"Doug Kanter" wrote in message


I was about to say that because religion is in a category of its own,
publishing an offensive picture of someone's god is different from
publishing a picture of a politician. But, in some instances, there *is*
no difference, and that's one sign of something VERY wrong. No politician
should generate that kind of devotion. It's just a management job, no
different than any other.

Doug, you've hit the real point but have missed it in your zeal to turn
everything into an anti-GB rant.

publishing an offensive picture of someone's god is different from
publishing a picture of a politician.

Most muslim societies are, to some degree or other, theocratic. Some have
supposedly elected theocratic governments, others have merely allowed,
through inactivity, radical lunatics to take over their countries. In any
event, notwithstanding all the rabid rhetoric, muslim societies have made
their religion into their politics. The cartoons published in Denmark --
the two that were most "offensive" -- were, in reality, POLITICAL cartoons!

There is no reason on earth why non-muslim societies should be bound by the
precepts of Islam, any more than, for example, Christians should eschew pork
products simply because their Jewish neighbors do. Muslims are free to
never produce a likeness of the Prophet, but that means nothing to me.

Likewise, I see no reason why non-muslim nations should offer any show of
respect to muslim societies that claim to be mainstream but refuse to
respect their own religious precepts; that stand by and say nothing while
the most vile acts are performed in the name of their God and Prophet; and
that allow their religion to be corrupted and compromised by a lunatic
fringe.