" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 16:37:51 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 13:41:18 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


Go do a search at www.npr.org. That's usually the first radio
station I
tune to in the car. Next would be our local right-wing Clear Channel
disaster, WHAM.

The original cartoons were published Sept.30 in Jyllands-Posten.
I'm not
sure, but I don't believe it's a "Christian" newspaper. The
following
link has the paper's rationale for the cartoons.

http://www.jp.dk/udland/tema:fid=11328/

The cartoons:

http://blog.newspaperindex.com/2005/...posten-racism/

Interesting debate, freedom of speech vs. religious sensibilities.
To
place it closer to home, to those in the freedom of speech camp, did
you
also support Serrano's freedom to display his **** Christ?

http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg...mages/502.html

Hadn't seen it. But, there might be a difference. Muslims believe it's
a bad
thing to portray their god in any way at all. Christians don't have
such
issues with the mere existence of images of JC. The *nature* of an
image of
JC is another issue entirely.

but equaly offensive wouldn't you say?

Yep, perhaps more so. Yet we don't see Catholics and Christians taking
to the streets with guns and sabers threatening to cut off the heads of
the "infidels".


In a different cultural or legal environment, they might. After all,
people in this country did (and sometimes still do) burn crosses on
lawns, as an editorial comment on someone's color or politics.


We are talking religion Doug, not race or politics.


In this context, I don't think it makes much difference. The point is that
given the liberty to do so (like a small town sherriff who looks the other
way), people will get away with whatever they can.