The world is just waking up to this fact. Persecution of Christians will continue as long as the West remains pagan and steeped in sin.

Wake up now, the hour is later than the forgetful ones think.

Recall the parable of the ten virgins. Many fell asleep.

Wake up O children of the West!

Lacking the word ‘all’ in my post, you simply invent it. Rather typical. You aren’t interested in the truth, the motivations of Jyylands-Posten, or of Kurt Westergaard, or of mine, you simply latch on to whatever straws are in your vicinity to defame and vilify them as much as you can. In all my days, I have never seen an atheist be as outraged about “blasphemy” as this. I also do not know why, in your opinion, Muslims are the sole possessors of the right not to be offended.

For all your complaining about the “blasphemy” of the cartoons, this is the first time that you express disapproval of the murderous reaction to it – and even this disapproval is not volunteered, but implicit in your half-baked defense of Muslims.

“I am merely pointing out that 9/11 was ´aggression´ , not printing a few cartoons.”

No you´re not. Let me point you what you are “merely”pointing, in your own words:

“How about Muslims learning that murdering and burning is not an appropriate response to a cartoon you don’t like”

Yes, you are saying that Muslims, as a whole, must “learn” that murdering and “burning” is not an appropiate response to a cartoon. All muslims. Those are your words, I am not making stuff here.

And technically I am still right: The right to publish is not an obligation to publish.

Congratulations on the technicality. From a perspective of commentary and critique, however, it’s exceedingly difficult to address a visual representation without actually, y’know, showing that visual representation. In this case, it’s “it costs several thousand words to not print a picture”.

And of course, the whole point is that cartoons are not ‘aggression’. They most certainly are not violent aggression. Responding to them with violence is simply not acceptable.

I don´t think the distinction you are drawing between Islam and Muslims is clear in this discussion.

Frankly, the only one I see trying to blur it in this discussion is you…

I am merely pointing out that 9/11 was “aggression”, not printing a few cartoons. The actions we saw in response to the cartoons were “aggression”, not the cartoons. For some reason, there were no murderous mobs in the Islamic world, outraged over the fact that their religion had been used to justify the attacks of 9/11. No murderous mobs over stonings. No murderous mobs over the denial of women’s rights. But print a cartoon and folks are outraged. Why is that? And why is it that no other group is like that?

I repeat, there is no right not to be offended, and there is no exception for Muslims.

Sergio: I said that I support the right to publish the cartoons.

You nominally support the right to publish the cartoons, but you’ll attack and slander the people standing up for free speech, like Jyylands-Posten, while speaking not a word in condemnation of people who want to silence them with terrorism and murder. The former is “offensive”, the latter is not to be spoken of.

Sergio: But I also suspicious of the intentions of the cartoonists and the people who published the cartoons

As I said, suspicion always haunts the guilty mind.

Sergio: You haven´t explained me how the cartoons consist in any way in a serious intend to criticize Islam and you still refuse to see the context in which they are produced.

I pointed out the context to you, which you ignored. The context was that someone who wanted to write a book about Muhammad could not get an artist to paint a picture of Muhammad, for fear of being murdered. Now, think about it for a second. In democratic Denmark, in the 21st century, where there is supposed to be freedom of speech, artists dare not touch one subject, lest they be murdered. In response to this, not the fevered imaginings of a guilty mind, did Jyylands-Posten commission the cartoons. A dozen cartoons there were, not just the one by Kurt Westergaard which you mischaracterize. And after the cartoonists have been forced into hiding. After Danish embassies have been torched in multiple countries. After an attempted intimidation of a small, democratic country into abandoning free speech to pacify murderous mobs, you have the gall to state that it is the cartoons that are “offensive”?

Sergio: But in the general picture Muslims as an immigrant population are not responsible for that, since not all Muslims are threatening to kill them, and in the big picture, it is still true that Muslims are a minority in Europe and in many places they suffer discrimination and persecution.

One of your many assertions without evidence. They are so persecuted and discriminated against, that their worst grievance is the fact that Denmark allows cartoonists to draw freely, without having to submit their cartoons to murderous mobs. They are so persecuted that they have to strain themselves to find something to take offense at.

Sergio: I am not a moral relativist for starters

Not? How else are a couple of cartoons blasphemous to an atheist? Contrary to your most recent claims, you did not make the tautological statement that “Muslims consider these cartoons blasphemous”. You said that these cartoons are blasphemous, period. An atheist considers these cartoons blasphemous, because of a desert religion’s prohibitions on portraying its founder.

Sergio: The point is that for Muslims those cartoons are blasphemous.

Who is generalizing now?

Sergio: You on the other side seem to share the fanaticism of the religions you criticize

Because I am trying to silence cartoonists? Am I threatening to kill anyone who criticizes my ideas? No, if I did, you might start defending my ideas. I can only shake my head at this.

“That you would dare say, on September 11 no less, that cartoon/s constitute “aggression” makes me ill. How about Muslims learning that murdering and burning is not an appropriate response to a cartoon you don’t like?”

Read yourself man. You say you are not attacking Muslims “but Islam”, and then you go and make comments like this one. Like if by the actions of terrorists in 9/11 ALL Muslims have “to not to murder”. As if all Muslims committed or supported the 9/11. Is like you want me to say: “I rest my case”.

“You’re not a big fan, but you demand the special privilege not to be offended for its adherents and its adherents alone? ”

You have some reading comprehension problems. I never said that I demand no special privilege of members of a religion not to be offended. I said that I support the right to publish the cartoons. I never said that Muslims have the right to physically intimidate anybody who “offends them”. You are just making stuff. But I also suspicious of the intentions of the cartoonists and the people who published the cartoons, and the evidence is clear. You haven´t explained me how the cartoons consist in any way in a serious intend to criticize Islam and you still refuse to see the context in which they are produced.

You say that you are outraged that the people who published the cartoons are the real victims because they have to hide in bunkers. I do not deny that. But in the general picture Muslims as an immigrant population are not responsible for that, since not all Muslims are threatening to kill them, and in the big picture, it is still true that Muslims are a minority in Europe and in many places they suffer discrimination and persecution. You may pretend to deny that reality to, but it doesn´t make it go away.

“I can understand why religious people would think that G.K. Chesterton was right when he said that someone who does not believe in God will believe anything. A more perfect example for the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of politically correct cultural relativism than an atheist complaining about “blasphemy” cannot be found.”

This is ludicrous. I am not a moral relativist for starters, and more importantly I never said I was complaining about feeling outraged for the cartoons. The point is that for Muslims those cartoons are blasphemous. To acknowledge that other people may feel different than I do is not the same than sharing the feeling; that quote actually shows me why I am as an atheist not opposed to religious people per se, not even religion. You on the other side seem to share the fanaticism of the religions you criticize, since you are not interested in any way in having a civil discussion or relation with people who think differently than you. That sectarian mind is what I dislike in some forms of religion and philosophy, a fundamentalism way of thinking that appears in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and yes, atheism.

Hah, good one. CNN admitted on live TV that it was scared to death to publish these cartoons, even as the imams who whipped up the Muslim world against Denmark, a small democracy, were handing them out like they were going out of fashion. Interesting how a group of “offended” folk can arrogate to themselves and themselves only the right to distribute the cartoons, and to threaten with death anyone else who dares do the same.

Sergio: but a question of not wanting to escalate an aggression (or the intend of aggression) against Muslims.

That you would dare say, on September 11 no less, that cartoons constitute “aggression” makes me ill. How about Muslims learning that murdering and burning is not an appropriate response to a cartoon you don’t like? You talk as if these were the first cartoons ever to be published. No, everyone is mocked, and no one responds in this manner, as I have pointed out repeatedly – and which point has been ignored by you every time.

Sergio: In the context of the rise of xenophobia in Europe against Muslims, that idea doesn´t hold very well.

Kurt Westergaard and the other cartoonists have to hide in bunker-like homes, or they will be murdered, and Muslims are the victims, because cartoons Muslims don’t like are published? Give me a break.

Sergio: First, let me get myself clear: I said, and I repeat it again, that I am 100% for the right of publishing defamatory

Like every other person, you nominally support free speech, while attacking anyone who stands up for free speech, in the face of terrorism and death threats. How about this, if you actually supported free speech, you would be applauding Jyylands-Posten’s refusal to be silenced by a radical religious group that wants to silence everyone by threatening murder.

Sergio: Second, an atheist is somebody who doesn´t believe in God, not somebody who opposes religion per se.

Atheists rarely, if ever, spring to the defense of Christianity, when it is attacked. But there is a significant contingent of atheists that is indifferent to attacks on any religion, except Islam. Hence my definition.

Sergio: I am not a big fan of Islam myself, and I think there is a lot to be criticize in that religion in its many different manifestations.

You’re not a big fan, but you demand the special privilege not to be offended for its adherents and its adherents alone?

Sergio: A cartoon with Muhammad appearing as a terrorist certainly is not intended to be a constructive criticism of Islam, nor is precisely, a very deep criticism of that religion.

Actually, Westergaard’s cartoon did no such thing, and it was intended as a criticism of Islam. It is very evident that you have not read what he has stated about his cartoon. It’s amazing that you issue vitriolic condemnations against those standing up for free speech, without knowing the full story. It is also interesting that you limit your attacks and condemnations to a man who is in hiding, and don’t speak a word of the people who attempt to silence others by using terrorism and death threats.

Sergio: I haven´t seen any good argument that shows my interpretation is particularly flawed.

You haven’t made a single argument, you simply keep repeating how outraged you are by this “blasphemy”. A good one, an atheist who is outraged about “blasphemy”. I can understand why religious people would think that G.K. Chesterton was right when he said that someone who does not believe in God will believe anything. A more perfect example for the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of politically correct cultural relativism than an atheist complaining about “blasphemy” cannot be found.

I think there may be a reason not to publish this cartoons, and is not necessarily a question of fear, but a question of not wanting to escalate an aggression (or the intend of aggression) against Muslims. And technically I am still right: The right to publish is not an obligation to publish.

On the other side, I don´t think the distinction you are drawing between Islam and Muslims is clear in this discussion. In the context of the rise of xenophobia in Europe against Muslims, that idea doesn´t hold very well.

Maximilian:

“A good definition of atheist might be: ´person who opposes all religions, except Islam´. By no means all, but some atheists tend to take this strange position.”

First, let me get myself clear: I said, and I repeat it again, that I am 100% for the right of publishing defamatory or blasphemous material, including these cartoons. I think no religion should be immune to criticism. Second, an atheist is somebody who doesn´t believe in God, not somebody who opposes religion per se. There is a difference. I am not a big fan of Islam myself, and I think there is a lot to be criticize in that religion in its many different manifestations. But I do not define myself as opposed to Islam or Christianity, etc. And I certainly not opposed to believers as believers, even if I may disagree with them on many issues (including the existence of God).

Now, that there is freedom of speech to publish defamatory publications against a religion, doesn´t mean I support whatever the content is of neither those publications, nor that I do not think motifs and context matter to analyze them. A cartoon with Muhammad appearing as a terrorist certainly is not intended to be a constructive criticism of Islam, nor is precisely, a very deep criticism of that religion. It is an inflammatory publication with the intention to antagonize the Muslim immigrant population in Europe, a population that is in a context of material and numerical inferiority. Maximilian asks how do I know the intention of the authors of this cartoons? Well, the same way we all interpret what others do or write. I cannot read minds, I can only interpret based on content and context, and I haven´t seen any good argument that shows my interpretation is particularly flawed.

And many Americans supported the cartoonists, but the American government, as well as that former leader of the “free world”, Bill Clinton, made it their charge to condemn mostly the cartoons.

Sergio: As Joe Mc faul pointed above. And I hope you are not reducing the West to the United States, since many news papers in Europe also reprinted the cartoons.

No media outlet in the US reprinted the cartoons, other than university and alternative papers. Many papers, American and otherwise, bowed to censorship and thuggery by people who are used to getting their way by issuing threats and beheading journalists.

Sergio: Nor Muhammad is a prophet to me (I am an atheist).

A good definition of atheist might be: “person who opposes all religions, except Islam”. By no means all, but some atheists tend to take this strange position.

Sergio: But of course, that is not the question, the questions is that Muhamed is THE prophet for muslims

And what is the relevance of that? Should that immunize him from satire and criticism that people dole out to everyone else?

Sergio: a dn the intend of this cartoons was defamatory or blasphemous.

Suspicion always haunts the guilty mind. How is it that you claim to know the intent of the people who commissioned the cartoons, and the people who drew them? I would think that the mere fact that artists were censoring themselves, out of fear for their lives, in the 21st century, in a democracy that supposedly has free speech, would be more than enough to spur one to this enterprise.

As I have already pointed out, the cartoons were not defamatory – Muhammad was a violent man and a killer. Why should he be exempted from criticism and appropriate mockery? Why is it ‘blasphemy’, just because some people choose to regard him as their ‘prophet’? Is that somehow my problem?

Sergio: Wow…you didn´t judge all muslims…just the WHOLE Islam.

Islam is a belief system, and I judge it to be ridiculous and violent – like its founder. It wasn’t by peaceful means that Islam spread within a century from the deserts of Arabia to Spain, it was by Jihad intended to spread the religion.

Sergio: That is why in your next sentence you ask why Jews, in general, don´t react in a violent manner.

And you didn’t answer the question. You yourself compared Muslims to Jews, so I think it is entirely appropriate to ask: why is it that Muslims murder, burn and torture over cartoons, while Jews patiently suffer cretins who maliciously claim that their parents and grandparents were not branded and gassed like animals?

Sergio: Let me guess this right…if some jews commited terrorists acts (which by the way, many of the acts of Israel state qualify against palestinians)

Terrorism is by definition a non-state action.

Sergio: or pushed a hardcore intolerant version of their religion, will you be making the same generalizations?

There’s plenty of that – look at the sense of entitlement the ultra-Orthodox have in Israel. I am not fond of Judaism (or any religion), though individual Jews are often very decent people. But it can be interpreted in a way that is non-violent. This is impossible to do for Islam, without contriving a religion that bears little resemblance to Islam.

Sergio: No you are not. You are just acting with the same logic of anti semitism, you just don´t seem to being capable of ackowledging it . The Nazi example was just an hyperoble in the hopes of making you realize it.

Except that the Nazis targeted Jews not for any belief that they held, but for who they were. Semite is a reference to the ethnicity of a person, not someone’s religion. Nazis targeted the Jewish race, and they didn’t care whether the Jews they killed were religious, or even believed in a god. It is surprising that you don’t know this. The comparison between racism and criticism of a belief system is utterly ridiculous.