Iraqi's can't take the heat

[Leafless]

It seems an Iraqi militant group has Denmark and Norway on their hit list for publishing cartoons of Islam's Prophet Mohammad seemingly as a terrorist which that they consider disrespectful and caricatures blasphemous.

This group has called on it's fighters to hit whatever targets possible belonging to those two countries and other countries that follow their steps.

Talk about over reacting! What leader or diverse, political or other group has not been made fun of concerning a mutitude of issue's.

I guess Iraqi's don't believe in free speech and the free world.

I guess they think they are possibly going to force the rest of the world to conform to their twisted ideolgies?

[Leafless]

Sorry, forgot to post the link-

http:/www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L30691235.htm

[Black Dog]

Talk about over reacting! What leader or diverse, political or other group has not been made fun of concerning a mutitude of issue's.

I guess Iraqi's don't believe in free speech and the free world.

It's not just Iraqis. In Islam, images of the Prophet of any kind are considered blasphemous.

Libya closes Danish office in protest over cartoons

Sudanese President turns down Danish Minister's visit

Syrian Demonstration Against Danish Cartoons Insulting Prophet Mohammed

[Leafless]

Black Dog

You wrote- " It's not just Iraq's. In Islam images of the Prophet of any kind are considered blasphemous."

How do you think the Pope feels or the president of the U.S. or any other country when politcal or religious cartoons are published poking fun at their leadership or foreign policies or whatever?

The point is you can not censor political feelings concerning other nations of the world concerning aspects of Islam.

If Islamic beliefs are so overpowering may it's about time Muslim's should lighten as no religion in the world has the power to enforce their beliefs on the nations of the world.

[Black Dog]

How do you think the Pope feels or the president of the U.S. or any other country when politcal or religious cartoons are published poking fun at their leadership or foreign policies or whatever?

If there were strict religious prohibitions against publishing images of any of these people, you'd have a point.

The point is you can not censor political feelings concerning other nations of the world concerning aspects of Islam.

The point is, according to the beliefs of Islam, you can't depict Muhammed.

If Islamic beliefs are so overpowering may it's about time Muslim's should lighten as no religion in the world has the power to enforce their beliefs on the nations of the world.

This much I'll agree with. Whether it's rioting over cartoons, or worshipping a stain that looks vaguely like someone's depiction of the Virgin Mary, religion is a pernicious influence on humankind.

[Leafless]

Black Dog

You wrote- " The point is, according to the beliefs of Islam, you can't depict Muhammed."

This can only apply to believers in Islam as you can not punish someone who does not belive in that faith.

Maybe the best remedy for this is to approach the U.N. and have them devise conditon in the human rights code to punish any one who pokes fun at the Islamic religion.

You also wrote- " This much I'll agree with. Whether it's rioting, or worshipping a stain that looks vaguely like someon's dipication of the Virgin Mary, religion is pernicious influence on humankind.

Pernicious is an incorrect word to describe ALL religions influence on mankind.

Worshipping a cloth that depicts the image of the Virgin Mary hurts no one.

The word pernicious is better applied to a religion that includes ordering terrorist attacks that obviously involve kiling by fanatical religious groups for no other reason than to enforce their believes on non- Islamic believers.

[Black Dog]

You wrote- " The point is, according to the beliefs of Islam, you can't depict Muhammed."

This can only apply to believers in Islam as you can not punish someone who does not belive in that faith.

So if I draw a cartoon depicting Jesus as a child molester, there's nothing wrong with that since-hey!- I'm not a Christian?

Pernicious is an incorrect word to describe ALL religions influence on mankind.

Worshipping a cloth that depicts the image of the Virgin Mary hurts no one.

The word pernicious is better applied to a religion that includes ordering terrorist attacks that obviously involve kiling by fanatical religious groups for no other reason than to enforce their believes on non- Islamic believers.

Hmmm... Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc have a history of bloodshed and bigotry. And I hope the Muslim world finds a way to curb its religions radicalism, much as the west did as it distanced itself from religion.

[Argus]

You wrote- " The point is, according to the beliefs of Islam, you can't depict Muhammed."

This can only apply to believers in Islam as you can not punish someone who does not belive in that faith.

So if I draw a cartoon depicting Jesus as a child molester, there's nothing wrong with that since-hey!- I'm not a Christian?

I would suggest to you that while most Christians would find that in poor taste, there would not be rioting in the streets, nor would ambassadors be demanding you be punished, nor would there be death threats or terrorist interest.

Christians have pretty much grown out of the culture of punishing heretics. Muslims still very much believe in that sort of thing.

Hmmm... Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc have a history of bloodshed and bigotry. And I hope the Muslim world finds a way to curb its religions radicalism, much as the west did as it distanced itself from religion.

I don't think any religion has a history as bloody as Islam. As much as we play up the crusades and inquisitions, all the crusades and inquisitions combined are small change compared to the expansion of Islam by the sword. Whole cities were given the choice of becoming Muslim or dying, and whole cities died.

Much of the middle east used to be Christian, you know. The reason it's not any longer is not because the people found Islam to be more persuasive and satisfying, but because the people who refused to swear to Allah were slaughtered by the heros of the Islamic faith.

And while Christianity has rejected its violent past, Islam has not.

It is no coincidence that the symbol of Christianity is a symbol of self-sacrifice and peace, while the symbol of Islam is a symbol of conquest and murder.

[Leafless]

Black Dog

You wrote- " And I hope the Muslim world finds a way to curb it's religious radicalism, much as the West did as it distanced itself from religon."

This is not true as Christianity is alve and well in Noth Ameria.

This is what the problem is and that is the West is viewed by Muslims as a land mass containg Christians and not Muslims.

To compound matters worse the the Muslim world rejects democracy is rejected as it allows mere humans to settle problems that they believe only Islamic political order to do.

But what the Muslims FAIL to realize that this attitude leaves them back in the middle ages and that democracy has major benefits to Muslim society other than being forced to accept something seen as vile especially being propagated by Christian Americans.

[Black Dog]

I would suggest to you that while most Christians would find that in poor taste, there would not be rioting in the streets, nor would ambassadors be demanding you be punished, nor would there be death threats or terrorist interest.

Christians have pretty much grown out of the culture of punishing heretics. Muslims still very much believe in that sort of thing.

Exactly. Islam is a young religion compared to Christianity. They haven't had a Reformation, and the geopolitical situation is making progress and reform difficult.

don't think any religion has a history as bloody as Islam. As much as we play up the crusades and inquisitions, all the crusades and inquisitions combined are small change compared to the expansion of Islam by the sword. Whole cities were given the choice of becoming Muslim or dying, and whole cities died.

Much of the middle east used to be Christian, you know. The reason it's not any longer is not because the people found Islam to be more persuasive and satisfying, but because the people who refused to swear to Allah were slaughtered by the heros of the Islamic faith.

Meh. There's as many atrocities in the name of Chrsitianity (how about the wholesale slaughter of the Muslims of Jerusalem in the First Crusade. Or how about the genocide of the America's, perpatrated largely in the name of Christ? Or the endless pogroms and purges targetting Jews throughout Europe until the middle of the 20th century?).

To compound matters worse the the Muslim world rejects democracy is rejected as it allows mere humans to settle problems that they believe only Islamic political order to do.

And why has democracy failed to find root in the Muslim world? Do you think the west's longstanding support of dictators and murderers and rejection of secular nationalism had anything to do with that?

[Leafless]

Black Dog

You Wrote-" And why has democracy failed to find the root in the Muslim world. Do you think the west's long standing support of dictators and murders and rejection of secular nationalism had anything to do with that?

America supports democracy.

But when there is no democracy dictators will do just as well.

The point is not whether citizen's of all nations have a right to choose their leaders but whether their leaders , freely elected or not of any nation have a right to choose a course which runs against whatever the U.S. perceives it's interest to be at any given moment.

Most countries have made a commitment to democracy and all of it's benfits.

[Argus]

I would suggest to you that while most Christians would find that in poor taste, there would not be rioting in the streets, nor would ambassadors be demanding you be punished, nor would there be death threats or terrorist interest.

Christians have pretty much grown out of the culture of punishing heretics. Muslims still very much believe in that sort of thing.

Exactly. Islam is a young religion compared to Christianity. They haven't had a Reformation, and the geopolitical situation is making progress and reform difficult.

So what, we're supposed to wait a thousand years and see if the Muslims have a reformation? We have to deal with them as they are now, not as they might be in a few centuries. David Warren wrote, earlier today, regarding Islam and terrorist violence, linking it to the essence of Islam.

The prophet declared “I was ordered to fight all men until they say, There is no god but Allah.” And the belief that every free-born adult Muslim male is called to advance the domain of Islam, by force wherever it will be effective, has been part of the teaching of all branches of Islam through 14 centuries. Any Muslim who denies this is denying the tenets of his own faith, and there is no shortage of Koranic texts with which to correct him."

David Warren

To compound matters worse the the Muslim world rejects democracy is rejected as it allows mere humans to settle problems that they believe only Islamic political order to do.

And why has democracy failed to find root in the Muslim world? Do you think the west's longstanding support of dictators and murderers and rejection of secular nationalism had anything to do with that?

No. I think it's the fact that Islam provides a guide for law and government, and that democracy is not part of that guide.

[Leafless]

Argus

You wrote- " No, I think it's the fact Islam provides a guide for law and government, and that democracy is not part of that guide."

Thats what I said when I said " Muslim world rejects democracy is rejected as it allows mere humans to settle problems that they believe only the Islamic politcal order can do."

But Argus the real situation is that there is a watered down version of Islam all over the world and they believe in democracy or they wouldn't be in countries like Canada or other democratic countries if they believed in the same version as their Muslim brothers in Arab countries.

[Argus]

How do you think the Pope feels or the president of the U.S. or any other country when politcal or religious cartoons are published poking fun at their leadership or foreign policies or whatever?

If there were strict religious prohibitions against publishing images of any of these people, you'd have a point.

What is YOUR point, BD? If Americans were known to become violently enraged over critical images of George W Bush would you denounce foreigners for daring to draw cartoons mocking him? What if it was strictly religious? If they became enraged by images critical of Christianity? Would the rest of the world then be required to shy away from any such images? Would you support that?

The point is you can not censor political feelings concerning other nations of the world concerning aspects of Islam.

The point is, according to the beliefs of Islam, you can't depict Muhammed.

Are you saying that even if one is not a Muslim, and one lives in a Christian nation, one should be prohibited from depicted images of Muhammed? Muhammed was a rapist and a mass murderer. These are indisputably true. I could be killed if I said that in a Muslim nation. However, I'm perfectly free to say it here, as I should be.

[Leafless]

Argus

You wrote- " However, I am perfectly free to say it here, as I should."

Yes, it's certaintly to bad our government does not take the same view concerning limits and it's view of politcal correctness.

Canada it seems has lost it's judgement in what is worth protecting under the title 'political correctness' and in turn only contributes to the downfall of it's own society.

It just does not know how to get mad over being bad.