I'm Norwegian and I have nothing against Islam

[admedia]

The quote was made at a conference hosted in an Islamic country.

So are you suggesting freedom of religion doesn't apply while he's in an Islamic country?

[newhive]

So then as a Muslim, you condemn the actions of your Muslim brothers and leaders who do carry out and condone such actions in the name of your religion?

You should be specific about "such actions". For "me" I won't "begin" with burning flags, because I know it's not the proper reaction. Who burns the flags express their deep angre the way they can, may be because they're not "used" to any other way of expressing the deep angre. What you call "Democracy" isn't that way here.

I won't be hearting foreigners, nor bombing , shooting or killing anyone, because that's againest Islam. . Just a boycott to start with and I know this can be a very powerfull weapon, and gives the proper "returning" message.

The leader of my country is a devout christian, does that mean that the invasion of countries sanctioned by him is a direct reflection upon Christianity?

I won't hate Christians (nor Jews) for the "acts" of their leaders.
And I won't enter a discussion about politics again, because I did it before, and had a bad impression, almost the same impression I got from the majority of you here.

[admedia]

And I won't enter a discussion about politics again, because I did it before, and had a bad impression, almost the same impression I got from the majority of you here.

newhive, please I am not saying you do support the actions of some of your extremist leaders. I am mearly asking questions and I appreciate your candidness. I honstly have nothing against you personally at all.

I have no problems with flag burning and protests either. I think boycott is appropriate.

[swampy]

you nope, but you stated "There is nothing wrong with a political leader being open about his spirituality in a country founded on freedom of religion" I was pointing out that it wasn't in that pearticular country at the time.

and to take your line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion, your question implies that I can travel to a country and break a law there because that particular law does not apply in my own country

[admedia]

and to take your line of reasoning to it's natural conclusion, your question implies that you are suggesting that I can travel to a country and break a law there because that particular law does not apply in my own country

I believe it's your right to go to any country and practice your religion in peace regardless of the 'laws' of that country. Yes, that is my belief.

[Ask The Geezer]

and to take your line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion, your question implies that I can travel to a country and break a law there because that particular law does not apply in my own country

How about flying to Denmark and smoking hash in a parlor? It's a better anology.

Most everyone agrees that freedom of speach should not, and can not be changed as it is one of the basic principles of the West. But how about amending it to prevent anti-religion propaganda - whichever the targeted religion?

Amending it is changing it. It isn't going to happen. Your forgetting, only the muslims have a problem with jokes about religion. In countries where religious freedom is law, cartoons and jokes are taken for what they are. All this crappola in arab countries over this is just an excuse to riot against the west. Anything about the west.

But go ahead and riot, you think your childish gushing of hatred isn't matched by new and just as volitile hatred of muslims in the west? Most people here are hardly as forgiving or as contrite as some priggish and apologist government leaders would have you believe.

[swampy]

what if my religion involved slaughtering babies?

[admedia]

what if my religion involved slaughtering babies?

you are not practicing your religion in peace.

[swampy]

you are not practicing your religion in peace.

what if my religion involved slaughtering babies with laser guided weaponry and a force of several thousand armed men? I am after all, on a mission from God.

[admedia]

what if my religion involved slaughtering babies with laser guided weaponry and a force of several thousand armed men? I am after all, on a mission from God.

If your purpose is to end hostility and protect your people and religious freedom, then that's ok.

[swampy]

If your purpose is to end hostility and protect your people and religious freedom, then that's ok.

so it's ok for me to protest and riot about someone defaming my religion then? I am after all ultimately protecting my people from damnation in the eyes of my religion? If I kill the authors of the cartoons then all the better, they won't be able to enflame again and hostility will be ended

[admedia]

so it's ok for me to protest and riot about someone defaming my religion then? I am after all ultimately protecting my people from damnation in the eyes of my religion?

Protest, yes.

Riot? Depends on your definition. If rioting includes burning and destroying others property, then no. I would not consider that a peaceful act. I also think it does more harm than good in a religion that already has enough problems with outside perception. You can however retaliate with all the cartoons you want.

[swampy]

and yet, confusingly, invading a sovereign state is a peaceful act? interesting perspective you have there

[admedia]

and yet, confusingly, invading a sovereign state is a peaceful act? interesting perspective you have there

If your purpose is to end hostility and protect your people and religious freedom, then that's ok.

[MagnusVS]

As a norwegian, it hurts me to see those people burning our flags because one newspaper (they sell about 5000 papers a week, and that's a fact) printed those drawings. I also think it's ridiculous that our government should apology because somebody is using their freedom to speech. I'm not saying it's a smart/necessary thing to print these drawings though...

[admedia]

I don't see why everyone is so upset about flag burning... I mean really... get over it. The protests have grown into full scale violence and rioting.

[swampy]

As a norwegian, it hurts me to see those people burning our flags because one newspaper (they sell about 5000 papers a week, and that's a fact) printed those drawings. I also think it's ridiculous that our government should apology because somebody is using their freedom to speech. I'm not saying it's a smart/necessary thing to print these drawings though...

I agree wholeheartedly, to condemn whole nations (such as Norway and Denmark) on the actions of a few people is wrong. Similarily to condemn whole religions on the actions of some people is wrong.

conversely freedom of speech does not mean freedom to incite violence. The newspaper knew that it was re-printing inflammatory material and yet they still did it. To my mind that is irresponsible.

Freedom of speach should be used responsibly.

[MagnusVS]

I agree wholeheartedly, to condemn whole nations (such as Norway and Denmark) on the actions of a few people is wrong. Similarily to condemn whole religions on the actions of some people is wrong.

conversely freedom of speech does not mean freedom to incite violence. The newspaper knew that it was re-printing inflammatory material and yet they still did it. To my mind that is irresponsible.

Freedom of speach should be used responsibly.

I agree. And it's wrong to condemn all muslims because of these actions. On the other hand, the norwegian newspaper who printed this, is a very religious one, so i don't think they care very much about making muslims mad (or sad).

At the same time, it's bad if people stop using their freedom of speech because they feel threathened of what the outcome might be...

[admedia]

At the same time, it's bad if people stop using their freedom of speech because they feel threathened of what the outcome might be...

Yep, violence is never an appropriate response to excercising free speech.
I don't care what the message is or who the messenger is.
That's the bottom line.

[flipsideguy]

Magnus. I agree that violence or flag burning isn't the answer. What the radicals are doing is entice more hatred towards the west, what the peaceful muslim is wanting is to provent these types of islamophobic enablers to ever appear in media.

To pick up where I left off before getting entagled in other topics, this type of media only serves two purposes:

1. Discriminatory, anti-immigrant forces in the West use them to further their agenda of hate.

2. Extremist, anti-West forces in the World use them to further their agenda of hate.

Either way, this hurts the average peace-loving Muslim's image in society.

Most everyone agrees that freedom of speach should not, and can not be changed as it is one of the basic principles of the West. But how about amending it to prevent anti-religion propaganda - whichever the targeted religion? Perhaps this would set a precedent that would entice tolerance rather than more hate in the world - whoever the culprit.

/Flip