Mohammed is a Transvestite

Freedom of speech, or an attack on a society worth storming buildings and killing???

Considering the amount of times God or Jesus is attacked on a daily basis, are we wrong not to take offence when this happens, or are Muslims in the wrong for defending their prophet?

Should we start deporting Muslims who brandish "Death to the west" slogans in our country?

Please Discuss. . .

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
Freedom of speech, or an attack on a society worth storming buildings and killing???

Considering the amount of times God or Jesus is attacked on a daily basis, are we wrong not to take offence when this happens, or are Muslims in the wrong for defending their prophet?

Should we start deporting Muslims who brandish "Death to the west" slogans in our country?

Please Discuss. . .

Shouting "death to the west" is illegal, if an incitement to violence, and should be treated accordingly (the Muslim Council of Britain agree on this point).

But if you are exercising free will to deliberately offend, then you are demeaning that right.

Originally posted by dottewell
But if you are exercising free will to deliberately offend, then you are demeaning that right.

The Vatican had this to say:

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1875295,00.html

"The right to freedom of thought and expression ... cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers.

"Human co-existence demands a climate of mutual respect, to favour peace between men and nations.

"Furthermore, certain forms of extreme criticism or derision of others shows a lack of human sensitivity and can in some cases constitute an unacceptable provocation."

Do the Danish cartoons compare with the reaction by Islamic fundamentalists? Although Benedict also condemned the reaction later in the press release, frankly I'm of the opinion that the reaction is far worse than the supposed "insensitive" cartoons. Maybe it's just me.

Originally posted by David C
The Vatican had this to say:

[quote][b]http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1875295,00.html

"The right to freedom of thought and expression ... cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers.

"Human co-existence demands a climate of mutual respect, to favour peace between men and nations.

"Furt the reaction is far worse than the supposed "insensitive" cartoons. Maybe it's just me.[/b]

I'm not a spokesman for the Vatican!

I agree with most of that statement, though, EXCEPT for the bit saying we don't have a right to offend people's religious beliefs.

I think we do have that right, but it should be exercised sensitively and ONLY when there is a clear and valuable point to be made. In this case, there was not.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
Please Discuss. . .

I'd like to bring up the fact that he was a child molestor and a pedophile (by current standards). He married 9 and 10 year old girls for crying out loud.

Now, that's the truth. Should I not be allowed to say that? I think I should. Should you have to hear that? Suppose not. You could turn the other cheek.

Seriously folks, do you believe that this whole "burning flags and embassies"-business is a reaction to the danish cartoons? Of course not. This is a step in the propaganda led by extremist muslims in the middle east to incite further hate for the western democracies in preparation for the war that is to come. Mark my word. World war III is just a few years away (at most). Perhaps it will end in, oh I don't know, 2012?

After that, there will only be dimwits left on this planet to start rebuilding human societies and cultures. And anyone of us is likely to be portrayed as heroes in a hundred years or so. Just make sure your name gets passed on to the survivors.

Stocken... Stocken... Stocken... Stocken...

Got that? Good. I'm a hero.

Originally posted by stocken
I'd like to bring up the fact that he was a child molestor and a pedophile (by current standards). He married 9 and 10 year old girls for crying out loud.

Now, that's the truth. Should I not be allowed to say that? I think I should. Should you have to hear that? Suppose not. You could turn the other cheek.

Seriously folks, do you believe that this whol survivors.

Stocken... Stocken... Stocken... Stocken...

Got that? Good. I'm a hero.

Well it won't be much of a war if it comes to muslims vs christians.
As far as I know, only one muslim country, Pakistan, has atomic
weapons. Don't think if it came to push and shove the
western governments would hesitate to use them. Hestitate only
long enough to figure if they are far enough from the fallout.
But what kind of World War could the muslims do anyway?
Suppose it came down to a deal where the US, Russia, Europe,
South America and China all formed a self defense treaty.
Unlikely scenario in these days but if there were a world wide
muslim revolt, it would not be totally unthinkable. Muslims
would not have the chance of a snowball in hell under those
circumstances. Even if it was just the US, Russia and Europe
combined, the muslims could kiss their sorry ashes goodby.
Please don't take that to mean I am on the side of the
Christians. I hate the leaders of BOTH. I think the higher up in
the religious totempole you go the more corrupt they are.
In my mind there is not a whole lot of differance between
Pat Robertson and Bin Laden. Robertson would never in a million
years take up a rifle like Laden did but he would have his minions
take up rifles, there can be no doubt about that, if it came to
push and shove.

That was like a poem, only millions and minions rhymed. Can you try again?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That was like a poem, only millions and minions rhymed. Can you try again?

Gee, don't you recognise Ironic Pentameter when you see it?🙂

I'm sorry but I don't view this as a Christian verses Muslim issue. The leaders of the Western nations are far from Christian. Likewise, the leaders of the Islamic countries are merely using the religion of Islam as a means for controlling their people to go blow themselves to smithereens so that they can wind up in candy land with 50 virgins to fullfill every fantasy. When you get right down to it, its all about money, power and influence in the world. Granted, there may be those involved who think they are doing God service through their violence. It's kinda like the Democrat verses Republican battles in the states. One side blames the other for all of the troubles in the world and people mindlessly take sides. This is all the while both sides are after the same things using the same means to achieve those things.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Gee, don't you recognise Ironic Pentameter when you see it?🙂

Replace the I with an Mo, and you have something.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
Should we start deporting Muslims who brandish "Death to the west" slogans in our country?

Is your it assumption that Muslims are foreigners? You cannot deport citizens.

Theistic belief is a moot point in my opinion. An organization of individuals has taken violent initiative. If they retaliated in retort to violence, that would be something of merit. As they are the aggressor (in the sense of violence) their motive is moot. I don't care if they call themselves Muslim, Christian, or Noodle-ites of the FSM. Nothing harmed upon them but ego. Hardly acceptable behavior by any normative 21st century standards.

Originally posted by stocken
I'd like to bring up the fact that he was a child molestor and a pedophile (by current standards).

Is or isn't that important? Ages of consent differ quite a bit in the United States alone, forget the rest of the world.

He married 9 and 10 year old girls for crying out loud.

And why do you think he married them?

EDIT: I should also ask what evidence you present to support the latter assertion.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I should also ask what evidence you present to support the latter assertion.

"Many Muslim scholars have accepted the tradition that Aisha was nine years old when the marriage was consummated. This has in turn led critics to denounce Muhammad for having sexual relations with a girl so young, which in modern times would be classified as child sexual abuse. Some respond to this criticism by claiming that Aisha was post-pubescent at nine and that early marriages were common in most cultures until fairly recent times."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

Not really evidence, I know. But then again, we can't really know anything about anyone who lived so long ago. There are opponents who claim that Aisha may have been as old as nineteen or twenty. You decide for yourself which scholars are the most trustworthy.