If people in other lands want to believe differently, that’s their affair. As I said, I wouldn’t travel to a Muslim country and insult Muhammed, or disparage the custums of the place. That would be discourteous. But don’t tell me I can’t say any goddamn thing I please about Christianity of Judaism or Islam (or Jesus or Moses or Muhammed) when I’m in my own country.

What claim based on scripture, or even hearsay would you like to discuss about the prophet? There is an account in the Quran that Mohammad killed 300 Jews. I’ve seen interfaith discussions on this topic. Muslims are encouraged to discuss and debate faith issues in full earnestness.

Are Jews willing to do this? Christians? Really? Where is the discussion over the validity of the Trinity. The Trinity is the greatest heresy perpetrated on the Christian people by an Algerian with far too secular interests. Look how everyone fell in lockstep with the Bush admin on WMD. When the emperor decrees it, many believe it.

So, most Christians believe in the Trinity, which is no where suggested in the Old Testament, not clearly advocated for in the testimony of Jesus, nor in any other passage of the Bible. Yet, this is not a topic that open for discussion.

To the contrary, it is considered very rude, and nearly incitement to discuss religion or politics in public. How dare you Jon, point your finger at the hyper sensitivity of an aggrieved minority while the safe majority won’t allow discussion of Middle East policy, candor regarding their own faith?

I agree we should all be free to discuss whatever wickedness the mind can conceive. Islam has done a better job of protecting Mohammad’s humanity (by banning images) than Christianity, Buddhism or many other traditions that deify their leaders. (Anthropomorphizing God is perhaps the most common heresy the world over, Islam has the most advanced ontology as per the scriptures. This is why Islam doesn’t need a reformation, as they never buried their heads in the sand regarding science or technology.)

Muslims are freer than Christians, want proof? Ask the GOP how old the Earth is and ask the Muslim cleric of your choice the same question. The Muslim will at least suggest it’s over 1 million years old, few Republican would go on record with such a statement.

Muslim claims that, for example, a Danish cartoonist cannot portray the Prophet in a Danish newspaper, or that Rushdie cannot write about Muhammed in a work of fiction, must be rejected, and rejected absolutely. I wouldn’t put up with Christians telling me I can’t make fun of J.C.; similarly I won’t accept Muslim intimidation. In a Muslim land I’ll behave myself and respect the customs, but don’t tell a Muslim can come here and give me the choice: give up free speech or die. That’s a threat and an invitation to bloodshed.

While that isn’t happening here domestically, it is indeed occurring globally. Jon, what do you think is easier to argue, that the US defends Muslims or that the US has ignited a new crusade against Muslims? I don’t believe either is true, but the latter has enough evidence behind it to lead many to that conclusion.

Clearly you are afraid of the Freedom Defense Initiative. You should be, it is an American values based movement. My guess you are not supportive such things.

And a tactic that you are using in this very assertion. It’s easy to see the flaws in others, so hard see them in ourselves.

“West must negotiate with the nose-chopping, head-chopping women-whipping Taliban?”

How can the Taliban negotiate with the dictator supporting, invader of lands that never threatened you, toppler of gov’ts, murderer of thousands, denier of sovereignty West?

With your attitude we should never talk to each other. I suspect that you wish the Palestinians would just be silent while Israel steals their land, that Iraqis would be silent while we invade their country in hopes of looting their oil. If only the Iranians would cower to the paranoid fantasies of Israel and forgo developing their own institutions, trade and development. I suppose you wish the poor would shut up, stop begging and disappear with dignity. Hard truths are hard to hear, especially when you are a hypocrite and argue from such a selfish, self centered perspective you can’t even detect your self contradictory claims.

Unless you were being ironic, in which case I tip my hat to you sir.

Guilt by association is a Maoist/Stalinist/Islamist tactic.

President Nixon made overtures to China while in office. Only a fool would call him a communist.

Adrian Morgan’s article in Family Security Matters asked why the “left” was not questioning the hypocrisy of Saudi Arabia’s funding of mosques in the West while banning all other religions in Saudi Arabia. Why not quote that?

We are told that only a tiny minority of Muslims have hijacked Islam. This despite over half the mosques in England reportedly being radicalised.

However, according to “politically correct” thinking, it is OK to label people Nazi sympathisers due to their guilt by association, but completely wrong to call all Muslims jihadists because they have permitted their mosques to send out terrorists to blow up planes and trains.

Organisations like SIOE and the Freedom Defence Initiative would not need to exist if we had a bit of honesty from our politicians and media.

Do you not think it more than a bit strange that Geert Wilders and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff are both facing “hate crime” charges legislated for by politicians who are now saying that the West must negotiate with the nose-chopping, head-chopping women-whipping Taliban?