Wow.

[ArtificialOne]

Well said Drake.

[raggedyanne]

good points, all of you. In a way it seems easier to critisize(sp) what we know more about.

[MaguMan]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

I'll reinterate my original point above. For all of those who think Muslims are more prone to violence than the Christians, just look at the wars between the two, from the crusades forward, and see who attacked who first.

In every case a 'Christian nation' attacked first. In every case, Muslim lands were/are being invaded by people of the 'Christian' faith.

Oooooh, that's cute. Selective history - it'll do wonders for making an obscure point. Let's rewind - what? 400 years in advance of the Crusades and ask that same question.

"For 400 points; who attacked, invaded, and converted Christian and pagan lands first?"

"Yes, Alex. Who are the Muslims?"

"That's correct!"

Let's make a better point out of various nations and empires embarking on conquests themselves. Such as, the Ottoman Empire invading primarily Christian Eastern European countries like Georgia. Or perhaps the Shia-dominated Persian empire holding stakes in the Caucus region? Or we can advance a little further into Turkey's attempted invasion of Armenia in 1920. Or look at the newly created nation of Chechnya having carried out cross-border raids on Russia in hopes of igniting an insurrection in Dagestan.

Oh, there are more examples. These are just off the top of my head. Nice attempt at making a point there.

[raggedyanne]

Or the xtian armies siezing, sacking, and exterminating Jerusalem multiple times?

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

I'll respond to the various statements in your post later, if you like, but for the moment I would like to stay ruthlessly focused on this narrow point. Let me put my question another way. If evangelical Christians were to assassinate Dan Brown for writing the DaVinci Code, would you give the same apologetics as you give in the case of the Muslim killers reacting to the Satanic Verses? If not, why not?

Conciseness and clarity is appreciated.

Drake

First, Evangelicals wouldn't be offended by the Davinci Code because it focused on Catholics. Catholics are not Evangelicals, nor do they pretend to be.

But I do see the analogy you are going for.

So, in your example, if that were a viable senario and if that did happen...

I would still not say the Evangelicals were automatically the bad actors in this scenario depending on the situation.

If the Evangelicals were known for this, wrote books on the fact they do this, were depicted in movies because of this sort of behaviour, and then when it happens react in a manner which is normal to what could be expected, they can't be faulted.

Their religion says in no uncertain terms is Mohammad supposed to be depicted in writings. The Evangelicals have similar terms when it comes to things like murder.

If someone kills in America, do the Evangelicals not support the death penalty? We know they are against abortions, but yet support the death penalty. Why? They feel that they are doing God's work as murder is breaking a commandment.

Sure, drawing a picture to us may seem unimportant, but in the Muslim religion is carries with it a death penalty.

Another analogy that I would put forward is that of the laws about drug trafficking. In America, you can be executed if caught with substantial amounts of drugs.

If your caught with a boat load of marijuana in Amsterdam, they say nothing. That same boat pulls into Miami and you get the death penalty.

To those in the US, they don't see a problem with it, but others would.

The death penalty in general is viewed as barbaric in most countries (America is the only first world nation to have the death penalty in place the way it does).

My point is Evangelicals do kill people, in different ways for different reasons, some of which are viewed as daft by those outside the US. People traveling into the US know this and act accordingly.

When dealing with people in other nations, you have to make some concessions when dealing with their culture and religion. To simply say their ways are crazy and ignore the importance of them is to discount them as a people.

India still has the caste system, in some Asian countries they sell their children legally. The governments of the world overlook many things in other nations that citizens in their own country may consider to be offensive. This is no different. What they did is in their culture, their religion, and should be treated as a religious rite that should be respected, not 'challenged' by nations who disagree with the practice.

You can't expect the Muslim world to ever get over their differences with the west as long as the west calls them savages and provokes them by attacking the very tenets of their religion.

Like I said, diplomacy. That means not intentionally enraging a group of people just because you want to exercise your right to free3 speech.

I mean, the Kl00 Klvx Kl4n might want to march through Harlem, it's their right, but at what costs? What if Arabs wanted to march to the White House in support of Bin Laden? Free speech, right? Things like this need to be stopped, as even though they do reflect freedom of speech and expression, they are only being done to incite anger, prejudice, and hatred among a certain group of people.

Drawing that cartoon was to illicit a similar response. The artist knew that. With the current global tensions, it was a chance to grab international headlines. He wasn't trying to fight for free speech, he already had the right in his country to draw that illustration if he wanted to. His actions were to incite hatred worldwide for attention.

He got what he wanted, then condemned they very people who acted in the very manner he wanted them to.

In Ireland, we have the orange order which is a pro-british, protestant group which marches through Catholic estates singing songs about killing Catholics, carrying banners with pictures of loyalist terrorists who killed people living in the very estate they march through.

They too claim they do this because of their 'freedom of speech'.

Every year many end in riots. They know this before they march. All they are doing is marching, right?

I won't condemn the Muslim community for reacting to an outright attack on their very lives, religion, and principles - especially when it was done not because of 'free speech' but to illicit a negative response, a response that the writer knew would happen, which is why he did it to begin with.

[raggedyanne]

Wow. I agree with you on most points, but not on your views of free speech. Sure, it's going to piss some people off. Freedom of speech is vital to democracy. If everyone can vote, than each voter's point of view should be listened to. Sure, it's not right for a group of people to deliberately try to harm others, but they should at least be allowed to voice their opinions peacefully. The writer used bad judgment and the comment was not meant to be viewed as malicious.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

First, Evangelicals wouldn't be offended by the Davinci Code because it focused on Catholics. Catholics are not Evangelicals, nor do they pretend to be.

Dude. In that book, Jesus boned Mary and had a child by her. The holy grail was a vagina, and about half the Bible was a lie. But anyway.

If the Evangelicals were known for this, wrote books on the fact they do this, were depicted in movies because of this sort of behaviour, and then when it happens react in a manner which is normal to what could be expected, they can't be faulted.

Well, points for consistency, anyway. I'm having difficulty believing you, though. By that logic, it's cool for homophobic hicks to drag gay people behind their trucks, as long as they are loud and obnoxious enough about their attitudes beforehand. Think about it. The reasoning you are tapping for this argument is precisely the kind that gives rise to the rapist's excuse, "the slut had it coming."

If the right not to be arbitrarily murdered means anything, it includes knowing that you don't lose that right by doing things that cause no material harm to anybody. In other words, that it's not contingent upon the random sensibilities of people you've never even met.

Sure, drawing a picture to us may seem unimportant, but in the Muslim religion is carries with it a death penalty.

I notice that you are against the death penalty for murder. I have to wonder why you are comfortable with the killing of those who write the wrong type of fiction.

Another analogy that I would put forward is that of the laws about drug trafficking. In America, you can be executed if caught with substantial amounts of drugs.

Not really on point, but I doubt it. Can you source that?

My point is Evangelicals do kill people, in different ways for different reasons, some of which are viewed as daft by those outside the US. People traveling into the US know this and act accordingly.

Let's be clear about what we're talking about, here. I'm not saying that going out of your way to piss off Muslims is a great idea. I'm not even saying that it isn't reprehensible (that's another topic). I'm just saying that as long as it's limited to words and cartoons, you should be able to expect that you won't be killed for it.

When dealing with people in other nations, you have to make some concessions when dealing with their culture and religion.

Whether true or not, that's not relevant. We're talking about a writer in England and cartoonists in Denmark.

What they did is in their culture, their religion, and should be treated as a religious rite that should be respected, not 'challenged' by nations who disagree with the practice.

Murder has been a religious rite in some historical cultures, but not in any that we miss having around.

Like I said, diplomacy. That means not intentionally enraging a group of people just because you want to exercise your right to free3 speech.

Again, whether Rushdie's choice to write that book was wise or moral is beside the point. We are considering whether it is acceptable for someone to kill him for it. You seem to be saying that it is.

What if Arabs wanted to march to the White House in support of Bin Laden? Free speech, right?

Correct. Free speech. I would support their right to do that, without hesitation. The same way the ACLU supported the right of the American Nazis to march in Skokie, which is a much more offensive example.

Freedom of speech is there to protect unpopular speech. You don't need it for speech that doesn't offend anybody.

Things like this... are only being done to incite anger, prejudice, and hatred among a certain group of people.

And you base this upon...?

Drawing that cartoon was to illicit a similar response... it was a chance to grab international headlines... His actions were to incite hatred worldwide for attention. He... condemned [the] very people who acted in the very manner he wanted them to.

And this? Are you familiar with the details of the case?

I won't condemn the Muslim community for reacting to an outright attack on their very lives, religion, and principles...

Fine, but once again, we're not talking about that. And if you won't condemn somebody for killing another person over what they wrote or drew, while engaging in stridulent moral argumentation yourself, then you're full of shit.

I've been around this board long enough for you to know that I do not say things like that lightly.

Seriously.

Drake

[CptSternn]

I do not support taking anyones life in my previous statement. What I do support is the right of people not to be persecuted for their religious beliefs.

First, Christianity, no matter what flavour, don't have a clause in it that says kill anyone who draws Jesus. If it did, things today might be very different when it comes to such movies. Trying to compare the two when the basic ideals of the religion are different won't work. It's like trying to compare apples and oranges. I would argue if the Bible did say kill anyone who <fill-in-the-blank>, then you would see more Christians out killing in the name of their religion. But again, we are talking about hypotheticals.

By that logic, it's cool for homophobic hicks to drag gay people behind their trucks, as long as they are loud and obnoxious enough about their attitudes beforehand. Think about it. The reasoning you are tapping for this argument is precisely the kind that gives rise to the rapist's excuse, "the slut had it coming."

Your analog is a bit off. I'm not saying anti-gays can attack gays because thats what they do, that is a very bad analogy. Muslims are not a hate group. Anti-gay forces are not a worldwide religious group and don't have a religion based on their beliefs. You can't compare the two. These Muslims were offended. Their religion calls for the head of the person who offended them. It's not some group of drunk yokels going off to kill some gay kid. These people have guidelines in place to govern their behaviour. They are following their religion. I don't know of a religion that tells people to drag gays behind pick-up trucks. Unless there is one and it has millions of followers worldwide, it still wouldn't be a proper analogy.

If the right not to be arbitrarily murdered means anything, it includes knowing that you don't lose that right by doing things that cause no material harm to anybody. In other words, that it's not contingent upon the random sensibilities of people you've never even met.

I'm just saying that as long as it's limited to words and cartoons, you should be able to expect that you won't be killed for it.

Caused no harm? Depends on how you look at it. Making a worldwide mockery of someones religious can have deep psychological effects. It can have deep diplomatic effects. It can effect how a whole nation interacts with other nations. Just because you can't see the effects like you would with a kick in the groin doesn't mean it isn't having an a deep, scarring, effect on the populace.

I notice that you are against the death penalty for murder. I have to wonder why you are comfortable with the killing of those who write the wrong type of fiction.

I am not comfortable with the idea of killing for any reason. That being said, the writer knew the consequences of his actions before he did it. Like in my drug analogy involving the death penalty, or maybe even better soldiers or police who are shot in the line of duty. No one should be surprised - it comes with the job description. In this case, the writer knew exactly what would happen if he did what he did. It should have shocked no one and he himself accepted some level of responsibility when he followed through with those actions.

Muslims didn't come up with these punishments overnight, they have been tenets of their religion for centuries. If you draw a depiction of Mohammad, you are given the death penalty. The cartoonist knew this, and actively did so knowing the consequence in efforts to get international attention. He wasn't exercising free speech as much as he was attacking a worldwide religion for publicity.

Even if he was killed by Muslims, they are acting out of spite or malcontent either, they are following their religious beliefs.

If you allow a cartoonist to create a cartoon which offends every person who practices a certain religion merely because that cartoonist has the right to free speech, you have trampled the rights of millions when it comes to protecting their religious freedoms.

The penalty under their law is death. The cartoonist that drew said cartoon did so knowing exactly what would happen, the reaction from the world, and what others would try to do to him if he did draw said cartoon.

Am I condoning violence? No more than I would be by letting a zoo keeper feed a pack of hungry lions wearing a meat suit. If they are stupid enough to try it, then I'm not going to be the one that condones it, but I wouldn't consider myself a 'supporter' of killing because I saw the threat before hand and didn't stop it.

People make their own free will choices. If their choice is to take shots at a worldwide religion practiced by millions and offend them in such a way they all want to kill the person, I am not condoning killing or violence by letting it happen.

Bottom line is if you don't want to lose your arm in an Arab country, don't steal. If you don't want to be killed by stoning, then don't commit a crime that would cause them to do such to you.

If you feel like creating a racist, bigoted cartoon to crap all over someones religion because you like the publicity, don't be surprised if the people who practice that religion get together and come after you.

Again, whether Rushdie's choice to write that book was wise or moral is beside the point. We are considering whether it is acceptable for someone to kill him for it. You seem to be saying that it is.

This statement pretty much sums up your argument, so I saved it for last. It may seem I support killing people for what they write, I don't. What I do support is the right for people to practice their religion. Now, I'm not saying some group of hicks in east bumfeck Kentucky should be able to eat people because thats what they believe is their religion, what I am saying is that millions of people worldwide who have followed this religion for centuries should be able to practice in the same manner they have for hundreds of years.

Their religion has basic ideas, tenets, beliefs, and of course punishments. Your not going to change those no matter how hard you try. The only option is to learn to culturally accept them. If you don't, then you will isolate them.

Think of it this way. If Christians worldwide were told they had to accept the fact a new trend of no celebrating Christmas was being forced upon them because Christmas is too religious. Lets look at this hypothetically for a second. If all Christians had to accept the fact worldwide no one would celebrate the season anymore...because certain governments felt it discriminated against certain groups.

You think Christians worldwide would just put up their hands and say 'Ok, fine, thats ok'? Your not going to get any religion to change their basic beliefs, especially when it comes to beliefs written by their God, merely because you feel that it in some way conflicts with another belief.

If you try and push a square peg in a round hole, it won't fit. Your not going to get Muslims who have practiced their religion hundreds of years before the current nations who wish to change their religion even existed to budge on this. The only thing you can do is be diplomatic, and work with them.

Instead of asking them not to kill people who offend them, wouldn't it be easier to ask people to not offend them in this manner? As you say, its just a drawing. Your right. So is it easier for them not to be forced to abide by their religious beliefs, or is it easier to ask a cartoonist or two not to incite such violence by simply not attacking their religion to begin with?

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

I would argue if the Bible did say kill anyone who <fill-in-the-blank>, then you would see more Christians out killing in the name of their religion. But again, we are talking about hypotheticals.

Apparently you and I are reading different Bibles. The one I am reading does say to kill people for all kinds of arbitrary, stupid reasons.

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

Muslims are not a hate group. Anti-gay forces are not a worldwide religious group and don't have a religion based on their beliefs. You can't compare the two.

Why should that make a difference? Why does a person get off the hook for killing someone just because they believe some supernatural entity or religious leader told them to do it? That's a blank check to do anything you want, as long as you make up the right bullshit excuses first.

I am really alarmed by the way you treat religious belief as some kind of magical exception to basic principles of ethical behavior. I am also picking up an implicit argument that there is some kind of difference between an established major religion and some individual or small group's beliefs, which I find outrageous.

I don't know of a religion that tells people to drag gays behind pick-up trucks. Unless there is one and it has millions of followers worldwide, it still wouldn't be a proper analogy.

Christianity comes to mind. Granted, its supposedly infallible holy text is not always specific about the method (and obviously it doesn't mention pickup trucks), but it is very clear indeed on what you are supposed to do to gay people.

But anyway, let's assume there is such a religion. Would you tell gay people hey, tough luck? And still tell them that when the hicks left their podunk town to come to a distant country which was itself accepting of gays to do the killing? I doubt it. So why the double standard?

Caused no harm? Depends on how you look at it. Making a worldwide mockery of someones religious can have deep psychological effects.

The qualifier "material" was present for a reason. It does me a kind of harm when someone calls me stupid or ugly, but you won't see me claiming that I have a right to kill them for it.

I am not comfortable with the idea of killing for any reason. That being said, the writer knew the consequences of his actions before he did it... the writer knew exactly what would happen if he did what he did.

Actually, he is on record saying that he expected no such thing. And why should he? Far from being the deliberate attack you have characterized it as, the book isn't even about Islam.

Anyway, apparently it is at least the case that you would not condone the killing we are talking about. Considering the palpably moral character of the act, though, that leaves me in some doubt as to where you stand, since you neither condone nor condemn.

Muslims didn't come up with these punishments overnight, they have been tenets of their religion for centuries.

Yes, and the Aztecs no doubt practiced human sacrifice over an extended period of time, in accordance with religious tenets. It's still repulsive.

The cartoonist knew this, and actively did so knowing the consequence in efforts to get international attention. He wasn't exercising free speech as much as he was attacking a worldwide religion for publicity... The penalty under their law is death. The cartoonist that drew said cartoon did so knowing exactly what would happen, the reaction from the world, and what others would try to do to him if he did draw said cartoon.

That claim has already been challenged, so I will content myself to highlight your silent refusal to rise to that challenge.

If you allow a cartoonist to create a cartoon which offends every person who practices a certain religion merely because that cartoonist has the right to free speech, you have trampled the rights of millions when it comes to protecting their religious freedoms.

No. Religious freedom means religious freedom. That's why it's called freedom, see. It does not mean the right to employ the state's mechanism of organized violence (police) to shut up people who offend your delicate sensibilities - religious or otherwise. The right term for that is "censorship".

Am I condoning violence? No more than I would be by letting a zoo keeper feed a pack of hungry lions wearing a meat suit.... but I wouldn't consider myself a 'supporter' of killing because I saw the threat before hand and didn't stop it.

That's the second time you have likened Muslims to one or another type of vicious wild animal, but I prefer to treat them as moral agents. You know - people.

People make their own free will choices. If their choice is to take shots at a worldwide religion practiced by millions and offend them in such a way they all want to kill the person, I am not condoning killing or violence by letting it happen.

I would be willing to take that argument seriously if you applied it consistently. For example, the West has a long, honorable tradition of mass-murdering people in the Middle East when they get in the way of our exploitation of the oil resources there. Everybody knows this. So if it's their choice to obstruct our well-known imperialistic tendencies, I am not condoning killing or violence by letting the U.S. government bomb them to oblivion. Right?

Bottom line is if you don't want to lose your arm in an Arab country, don't steal. If you don't want to be killed by stoning, then don't commit a crime that would cause them to do such to you.

Thanks. I'll bear that in mind in case I ever go to a Muslim country, and not a non-Muslim country like Denmark or England.

This statement pretty much sums up your argument, so I saved it for last. It may seem I support killing people for what they write, I don't. What I do support is the right for people to practice their religion.

But with what constraints? Certainly there must be some.

Now, I'm not saying some group of hicks in east bumfeck Kentucky should be able to eat people because thats what they believe is their religion...

Why is that religion entitled to less respect?

Their religion has basic ideas, tenets, beliefs, and of course punishments. Your not going to change those no matter how hard you try. The only option is to learn to culturally accept them. If you don't, then you will isolate them.

I'm prepared to accept them practicing their sickening traditions of hate and powerlust in their own countries, out of sheer necessity. I am not prepared to accept the idea that because some asshole in a part of the world I have never been to takes offense to something I have said in my part of the world, he gets to come here and stab me to death, with you blaming me for it more than him. If they isolate themselves in a fit of spite because we don't indulge their homicidal whims, that's their problem, and not ours.

Think of it this way. If Christians worldwide were told they had to accept the fact a new trend of no celebrating Christmas was being forced upon them because Christmas is too religious.

You are comparing putting ornaments on trees and singing to thrusting a sharp piece of metal repeatedly into a defensless person's rib cage. Something seems a little off, here.

Instead of asking them not to kill people who offend them, wouldn't it be easier to ask people to not offend them in this manner?

There's asking, and then there's telling. I don't find Rushdie's work objectionable, but it's easy to see how the Danish cartoons were. So like I said, I would be content with people writing complaints, applying economic pressure, and so on. But they cross a line when they get to the killing or censorship. That sort of thing has to be nipped in the bud.

Treating Muslims with respect is not the same thing as spreading our cheeks for them.

Drake

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Apparently you and I are reading different Bibles. The one I am reading does say to kill people for all kinds of arbitrary, stupid reasons.

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

Oh, it does say everything that person posted mate. However, thats all Old Testament. Jesus died for our sins. The New Testament does away with the 'eye for an eye' and other similar tenets due to the fact the son of Christ died for our sins, so man no longer has to pay for them. All those references, and your statement, are pre-Jesus, and no longer relevant.

Why should that make a difference? Why does a person get off the hook for killing someone just because they believe some supernatural entity or religious leader told them to do it? That's a blank check to do anything you want, as long as you make up the right bullshit excuses first.

If you are talking about someone who creates a new religion now I would agree. We are talking about a religion that was established before America was even 'discovered'. We are talking about a religion that is theocratic in nature. You can't discount the religion without discounting the nations which practice is as they are run by modern day theocracies.

I'm not saying Berkowitz should have been let off because he worshiped satan and satan spoke to him through his dog and told him to kill. What I am saying is that if a few million people worldwide, large chunks of many established nations agree with your beliefs, then they have to be respected.

It's not as much about what you believe as it is what a million other people out there believe. To not take that into account is to dismiss the feelings of a large chunk of the world, their governments, and millions of people who do feel this is the proper way to lead life. In the end, they aren't asking for much, just that people respect their religion.

I mean, if I went to Japan, refused to bow, take off my shoes, was loud and obnoxious in public, would people there not be offended? What if I told them they were stupid for using chopsticks. I mean, they have seen the fork, it works better. Who are they to use those silly sticks? They aren't out plowing fields with two pool cues, why stick with those sticks?

Their customs are based on their traditions. Who am I to say they are silly? If I went an offended the honour of their nation or something they held dear because I thought it was silly (i.e. worshiping a dead fat guy), does that make it ok, since I don't have any feelings towards their traditions?

Your discounting the culture, tradition, and government of many nations worldwide when you try and sum up the argument claiming their beliefs are based on some fictional entity. Whether those beliefs are based on fact or not, they have to be respected.

I am really alarmed by the way you treat religious belief as some kind of magical exception to basic principles of ethical behavior. I am also picking up an implicit argument that there is some kind of difference between an established major religion and some individual or small group's beliefs, which I find outrageous.

If a few million people worldwide practice something, and have for centuries, who exactly do you think you are to tell them they are wrong? Are you suggesting we 're-educate' every nation that has religious beliefs in an effort to end sectarian violence forever? I'm all for that, but in all fairness, its not going to happen. Ever. The best we can hope for its to accept others and their beliefs and work with them. Everything must be taken one case at a time. In this case, all it would take to not offend a few million people is to keep a few cartoonists from desecrating the idea of their most revered prophet. Are you saying that you would rather fight a few million people on this instead of asking the cartoonist NOT to offend all those people?

I worked as a bouncer for many years. One day, a guy came into a pub wearing a jersey for a team that was on telly. They were playing another team, which the local bar supported. He was the only jersey of that type in the pub, everyone else supported the other team. He cheered during the other teams goals. After the first half, people had drink in them and a fight ensued. I had to remove the single man in the jersey. I mean, truth be told he didnt start the fight, but, if I had left him there he would have been killed. Diplomacy is not making everyone happy. Sometimes you have to take into account the fact on the ground as they present themselves and act accordingly. Does that mean the right always prevail? Well, no, but it does mean people get along better as long as they stay within basic limits, limits which are not impeding their basic rights. The man went to a pub a few doors down and got on fine. Thats the best outcome that we could have hoped for. I could have cleared the pub, and had the one guy, the man who was in the right, sitting there alone watching the match, but sometimes you have to make consessions depending on the situation.

In Belfast, there are loyalist pubs where they sing songs about killing the Irish. They hang racist pictures, flags, and celebrate their bigotry on a daily basis. As a citzen, it is my right to drink wherever I want. I don't go to those pubs though. Why? Because, I can go to other pubs and drink. I could get angry, I could go in there and start trouble because they are acting in such a manner, but why? Techincally, I'm in the right, they are wrong, ya know? Just because I am right doesn't mean I should go around the world trying to prove to the world that I am right.

You can't expect the whole world to get along and hold hands. What you can do though is work with everyone, so people get along and keep people from offending each other as best you can. If everyone acts in good faith, and tries not to directly attack anyone for their beliefs, no matter what they are, then things tend to go more smoothly.

Do people get offending over silly beliefs? They do. Some take it to different levels and have different responses.

My example with the animals - as I stated I owned poisonous snakes. I'm by no means comparing any religion or people to savages. I don't think animals are evil or savage. You must however know about the animal you are dealing with and have respect for its nature. You can't cuddle snakes like a cat, thats something you must forgo when owning such a pet. You also have to respect their power and what they can do if handled improperly. People are the same way around the world. You give a little, you get a little. You also must respect the response they might have toward certain stimuli, and take that into consideration at all times.

If you know a large chunk of people act in a certain way, then instead of trying to 'correct' a few million people, is it not best to accept them and their beliefs, as long as they don't encroach on your right to live, and let things be?

In the end, everyone has to give up a little to get along with everyone. If that means not going to a pub, or not drawing a cartoon, and if thats all that it takes to not cause a riot/war and cause the loss of life, is it not worth avoiding such behaviour in the name of peace and goodwill?

[Drake Dun]

There is not one line in your post relevant to the original point. If you must persist in deliberately sidetracking the conversation, then it is over.

Drake