Originally posted by lucifershammer
The reaction may be worse than the cartoons, but that does not excuse the cartoons themselves, especially when the newspaper that commissioned the cartoons could have reasonably expected such a reaction. You don't throw a burning match into a barrel of oil and call it "freedom of action" or some such.

The Vatican is just pointing out (in its own presbyterial, verbose fashion) this common-sense observation.

The newspaper could have "reasonably expected such a reaction"? I assure you, there was nothing reasonable about the reaction.

Maybe you're saying that the newspaper knew they were dealing with a bunch of loonies and that they should have expected that kind of behavior. Maybe you're also saying that because these people tend to overreact in a ridiculous (and highly insane) fashion, that we should probably give them special treatment, right?

Give me a break.

Originally posted by rbmorris
The newspaper could have "reasonably expected such a reaction"? I assure you, there was nothing reasonable about the reaction.

Maybe you're saying that the newspaper knew they were dealing with a bunch of loonies and that they should have expected that kind of behavior. Maybe you're also saying that because these people tend to overreact in a ridicul ...[text shortened]... ne) fashion, that we should probably give them special treatment, right?

Give me a break.

Do you always play the same moves in a chess game regardless of what your opponent plays? Of course not. Do you call it "special treatment"?

Give me a break.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Do you always play the same moves in a chess game regardless of what your opponent plays? Of course not. Do you call it "special treatment"?

Give me a break.

Sorry. That analogy doesn't work.

...unless maybe the newspaper thinks of its readers as "opponents".

Originally posted by rbmorris
Sorry. That analogy doesn't work.

...unless maybe the newspaper thinks of its readers as "opponents".

The analogy is fine - you're just refusing to admit it.

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. . .

Christianity doesnt state we shouldnt draw God/Jesus their religion says even they shouldnt do it so we should respect that

Originally posted by adj1765
Christianity doesnt state we shouldnt draw God/Jesus their religion says even they shouldnt do it so we should respect that

True. On the other hand, Christianity DOES state that we shouldn't use the Lord's name in vain. How many books, movies...etc. do you hear that in though?

Come to think of it...I'm deeply offended. I'm going to go out now and smash some windows and flip over a couple of cars.

Freedom of speech is a double-edged sword. You can't have it both ways. If freedom of speech exists, people WILL be offended. Shall we do away with it then?

Originally posted by rbmorris
True. On the other hand, Christianity DOES state that we shouldn't use the Lord's name in vain. How many books, movies...etc. do you hear that in though?

Come to think of it...I'm deeply offended. I'm going to go out now and smash some windows and flip over a couple of cars.

Freedom of speech is a double-edged sword. You can't have it both ways. If freedom of speech exists, people WILL be offended. Shall we do away with it then?

good point i agree where are you goin to smash windows but i gaurentee if we did that earlier people wouldn't be blaspheming in books/films

Originally posted by rbmorris
True. On the other hand, Christianity DOES state that we shouldn't use the Lord's name in vain. How many books, movies...etc. do you hear that in though?

Come to think of it...I'm deeply offended. I'm going to go out now and smash some windows and flip over a couple of cars.

Freedom of speech is a double-edged sword. You can't have it both ways. If freedom of speech exists, people WILL be offended. Shall we do away with it then?

Freedom of speech exists so that you can say the truth without having to worry about causing offence.

It doesn't exist so that you can cause offence for its own sake.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Freedom of speech exists so that you can say the truth without having to worry about causing offence.

It doesn't exist so that you can cause offence for its own sake.

...and spoons are meant for eating your breakfast cereal. That doesn't mean a heroin addict can't use one to cook his drugs before shooting up.

If you want free speech, you have to accept some of the nasty side-effects. Otherwise, it can't exist. I'm not saying it was a good idea to publish that cartoon, but it's certainly well within their rights.

Originally posted by rbmorris
...and spoons are meant for eating your breakfast cereal. That doesn't mean a heroin addict can't use one to cook his drugs before shooting up.

If you want free speech, you have to accept some of the nasty side-effects. Otherwise, it can't exist. I'm not saying it was a good idea to publish that cartoon, but it's certainly well within their rights.

By 'rights' do you mean moral rights or legal rights?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
By 'rights' do you mean moral rights or legal rights?

Legal. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect little idealistic world where everyone's decisions are governed by morals. So what can you do, except deal with it and move on?

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. . .

By all means. If they are vocally threatening the safety of the country, that is not "free speech", but subversive speech, IMHO. Hire FED-EX and next day-service them back to whatever -stan, -dan, -rabia they came from.....post-haste!!

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Freedom of speech exists so that you can say the truth without having to worry about causing offence.

It doesn't exist so that you can cause offence for its own sake.

I've suddenly taken offence to your view of freedom of speech.
Please shutup or else.

Originally posted by rbmorris
Legal. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect little idealistic world where everyone's decisions are governed by morals. So what can you do, except deal with it and move on?

If it's legal rights we're talking about, then a case can be made that the newspaper did not have the legal right to publish the cartoons - Denmark does have a blasphemy law.

Originally posted by chancremechanic
By all means. If they are vocally threatening the safety of the country, that is not "free speech", but subversive speech, IMHO. Hire FED-EX and next day-service them back to whatever -stan, -dan, -rabia they came from.....post-haste!!

Where do you suppose they deport American Muslims?