Freedom of the press

[Leafless]

Freedom of the press and free speech in my opinion are absolutely necessary to keep society free the way western culture and other cultures have evovled

For instance it has allowed the homosexual community to attack Christianity in order to benefit towards their ultimate goal SSM.

It has allowed government to severely criticize other governments of the world who might be carrying on a hidden agenda harmful to all socities in general.

It has allowed everyone if they choose to voice their opinion pertaining to anything that arises as an issue to voice their opinion in publications etc.

Free speech and freedom of the press must be viewed as compulsory in a democratic society or we could become an oppressed , dictated to society rather than be socially equal.

This is what is happening right now. We are being dictated to by a backward society trying to impose it's religious cultural values on countries of the world. Members of this Islamic society have perpetrated terrorist acts all over the world and when criticized by a series of cartoons directed at the root scream foul.

In fact the Koran does not forbid depictions of Muhammad as no one really knows what he looked like but the point in matter is these cartoons attack the politcal aspect of Muhammad and not the religous one. These cartoons in my opinion are absolutely necessary in order to magnify the fact that terrorist acts or civil disorder based on Islam are or have created world disorder which free democratic countries will not allow or will protest that fact.

Without democracy, freedom of the press and free speech the world would become unmanagable in a short time with cultural groups or other groups growing and taking over society to suit their agenda.

Freedom of the press, free speech must prevail at any cost to halt cultural imperialism that is invading free, democratic countries.

[August1991]

But Muslims are an oppressed people. How can the weak compete against the strong? A level playing field is only fair for the rich and strong who have a voice.

We must restrict the voice of the strong so that the weak can express themselves.

[Leafless]

August1991

You wrote- " But Muslims are an oppressed people. How can the weak compete against the strong? A level playing field is only fair for the rich and strong who have a voice. We must restrict the voice of the strong so that the weak can express themselves."

Who is doing the oppressing?

Could it be their own governments or even themselves?

The U.S. protected middle east countries from Iraq, but nevertheless are blamed for everthing.

The Arab Muslim countries want to live like they did hundreds of years ago and repel democracy.

First Muslim countries are going to have to become democratic in nature to benefit and experience the same benefits as the free world. They must want to do this freely.

Look at what the U.S. is going through with Iraq. There is strong oppositon to democracy Western style that makes the world tick.

If Muslims in Arab countries want to retain their own ideologies of masters of power they will have to accomplish this themselves but fail to realize Muhammad has failed in this respect and in turn their socities continue to crumble with the absense of democracy.

Attacking the free world with acts of terrorism will only result in further ostracization and could very easily escalte to something a lot more serious.

[geoffrey]

Freedom of the press and free speech in my opinion are absolutely necessary to keep society free the way western culture and other cultures have evovled

For instance it has allowed the homosexual community to attack Christianity in order to benefit towards their ultimate goal SSM.

It has allowed government to severely criticize other governments of the world who might be carrying on a hidden agenda harmful to all socities in general.

It has allowed everyone if they choose to voice their opinion pertaining to anything that arises as an issue to voice their opinion in publications etc.

Free speech and freedom of the press must be viewed as compulsory in a democratic society or we could become an oppressed , dictated to society rather than be socially equal.

This is what is happening right now. We are being dictated to by a backward society trying to impose it's religious cultural values on countries of the world. Members of this Islamic society have perpetrated terrorist acts all over the world and when criticized by a series of cartoons directed at the root scream foul.

In fact the Koran does not forbid depictions of Muhammad as no one really knows what he looked like but the point in matter is these cartoons attack the politcal aspect of Muhammad and not the religous one. These cartoons in my opinion are absolutely necessary in order to magnify the fact that terrorist acts or civil disorder based on Islam are or have created world disorder which free democratic countries will not allow or will protest that fact.

Without democracy, freedom of the press and free speech the world would become unmanagable in a short time with cultural groups or other groups growing and taking over society to suit their agenda.

Freedom of the press, free speech must prevail at any cost to halt cultural imperialism that is invading free, democratic countries.

I'm behind you 100% leafless. Freedom of speech and expression is THE cornerstone of democracy above all else. We must defend this or lose democracy.

[FTA Lawyer]

Freedom of the press and free speech in my opinion are absolutely necessary to keep society free the way western culture and other cultures have evovled

For instance it has allowed the homosexual community to attack Christianity in order to benefit towards their ultimate goal SSM.

It has allowed government to severely criticize other governments of the world who might be carrying on a hidden agenda harmful to all socities in general.

It has allowed everyone if they choose to voice their opinion pertaining to anything that arises as an issue to voice their opinion in publications etc.

Free speech and freedom of the press must be viewed as compulsory in a democratic society or we could become an oppressed , dictated to society rather than be socially equal.

This is what is happening right now. We are being dictated to by a backward society trying to impose it's religious cultural values on countries of the world. Members of this Islamic society have perpetrated terrorist acts all over the world and when criticized by a series of cartoons directed at the root scream foul.

In fact the Koran does not forbid depictions of Muhammad as no one really knows what he looked like but the point in matter is these cartoons attack the politcal aspect of Muhammad and not the religous one. These cartoons in my opinion are absolutely necessary in order to magnify the fact that terrorist acts or civil disorder based on Islam are or have created world disorder which free democratic countries will not allow or will protest that fact.

Without democracy, freedom of the press and free speech the world would become unmanagable in a short time with cultural groups or other groups growing and taking over society to suit their agenda.

Freedom of the press, free speech must prevail at any cost to halt cultural imperialism that is invading free, democratic countries.

I'm behind you 100% leafless. Freedom of speech and expression is THE cornerstone of democracy above all else. We must defend this or lose democracy.

I'm a big backer of freedom of speech, but I do like the comment made by a young editor of a University paper (I think it was on CBC news) who decided not to print the cartoons saying, "just because we CAN print something doesn't necessarily mean we should..."

I can't help but be very skeptical about the motives of a number of papers that printed the cartoons well after they first appeared...is this really about free speech or selling papers? Seems to me that anybody who is printing them now for the first time is just being sensational and not journalistic.

I also caution those of us commenting to draw a distinction between violence / terrorism and valid protest. "Civil disorder" or disobedience based on Islam is in itself of the same protected content that protects the expression of the cartoons themselves. Burning Danish flags ought to be supported, burning Danish embassies condemned.

FTA

[Leafless]

FTA Lawyer

You wrote- " I can't help but be very skeptical about the number of papers well after they first appeared...is this really about free speech or selling newspapers." Seems to me anyone that anyone who is printing them now fot the first time is just being sensational and not journalistic."

These cartoons represent objection to a politcal statement being made by Muslims on the basis of religion rather than political and is being supported by the free world as Muslims CONTINUE to denounce these cartoons.

Their political leader that is causing acts of terrorism by Muslim followers is the same as their religious leader.

You simply cannot hide behind your religious convictions to support your politcal convictions.

You also wrote- " Civil disorder based on on Islam is in itself of the same protected content that protects the expression of the cartoons themselves. Burning Danish fags ought to be supported, burning Danish embassies condemmed."

This depends who is doing the burning and the associated spite behind the burnings.

In this case the burning of the Danish flag in my mind is along the same lines as terrorism itself as was demonstrated with further acts of destruction and violence by Muslims.

Iraqi's were also very proud every time they got a hold of an American flag to burn it and destroy it in the same the bodies of dead American military personell being draged through the streets and physically being pulled apart by angry Iraqui's.

Something about these fanatical Muslims that make me puke.

[FTA Lawyer]

FTA Lawyer

You wrote- " I can't help but be very skeptical about the number of papers well after they first appeared...is this really about free speech or selling newspapers." Seems to me anyone that anyone who is printing them now fot the first time is just being sensational and not journalistic."

These cartoons represent objection to a politcal statement being made by Muslims on the basis of religion rather than political and is being supported by the free world as Muslims CONTINUE to denounce these cartoons.

Their political leader that is causing acts of terrorism by Muslim followers is the same as their religious leader.

You simply cannot hide behind your religious convictions to support your politcal convictions.

You also wrote- " Civil disorder based on on Islam is in itself of the same protected content that protects the expression of the cartoons themselves. Burning Danish fags ought to be supported, burning Danish embassies condemmed."

This depends who is doing the burning and the associated spite behind the burnings.

In this case the burning of the Danish flag in my mind is along the same lines as terrorism itself as was demonstrated with further acts of destruction and violence by Muslims.

Iraqi's were also very proud every time they got a hold of an American flag to burn it and destroy it in the same the bodies of dead American military personell being draged through the streets and physically being pulled apart by angry Iraqui's.

Something about these fanatical Muslims that make me puke.

I'm disappointed Leafless...freedom of expression means accepting and promoting expression that goes against everything you fundamentally believe.

I think burning flags is ridiculous and frankly juvenile, but if I want to print cartoons of Mohammed, then the trade-off is I sit back and watch the polyester flare.

And, in response to my caution to distinguish between expression we just don't like versus that which is violent or terrorist in nature you equate burning a flag with dragging a dead soldier's body through the streets??!!??

Puke all you want (is that a form of protected expression?) but I will defend the burning of a flag even if it is done by a "fanatical Muslim".

FTA

[Argus]

I'm a big backer of freedom of speech, but I do like the comment made by a young editor of a University paper (I think it was on CBC news) who decided not to print the cartoons saying, "just because we CAN print something doesn't necessarily mean we should..."

Perhaps true, but given the continuing protests sweeping the Arab world at least some context to those protests would seem fair. Without question, if the riots were by Christians, most of the news media would have printed at least some of the cartoons.

I can't help but be very skeptical about the motives of a number of papers that printed the cartoons well after they first appeared...is this really about free speech or selling papers? Seems to me that anybody who is printing them now for the first time is just being sensational and not journalistic.

There are two valid reasons for printing the cartoons. One, of course, is to provide context to a big story. The second is to support the Danish newspapers, to support the Western concept of freedom of speech, to tell Muslims their attempt to intimidate a small newspaper in a small nation will only lead to the cartoons being printed in far larger papers all over the world. And now what are they going to do? Attack everyone's embassy?

I also caution those of us commenting to draw a distinction between violence / terrorism and valid protest. "Civil disorder" or disobedience based on Islam is in itself of the same protected content that protects the expression of the cartoons themselves. Burning Danish flags ought to be supported, burning Danish embassies condemned.

Perhaps, but I find it odd that these people have no respect for freedom of speech or any other western concepts but are demanding, they say, respect for their barbarous religious beliefs. A spokesman and organizer for one of today's biggest protests has said they will continue until Europe introduces laws banning any picturing of the prophet. Talk about arrogance and gall! The very notion that one can force people of another religion on another continent to obey your own religion because, well, not doing so offends you, is utterly absurd. Will Muslims stop doing things which offend the Christians of Europe? Highly unlikely, to say the least.

In any event, the cowardice of Western newspapers in not printing the cartoons is quite sad,

[Leafless]

FTA Lawyer

You wrote- " And, in my response to caution between expression we just don't like versus that which is violent or terrorist in nature you equate burning a flag with dragging a dead soldiers body through the streets??"

The burning of the Danish flag by Muslim fanatics and then further burning embassies which include according to news stories the deaths of 11 people with scores of others injured yes I certaintly do compare that to the burning of the American flag and dragging a dead soldiers body through the streets as these are violent acts carried out by followers of Islam. In the case of Iraq there were no authorities or reflection of a civilized society to stop these barbaric acts of total disrespect to a human body in which case these uncivilized fanatics felt freer to do.

You also wrote- " Puke all you want (is that a form of protected expression?) but I will defend the burning of a flag even if it's done by a fanatical Muslim."

If you are that foolish to grant rights to fanatic Muslims with Muslim being defined as "someone who has surrendered to the will of God" including it's own politics then no wonder Muslims love Canada--hopefully not everyones like you. Hopefully countries will realize Muslims are a risky proposition in combination with a free democratic country.

BTW- To 'Puke' is not a "form of protected expression" but in my case an involuntary reaction pertaining to the extreme repeated politcal disgust of a situation being repeated over and over throghout the world in different ways by fanatic Muslims.

It is to bad for Muslims there is no sure fire way to 'domesticate' their potentially volatile religion.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear FTA Lawyer,

...is this really about free speech or selling papers? Seems to me that anybody who is printing them now for the first time is just being sensational and not journalistic.

Surely you jest. There is no such thing anymore as 'anything for the sake of itself' (such as journalism, etc.) that is motivated by profit. Only selling papers matters. Too much or too little, sales and only sales dictate.

Burning Danish flags ought to be supported, burning Danish embassies condemned.

I'll agree here (except with the word 'supported', perhaps 'tolerated' is better).

[FTA Lawyer]

Argus,

I'll generally agree with your response...particularly in your view that it is absurd for non-muslims to somehow feel compelled to comply with muslim doctrine...but as absurd as it is, the people protesting (without violence) in favour of such idiocy should be given every opportunity to do so.

thelonius,

I can live with your amendment of "supported" to "tolerated".

Leafless,

I'm not sure you understand the line I was drawing...it wasn't between events by Iraqis and events by Muslim fanatics...what I'm saying is that burning a flag on its own is not an act of terrorism but a valid form of protest (a.k.a. freedom of expression).

Obviously dragging corpses through the streets or burning embassies or suicide bombings are forms of terrorism which must be condemned...hopefully that clears that up.

You wrote, "Hopefully countries will realize Muslims are a risky proposition in combination with a free democratic country." This I can't understand...you want freedom and democracy so long as all Muslims are banned? Logically inconsistent.

I think Jehovah's Witnesses are crazy but I don't advocate they be forbidden to live their lives in total subservience to their religious beliefs...it's not for me to say how they should live.

There are plenty of Muslims who don't burn embassies, don't behead their neighbours and actually appreciate the society in which they live...why are they a "risky proposition" because they have chosen to guide their actions according to the teachings of their Prophet?

I don't get it.

FTA

[Leafless]

FTA Lawyer

I am not saying all Muslims are a risk but do you know a way of distinguishing the radicals from the moderates?

I hve not heard of many Mulim moderates denounce through the media as a group or groups the action of radical Muslims. There are I believe over 30 Islamic terrorist organizations and considering cold blooded murders committed by these groups over the years Iam very suprprised that you do not consider Muslims a risk in a democratic country especially surrounded by the latest political controversies.

In fact the burning of a flag by Mulims can be considered a direct threat if you understand at all why Muslims are going around the world establishing their presence for reasons related both to politics and religion based on the same side of a coin in a very violent manner.

For instance Muslim Mosques are in many cases dominant expensive structures that they obviously think make a statement, a statement I think that can be made directly to "9-11" in which they considered the world trade center a symbol of western power rather than simply a high rise office building.

When I hear Muslims chant " death to all infidels" it tells me this is no ordinary religon but a religion the contains a closed aggressive violent or potentially violent society which has in fact proven to be the case.

FTA obviously we think differently and right at this moment Muslim created problems around the world should be an indicator to you these people are problematic and a threat to the free world in general.

[FTA Lawyer]

FTA Lawyer

I am not saying all Muslims are a risk but do you know a way of distinguishing the radicals from the moderates?

I hve not heard of many Mulim moderates denounce through the media as a group or groups the action of radical Muslims. There are I believe over 30 Islamic terrorist organizations and considering cold blooded murders committed by these groups over the years Iam very suprprised that you do not consider Muslims a risk in a democratic country especially surrounded by the latest political controversies.

In fact the burning of a flag by Mulims can be considered a direct threat if you understand at all why Muslims are going around the world establishing their presence for reasons related both to politics and religion based on the same side of a coin in a very violent manner.

For instance Muslim Mosques are in many cases dominant expensive structures that they obviously think make a statement, a statement I think that can be made directly to "9-11" in which they considered the world trade center a symbol of western power rather than simply a high rise office building.

When I hear Muslims chant " death to all infidels" it tells me this is no ordinary religon but a religion the contains a closed aggressive violent or potentially violent society which has in fact proven to be the case.

FTA obviously we think differently and right at this moment Muslim created problems around the world should be an indicator to you these people are problematic and a threat to the free world in general.

History has seen much horrible bloodshed justified in the name of Christianity, but we don't ban the religion. What I am saying is that banning things is contrary to the ideology of free speech and expression within a democracy. I hear your concerns, but freedom is an inherently risky proposition. If you want security, becoming a military police state is actually not a bad way to get it.

When citizens are free to move, associate, think, speak and to a large extent act, you import a significant level of uncertainty...it is one of the costs of democratic freedom.

Do radical muslim fundamentalists pose a risk? Absolutely. Do we respond by banning the muslim religion? Makes no sense to me.

FTA

[Leafless]

FTA Lawyer

You wrote- " When citizen's are free to move, associate, think speak and to a large extent act, you import a significant level of uncertainity... it is one of the cost of democratic freedom."

I don't know how you can make that kind of statement when it was Canadians that established associated freedoms which is part of our democracy.

If you relate this to immigration it would be fool hardy to suggest that we import immigrants from volatile countries who do not possess a democratic identity themselves and come here and try to promote their religious and political ideolgies that are not compatible to ours, but this is what is happening. Immigration needs a shake up.

You also wrote- " Do radical Muslim fundamentalist pose a risk? Absolutely. Do we respond by banning the religion? Makes no sense to me."

How else do we domesticate a violent, aggressive religion that has been proven destructive time and time again? Either you ban the relgion or stop immigration from those countries.

It is really ironic as the previous Liberal prime minister did in effect cripple the Christian religion unlike the U.S. for instance by distancing himself thus obliterating any type of government support towards Christianity and by encouraging or allowing attacks on Christianity by the homosexual community which resulted in a favourable law passed by the federal government on behave of the homosexual community.

Canada I think requires important changes very quickly before the violence what is happening in Toronto becomes law of the land.

[FTA Lawyer]

FTA Lawyer

You wrote- " When citizen's are free to move, associate, think speak and to a large extent act, you import a significant level of uncertainity... it is one of the cost of democratic freedom."

I don't know how you can make that kind of statement when it was Canadians that established associated freedoms which is part of our democracy.

If you relate this to immigration it would be fool hardy to suggest that we import immigrants from volatile countries who do not possess a democratic identity themselves and come here and try to promote their religious and political ideolgies that are not compatible to ours, but this is what is happening. Immigration needs a shake up.

You also wrote- " Do radical Muslim fundamentalist pose a risk? Absolutely. Do we respond by banning the religion? Makes no sense to me."

How else do we domesticate a violent, aggressive religion that has been proven destructive time and time again? Either you ban the relgion or stop immigration from those countries.

It is really ironic as the previous Liberal prime minister did in effect cripple the Christian religion unlike the U.S. for instance by distancing himself thus obliterating any type of government support towards Christianity and by encouraging or allowing attacks on Christianity by the homosexual community which resulted in a favourable law passed by the federal government on behave of the homosexual community.

Canada I think requires important changes very quickly before the violence what is happening in Toronto becomes law of the land.

Does anybody else out there feel as though they've entered the Twilight Zone?? I sure do.

FTA

[Argus]

History has seen much horrible bloodshed justified in the name of Christianity, but we don't ban the religion.

I don't think it's fair or logical to compare the poor behaviour of Christianity in the distant past with the poor behaviour of Islam today. All our ancestors and all our institutions behaved poorly in ancient times - by modern perceptions. We have progressed. They, unfortunately, have not.

[FTA Lawyer]

History has seen much horrible bloodshed justified in the name of Christianity, but we don't ban the religion.

I don't think it's fair or logical to compare the poor behaviour of Christianity in the distant past with the poor behaviour of Islam today. All our ancestors and all our institutions behaved poorly in ancient times - by modern perceptions. We have progressed. They, unfortunately, have not.

Well, shouldn't that mean that we give them time and help them to develop and progress rather than ban their ideas?

No pun intended, but it gets harder and harder on this board to play Devil's Advocate because everyone seems to have so much trouble getting that you can argue a position even if it isn't the one you personally believe.

FTA

[Drea]

History has seen much horrible bloodshed justified in the name of Christianity, but we don't ban the religion.

I don't think it's fair or logical to compare the poor behaviour of Christianity in the distant past with the poor behaviour of Islam today. All our ancestors and all our institutions behaved poorly in ancient times - by modern perceptions. We have progressed. They, unfortunately, have not.

Well, shouldn't that mean that we give them time and help them to develop and progress rather than ban their ideas?

No pun intended, but it gets harder and harder on this board to play Devil's Advocate because everyone seems to have so much trouble getting that you can argue a position even if it isn't the one you personally believe.

FTA

Of course it's "fair and logical" to compare the bad (not poor) behaviour of Christianity in the past with the bad behaviour of Islam today.

Remember the Salem witch trials conducted by Christians? Being burned alive is certainly worse than being blown up IMO. At least when yer blown to bits it's over very quickly!

During the time when so-called "enlightened" Christians were burning their own people to death, Persia (now Iran) had a thriving, prosperous culture.

Religions cannot be banned (as much as my seclular self would like to see it happen).

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think it's fair or logical to compare the poor behaviour of Christianity in the distant past with the poor behaviour of Islam today. All our ancestors and all our institutions behaved poorly in ancient times - by modern perceptions. We have progressed. They, unfortunately, have not.

Exactly, they have not so it is indeed fair to compare the behaviors. People with poor education, that have no tradition of openness, and separation of church and state cannot be expected to act as we do.

[Drea]

I don't think it's fair or logical to compare the poor behaviour of Christianity in the distant past with the poor behaviour of Islam today. All our ancestors and all our institutions behaved poorly in ancient times - by modern perceptions. We have progressed. They, unfortunately, have not.

Exactly, they have not so it is indeed fair to compare the behaviors. People with poor education, that have no tradition of openness, and separation of church and state cannot be expected to act as we do.

And that is exactly why we cannot lump together the fundie Muslims in the Middle East to Muslims in the west who ARE educated and open.

Do we lump together the Christian sects who worships rattlesnakes or practive voodoo with the Catholic schoolgirl? After all they're both believe in Christ don't they?

There are over 2300 sect of the Christian religion.

There are probably as many sects of the Muslim religion some bad, some good, some moderate; just like Christians.

[Michael Hardner]

Do we lump together the Christian sects who worships rattlesnakes or practive voodoo with the Catholic schoolgirl? After all they're both believe in Christ don't they?

There are over 2300 sect of the Christian religion.

There are probably as many sects of the Muslim religion some bad, some good, some moderate; just like Christians.

Or do the people who say that Islam causes violence also attribute the acts of Christians who bomb abortion clinics and gay bars to the Christianity as a whole ?

Of course not.

[Argus]

Do we lump together the Christian sects who worships rattlesnakes or practive voodoo with the Catholic schoolgirl? After all they're both believe in Christ don't they?

There are over 2300 sect of the Christian religion.

There are probably as many sects of the Muslim religion some bad, some good, some moderate; just like Christians.

Or do the people who say that Islam causes violence also attribute the acts of Christians who bomb abortion clinics and gay bars to the Christianity as a whole ?

Of course not.

Not nearly the same thing. And yes, in a sense, they do. There is a clear divide between mainstream Christians and what is often termed "the religious right". Mainstream Christians are clearly suspicious of the latter, and it is from this latter group that the very occasional act of violence comes.

There seems no such divide in the Islamic world. The violence is FAR, FAR worse, and FAR, FAR more common. And while there is a vastly differing set of moral opinions between Christians and the religious right there doesn't seem to be much difference between the Islamic "radicals" and the mainstream. Only their level of violence seems to differ.

As an example, the religious right is opposed to gay rights, but mainstream Christians, for the most part, aren't terribly concerned.

Radical Islamists oppose gay rights. Mainstream Muslims oppose gay rights too.

The religious right is opposed to abortion. Mainstream Christians, mostly not.

Radical Islamists think no one should be allowed to draw the prophet. Mainstream Muslims think no one should be allowed to draw the prophet.

The religious right is opposed to sex education and womens equality. Mainstream Christians are in favour.

Radical Islamists are opposed to sex education and womens equality. Mainstream Muslims are opposed to sex education and womens equality.

You starting to see where I'm going with this?

Okay, the "moderate" Muslims aren't blowing things up. But do you want to live in a society where they are the majority, or at least have a heavy influence?

[Michael Hardner]

Not nearly the same thing. And yes, in a sense, they do. There is a clear divide between mainstream Christians and what is often termed "the religious right". Mainstream Christians are clearly suspicious of the latter, and it is from this latter group that the very occasional act of violence comes.

It's nearly the same thing, but not exactly the same.

There seems no such divide in the Islamic world. The violence is FAR, FAR worse, and FAR, FAR more common. And while there is a vastly differing set of moral opinions between Christians and the religious right there doesn't seem to be much difference between the Islamic "radicals" and the mainstream. Only their level of violence seems to differ.

I'm sorry but you're just wrong here.

Canadian Muslims have gone public in condemning violence. I have known second generation Muslim immigrants and there is no difference.

As an example, the religious right is opposed to gay rights, but mainstream Christians, for the most part, aren't terribly concerned.

I think you're confusing mainstream Christians with lapsed Christians. The Roman Catholic church has taken extra steps recently to remove gay priests.

Most practicing Christians oppose homosexuality.

Radical Islamists oppose gay rights. Mainstream Muslims oppose gay rights too.

The religious right is opposed to abortion. Mainstream Christians, mostly not.

Radical Islamists think no one should be allowed to draw the prophet. Mainstream Muslims think no one should be allowed to draw the prophet.

The religious right is opposed to sex education and womens equality. Mainstream Christians are in favour.

Radical Islamists are opposed to sex education and womens equality. Mainstream Muslims are opposed to sex education and womens equality.

You starting to see where I'm going with this?

Okay, the "moderate" Muslims aren't blowing things up. But do you want to live in a society where they are the majority, or at least have a heavy influence?

The effect of Western thinking affects people who live within these borders more than you think. I have known mainstream Christians, Muslims and Jews that pay little attention to the rules of their religion.

Islam is the dominant religion in an area of the world where there is little education, no freedom of the press, many other factors that hinder free thought. The mistake that most people make is that they evaluate the actions of protesters and so forth apart from these factors. If they take the culture into consideration at all, it is to blame the religion for the backwardness of the people.

[Drea]

Not nearly the same thing. And yes, in a sense, they do. There is a clear divide between mainstream Christians and what is often termed "the religious right". Mainstream Christians are clearly suspicious of the latter, and it is from this latter group that the very occasional act of violence comes.

Then why weren't they standing and shouting from the rooftops that they did not agree with Roberston when he called for the assassination of Chavez? They didn't so (in your line of reasoning) they MUST agree with his fundie views.

There seems no such divide in the Islamic world. The violence is FAR, FAR worse, and FAR, FAR more common. And while there is a vastly differing set of moral opinions between Christians and the religious right there doesn't seem to be much difference between the Islamic "radicals" and the mainstream. Only their level of violence seems to differ.

Does this mean you are suspicious of every muslim person? That each one may be carrying a bomb or thinking of how to destroy us?

I beg to differ, there are many moderate muslims, even in Iran.

[theloniusfleabag]

It seems freedom of speech can get one in a lot of trouble...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm

British historian David Irving has been found guilty in Vienna of denying the Holocaust of European Jewry and sentenced to three years in prison.