I employ extensive quoting, apologies

You say that when science and religion disagree, this does not result in violence or terrorism. You are, of course, forgetting the fundamentalist Christians in the US and elsewhere who routinely threaten, and have killed, doctors associated with abortion-clinics and stem-cell research labs.

An obvious minority of people are violent in enacting their beliefs - it is not a corollary that science vs religion ends in violence.

The Danish cartoons may have been insulting to some Muslims, but it should never be an offence to be rude. It is a matter of choice who we choose to emulate, not a matter of inheritance. Your mother is inherently your mother, your religious leader is not – don’t confuse the two. If I chose to emulate Plato I would not set up a website called Platophobia-Watch and campaign for laws that made insulting Plato an offence. The same if I chose to emulate Darwin or even John Ingman. And don’t forget that Iran also ran a competition to reward the best cartoonist of the Jewish holocaust.

Emulation or inheritance - surely this is irrelevant as to who you seek to respect. If you did chose to set up Platophobia.watch you would be within your rights, and I would respect your choice.

You also, sadly, make the error of confusing race with religion when you compare the Danish cartoons to those that compare black people to apes. Islam is a belief-system, like any other, it is not a racial group. Race is an immutable, innate characteristic; religion is a mutable set of opinions that can and do change over time. No one should be denigrated because of their race because it is something they cannot change.

You should not be denigrated for either beliefs, race or anything - everyone is allowed respect surely?

Religion, like politics, can be wrong if it is not based on evidence, if the original texts are corrupted or mistranslated or promote a worldview that science has long-since exposed as incorrect. Opinions should always be be challenged, otherwise we may end up accepting the delusions of schizophrenics who think there are fairies at the bottom of the garden.

I agree (finally) with one of your points - that opinions should always be challenged - however the basis for most religions and/or politics is ethics, which can neither be proved wrong or right, being metaphysical assertions.

You also say that religion does not lead to violence if children are taught that violence is not the true religious way. This is perhaps your most glaring sophism. Religion, all religions, teach that theirs is the only right and true path. Those who does not follow a particular adherent’s path are infidels or apostates, outside god’s grace, an enemy of god. No matter how peace-loving the teacher, pupils who are taught this will grow up viewing non-believers as inferior and inherently bad. At its best, this leads to bullying and social isolation, at its worst this leads to violence against the enemies of god. And don’t forget that Islam has always taught that those who don’t follow the religion of the book (i.e. Muslims, Jews and Christians) should be put to death, and that the death penalty is a legitimate punishment.

A good teacher/parent or mentor in religion would always say, that final judgement rests with God, and the majority of people would say that the religion begins with the changing of the self - teachings are at first personal, and then neighbourly, and then community wide. Pagans are not put to death under the tenets of Islam, as far as I know, but if you can show me a link I wouldn’t mind

Ultimately, you seem to be comparing religion as an alternative to evidence-based scientific reasoning. You also say that freedom of speech should be moderated by respect for religion. If we take your argument to its conclusion, then freedom of speech should also be moderated by respect for science, in which case your article would also be banned for insulting science.

I think this is your prejudice about religion coming through here, the theme was respect for beliefs, and that there is a respectful approach to challenge.

Fortunately, we do not live in such a paranoid society and we are allowed to debate freely, even if that sometimes includes insults.

Amen to that, but we should remember that for every action there is a reaction, and the framework for debate must be that where the impact of the debate is high on public/international mood, language should be moderated to keep the peace - this is my understanding of Political Correctness, and why I support PC-ness.

I understand the thread is a bit old and so noone will read this, but I find the right to reply so soothing!

Tareq

See what I mean.

I should have added, some muslims are incapable of finding any other means of debating with their opponents.

You say that when science and religion disagree, this does not result in violence or terrorism. You are, of course, forgetting the fundamentalist Christians in the US and elsewhere who routinely threaten, and have killed, doctors associated with abortion-clinics and stem-cell research labs.

The Danish cartoons may have been insulting to some Muslims, but it should never be an offence to be rude. It is a matter of choice who we choose to emulate, not a matter of inheritance. Your mother is inherently your mother, your religious leader is not – don’t confuse the two. If I chose to emulate Plato I would not set up a website called Platophobia-Watch and campaign for laws that made insulting Plato an offence. The same if I chose to emulate Darwin or even John Ingman. And don’t forget that Iran also ran a competition to reward the best cartoonist of the Jewish holocaust.

You also, sadly, make the error of confusing race with religion when you compare the Danish cartoons to those that compare black people to apes. Islam is a belief-system, like any other, it is not a racial group. Race is an immutable, innate characteristic; religion is a mutable set of opinions that can and do change over time. No one should be denigrated because of their race because it is something they cannot change. Religion, like politics, can be wrong if it is not based on evidence, if the original texts are corrupted or mistranslated or promote a worldview that science has long-since exposed as incorrect. Opinions should always be be challenged, otherwise we may end up accepting the delusions of schizophrenics who think there are fairies at the bottom of the garden.

You also say that religion does not lead to violence if children are taught that violence is not the true religious way. This is perhaps your most glaring sophism. Religion, all religions, teach that theirs is the only right and true path. Those who does not follow a particular adherent’s path are infidels or apostates, outside god’s grace, an enemy of god. No matter how peace-loving the teacher, pupils who are taught this will grow up viewing non-believers as inferior and inherently bad. At its best, this leads to bullying and social isolation, at its worst this leads to violence against the enemies of god. And don’t forget that Islam has always taught that those who don’t follow the religion of the book (i.e. Muslims, Jews and Christians) should be put to death, and that the death penalty is a legitimate punishment.

Ultimately, you seem to be comparing religion as an alternative to evidence-based scientific reasoning. You also say that freedom of speech should be moderated by respect for religion. If we take your argument to its conclusion, then freedom of speech should also be moderated by respect for science, in which case your article would also be banned for insulting science. Fortunately, we do not live in such a paranoid society and we are allowed to debate freely, even if that sometimes includes insults. Beware of what you wish for. You may end up gagging yourself. As it is, you have drawn my attention to Barbara Smoker’s timely, well-balanced and thought-provoking article, and your own weak arguments have exposed the holes in your own arguments.

Thersites: I was not talking about the past. I was talking about NOW. Did you not notice that? Nobody questioned whether there should be debate. These cartoons were not part of any such debate.

Sorry, Indigo mate, have you actually SEEN the illustrations?

Because I don’t recognise your description.

One thing that has puzzled me, though, is that, while many Muslims claim Mohammed was perfect, which no human being can ever be, he never claimed this for himself. So why is it so difficult for Muslims to accept that Mohammed was flawed? Other prophets and Biblical figures were flawed, yet they conveyed something of God.

I’m not expecting any answers, and I have none myself, but it would be good if Muslims were to at least consider this question.