It's great to see Arabs demonstrating in the streets all over the world!

[Harper_is_Bush]

Freedom on the march!

I don't condone the violence, but I applaud the demonstrations.

As well, the opinion held by some around here that all Muslims in the streets over this are "extremists" is a troubling one. There are many calls to violence, and yes that is extreme. There are also many people who are outraged and offended and are expressing that in non-violent ways.

Let's be careful not to generalize ALL Arabs and Muslims.

And the complaints that Christians can take an offense without becomming violent or that images of Jesus or the Cross used in negative ways don't spark violence are moot.
What is the suggestion in that? Muslims should chill out and be more like Christians in how they regard thier religious symbols and images?

[kisstheman]

1. Your joking

quote: "There are also many people who are outraged and offended and are expressing that in non-violent ways."

They burned down the Danish embassy.

[Harper_is_Bush]

6. Who is "they"?

Did every Arab demonstrating accross the world - or even every Arab demonstrating in Damascas - light a match to that embassy?

You are engaging in the same kind of generalization/lumping together of all demonstrators that has been prevelant here lately.

What do you say when the rightwingers accuse all peace-marchers of being supportive of illegal acts that may have been committed by a few? Or call all peace-marchers communists just because they are joined by communists?

[kisstheman]

15. This is "They"

And this is what "they" did.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4682870.stm

[Harper_is_Bush]

17. Welcome to DU. Please, if you're going to reply to my posts

make an attempt to answer my questions.

From the post you replied to:
"Did every Arab demonstrating accross the world - or even every Arab demonstrating in Damascas - light a match to that embassy?"

The point is clear. In response, you posted a link to a story about an embassy set on fire. This is a repetative point to be making.

And it's not a response to my point that an entire demonstration (or Muslims in general who are outraged by these cartoons) can be blamed for a building being set on fire.

thx.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tatertop]

2. You are right. To Muslims, what these cartoons depict is...

the Christian equivalent of cartoons depicting
Jesus and Mary screwing. I am amazed at how many people can not understand that.

[Hoping4Change]

4. Have you not seen the Last Tempatation of Christ? There are

scores of offensive works to Christians but the point is that they aren't burning and ranting about beheading the offenders.

[Harper_is_Bush]

I find your comparison quite offensive.

It is not relevant that Christians are subjected to images/movies that they might find offensive.

THE POINT IS you should not make imperfect and useless comparisons. Muslims are not Christians, so your implication that offensive uses of thier images should be considered of equal degree is a bad one.

As well, not all Muslims are "burning and ranting about beheading the offenders"

Your implication that they all are is also a bad one.

[Hoping4Change]

18. Firstly tatertop is the one to draw the comparison. He stated

"To Muslims, what these cartoons depict is
the Christian equivalent of cartoons depicting
Jesus and Mary screwing.".

I notice you have not addresssed my point that Muslims should not expect that their prohibitions to be accepted outside their religion.

[Harper_is_Bush]

21. No mistake. I was responding to you and your comparison:

"Have you not seen the Last Tempatation of Christ? There are scores of offensive works to Christians but the point is that they aren't burning and ranting about beheading the offenders."

Do you not understand you are making a comparison here?

I responded to tatertops comment elsewhere.
I will go look for and respond to your point once you address mine.

[Hoping4Change]

26. I'll answer yours but consider the following.

Reverend Sun Myung Moon says he is the new Christ and he says Muhammed is a supporter. Moon's newspaper ads "literally describe a motivational-style seminar in Heaven, where MUHAMMED shows up and declares the following


Since I, Muhammad, encountered the Unification Principle and met the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, my worldview has changed. I am now confident in everything. Everything seems new to me now. I am filled with optimism and hope. This is because I have come to know the fundamental will of God and that God is the Parent of humankind. I know now that this is the way I must go. The basic way of life is to live in attendance to our vertical and horizontal parents.
I cry out: Victory for God! Victory for Reverend Sun Myung Moon, the True Parent, Messiah and Savior! All Muslims follow the will of Muhammad. Allah, whom you have been following, was actually God, Jehovah. There is only one God for humankind and God is our Parent. I offer my pledge. I pledge to have faith in everything and follow the will of the Eternal God."



So with the above scenerio in mind, how should Moon and the Moonies be handled? Do non-Moonies take his beliefs at face value and not criticize this extremely dangerous demagogue? Do we treat him with kit gloves because is a religious figure? Are his outlandish claims to be exempt from satire because satire might offend his followers?

[Harper_is_Bush]

33. You treat each situation on it's own.

Your Moonie scenario is yet another comparison. Moonies are not Muslims.
How they react to satire and negative cartoons about thier religion is not relevant to this situation.

I would advise being respectful always of all religions.

[Hoping4Change]

67. So if a rabid Christian fundementalist gets elected in the US

everyone has to roll over and die?

[Harper_is_Bush]

73. I'm sorry, I don't understand that characterization.

Explain it if you wish.

[Hoping4Change]

86. You stated "I would advise being respectful always of all religions."

My point is that if, and its not beyond the realm of possibilty, a rabid Christian fundmental preacher got elected president of the U.S., would you treat him with respectful deference because he is a man of god with many devout followers.

[Harper_is_Bush]

90. I may and I may not treat such a person with "respectful deference"

He is not a God or a prophet though, is he?

I would continue to treat Christianity with respect though.

[Hoping4Change]

94. Rev Moon says he is the 2nd messiah and he says Muhammed has

personally given him his blessing. So what say you to Moon, er, the Reverend Moon?

[Harper_is_Bush]

97. I have said be respectful.

Your point is getting thin.

What will be your next question? A man calls himself the second coming of Christ and claims his duty to God is to kill people and eat them...so then would I ask for everyoen to be respectful of this man?

I said being respectful to all religions is my advice. Your line of argument against that one statement is not really relevant to the topic anymore, so I'm going to drop it.

thx.

[Hoping4Change]

107. My point is that satire is an indespensible weapon against fanactics

of any kind. Its dangerous to tie the hands of satirists just because religious sensibilites might be offended. In fact satire could be said to have important religious function in that it has a corrective function:

"the essence of satire is aggression or criticism, and criticism has always implied a systematic measure of good and bad. An object is criticized because it falls short of some standard which the critic desires that it should reach. Inseparable from any definition of satire is its corrective purpose, expressed through a critical mode which ridicules or otherwise attacks those conditions needing reformation in the opinion of the satirist. I believe there is no satire without this corrective purpose.


http://www.virtualsalt.com/satire.htm

[Hoping4Change]

105. dupe-self-delete

[Catch22Dem]

5. I understand it. I just don't give a shit

Nor do I give a shit about a Jesus cartoon.

[Benbow]

46. It is so much more comfy not to bother with anyone's feelings

other than one's own?

[Hoping4Change]

88. Are you concerned with the feelings of freeper's who lurk at DU?

[Catch22Dem]

123. Yeah, that's it.

I'd rather desensitize people to religion altogehter. People are way too sensitive about their imaginary friends.

[otohara]

11. Yeah, We Could Never Handle

a cartoon of J&M having sex. I might just have to go burn down something for that.

[Harper_is_Bush]

16. I think these cartoons represent something worse than even that...

...but I see what you're saying. The general attitude even at DU is that Muslims are over-reacting over some cartoons.
We cannot dictate how offensive these cartoons should be to Muslims.

And although I know Christians would find a picture of Jesus and Mary screwing offensive, I don't believe we can say that is the same level of offensiveness as these pictures of Mohammed. We simply cannot.

[ArtH]

27. Muslim responses

You might want to rethink this. The "riots" were set up by the Syrian government (without which no such riots could have occured.) They followed on a four month camapign by mullahs from Holland who took the "offensive" cartoons around to MidEast mosques and religious leaders and added three truly offensive cartoons which they themselves drew to make the offense seem far worse. They also collected Danish flags over a period of months to burn. (Do you think all those Danish flags are just routinely available in Damascus?)
And, by the way, it's nonsense to say that Islamic law forbids portraits or any representations of Mohmmed. There are literally hundreds of them all over the Mid East and have been for centuries.
Yes, we do have a right to tell Muslims, not what they may be offended by, but what they have a right to do in response.

[High Plains]

92. Did the Syrian government set up the fire in Beirut today?

[ptolle]

96. And you know all this how?

I, for one, would purely love to see the sources you have for your information that the Syrians are behind this rioting, or that mullahs from Holland conducted any sort of campaign to instigate the reaction.It'd be more than interesting to know how those "mullahs" just knew those particular cartoons were to be published and how they got their hands on them months ago.Other than that your final statement may be about the only sensible part of the whole post.And then I don't know who "we" are, but that the laws of the country in which offenses occur surely pertain to what actions are acceptable and which are not.

[Yupster]

103. Yes, they can be offended al they want

as long as they keep it legal and non-violent.

[springhill]

154. That's funny..........

I just read an article that said the Saudis were responsible.

05.02.06 19:58:47
Muslim Cartoon Controversy: What the Media Isn't Telling You
Publicata de soj Categoria N/A |
Comentarii (8) Trackback (0) Trimite pe mail Tipareste
I had a friend over today who lives out of town and we switched on the traditional news media television and saw what most of you have probably seen - angry rioters protesting, burning flags and attacking various Danish embassies around the world.

Despite the spectaculor footage and a bevy of experts "weighing in" on the issue, I did not one single mention of what's actually going on. And so therefore, by my duty as a citizen journalist, I will now share it with all of you.

The issue has been framed by the traditional media as "Free Expression/Speech" in contrast with "Sensitivity to Religion". Do newspapers in democratic societies have the right to publish offensive images? Well that's something definitely worth debating, but it's overlooking an important step.

12 cartoons were published in the Danish newspaper Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten, which you can see here. Some were very bland, others seem to be unquestionably offensive. Yet these cartons were published on September 30, 2005. What the traditional media has failed to explain is why the protests are occuring now.

http://www.weblog.ro/soj/2006-02-05/Muslim+Cartoon+Controversy%3A+What+the+Media+Isn%27t+Telling+You.html#66675

[Hoping4Change]

31. Which of the cartoons are more offensive than that? Have you seen them?

[Harper_is_Bush]

41. Yes, I have seen them.

The point is, who are you to tell Muslims what is offensive to them or to weigh it against offences to other religions?

You do not have that luxury, sorry.

[Benbow]

45. So have I, and I endorse what you say n/t

[Hoping4Change]

59. If Muslims find them offensive then so be it, I am not telling them

how to feel. I found the Globe and Mail coveraqge of the last election so offensive that I, who have read the Globe for years and years, have not bought one copy since the election. The Globe has the right to do what it wants, I have the right not to read it. I don't have right to resort to violence.

[Harper_is_Bush]

66. Nobody is defending anyone's right to resort to violence.

I am defending thier right to be deeply offended and to resort express that in all non-violent forms.

It's unfortunate that when emotions are high (or when violent elements take advantage of a situation) that violence occurs.

I will not generalize all Muslims for that.

Nor will I say Muslims should not be as offended as they are.

[kittynboi]

65. If you can open your mouth...

.....or type it on a keyboard, then you can say whatever the hell you please, and the whiny pc police can't do anything about it.

[Harper_is_Bush]

71. I don't know what you're point is.

The post your responding to:
"The point is, who are you to tell Muslims what is offensive to them or to weigh it against offences to other religions?
You do not have that luxury, sorry."

How is your point that people can say or type whatever they want, and the "whiny pc police can't do anything about it" relavent to my post?

Are you saying that Muslims who are offended by these cartoons are just being "whiny" and "pc"?

Please clarify.

[kittynboi]

80. No.

""
Are you saying that Muslims who are offended by these cartoons are just being "whiny" and "pc"?""

No. The people saying that we dont have the luxury to voice our opinions on whether or not they should be offended are the ones being whiny and pc.

You might not LIKE our opinions on it, but we CAN say them.

[Harper_is_Bush]

89. You are more than a little confused.

I did not say anyone does not "have the luxury to voice" an opinion on whether Muslims should be offended.

You and others have the luxury to voice anything you like.

I said the poster does not have the luxury "to tell Muslims what is offensive to them".

Don't confuse that with not being allowed to tell Muslims that.

If you're still confused, consider this example:
You have the luxury to tell me that my mother is a whore. And hey, if she actually were one I guess you could say I'm being whiny and pc when objecting to your words. Either way, I will be offended. You WILL NOT have the luxury of telling me that your name-calling of my mother is not offensive to me. Get it now?

[breakfastofchampions]

159. What if?

What if I'm calling your mother a whore, and then you respond by calling my mother a dirty slut. What would you think if I started crying about it and threatening to beat you up.

[Harper_is_Bush]

162. I don't understand what the question is trying to demonstrate.

My analogy above your post clearly had a purpose in the debate I had with that poster. Perhaps you could explain yours?

[kittynboi]

165. I can SAY it.

""I said the poster does not have the luxury "to tell Muslims what is offensive to them". "


""You WILL NOT have the luxury of telling me that your name-calling of my mother is not offensive to me. Get it now?""

No, I am not able to MAKE you think or respond a certain way, but I can still TELL you that. I might not be correct and it might not be nice, but I can still tell you that.

[Harper_is_Bush]

177. That was never my point. n/t

[breakfastofchampions]

134. Don't you find

Threats to kill are more offensive than a cartoon.

Burning a building is more offensive than a cartoon.

[Harper_is_Bush]

140. I don't find

your reply relevant to the post.

[breakfastofchampions]

142. You said

we cannot judge what Muslim's find offensive.

I say they are doing much more offensive things that drawing cartoons.
You cannot say it was wrong to publish caricatures of their prophet and then excuse far worse insults.

[Harper_is_Bush]

147. Not all Muslims are doing the things you mentioned. And you are wrong..

to suggest I "excuse" the violence and death threats.

Where did you get that idea?

And I still don't see the relevance to my post. The fact that the violence and death threats perpetrated by a small number is offensive is not relevant to the point made, which was who are we
"to tell Muslims what is offensive to them?"

[breakfastofchampions]

149. The cartoons

The cartoons were drawn by twelve individuals and published by a small percentage of newspapers. Yet you applaud demonstrations against entire governments.

We cannot judge how anybody feels about any situation because we are not that person and that person's feeling don't affect us. We can however, judge how someone reacts. The Muslims, as a whole, are reacting terribly inappropiately.

[Harper_is_Bush]

150. You are right that the governments aren't responsible for the cartoons

It is a failure to understand that the governments are not as in control of media in Europe as they are in other nations, that's all.

That is a failure of understanding.

I applaud the peaceful demonstrations. The fact that they don't realize the governments are not to blame is beside the point.

[breakfastofchampions]

151. What's so good about the demonstrations.

What's so good about the demonstations if they aren't even demonstrating against the correct institutions?

IMO, the only applaudable demonstrations are ones that are at the offices of the newspapers that printed the cartoons, or parent companies of those newspapers. All other demonstrations are completely irrational.

[Harper_is_Bush]

160. Not "irrational", only with a mistaken target. The basic principle is

still the same though.

Primarily, they are demonstrating against the caricatures/cartoons themselves.

And part of the goal is to get people to sit up and take notice, and that's been achieved.

So, that's what's "so good" about them.

[Not_So_Right_Wing]

182. No matter the level of offensiveness....

burning down buildings and advocating violence is where my sympathy ends.

Offensiveness is a subjective thing, so there is no way we could ever determine that this is more, or less, offensive to Muslims than a cartoon about Jesus would be to Christians.

[kittynboi]

29. LISTEN

It doesn't matter to me HOW offensive they were. That can NEVER be more important than free speech EVer.

[Harper_is_Bush]

36. Welcome to DU. So, "free speech" is something that must be

enforced and tested by being as offensive as we can possibly be?

How is free-speech being threatened here, btw? It was exercised, was it not?

If editors now make the choice to not run these cartoons because of the expected reaction, is that a threat to free speech?

[kittynboi]

60. intimidation=fascism

""enforced and tested by being as offensive as we can possibly be?""

Yes. We have to constantly push the limits and make people see what they do not wish to see.



""How is free-speech being threatened here, btw? It was exercised, was it not?""

By muslim ambassadors demanding the artists be punished, by muslims calling for and comiting violence both against the involved parties and those who had nothing to do with it, by the vatican and other whiners sayinf this is cause for passing legislation in europe banning speech deemed offensive to religion.

Thats how its being threatened.


""If editors now make the choice to not run these cartoons because of the expected reaction, is that a threat to free speech?""

It is if they are doing so out of fear of their lives. If someone tries to stop someone from saying or expressing something through intimidation and threats of violence, it is a SERIOUS threat to free speech.

[Harper_is_Bush]

84. Freedom of speech has consequences.

If you threaten to kill the President, you're going to jail.

If you call for violence against a race or religion, that's a "hate crime".

Are "hate crimes" an affront to free speech, in your view?

Perhaps the offensiveness of these cartoons is so great against Muslims that they could be classified as a hate crime.

I don't see freedom of speech at risk here, sorry.

[kittynboi]

85. So.....

""If you call for violence against a race or religion, that's a "hate crime".""

Just like these people are calling for violence and murder against Europe and against the artists? IS that a hate crime too?

""
I don't see freedom of speech at risk here, sorry."

How can you not? They are THRETENING THE LIVES OF THE CARTOONISTS!!!! If someone comes up to me and says that if I say something, then they will kill me for it, you don't think thats a danger to my freedom of speech?

If you don't think so, then I think you are a genuine apologist for ideologically motivated murder.

[Harper_is_Bush]

93. Who are "these people"? All Muslims?

You need to understand the fact that there areBillions of Muslims on the planet and a small handful of individuals engaging in violence.

If fans start a few fires after the SuperBowl, will you call all football fans violent?

Maybe if you clarified who exactly you are talking about we can have a more productive exchange. Make it clear who your outrage is directed at. Is it only those few comitting violence or calling for violence that you condemn, or are you condemning all Muslims who are deeply offended by these cartoons and demonstrating or calling for demonstrations?

[kittynboi]

98. Stop being obstuse right now.

I am not eing vague. The 16 or so muslims who called for denmark to punish the artists are ambassadors of muslims nations.

The people threatening their lives are the ones threatening them.


Here are two simple questions.

1.Is it okay to threaten to kill someone if they offend you enough?

2.Is threatening to kill someone if they say something infringing on their right to free speech?

[Harper_is_Bush]

104. As long as you admit that there's only a small handful of people

comitting violence or threatening violence I'm satisfied.

You have done that, haven't you? :eyes:

[fishwax]

145. I see a threat to free speech here:

"No one can say a bad word about our prophet." -- Jamila Al Shanty, one of six women elected to represent Hamas in the Palestinian Parliament.

"an act like this must never be allowed to be repeated" -- Hamid Karzai

Of course, it's not surprising to see threats to free expression coming from government officials in Afghanistan or Palestine, since neither holds freedom of expression in as high regard as does western democracy.

[fujiyama]

170. Fuckin fascistts

Fuck Hamas and fuck that Bush puppet Karzai.

I don't livee in Afghanistan or Palestine. I don't have to abide by THEIR laws. If Pakistan wants blasphemy laws, fine. I'll call it backward but I'm not going to try to impose our culture on theirs. I'm not goingn to burn their embassy over that.

This is a serious threat to free expression. I have this sick feeling that western liberal culture is under serious threat. But we aren't helping the situation with lunatics like Bush in power which help give rise to their suspicion. His constant messiahnic call for 'freedom' (his twisted take on it) and his attacking a nation in the region which posed no threat help fuel thiss paranoia and extremism.

[fishwax]

174. damn straight n/t

[Benbow]

37. Give tatertop a medal

This is the best - most concise and illustrative - parallel I have seen all week.

[Spinoza]

81. Good point.

We all know that if cartoons were published showing 'Jesus and Mary screwing' Christians around the world would riot, issue death threats, call for bloodshed, burn down embassies and make the resposible cartoonist(s) hide for their lives. Thanks for bringing this obvious fact to our attention.

[Dorian Gray]

101. I understand that perfectly.

I understand the offensive nature of the catoons. I, personally, was offended by the paintings of the Virgin Mary made out of Cow Dung. I didn't riot in the streets of Brooklyn when the Brooklyn Museum housed the paintings. I didn't insist that the museum not exhibit the paintings. I just chose NOT to see them.

There was no rioting on the streets in Brooklyn by Christians who were pissed off at the offensive and sacriligious artwork. Nor should there be rioting or burning down embassies by Muslims who were offended by cartoons.

Peaceful protests are a different thing. I support those who are voicing their dislike for the cartoons. I don't support those resorting to violence (or encouragement of violence).

[Telly Savalas]

115. Were such a thing were published, DU would tell the xians to "get over it"

The cartoonist may have been an asshole, but it's really bizarre that the cartoon elicits such a strong reaction in comparison to the much more tangible injustices suffered by people in the Middle East.

It's somewhat reminiscient of far right Christians who get up in arms over things that have no direct impact on their life like same-sex marriage, but don't seem to mind that our economic system exploits them.

[TankLV]

118. And of course THOUSANDS of christians rioted demanding DEATH!

Right?

Funny - I and the entire world must've missed it.

[fishwax]

141. such a cartoon wouldn't warrant christians burning down embassies

I don't blame muslims for calling foul. But I can't abide a violent response or the oppression of free expression. In either case.

[abex]

3. after years of exploitation and oppression it's good to see there's still

some life in them.

[genie_weenie]

10. Yeah, now for the burning of those false places of worship!

Egyptian cleric Youssef Al-Qaradawi, told worshippers in Qatar: “The whole nation must be angry and rise up to show their anger... Anger is a must, we are not a nation of donkeys. We are a nation of lions.”

[Harper_is_Bush]

19. Your post content does not support your post title.

Are you saying the words of that cleric are instructing people to burn "false places of worship"?

[genie_weenie]

22. just note the words, or they more inflammatory or less than the drawings

What is he telling them to rise up and do? Peaceful sit-ins, and there are several DU threads that now contain calls fro blood and violence, and several churches have been attacked.

Islam does not believe in a plurality of religions.

[Harper_is_Bush]

44. "Islam does not believe in a plurality of religions."

Actually, have been throughout history quite tolerant of other religions.

[genie_weenie]

53. yeah as long as you bow your head and be a good Dhimmi

unless of course you are a atheist, in which case there is no room in an Islamic nation for you...

[Benbow]

57. For the love of all that's wonderful, please study some history

other than that of the US.

[genie_weenie]

138. Ma'am, I know quite a bit about world history

I don't see how pointing out the bloody history of Islam's rise from the Arabian Desert to it's current status of 1.5 billion followers means I haven't studied history.

If you would like to start a thread on how evil the Catholic Church was for sending St. Dominic into the Langedouc to convince the Cathars to accept "True Christianity" and after that failed butchered thousands in the name of Christ we can do that on a separate thread.

What is important in this thread are the following:

A newspaper (not a governmental organization) of Denmark, published drawings, most likely to agitate.

This was followed by calls from Muslim nations to boycott, have the UN impose sanctions on Denmark, and apologies from the nation.

The situation became more intense as people decided to make this a line in the sand issue.

Some, muslims, maybe even 1/100th of 1 percent issued death threats to all Westerners and started attacking Western symbols and buildings.

Some pious Muslims (and persons of conscience) were deeply by those photos. Some people were not.

What do you think of all this?

I think, Islam is in trouble. Islamic law, does not allow for an individual muslim to interpret the Koran, this must be done by an accredited scholar. Islam is trying to come to grip with it's bloody past. Islam is having to deal with many outside forces (US in Iraq) trying to impose themselves upon Islam. Islamic leaders of many nations are evil, corrupt and seek to continue to keep their people backwards and ignorant.

In my opinion this incident is being used by people from Europe, the US, and the Islamic world to cement their viewpoints and enforce their will upon their peoples...

Tell me where I have reasoned incorrectly.

Thank you for your time and patience.

[kittynboi]

70. I don't know about religions

but they sure showed those gay teenagers in iran real tolerance.

[Harper_is_Bush]

78. You're on a real "Bash Islam" rampage here, huh?

Give us some more anecdotes about cruelties in the Islamic world. I bet you got a million of 'em!

[kittynboi]

83. Here's and "anedcdote."

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/07/072105iran.htm

I guess giving them blindfolds IS a small act of tolerance.

[Harper_is_Bush]

95. I wasn't implying it wasn't true with the word "anecdote".

I was making the observation that you're intent on pointing out atrocities that have occured in the Muslim world...that you seem be be inclined to bash Islam here today. How is this attrocity against gays in Iran relevant to this thread?

Are you supportive of the Muslim right to be outraged and offended by these cartoons and engage in strong acts of non-violent protest, yes or no?

[kittynboi]

100. re:

""How is this attrocity against gays in Iran relevant to this thread?""

To show that Muslims are guilty of much worse than what the Danish artists are guilty of.


""Are you supportive of the Muslim right to be outraged and offended by these cartoons and engage in strong acts of non-violent protest, yes or no?""

They can be offended. They can protest all they want. They CANNOT threaten peoples lives, they CANNOT call for those who insult their backwards supserstition to be killed. They sure as hell cannot BURN DOWN BUILDINGS.

[Harper_is_Bush]

106. How is it relevant to show that Muslims are guilty of worse than the

artists?

Do you agree with the statement that the vast majority of Muslims are not being violent in these protests (and in fact that even the majority of the protestors are not being violent)?

[kittynboi]

164. No.

""Do you agree with the statement that the vast majority of Muslims are not being violent in these protests (and in fact that even the majority of the protestors are not being violent)?""

No, I don't. It seems to me the non violent ones are in the minority.

[Harper_is_Bush]

178. The non violent Muslims are in the minority?????

And what do you base that opinion on?

Are you aware that the majority of protests occuring are non-violent?

[TankLV]

119. And you are shamefully trying to make excuses or approving of violence

for one particular religion.

I find that disgusting.

[Harper_is_Bush]

125. How have I made excuses for or approved of violence?

I think you have comprehended something poorly here.

You call me an "asshole" below. Perhaps your knee-jerk reaction has something to do with your incorrect claim about me?

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[genie_weenie]

143. really are you sure about this?

Ummm, I'm pretty sure when Arabic Muslims invaded and conquered the Sassanid Empire they began a forced conversation or death policy for the Zoroastrians living there. I think the Nicean and Coptic Churches have been forced to the brink of extinction as well.

Yes, of course, Islam was tolerant at sometimes. These usually occurred after the Muslim conquers had cemented their hold upon a land and several generations of non-muslims had been subjugated to Islamic rule.

The grand caliphate at Cordoba in the 800s was tolerant of Jews and Christians, this of course after they had destroyed the Visigothic and Vandal nations and been repulsed at the battle of Tours in 732.

[Benbow]

50. Piffle - Islam was always more interested in getting territory -

they would tax conquered people and then pretty well leave them in peace. Would that the US would be more like Islam in Iraq.

[kittynboi]

68. Toddlers.

""we are not a nation of donkeys. We are a nation of lions.”""

They're a nation of crybabies who need a spanking and some potty training.

[genie_weenie]

7. why is you wish to justify or apologize

for this violence? And it's not just extremists and you know it... This is being lead at the mosques, at the madras, and at many levels of Islamic leadership!

Do you defend the burning of the cross as well? Just asking.

[Harper_is_Bush]

12. Why is it you would call me an apologist for

violence?

I said quite clearly "I don't condone the violence".

Please do not misrepresent me. I've been called a "Muslim apologist" often before, usually at other forums.

In response to your specific comment:
"And it's not just extremists and you know it... This is being lead at the mosques, at the madras, and at many levels of Islamic leadership!"

What, exactly, do you say is being led at "the mosques, at the madras, and at many levels of Islamic leadership"??
Calls for violence? I would be interested to see you back that up.

And your question about me defending the burning of the cross is nonsensical in this circumsance. I don't see the connection at all, but if your mean to imply that I'm defending violence then I again ask you to explain why you would make that accusation given that I clearly said I do not condone it.

[genie_weenie]

20. okay

&category=Kingdom

here is one link, right away. Does this do anything to back it up? And Syrian authorities didn't do much until today to stop the huge incensed rioters in front of the burning embassies.

I'm glad you don't condone violence. Neither do I.

[Harper_is_Bush]

48. AGAIN: Why would you call me an apologist for violence? n/t

[Kire]

116. It does nothing to back you up

the calls in that article are for defiance and expressions of anger, not violence

[ronnie624]

146. The article you provided

does not support your claim that "This is being lead at the mosques, at the madras, and at many levels of Islamic leadership!".

[genie_weenie]

148. The Arab league and Islamic Organizations

were the ones who began this back in October by demanding apologies from Denmark, and demanding the UN impose sanctions. This is without a doubt. And Syria did just sit by and watch as the riotous crowd burned the Danish embassy on 4 Feb.

Are you saying unless I provide a mp3 file with a specific cleric saying Go to the Danish embassy and burn it down, that Islamic governments and hateful islamic clerics mine this for propaganda, I have not provided enough evidence for you?

[zanne]

23. The burning of the cross?

Just ask the KKK.

[oneighty]

30. One can burn a cross

in my yard anytime they want, throw in a an old glory flag too. I will bring the marsh mallows.

These things would only upset me if I were a devout believer.

I can understand anger when one of life's beliefs is belittled. Unless one intends to harm it should not be done.

[Benbow]

40. Actually, you are wrong - in the UK, Muslim leaders have termed

the violent protestors, threatening/inciting massacres, as "fascists".

[Hissyspit]

8. They could be demonstrating something important.

Like people dying, being murdered, women being killed in tribal revenge killings, being raped. They could be doing something constructive...

Instead of trying to suppress freedom of speech. I'm offended by stuff all the time. I don't burn embassies down. I'm not a muslim, I'm not a Christian - I shouldn't be expected to live by their tenets.

Live and let fucking live.

[Harper_is_Bush]

13. So, YOU are the judge of what is important to Muslims.

How nice for you!

[Hissyspit]

25. No, I'm the judge of People Getting Raped and Killed and Exploited

and Freedom of Speech is more important than the Use of Visual Symbols to Offend for all people.

Yes, I am the judge of that. Who should be? Someone else? I am offended by that. Can I come over and burn your house down?

[Benbow]

42. Like the US is doing in Iraq? n/t

[otohara]

9. Yeah, Muslims Should Chill

take a break from being outraged to the point of violence over a cartoon.

Is this the behavior of a civilized society?

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[otohara]

82. Your Personal Attack

is so against the rules

[Hoping4Change]

14. Muslims have the right to police themselves and demand fellow

believers observe respectful behaviour, they don't have the right to expect that non-Muslims do likewise.

[zanne]

24. I think this feeds the religious mania of the right wing.

Evangelicals have been itching for a fight with Muslims since before 9/11. They want a holy war (you may have noticed more RW pundits are saying "Muslim Extremists"now rather than terrorists). Muslims burning down embassies over a religious slight is a gift for all the fundies in the in this country.

[Hoping4Change]

34. Bush has come out and denounced the cartoons. The RW

want nothing more than to have this kind of censorship especially when it come to Christian fundie wackos. It is Conservative elements in all societies that wanted the status quo to go unchallenged.

[kittynboi]

72. Psyops.

Thats why
I haven't totally ruled out the idea that the three cartoons that REALLY offended muslims, the ones who NO ONE will claim ownership of and not even the muslims will name the creators of, are us government plants using inside agents to stir all this up.

[Harper_is_Bush]

28. Actually, Muslims also have the right to demonstrate. And yes...

they DO have the right to expect non-Muslims to observe respectful behavior.

They can't ENFORCE it in non-Muslim nations though. See the difference? Newspapers are free to print these cartoons, and they have. And now we see the offense it has caused.

Let me give you a micro-example. I have the right to expect others to be respectful towards my mother. I don't have the right to enforce that respectful behavior. But guess what? Anyone calls my mother a whore will find out the hard way that I expect them to respect my mother.
It's not about "rights", it's about choices. The Western media and Westerners in general might think Muslims should not be as offended over these images as they are, but it's not for the Western media and Westerners to dictate how offended others might be.

The hypothetical person who called my mother a whore would probably think I should not be as offended as I would be towards him. Unfortunately for him though his opinion on how offended I should be would not be his decision.

[Hoping4Change]

51. In my view being disrespectful is no crime. Stoning someone in public

is offensive to my sensibilities but I don't see the Muslim states to practice this curtailing the behaviour because my sensibilities as well as those of countless millions are offended at this practice. I think it is a sad comment that Muslims are enraged at an image but turn their heads at utter cruelty.

[Benbow]

56. Fallujah was flattened because of 4 Americans

I call that utter cruelty - by the US.

[Hoping4Change]

63. No argument there. So what is your point?

[Benbow]

64. Why are you not enraged about that cruelty? n/t

[Hoping4Change]

69. Where did I say I wasn't?

[Not_So_Right_Wing]

183. What does this have to do with that...?

Seriously, trying to justify the violence and cruelty of a group of people by pointing to the US government in doing in Iraq has to be the most ass-backwards reasoning I have seen today.

We all know that what the US is doing in Iraq is horrible, but that is not the subject of this thread.

[Zookeeper]

156. Why do Muslims have the right to expect me to observe...

whatever they consider respectful behavior? I don't consider forcing women to wear burkas respectful behavior. I don't consider executing women for "dishonoring" their families respectful behavior.

I'm not telling what Muslims what they should or should not find offensive. But, I'm under no obligation to respect, honor or participate in any religious FUNDAMENTALIST'S fantasy life. I have as much right to my opinion as they do to their's. However, I'm not going to get violent about it.

[Harper_is_Bush]

163. Everyone has that right, actually.

You can observe what you wish and speak out against what you wish.

And they can expect differently.

Both are rights.

You can also portray Mohammed as you wish. And they have the right to be offended and respond with peaceful demonstrations.

[Zookeeper]

175. And I wouldn't have a problem with objections or...

peaceful demonstrations. The problem is the fanatics and zealots who resort to violent demonstrations or declare a fatwa against whoever says something they don't like.

[Harper_is_Bush]

176. That is correct. And a further problem can be a generalized

condemnation of all Muslims for the violence that occurs as a result.

[Yupster]

110. It does seem in this case that Muslims are demanding

that non-Muslims follow their rules.

That is an outrageous demand they make.

[kittynboi]

32. I guess its easy to feel so good about it

if you're straight. Knowing that they would kill me without a second thought does much to make me less than enthusiastic.

[Harper_is_Bush]

39. ""I guess it's easy to feel so good about it if you're straight"

:wtf:

Who is feeling "so good" about what?

And who is the "they" that would kill you without a second thought?

[AlienGirl]

49. I think the "they" is fundamentalists

Muslim fundamentalists have committed arson in reaction to these cartoons. Muslim fundamentalist states have been known to execute gay people for being gay.

The facts that there are non-fundamentalist Muslims who have responded to free speech they find offensive with free speech of their own (peaceful protests) and that there are Christian fundamentalists who support executing gay people do not make the Muslim fundamentalists any less scary.

Tucker

[Canuckistanian]

35. And wasn't it great that all those brownshirts got to protest Jews?

Smashing windows and beating people?

It's good to see Free Speech flourishing.

[Catherine Vincent]

38. Can someone direct me to the cartoon that the muslims are demonstrating

about? I haven't watched the news the past few days. Thanks.

[kittynboi]

74. Wikipedia

You can find them on wikipedia if you search for mohammed drawings or something along those lines.

[Hamlette]

43. yeah, right, we need to be more tolerant of the intolerant

when they start protesting Muslims who call for death to all westerners, I'll join you in congradulating them.

Until then, this seems like more fuel for the fire. Probably organized and supported by the "we hate everyone who is not like us" brand of Islam.

I understand the stereotyping problem but there is danger in becomming so politically correct we can no longer speak the truth about something as potentially destructive as fundamentalism.

[Harper_is_Bush]

58. Muslims have protested terrorists in the past

are you not aware of that?

Everything that I've read tells me that the outrage is widespread. It is a very deep offense.
Yet the calls to violence and the violence itself has been limitted to a very few.

Therefore I am unwilling to condemn Muslims in general over this, as many here have.

It is not "fundamentalism" to be deeply offended by negative uses of your religious symbols.

Your comment about "when they start protesting Muslims who call for death to all westerners, I'll join you in congradulating them." is akin to the constant critisism Muslims get from some for not condemning terrorists, in spite of the fact that many powerful leaders in the Muslim world constantly do.
Remember there's Billions of Muslims in the world. There are less than a handful who have actually perpretrated violence in this situation or called for violence.

[kittynboi]

75. Outrage and protest.

Where was the muslimm outrage and protest over the cold blooded murder of those gay teenagers in iran?

[Harper_is_Bush]

108. Your focus on a particular past event is irrelavent.

You sound like people I commonly see on another forum who constantly claim that the Muslims don't protest terrorism...that the "silence is deafening" from the "Muslim world" when it comes to terrorism and extremism.

Do not ask me anymore pointless questions please.

[kittynboi]

167. I'll ask whatever I please.

You don't have to answer, but I won't refrain from asking questions, even if those questions DO make you wonder if Islam is really the rich, beautiful religion of peace many on the left think it is.

[Harper_is_Bush]

179. Thanks, but your questions do not make me wonder about Islam

and if "many on the left" are misguided about it, as you imply.

[Hamlette]

99. why is it that I have to honor religious symbols?

Of anyone's religion? We've had that battle here (the virgin mary and the poop story?) and free speech won.

People who want to have faith in something for which there is no evidence have to expect people who live in the real world will fail to honor those beliefs.

I would actually prefer an honest discussion about religion but we can't have that. Mot even here on DU. I do not think it is healthy for our civilization, in an age of WMD, to ignore the elephant in the room: irrational belief systems. I do not limit that to fundamentalism. If we cannot say religion is irrational thought and leads to destructive things, more and more of us will become victims of religions hatred.

Period.

[Fleshdancer]

47. Let's be honest. This is about much more than a few insulting cartoons

I've read so many threads on DU debating this mess and no one brings up the fact that the cartoons are most likely the last straw and not the sole reason for the demonstrations.

**Obvious disclaimer for the inevitable knee jerk reaction: Just like the OP, I don't condone the violence so don't bother telling me I do.**

We have a large group of people who have been villainized as evil terrorists for at least 5 years now. Never mind the fact that most are peaceful. Never mind the fact that most of them have never condoned acts of terrorism anywhere from anyone. They sat and watched as Iraq was invaded. They listen to Western leaders threaten other Middle Eastern countries. They saw the pictures of Muslim men stripped naked and dog piled on one another. If they haven't personally experienced racism then I'll bet many have talked to friends or family members who have. Now their prophet is depicted in a way that encourages the ignorant to keep thinking all Muslims are evil. That their religion is evil. That their way of life and their entire belief system is evil and must be stopped. This isn't just about a couple of cartoons people. We need to be honest about this.

No wonder they're angry. I would be to. I wouldn't set things on fire, but I would be angry. And before we start up with the inevitable them vs. us mentality, riddle me this: What country experiences riots and burning of cars and buildings when their city's favorite team wins, say, the NBA national championship? What countries go fucking nuts when their soccer team wins or loses? Riots in the stands, gun shots, etc? All riots are stupid, not just the ones started by Muslim people but do we really think riots take away from the overall issue? Looking back on the Rodney King riots, do we really think that those riots take away from the issue of police brutality? Probably not. How about Kent State?

[Benbow]

62. Well said n/t

[kittynboi]

76. Why this?

Then why did it take DRAWINGS to set them off and not all the stuff we've been doing to Iraq for going on three or so years now?

You speak of how badly we've treated them, but if that angers them so much, why have they not demonstrated like this over those things? Are these drawings worse than what we've done to them before?

[Harper_is_Bush]

111. Obviously you don't understand the whole straw/camel/back concept. n/t

[kittynboi]

166. I clearly know what it means.

I'm asking, why was it THIS, rather than something else?

[tkmorris]

136. I don't entirely disagree with you

But it is odd that someone who takes comics, cartoons, and drawing as seriously as you do would be making this point, ie that it is absurd for Muslims to be so affected by drawings.

Your point stands however. I too am puzzled by the intense reaction to these cartoons, even taking into account the cultural differences which apply. It would seem to me that they have a LOT more to be angry about than this.....

[abex]

77. much much more

[Harper_is_Bush]

109. Excellent post, thanks. n/t

[Hatalles]

152. Bingo.

[corporate_mike]

54. I support Denmark

[Harper_is_Bush]

61. Denmark has no freedom of speech? Since when?

[corporate_mike]

113. Denmark is under attack

[Harper_is_Bush]

120. Your picture does nothing to explain what you mean by

"I support Denmark in it's struggle for freedom of speech".

Denmark has freedom of speech.

[breakfastofchampions]

137. Freedom of speech

Freedom of speech doesn't exist if you are afraid to speak.

[Harper_is_Bush]

139. Welcome to DU.

[breakfastofchampions]

144. Thanks, glad to be here :-)

[Not_So_Right_Wing]

186. EXACTLY!!!

There are many people on DU who get upset and ridicule the right wingers when they mobilize against something they find offensive...take for instance the Dixie Chicks.
I don't know how many times I had heard, or read, someone making a statement about how the reaction of the right was meant to stifle free speech (which they were trying to do).
Obviously these violent protest are meant to stifle free speech by scaring the shit out of anyone who dare oppose the orthodoxy of Islam.

[Harper_is_Bush]

187. Not all of the protests or protesters are violent.

And what's NOT to ridicule about right wingers? :)

[Not_So_Right_Wing]

188. Of course not all of them are...

Protest is one of the best tools any free people have...
However, the violence and the very inappropriate threats of violence do not belong in this protest.

Of course for the Muslim nations, where these riots are the worst, these demonstrations help to rally the people and make them forget about the domestic problems they are facing.



oh and by the way, reich wingers always deserve ridicule! :woohoo:

[kitty1]

114. I guess the question is: At what point does the right to free speech

supercede the destruction, rage and direct deaths that were a real result of someone's political/religious expression. Don't get me wrong, the torching of buildings and rioting in reaction to this cartoon are way too extreme. But knowing how fanatical some muslims are toward their religion and reverance to Mohammed, was it worth an international crisis of this magnitude to make some point? Where do we draw the line (no pun intended) on this. Does respect for our fellow man have to be trumped in order to make a statement. If all newspapers just blatantly published racist cartoons and comments on a continuous basis, I doubt it would produce anything of value. It only incites hatred and violence and what is the point of that? You draw the line at the divine.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

79. It's Only Because Some Don't Understand Others Cultures

That's why it's so easy for them to undermine them and so readily dismiss the uproar as "so what, it's just a little picture".

It speaks volumes of ignorance in my opinion, and though the muslims demanding violence are completely out of line, the rest protesting with legitimate anger have every right to do so. Anyone who understands their culture knows how sensitive and offensive those cartoons had the potential to be. They should never have been so widely published especially after it became so apparent how inflammatory they were. Using the power of freedom of speech to override simple human understanding, decency and respect is just pathetic in my opinion.

[kisstheman]

87. You gotta read this story for anyone who thinks this is peaceful

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1582194

[Harper_is_Bush]

102. It appears, from that story, that the majority of the protests are

peaceful.
Afghanistan, the West Bank, Iraq and New Zealand are listed as sites of protest but no violence reported.

In Beirut, "a small group of Islamic extremists tried to break through the security barrier outside the embassy." And I believe it was eventually set fire to.

Nobody has said they think this is peaceful. Why you would claim some do is bizarre to the extreme.

[kisstheman]

112. I'm sorry you seem offended that this turned into what it did.

[Harper_is_Bush]

121. I'm sorry that you want to paint all Muslims with the same brush..

as evidenced by your posts at the top of the thread.

[kisstheman]

122. I'm sorry you can;t see what is going on

[Harper_is_Bush]

124. I see quite fine. I went through your article, did I not?

I see the violence, and I see the non-violence.

I refrain from lumping all Muslims together as violent because of the actions of a few.

Please do not post to me anymore if all you can repeat is that I'm missing something that you won't explain or evidence. thanks.

[kisstheman]

126. The evidence is in action

I know you have issue over "lumping" in all muslims. But the fact of the matter is these so called moderate "muslims" we are not hearing from. I don't want to start a fight. I just want to point out hypocrisy.

This is starting to go from the rights of victims to the rights of everyone else that is all i am saying. This arguement does not hold up.

[Harper_is_Bush]

128. What do you mean "we are not hearing" from moderates?

The Organization of the Islamic Conference, representing 57 Muslim countries, has condemned the violence and attacks on the embassies.

The Syrian foreign ministry has condemned the violence and expressed regret over the embassy attacks.

Muslim clerics in Beruit are reported to have waded into crouds to try and stop the violence.

What do you mean "these so called moderate Muslims" are not heard from?

The violence is the work of hooligans and extremist elements infiltrating the protests. Period.

[kisstheman]

129. They are doing a good job are they not?

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kisstheman]

131. Like I said no fight

But the ones on the ground have to hold the mantle of free speech. This cannot be compromised; this will not be regulated. These lunatics must be held accountable "by muslims" for their actions. If this is not done then why should the west trust the east?

[Harper_is_Bush]

132. Those who have broken the law should be held accountable

by law enforcement.

It's not the responsibility of "Muslims".

[kisstheman]

133. This is a clash. I know you don't want to see it that way, but

this is what it is shaping to become. Regardless of the instigator.

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Harper_is_Bush]

161. I did no such thing

Pointing out that I've been here "since November and already..." is not acceptable behaviour according to the rules.

Should I ask then "WHO are you??" or call your post one of the most "inflamatory" I've received?

The thread is not inflamatory. The subject is inflamatory. If you wish to debate it, I'm happy to do so in a respectful manner.

thx.

[Snivi Yllom]

91. ZERO justification burning buildings, rioting, threatening new 9/11s

None whatsoever.

That goes for any religion. They should grow up and enter the 21st century.

[guidod]

127. WTF is right...

There's nothing in FREEDOM OF SPEECH that says "but be careful in the language you use". Why don't you smell what you're shoveling?

[Hatalles]

153. Fighting words doctrine in the US.

Fighting words doctrine. The First Amendment doctrine that holds that certain utterances are not constitutionally protected as free speech if they are inherently likely to provoke a violent response from the audience. N.A.A.C.P. v. Clairborne Hardware Co., Miss., 458 U.S. 886, 102 S.Ct. 3409, 73 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1982). Words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, having direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the persons to whom, individually, remark is addressed. The test is what persons of common intelligence would understand to be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. City of Seattle v. Camby, 104 Wash.2d 49, 701 P.2d 499, 500.

The "freedom of speech" protected by the Constitution is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances and there are well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which does not raise any constitutional problem, including the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031.


No justification for violence but I'm not willing to absolve the Jyllands-Posten for instigating this shit.

[guidod]

171. I stand corrected and

apologize for the words I used in my post. I found this post on another thread that might help in understanding what really happened and who should be held accountable.

http://www.weblog.ro/soj/2006-02-05/Muslim+Cartoon+Controversy%3A+What+the+Media+Isn%27t+Te

[genie_weenie]

172. of course we are not dealing with

US law or anything controlled by US law in this whole cartoon firestorm...

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shance]

155. The Arabs are being scapegoated like our Native American brothers

and sisters were not too long ago.

That is the reality and it is difficult to understand, but it is true and we need to confront it honestly and openly.

For all of us in various races and or religions who have been persecuted in the past, there is no better time than now to revisit that unfairness and call for the empathy of what that path entailed. It is now our responsibility to see this injustices being created and promoted, and help alleviate the wrongdoings and imbalance of power and work to make fair the proposals that are granted to all.

It is all of our responsibility to not get mired in our own prejudices, but to fearlessly be open to the injustices that are happening and work to create a world where EVERYONE is treated as an equal, and not simply those with the most power, prestige and money.

We will never succeed and truly be happy and without fear until we learn to act maturely and listen openly to all that speak.

As is shown in Syriana, we are all connected.

[Zookeeper]

158. "Create a world where EVERYONE is treated as an equal"

Unless they're women.

[eggman67]

184. Or Gay n/t

[Nye Bevan]

168. "Freedom on the march"? Sure.

[Joe Fields]

169. Four people have died because of the violence caused by the protests

And you think THAT'S understandable and alright?

[Harper_is_Bush]

180. Show me where I said it's "understandable and alright" for the violence?

The majority of the protests that have occurred around the world have been peaceful.

And the true story of the violence is not yet told, as in who instigated it. Was it a small group who did the fire setting?
We don't know yet.

[Justpat]

173. OH man.

"I don't condone the violence, but I applaud the demonstrations."
The fact is, they are violent demonstrations.

"As well, the opinion held by some around here that all Muslims in the streets over this are "extremists" is a troubling one."
I usually regard those engaged in extremist behavior as extremists.

"There are many people who are outraged and offended and are expressing that in non-violent ways"
They need to come up with a louder form for non-violent protest so the rest of us can hear it.

"Let's be careful not to generalize ALL Arabs and Muslims."
In the spirit of free speech, lets not suggest to other members what they should and should not think.

"And the complaints that Christians can take offense without becoming violent or that images of Jesus or the Cross used in
negative ways don't spark violence are moot."
Huh?

"What is the suggestion in that? Muslims should chill out and be more like Christians in how they regard their religious
symbols an images?"
Well, now that you mention it... Maybe people here are saying that Muslims might want to stop for teensy little moment
and see if their religion regards Mohammad on the same level as Allah. They are protesting disrespect for the messenger.
I find it hard to imagine Buddhists pouring out in the streets and burning up stuff because some drew a less than
divine portrayal of the Buddha.

[Harper_is_Bush]

181. The majority of the demonstrations have been peaceful

and we do not yet know the full story about the violence that has occurred, such as who instigated it. It only takes a few people to light an embassy on fire.

You have judged all protesters to be exremists. I don't know what you're basing on.

[Wordie]

185. Here are links to two other wise threads on this topic:

Did You Know That Islam Prohibits ANY Image Of Mohammed? (by omega minimo)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2440485&mesg_id=2440485

And...
"The ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr" (by benburch)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x327183

It seems to me that the right of free speech carries with it a responsibility for self-restraint.