[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

So it's okay to attack a large (veeeeeery large) group's core beliefs if it's the means to making a broader statement? I understand what you're saying about the magazine trying to take a stand on free speech, but it seems senseless why they might choose perhaps the most volatile religion as the means to that end? I also suspect that the whole truth isn't being told. Why Islam, of all groups? Why not pick on American Christians? Sure we might get a little ticked off, but we'll just sort of shrug it off as "European secularism" and go about our merry way without burning books and effigies. Why not Gandhi eating a Big Mac (if, in fact, McDonalds does use real beef)? I strongly suspect that there's no small minority of Europeans who are mortified by the prospect of a growing Muslim population in the historically almost-all-white, all-Christian continent.
"

You couldnt say it better, Ryan...

Im not a religious person, (by the way Im almost an atheist) , always defend freedom in all means-- what definitely makes people here think that Im too much liberalist (almost true ) but I have to admitt that those cartoons showed up in a inappropriate moment...did you guys realize that Iran's president is using this as an excuse to try to unite muslims against ocicdent??? Its the moment he was anxiously waiting...and we gave it to him...


In a meeting with local authors, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad condemned the cartoons and addressed the West: “Insulting the Prophet Muhammad would not promote your position,”

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10705393/

Was it necessary????