.

Can you please stick to my train of thought! I am not talking about the extremists currently burning embassies, they probably would have done it anyway, just for a different pseudo reason. I am talking about your muslim neighbour who sees his prophet in his newspaper being portrayed as a murderer and asks himself what he should think of it!

And you are dequalifying yourself when you say that a burning embassy influences your opnion on the issue. It should not, since it has nothing to do with it! So can you please learn to diversify. Not every muslim who saw the cartoon took part in the attack against the embassy!

(anyhow, I dont realy get your point, the sentence you posted is quite confusing )

[theavonlady 2]

And instead of seeing a jew with a long noose, dark rings under his eyes and a cigar in his mouth we see "THE MUSLIM (Mohammed himself)" portrayed as a suicide bomber!

http://www.nbr.co.nz/images/Mohammed_cartoon.jpg

The same tasteless approach.... so back then, would you have defended the Anti-jewish cartoons too, just because they were "somewhat" right? Just because the jewish community in Germany was indeed considered wealthy and highly active in giving out loans with high interest rates? Nah, back then you would have of course neglected the right of freedom of press, right? Because these images back then were racist!

Cry me a river.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

And instead of seeing a jew with a long noose, dark rings under his eyes and a cigar in his mouth we see "THE MUSLIM (Mohammed himself)" portrayed as a suicide bomber!

http://www.nbr.co.nz/images/Mohammed_cartoon.jpg

The same tasteless approach.... so back then, would you have defended the Anti-jewish cartoons too, just because they were "somewhat" right? Just because the jewish community in Germany was indeed considered wealthy and highly active in giving out loans with high interest rates? Nah, back then you would have of course neglected the right of freedom of press, right? Because these images back then were racist!

Cry me a river.

I know your favourite hobby is Googling but then againyou try to proof me wrong by quoting a rubbish site just from the other side of evil? Do you honestly believe I wouldnt be able find something simillar in hebrew about the arab world? Nah, too old for silly generalisations!

I have the feeling you too judge by emotions rather than by raison! I am simply saying that this cartoon is bad taste, no matter what the reactions in the islamic world would have been. So would it be the right approach to take this cartoon as the symbol on our battle-flag to fight for freedom of press?

Maybe you are not the person to talk to objectively about this issue but yes, the Cartoon IS racist! And I dont want to defend freedom of press with a racist symbol!

It must be the Irony of history that a german has to explain that to an israeli! (my revenge for your sarcastic reply)

[Abs_01 0]

I'm just curious about how many of you out there actually know a muslim person, personally. I'm talking like "Hey Ahmed, how's it going?".

If you do know one, does he fit all the comments on here? Does he scream "death to Jews" and goes off burning embassies? Does he one day dream of becoming a martyr?

I'm basically curious about how many of the opinions on here are based on generalizations, and how many are based on first-hand experience.

Abs

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm basically curious about how many of the opinions on here are based on generalizations, and how many are based on first-hand experience.

Funny how you put it. I wouldn't label those who don't have muslim friends as 'generalizers'.

I knew one Arab muslim once and he was nice honest working family man enthusiastic at his work and based on his talk a pretty secular fellow.

[Balschoiw 0]

Have been cooperating with muslims from different countries and continents for the last 15 years. I was surprised how welcoming they were, even invitations to their homes and stays for a few weeks at their homes were a big gesture. It may sound like a cliche but I came as a stranger and left as a friend or even more in some cases. Of course there were idiots aswell but that´s just the average idiot factor we face everywhere. I was especially pissed about the red haired muslim elders on the african continent as they are a real pain in the *beep* when it comes to changes like female treatment, revenge, tribal conflicts, etc. Of course you have to keep in mind that they basically life in stoneage and the things they have experienced over the last decades are nothing that we can make judgements about. Who knows how we would be with such experiences.

During and after WW2 people in european nations flooded the churches as it was the only place where they felt better. I guess it´s just natural that they do exactly the same thing on their level of religion. If you have nothing to eat, you pray.

[LennyD 0]

And looking back at the german history, I must say these cartoons are a flashback in history and reminds me of cartoons of "DEN JUDEN" who were stigmatised as stingy, treacherous..and ungreatful.

OMG...please stop tearing the "man with a bomb on his head" - picture (i don't want to offend any one by reposting the image or even calling the name... ) out of the article it was posted with.

Every brainless maniac can take a picture, tell a story to it and say it's an offence to something (as the "man dressed like a pig picture"..i hope you know what i mean).

The PROPAGANDA publisched by the nazis has nothing to do with an articel about the rolle the muslim holy book and their prophet has in terror and the justification of it.

Come on, do you know so littel about the text that came with the cartoon or the meaning of it? The nazi publishing you refere to was linked with the repression, chase and eventualy murder of a religious group. So if i take your point further, you say exactly the same **** as an imam in denmark did..."the muslims in denmark are being repressed and the islam hunted"

I think you must have a peanut for a brain to tell the word that a democratic staate is bad, where a newspaper criticised the way terrorists use the islam and the spiritual-leaders of it not doing anything against it,....that was exactly what this imam did. So please don't copy him by takeing two pictures out of their contend and equaling them .... i bet i can do that with your last holiday pics and a nazi propaganda-picture

No muslim in denmark has to wear a star or isn't allowed to run a buisness....which was already the case in the germany you compare denmark to. You can't take a free press and compare it to a censored, staate controlled fanatic press like it was in the "3rd reich"....or is now in the iran!!!!

If it is your opinion, fair enough (freedom of speech, i won't burn down your house ).......but this would disapiont me. We're all a little more educated, aren't we!?

EDIT: I wrote before that i have a lot of muslim neighbours and got on well with them. We had a nice barbecue last summer in our street and really had fun (lots of pork left over for me )....but in some cases they tend to get a littel to wound up. During london bombing i hat a simpathy-sticker on my postboy...for about a day, until s.o. had torn it to bits. Same now... i think if i would stick a denmark-flag on my car, it would be scrap a day later. Even if these are only actions by a few residents (what i doubt, 'cos they all think and talk the same about the situation), the rest just covers them...the rat in the postboy down the lane is just one of a few examples.

As a responsible and peaceloving german citizen they should rather stand to the "grundgesetz" (basic law) than to violent actions they support verbal.

[Abs_01 0]

Quote[/b] ]Funny how you put it. I wouldn't label those who don't have muslim friends as 'generalizers'.

I didn't say that they were. I suppose I should have been somewhat clearer, and said 'whose only experience with muslims comes from what is seen/heard on the media and then base their opinions on that'.

Abs

EDIT:

Quote[/b] ]The cartoon was simply made to symbolise that some extremist groups actually use the religion (Muhammed) as an excuse to use force to archive their goals.

I'm not going to lie to you; I hadn't considered that interpretation. That's a pretty deep look into the meaning of it. Clearly, people took the more obvious meaning of it which is "The prophet is a terrorist".

It is clear fact that the reason those cartoons were drawn is because an author who wanted to write a book on Muhammed wanted some illustrations, and there were none because it is against the Islamic religion to do so. Therefore to say that these cartoons are an interpretation of the way terrorists shield themselves behind the Koran may be one interpretation, but it was not the intent of the original artist.

[LennyD 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm not going to lie to you; I hadn't considered that interpretation. That's a pretty deep look into the meaning of it. Clearly, people took the more obvious meaning of it which is "The prophet is a terrorist".

That was the intention of the newspaper...i had an english version some where...

Quote[/b] ]It is clear fact that the reason those cartoons were drawn is because an author who wanted to write a book on Muhammed wanted some illustrations, and there were none because it is against the Islamic religion to do so. Therefore to say that these cartoons are an interpretation of the way terrorists shield themselves behind the Koran may be one interpretation, but it was not the intent of the original artist.

where did you get that from? The conection between the articel the pic was postet with and the drawing itself is different!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I never made this connection between denmark and Nazi Germany! Dont read between the lines where there is nothing written.

(I guess I should writer shorter sentences)

I was speaking about impact an image with obviously racist content can have on us. The psychology factor, if you want it!

A racist image with a Jew on it makes us get embarassed, so does the insultive image of a "Nigger" . We consider this to be historically insensitive! Now we have a racist and insultive image of the most important symbols of Islam? This time we dont get embarassed, why is that? Simply because nothing has gone wrong yet, because we havent physically hurt them yet?

Quote[/b] ]I think you must have a peanut for a brain

As you say, we are probably all somewhat educated, but some of us definetly lack manners and the sensitivity to talk to each other properly. Forget about the riots in the middle East, dont you think many moderate muslims in europe are feeling hurt by these cartoons too? Do you think there couldnt have been a better way of sending the desired message than insulting their Prophet?

[Abs_01 0]

Here is a link to a BBC Article.

Below are a couple of exceprts to support my comments.

Quote[/b] ]The pictures accompanied an editorial criticising self-censorship after Danish writer Kare Bluitgen complained that he was unable to find an illustrator for his children's book about the Prophet.

Quote[/b] ]Jyllands-Posten's culture editor, Flemming Rose, says he did not ask the illustrators to draw satirical caricatures of Muhammad. He asked them to draw the Prophet as they saw him.

Abs

[LennyD 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think you must have a peanut for a brain

Oha...I did not want to say that YOU have a peanut for a brain.... it should mean that "you" (someone) must have one, telling the things the imam said....

What puzzels me is that "Al Fader"-Newspaper in Kairo printed the cartoons on 17.10.05... during ramadan. Without ONE reaction of the muslim comunity. So how offencive can they be

EDIT:

Quote[/b] ]Jyllands-Posten's culture editor, Flemming Rose, says he did not ask the illustrators to draw satirical caricatures of Muhammad. He asked them to draw the Prophet as they saw him.

Well, not what i read before.....but still HIS own opinion und totaly legitimate.

[Abs_01 0]

Quote[/b] ]but still HIS own opinion and totaly legitimate

Sure, they're based on opinions. But this is why there is such an outcry over the responsibilities that come with freedom. Just because you might say "In my opinion, the prophet is a terrorist" you should; especially if you are a newspaper?

Is it worth it just to insult a billion people (assuming each and every muslim was insulted)? There has to be somewhere to draw the line.

Abs

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm not going to lie to you; I hadn't considered that interpretation. That's a pretty deep look into the meaning of it. Clearly, people took the more obvious meaning of it which is "The prophet is a terrorist".

It is clear fact that the reason those cartoons were drawn is because an author who wanted to write a book on Muhammed wanted some illustrations, and there were none because it is against the Islamic religion to do so. Therefore to say that these cartoons are an interpretation of the way terrorists shield themselves behind the Koran may be one interpretation, but it was not the intent of the original artist.

Actually, that was the reason. The whole case erupted back in September, when a childrens book writer couldnt find any pictures for a book he was writing. He asked Jylland-Posten for help concerning this issue, and after they realised none of newer time really existed, they made a contest. They asked their own cartoon artists to make a drawing of Muhammed the way they looked at it. The whole lot of cartoons came with a little comment from each author. Many of them, including the most critized one (bomb on head), were made to illustrate how some terrorists hide behind the face of religion. That it was Muhammed that he drew was obvious, since many terror-groups are using Islam as refference when doing terror-acts.

The cartoons actually didn't upset the Muslims here in Denmark, until a compeeting (very left-oriented) newspaper suddenly (after a couple of weeks) made headlines about the drawings. The whole thing grew bigger during a week, with a couple of letters from angry muslims in newspapers etc.

Then the whole case finally went to sleep, and we all forgot about it - well, most of us.

Some Imams from our country went to the Middleeast spreading rumours and lies etc. The latest are showing a "Muhammed as a pig". When they were told that it wasnt one of the cartoons, they instead of telling that it was a published picture - they told that it was sent to them anomnymious and that it SHOULD have been printed, but because of lack of space on the newspaper (yes - we all thought it sounded very weird... But you gotta admit, those Imams have a "healthy" imagination), it never got published. Yesterday they found out that the picture is actually a bad print of a photography taken in 1980 in France...

...It is a family-father in a pig-whining competition.

How far are we to go in this stupid thing? Sure it was a stupid thing to publish those pictures.. But they really arent that bad, its just because of all this hype and generalisations etc.

We arent racists here in Denmark - we are just free... And so are our Muslim friends uphere.

Finally, the two pics if you havent seen them allready (for an illustration on how stupid and pathetic the whole case have allready evolved into).

The pic that the Imams showed, and got many Muslims really upset:

The pic taken at a French pig-whining competition of a family-father in 1980

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Never discussed any politics in OT but here is my opinion:

You guys saying that you don't know any muslim people, well, I live in Bosnia, and interact with muslims on day-to-day basis, my best friend is muslim, my neigbours are muslim, my teachers, most of my goverment, etc.

All I can say, if you didn't know, you wouldn't know they were muslim, they are like every other people, like you and me, like little Johnny from the suburbs, like Erica from down the lane, they do not go suicide bombing on shit, they do not get offended like crybabies, they live their f***ing lives like everyone else hoping to see the other day and thank god that they lived trough another, like the rest of us. They do not speak in weird arabic accent, they do not wear rags (altough some women choose to do so, they are not forced), some are wealthy, some are poor, some are sick, some are healthy. No fucking difference except they belive different than you. Would you kill someone if they belive OFP sucks and they would rather belive that CSS is better? No? I tought so. If yes then go visit your shrink.

The things that Danes did is not a good example, and grabbing to the "Freedom of Speech/Expression/Press" straw isn't helping, that isn't freedom of Speech/Expression/Press, that is plain insulting, and the artist who drew that should've said that he is sorry in first place, when I don't understand some points of Islam, or insult someone who is Muslim on the religious basis by accident or ignorance, i apologise, and they accept my apology, because they know that I did not understand, they do not yell "Jihad!" and pull off their shirt and detonate. Thats the thing American press/goverment/Mr. Bush say, because they do not fucking know s**t. And I see day-to-day Americans who belive that, whitch is very wrong.

All of this could have been resolved with two fu**ing words "We're sorry" or "We did not understand".

Do not fool yourself, there were protests in Bosnia too, but noone had a rifle, noone threw a stone, there were some burning flags, some nasty words, but those were the people who belive in their faith a bit too much, a bit too passionate, I do not judge them. Last night as we watched the protests on TV, me and my friends tought to ourselves that they are making fools of themselves, like it's a big f***ing thing. But that is our opinion.

Now, I'm not gonna stand on the either side of the field, the Danes are to blame for their slow actions and the publising of those images in first place, the Muslim community over reacted, end of the f***ing story.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Well... I personally know alot of Muslims.

None of those I know have actually been much offended by these drawing - similar if I saw a picture of Jesus nude, I wouldnt be offended.

I dont know where you two had the thought that none from this thread know any Muslims?

Anyway. Jyllands-Posten have allready apologised they way you want. But its hard to give in on some of the demands that are running in uphere. Some are freaking ignorant. A couple days ago, I saw some Muslims from Thailand who demanded the drawers executed.

Sure, the Prime minister should have told the Muslims earlier, that he was surpriced they acted that way, and that he took distance from the situation. But it wouldnt have changed anything. The people in those countried doesnt even get the information anyway, unless the governments dont want to. The last couple of days, I still see protests from Muslims because the danish prime minister havent said a word yet - but he did. On December 31st.

- Thats a long time ago. And he have done so 4 times since. He have been on live television in the Arab countries twice. Our queen have even been on - and was misqouted! They quoted "Tolerance" and somehow they made it into "ignorance". Its just getting too pathetic - and to be honest - its not much of a big deal uphere anyway anymore, due to the pathetic way the governments and foreign media is handling the case... People are starting to ignore the whole deal. It havent hit us much economical either. The sales have gone down in the middle-east, and gone up in the rest of the world. The middle-east doesnt want to trade with us... Except for the large companys such as AP. Mřller who own Maersk, who transport all their oil of course (Lets have a double moral as usual, ey?)

Lies, rumours, miss-quotations, Imams speaking with two tounghs.. Who does it help? Atleast the Muslims uphere know the trueth, and they are as sick of it all as we are.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

First of all, I did not say that you don't know much Muslims, I just stated from what I saw other people say, hence I quote myself:

Quote[/b] ]You guys...

Second, I know that it's all BS, and shoud have been cleared up long time ago, and that the demands are ridicoulous is also true, I didn't say I support that, but all of that is just starting up at where I live, I've seen flags of Denmark, Norway, France, Croatia (!?) burn in vain, I mean, for me who lives on Balkans, I have a completely different view on things, if this escalates even more, some idiotic people may think that another war would be nice, I don't, this is very ridicoulous to me, but to you, who I suppose live in Denmark it's not big of a deal if another, so called, third-world country went to war over some bull**it, I wouldnt be surprised if it actually happens. You are probably safe from any "terror" (as almighty G.W. Bush would say), it's the embassies that are being assaulted, not the building next to witch your 100-year old grandma lives (This is just an example, I don't have a 100 year old grandmother, nor any family that lives near any embassy). If war happens, I doubt anyone would help, US helped because Bill Clinton, did not think out of his pocket, but out of his brain. There is no oil here, no profit for G.W., no profit for US, hence no military support. Only thing that would arrive would be UN food convoys.

I've been trough my share of wars, I was running from one building to next hoping that next bullet did not have my name on it, I know what it is like, I don't need another over some BS. And knowing the mentality of some lunatics/fanatics, it may not be that far from truth.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

True...

It is BS the whole thing. But it IS getting out of our hands - litterally.

[Dallas 9]

Speaking of the cartoons only.

I think the cartoons are an undignified use of our liberal freedom of speech and an unconditional apology would be in order. The problem is JP seems to lack to the sincerety or willingness to do just that. They came off with an half hearted: We didn't mean to offend..., yet in the same breath they go: They have won, we no longer have freedom of speech in Denmark...

They had every legal right to post these pictures, just like they can post explicit pictures of anal intercourse on their front page, but that don't make it right or very etichal. What they did was underestimate what they could get away with and underestimate the consequences. While trying to ride on a populistic wave, they accidentall feed and fueled religious fundementalists all over the Middle East.

As long as they only offended the minority in Denmark they showed no hessitation or remorse. After danish industry started suffering huge financial losses and buildings started burning, we woke up and began to listen. I'm not condoning any undemocratic ways to demonstrate, but this paper started an international crisis and killed off goodwill build through years of humanitarian and financial aid.

They did it in my name as a dane and a democrat.

<span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%'>Damn my lack of a higher education.</span>

[xawery 0]

Let's not start overreacting, shall we?

First, The cartoons weren't published with the sole purpose to offend, but to actually see whether cartoonists would be willing to draw Mohammed. Don't you think it's utterly ridiculous that there were so few people willing to portray Mohammed (in any way) in the first place? In a secular country? Second, as Espectro has mentioned, the cartoons came with a commentary from the artists themselves. Most people seem to take the illustrations on face value, while it's completely wrong to take them out of context. Is it not true that the extremists see the Islam as a justification of their acts? If anything, the cartoon showed how extremists manage to corrupt a religion that is basically peaceful (millions of followers who DON'T torch embassies prove that everyday).

2nd, it IS legal and one's right to insult someone else. I agree, it is not wise and simply uncourtious to insult someone just for the sake of it, but that was not the purpose of the illustrations. The purpose was to see whether cartoonists would be willing to portray the prophet Mohammed (a very valid question in a situation where most refuse to do it), and how they would go about it. The purpose was not to insult an sich.

3rd, it IS ok to insult religion. Why should religion get a different treatment from everything else? Why does religion deserve a seperate mention in the constitution (at least the Dutch constitution...)? Sniperwolf, you state in your signature that "Freedom of speech is not excersised by dissing someones religion". 'Dissing' (what a nice, broad term) someone's religion is most certainly excersising freedom of speech. It has been done for decades, with the Catholic faith, Protestant faith, or what have you. And it should remain that way. Dissing (let's stick to this term) is very subjective. What one may experience as insulting another may see as valid criticism. Taboos should not be observed, because they stand in the way of critical evaluation. To cite an example: if you try to criticise the policies of the state of Israel, you are labelled an anti-semite. If you criticise the Islam (position of the women etc. etc.) you are insulting religious feelings. Bollocks!

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Let's not start overreacting, shall we?

First, The cartoons weren't published with the sole purpose to offend, but to actually see whether cartoonists would be willing to draw Mohammed. Don't you think it's utterly ridiculous that there were so few people willing to portray Mohammed (in any way) in the first place? In a secular country? Second, as Espectro has mentioned, the cartoons came with a commentary from the artists themselves. Most people seem to take the illustrations on face value, while it's completely wrong to take them out of context. Is it not true that the extremists see the Islam as a justification of their acts? If anything, the cartoon showed how extremists manage to corrupt a religion that is basically peaceful (millions of followers who DON'T torch embassies prove that everyday).

2nd, it IS legal and one's right to insult someone else. I agree, it is not wise and simply uncourtious to insult someone just for the sake of it, but that was not the purpose of the illustrations. The purpose was to see whether cartoonists would be willing to portray the prophet Mohammed (a very valid question in a situation where most refuse to do it), and how they would go about it. The purpose was not to insult an sich.

3rd, it IS ok to insult religion. Why should religion get a different treatment from everything else? Why does religion deserve a seperate mention in the constitution (at least the Dutch constitution...)? Sniperwolf, you state in your signature that "Freedom of speech is not excersised by dissing someones religion". 'Dissing' (what a nice, broad term) someone's religion is most certainly excersising freedom of speech. It has been done for decades, with the Catholic faith, Protestant faith, or what have you. And it should remain that way. Dissing (let's stick to this term) is very subjective. What one may experience as insulting another may see as valid criticism. Taboos should not be observed, because they stand in the way of critical evaluation. To cite an example: if you try to criticise the policies of the state of Israel, you are labelled an anti-semite. If you criticise the Islam (position of the women etc. etc.) you are insulting religious feelings. Bollocks!

Well put.

And may I add. Without arguments, there is no progress.

[Dallas 9]

I would probably have thanked no not out of fear of persecution, but because I would put my name on something oppotunistic and stigmatizing.

I can't speak about the exact motives for posting these pictures, but I do question them. And I can promise you that the immigrant or muslim minority does not get any special treatment round where I live. Well they do, but not the kind you'd wish for yourself.