Oh, yeah?
Tell that to the Muslims...
This is hardly a surprise. We're negotiating all sorts of things with Islamic countries. What do folks expect the State Department to do, roll on the floor laughing at depictions of Muhammad that Muslims all over the world consider blasphemous?
I realize that many here on FR don't think there is any such thing as a decent Muslim, but I know that to be wrong.
The United States of America, under the leadership of President Bush, is not fighting a war against Islam. We are fighting a war against terrorism conducted in the name of Islam. At the same time we are doing that, we are attempting to convert two Islamic countries to a democratic form of government.
It is wrong to depict any religious leader or icon in a way that will be interpreted as blasphemy by those who follow that religion. There are many blasphemous images of Jesus on the web. Blasphemous images of deities or prophets is not the way to conduct affairs of state, so the State Department is correct to dissassociate itself with such images.
Short of leveling the entire Muslim part of the world, we must deal with Islam. We're obviously not going to do the former, so we must do the latter.
We even have a few million Muslim citizens of this country. They are citizens of the United States of America, the country that champions freedom of religion. The government of this nation will never engage in blasphemous portrayals of any religion. We are above that sort of nonsense.
President Bush is right. The State Department is right. We are not at war with Islam. We are trying to help Islamic countries become nations of democracy. If we are going to abandon that effort, then let's bring our troops home. If we're going to keep them there, then we are continuing to respect Islam as a religion.
How about telling Muslims that they need to understand that our laws and cultural values allow the publication of such images without the creator or publisher being subject to prosecution or a fatwah?
I agree with much you said, However the State Dept has no buisness making comments on a Dutch Newspaper. When is the last time they commented on an American Editorial. We have to give the Saudis some leeway but as I posted earlier this was a made up issue by the Saudi Govt to get their mismanagement of the lastest pilgrimage where hundeds died off the front page. Again once they let the Jeannie out of the bottle there was no way to contain it. State should have defused it then.
Oh, yeah?
Tell that to the Muslims...
You miss the point sir...This is about how we are allowed to exercise our right of free speech here in a western democracy.
We are being asked to curb our freedom due to the religious sensitivities of others. Since when has that been a standard of free speech discourse in the Western world ??!!
There is a creeping incremental nature to the manner in which Islamic beliefs and laws are attempting to insinuate themselves into the Western way of life.
This is very disturbing. Again I ask what is wrong with our political leaders that they cannot identify a clear and present danger to our political, social and economic way of life??
This is not about insulting a religion within the boundaries of the country of that religion's origin or base. I would agree that our representatives, troops and citizens should exercise care and discretion about religious sensitivities when in a predominantly Islamic culture, but not in our own countries if it means abridging the freedom of speech that we so often point out is lacking in these Islamic societies. We may as well convert now if that's the case.
What ticks me off about the US Gov't reaction is that we appear to be willing to give Islam more protection here in the US than Christianity, the latter religion being responsible for the overwhelming portion of the genesis of our cultural heritage.
Let me not put too fine a point on it, then, if we're talking about blasphemy.
The Jewish religion explicitly denies that Jesus was the Son of God. That is blasphemy.
The Muslim religion also denies the divinity of Jesus. That is blasphemy.
The Bhuddist religion denies the existence of God as such. Blasphemy.
The Hindu religion actually accepts the full divinity of Jesus, but says that he came several times under different names. That's not actually blasphemy...but it is error.
You said: "It is wrong to depict any religious leader or icon in a way that will be interpreted as blasphemy by those who follow that religion."
If that is really true, then it is wrong to state the tenets of the Jewish, Muslim or Bhuddist religions at all, because they deny the divinity of Christ, because that is pure and utter blasphemy of the most fundamental, God-denying kind -not like making fun of Mohammed, but making fun of Allah or Yahweh directly.
Are Christians allowed to become offended by Judaism and Islam, whose MERE EXISTENCE is blasphemy?
Sure, they're allowed, but Christians who do get offended like that are idiots.
And so are Muslims who go hog wild because someone makes fun of Mohammed.
The proper response is to tell them to grow up.
How about the braindead leftwing a-holes just shut the F up and keep us out of it?
No one but a mentally incompetent pantload would be stupid enough to think that this gratuitous throat-bearing would positively affect our "battered image" in the land of the slamo-nazis. It is an anti-American act deliberately perpetrated by career "diplomats" who couldn't possibly care less who wins or loses in the WoT. And if Condi Rice signed off on this fecal smear, then that characterization includes her as well as all the aging psychopaths who have inhabited State for decades.
Well the government of Dennmark did not do so either. Yet the "Moderate Muslims" of Indonesia have rioted and attacked their embassy. It was private businesses and individuals, exercising their freedom of the press and of speech, who engaged in the allegedly blasphemous potrayals of Mohemet/Mohammad. Of the rioters object to all potrayals, not just ones that show their "Prophet" in a negative light. People of other religions are not bound by the religious law of the Muslims. A law that is much more recent than Mohammad's time, and based on the worry about idolatry. I'm sure they need not worry about idolatry with regards to the Danish cartoonist.