"Given the importance of religion to peoples and to dignity and the way of life in different cultures, respect for different religious beliefs is essential to international peace and security and to the progress of human civilizations," it said.

THIS IS GREAT!!!!!!!!!! We can now practice Christianity in Saudi Arabia!!

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at April 23, 2006 11:24 AM

We should have respect for their religion and not print cartoons....well, think of the Hindu temple in Malaysia that the islamics just bulldozed.

Whoever is in charge at the U.N. should come back and say, "eh, fellas, you blasted the Budda's in Afghanistan, you leveled the Hindu temple in Malaysia, you're burning churches in your countries, you're killing Christians in your countries...you have NO right to ask ANYTHING concerning YOUR cult.

Posted by: freewoman at April 23, 2006 11:28 AM

"Given the importance of religion to peoples and to dignity ..."

Reciprocity?

Posted by: jay at April 23, 2006 11:32 AM

We're told here that the Islamothugs are having some "success" at the UN and the European Onion. Europe may not be dead and may not be dying. But the Europe that is shaping up is not what the Euro enthusiasts were advertising a few decades ago. It surely does not stand for freedom of speech or freedom of thought, or even common decency, when it overlooks the Muslim-perpetrated mass murder in the Sudan of which Bin Laden is so proud of.

Posted by: Eliyahu at April 23, 2006 11:32 AM

My country's consitution gives me freedom of speach.I dont care what anybody else say's.What's the U.N to me?

Posted by: patriot4 at April 23, 2006 11:35 AM

Three shockingly stupid quotes from the article:

...Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik of Austria - the current E.U. president - also referred to the cartoons. "Freedoms do have limits that should not be overstepped..."

...Participant Turfa Bagaghati of the European Network Against Racism -- an E.U.-funded NGO -- told Islam Online it was time Muslims pressed "for their rights, like enacting laws banning aggression on Islam."

...The Saudi-based OIC secretariat is spearheading the international campaign of response to what it has called "wanton provocation and reckless, blasphemous libertarianism cowering behind so-called freedom of the press."

I am shocked, shocked that the EU president would say such a thing. How weak Isalm must be that I cannot stand aggression. Let's all go now and wantonly provoke (our fault for Muslim violence), blaspheme liberally, and threaten Islam thuggishly from behind the freedom of the press.

Posted by: Quijybo at April 23, 2006 11:36 AM

Introduced by more than 30 Islamic states and the subject of considerable debate, the motion explicitly tied freedom of expression to " respect for cultural diversity, religious beliefs and religious symbols."

F***ing hypocrits!

Posted by: Tziona at April 23, 2006 11:42 AM

I can't even consider this from a rational point of view. It's too irrational, too bizarre and so completely unreal. I don't know what to say.

Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at April 23, 2006 11:44 AM

"The publication of caricatures of the Prophet of Islam has caused deep and widespread offense and indignation within the Muslim community around the world," the note said, adding that respect for religious symbols and beliefs and freedom of expression were "indissociable."

Deep and widespread offense? Indignation? Over cartoons?

Well, I am deeply offended by 9/11, Bali, Beslan, Madrid, London bombings, and the multitude of Muslims screaming "Death to America", "Death to Israel". I am deeply offended by the beheading of innocent Christian school girls in Indonesia, by the killing of Buddhist monks in Thailand, the assassination of professors in India. I am offended by the lack of free speech and the freedom of conscience in Muslim countries.

Enough! Sorry for the rant but some things just trip my trigger.

Posted by: Caratacus at April 23, 2006 11:49 AM

I assume that this call for censorship in the face of a political movement will not result in any international agreements.

"Islam": submission to a particular -- and particularly self-absorbed -- scripture.

If you are Muslim in the sound of our truth, please consider rejecting what the mosque-goers imagine is true. We believe that their violence-prone belief system (usually forced on their ancestors) is far from being in mankind's interest and is opposed to God's intent.

Posted by: StillBreathing at April 23, 2006 12:27 PM

Frankly, as an American I really do not care what the global Emperors in the UN decree. The scary part is there are corrupt politicians who want to create hate laws through Congress and if this should happen there goes our right to criticize other beliefs such as Islam in any way shape for form. It is good to be aware of their intentions so we can take a stance.

It is interesting after reading a chapter in Andrew Bostoms book "The Legacy of Jihad" I have learned how much respect the Muslim Turks had for Byzantine culture and religion. I say this in sarcasm!! I came come to realize how much the culture and faith of my Byzantine ancestors suffered due to the Muslim Turks lack of tolerance. Of course I do not hate them but we need to learn from history. The cartoons are just the start of censoring our freedom to criticize their religion.

Our founding fathers did not revolt from European tyrrany to allow this to happen so Americans must resist any attempt by the UN to remove our right to criticize in public or the media.

The good news is that such a law could backfire on them and maybe this could force open the door for Christians and other religion to enter strict fundemental Muslim nations. I do not doubt that terror attacks, on these other religions, would increase if the UN passes such laws and the door opens for these groups to enter Muslim nations. I do believe that such laws would be binding on the U.S. with our Constitution or for now.

Hopefully the UN will not pass such restrictions on free speech and expression.

Posted by: eaglecap at April 23, 2006 12:37 PM

Fascists do as fascists do. They can shout as loud as they can but we will not listen. The EU should give ALL its citizens a vote on any consideration of the diminution of freedoms of expression and simply the inept and corrupt UN should be wound up

Posted by: Turbinehead at April 23, 2006 1:03 PM

The publication of caricatures of the Prophet of Islam has caused deep and widespread offense and indignation within the Muslim....

Oh, wow. Am I ever sorry that a charlatan, a demagogue, a slaver, a pedophile, a false prophet, a rapist, a murderer, a warmonger and a thief has been "cartoonized" somewhere in this world!!

Did I offend anyone just now? That's called FREE SPEECH.

The truth hurts, I know, but Muhammad was a crazy man with a gift for deceit. If he was talking to anyone in that cave it was himself or Satan, and I can rest pretty easily assured that it sure as I am sitting here right now typing -- NOT GOD.

Chew on that UNESCO.

Posted by: Foehammer at April 23, 2006 1:07 PM

these actions give more nails in the coffin for anything useful that the UN has ever stood for. l dont give a frig about the UN, we should all press our politicians, press for our freedoms of press, speech etc. never give an inch to these hypercrites.. some need to have a gander at their state controlled papers about their anti Christian and Jewish cartoons! hey just the look of those mullahs, jihabs offends me.. off with them!

Posted by: Lulu at April 23, 2006 1:22 PM

ISLAM A RELIGION?

yes i believe that no religion should be disparaged or made fun of in the media. but islam isn't a religion, even muslims admit this.
islam is a way of life with muhammed as allah's ideal man as an example of how muslims should behave. so the way of life that is contrary to every ideals of the western world should be made fun of and exposed. islam is that filled violent way of life very much like nazisim. it's leader like the hitler should be exposed and this islamic way of life should be discouraged.

Posted by: desidude at April 23, 2006 1:40 PM

"Islamic groups and governments are pressing ahead with a campaign to have international organizations take steps, including legal ones, to provide protection for their religion"

Laws for the protection of religious and cultural symbols (other than what is covered in laws which govern the protection of property and slander) should be totally rejected.

This is the first step in legitimizing the punishment of persons objecting to new laws based on religion.

Anyone who is a non-believer could be held accountable for expressing or thinking thoughts which do not conform to anothers relgious doctrine.

I am flabergasted that the EU is giving this any consideration whatsoever.
If this is allowed to continue it could seriously undermine our foundations for freedom of expression.

Posted by: Peter at April 23, 2006 1:46 PM

Editorial comments:

"respect for freedom of expression, sacred beliefs, values and religious and cultural symbols."

Oh wait. They forgot to insert, "except for the Jews."

"wanton provocation and reckless, blasphemous libertarianism cowering behind so-called freedom of the press."

Since there was so much debate at UNESCO, I suggest chnaging "wanton" to "wonton" and hurling fried and boiled stuffed noodle products at various Islamic entities in the name of Chinese religious freedom.

Posted by: HaMalach at April 23, 2006 2:01 PM

I am flabergasted that the EU is giving this any consideration whatsoever.

You're shocked by this? Then you haven't been paying attention to the EU or UN in recent years.Muslims whine to the EU and UN because they expect a dhimmi response.Once again Muslims whining shows how weak, pathetic and ignorant Islam really is.It will be interesting to see what happens when Muslims realize they can't stamp out free speech or criticism of Islam everywhere.

Posted by: Roxane at April 23, 2006 2:05 PM

"Freedoms do have limits that should not be overstepped..."

My question to these politicians is to what extent and what limits will they impose on us.

The only reason that Man has been able to make any progress, is due to the fact that we have in the past been able to question the doctrines of relgions, political idealogies, and the significance of religous symbols.

Just because a relgious group finds that alternative expressions or opinions offends their beliefs, does not give them the right to impose sanctions on the offenders freedoms.

The Christian faith imposed harsh punishments on those that thought the world was round, because it did not fit in with the doctrine of their belief system.

The Muslims want to kill people who print satirical cartoons of their beloved prophet.

This is the 21st Century, freedom of thought and expression is THE most important thing we possess.

Posted by: Peter at April 23, 2006 2:13 PM

Moslems are always deeply offended by something or other. Hell, Mohammed was deeply offended in 610 AD when the Koreishi pagans got pissed at all his threats of murder and robbery.

At least Mohammed made good on his promises, which is more than the Modern Moslem Man can say.

MIGHTY MO WAS A KOREISHI MO WAS MIGHTY FLESHY MO WAS DEEPLY OFFENDED

There is a price to pay for all these insane statements about Islam being made by the Western ruling elites. When a Moslem hears that bullcrap, they see a green light, an opening to step through.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at April 23, 2006 2:53 PM

I am not a citizen of the U.N. They can make all the laws they want, but they wont affect me. I'd love to see them come down to South-East San Diego and enforce them! HaHa. Them and their little blue helmets.....

Posted by: crusader619 at April 23, 2006 3:11 PM

The EU is scary. God forbid the US ever goes down this same path, although there are plenty of people here who do wish to follow in their footsteps. How can we fight the Islamists with this type of attitude, where elected officials no longer fulfill their first duty to protect the citizens by whom they were elected? Where a stupid gay joke is considered more dangerous then brutal physical assault?
....an excerpt.

It’s This Bad

Theodore Dalrymple

Returning briefly to England from France for a speaking engagement, I bought three of the major dailies to catch up on the latest developments in my native land. The impression they gave was of a country in the grip of a thoroughgoing moral frivolity. In a strange inversion of proper priorities, important matters are taken lightly and trivial ones taken seriously.

This is not the charming or uplifting frivolity of Feydeau’s farces or Oscar Wilde’s comedies; it is the frivolity of real decadence, bespeaking a profound failure of nerve bound to have disastrous consequences for the country’s quality of life. The newspapers portrayed frivolity without gaiety and earnestness without seriousness—a most unattractive combination.

Of the two instances of serious matters taken with levity, the first concerned a 42-year-old barrister, Peter Wareing, attacked in the street while walking home from a barbecue with two friends, a man and a woman. They passed a group of seven teenagers who had been drinking heavily, one of whom, a girl, complained that the barrister and his friends were “staring” at them. Nowadays, English youth of aggressive disposition and porcelain-fragile ego regard such alleged staring as a justified casus belli.

The girl attacked the woman in the other party. When Wareing and his male friend tried to separate them, two of the youths, aged 18 and 16, in turn attacked them. They hit the barrister’s friend into some bushes, injuring him slightly, and then knocked the barrister to the ground, knocking him down a second time after he had struggled to his feet. This second time, his head hit the ground, injuring his brain severely. He was unconscious and on life support for two months afterward. At first, his face was so disfigured that his three children were not allowed to see him.

The doctors told his wife, a nurse, that he was unlikely to survive, and she prepared the children for their father’s death. She wrote in a journal that she kept as she sat by his bed, “Very scary feeling that all his natural life is gone.” Nevertheless, he made an unexpected, though partial, recovery. His memory remains impaired, as does his speech; he may never be able to resume his legal career fully. It is possible that his income will be much lower for the rest of his life than it would otherwise have been, to the great disadvantage of his wife and children.

One of the two assailants, Daniel Hayward, demonstrated that he had learned nothing—at least, nothing of any comfort to the public—after he had ruined the barrister’s life. While awaiting trial on bail, he attacked the landlord of a pub and punched him in the face, for which he received a sentence of 21 days in prison.

Before passing sentence for the attack on Wareing, the judge was eloquent in his condemnation of the two youths. “You were looking for trouble and prepared to use any excuse to visit violence on anyone you came by. It is the callousness of this that is so chilling. . . . You do not seem to care that others have been blighted by your gratuitous violence.”

You might have thought that this was a prelude to the passing of a very long prison sentence on the two youths. If so, however, you would be entirely mistaken. Both received sentences of 18 months, with an automatic nine-month remission, more or less as of right. In other words, they would serve nine months in prison for having destroyed the health and career of a completely innocent man, caused his wife untold suffering, and deprived three young children of a normal father. One of the perpetrators, too, had shown a complete lack of remorse for what he had done and an inclination to repeat it.

Even at so young an age, nine months is not a very long time. Moreover, when I recall that for youths like these a prison sentence is likely to be a badge of honor rather than a disgrace, I cannot but conclude that the British state is either utterly indifferent to or incapable of the one task that inescapably belongs to it: preserving the peace and ensuring that its citizens may go about their lawful business in safety. It does not know how to deter, prevent, or punish. The remarks of the policeman in charge of the case were not encouraging. He said afterward that he hoped that “the sentences . . . send a clear warning to people who think it is acceptable to consume large quantities of alcohol, then assault members of the public in unprovoked attacks.” If the law supposes that, as Mr. Bumble said in Oliver Twist, “the law is a ass—a idiot.”

As for Peter Wareing, even in his brain-damaged state, he had a better appreciation of things. He was evidently a man of some spirit: having been a salesman, he decided to study for the law, supported himself at law school by a variety of manual jobs, and qualified at the bar at the age of 40. The extent of his recovery astounded his neurosurgeon, who attributed it to Wareing’s determination and “bloody-mindedness.” He is avid to get back to work, but the contrast between the nominal 18-month sentence for his attackers and his own “life sentence,” as he called it, of struggle against disability is not lost on him. “If there were real justice,” he said, “they would have gone to prison for life.” Could any compassionate person disagree?

Perhaps the final insult is that the state is paying for him to have psychotherapy to suppress his anger. “I have this rage inside me for the people who did this,” he said. “I truly hate them.” Having failed in its primary duty, the state then treats the rage naturally consequent upon this failure as pathological, in need of therapy. On reading Peter Wareing’s story, ordinary, decent citizens will themselves feel a sense of impotent rage, despair, betrayal, and abandonment similar to his. Do we all need psychotherapy?

A senior policeman said after the attack, “We have gangs of young people hanging around on street corners being abusive, intimidating and causing trouble. . . . They don’t give a damn about the police or the criminal justice system.”

And who can blame them? What deterrent, punishment, vengeance, or protection for society is six months in prison for having injured a man so badly that he did not recognize his wife or children for several months afterward, that he now has poor eyesight, has lost his sense of smell and taste, has to wear a brace on one foot and a hard hat to protect his skull, and says of himself, “I just have no interest in anything or anyone”—having previously been a highly successful man?

Having seen how the British state takes the serious lightly, let us now see how it takes the trivial seriously. The newspapers reported the case of an Oxford student who, slightly drunk after celebrating the end of his exams, approached a mounted policeman. “Excuse me,” said the young man to the policeman, “do you realize your horse is gay?”

This was not a very witty remark, but it was hardly filled with deep malice either. It was, perhaps, a manifestation of the youthful silliness of which most of us have been guilty in our time. And Oxford was once a city in which drunken students often played, and were even expected to play, pranks on the police, such as knocking off their helmets.

The policeman did not think the student’s remark was innocent, however. He called two squad cars to his aid, and, in a city in which it is notoriously difficult to interest the police in so trivial a matter as robbery or burglary, they arrived almost at once. Apparently, the mounted policeman thought—if thought is quite the word I seek—that the young man’s remark was likely to “cause harassment, alarm or distress.” He was arrested and charged under the Public Order Act for having made a “homophobic remark.”

The young man spent a night in jail. Brought before the magistrates the following day, he was fined $140, which he refused to pay. The police then sent the case to the equivalent of the district attorney, who brought the student before the courts again but had to admit that there was not enough evidence to prove that his conduct had been disorderly.

The degree to which political correctness has addled British consciousness, like a computer virus, and destroyed all our traditional attachment to liberty, is illustrated by the words of one of the student’s friends who witnessed the incident. “[His] comments were . . . in jest,” he said. “It was very clear that they were not homophobic.” In other words, the friend accepted the premise that certain remarks, well short of incitement to commit violence or any actual crime—words that merely expressed an unpopular or intolerant point of view—would have constituted reasonable grounds for arrest. One consequence of the liberal intelligentsia’s long march through the institutions is the acceptance of the category of Thoughtcrime. On the other hand, political correctness permits genuine incitement to murder—such as the behead those who insult islam placards carried by Muslim demonstrators in London four months after the publication of cartoons of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper—to go completely unpunished. Other people, other customs.

.........The proposal is an example of the soft and creeping totalitarianism that comes with unctuous offers of benefits and avowals of purity of intention, rather than the boot-in-the-face variety of Orwell’s description. It is the insinuation of the government into the nooks and crannies of everyday life, on the pretext that people are incapable of deciding anything for themselves. Everyone is a child for whom the government is in permanent loco parentis (except children, of course, who can consent to sex at age 16 and are to be given the vote at the same age, if Chancellor Brown has his way).

The newspapers confirmed what I had long perceived before I left Britain: that the zeitgeist of the country is now one of sentimental moralizing combined with the utmost cynicism, where the government’s pretended concern for the public welfare coexists with the most elementary dereliction of duty. There is an absence of any kind of idealism that is a necessary precondition of probity, so that bad faith prevails almost everywhere. The government sees itself as an engineer of souls (to use the phrase so eloquently coined by Stalin with regard to writers who, of course, were expected to mold Homo Sovieticus by the power of their words). Government thus concerns itself with what people think, feel, and say—as well as with trying to change their freely chosen habits—rather than with performing its one inescapable duty: that of preserving the peace and ensuring that citizens may go about their lawful business in confidence and safety. It is more concerned that young men should not smoke cigarettes in prison or make silly jokes to policemen than that they should not attack and permanently maim their elders and betters.

One definition of decadence is the concentration on the gratifyingly imaginary to the disregard of the disconcertingly real. No one who knows Britain could doubt that it has very serious problems—economic, social, and cultural. Its public services—which already consume a vast proportion of the national wealth—are not only inefficient but completely beyond amelioration by the expenditure of yet more money. Its population is abysmally educated, to the extent that in a few more years Britain will not even have a well-educated elite. An often cynical and criminally minded population has been indoctrinated with shallow and gimcrack notions—for example, about social justice—that render it singularly unfit to compete in an increasingly competitive world. Not coincidentally, Britain has serious economic problems, even if the government has managed so far—in the eyes of the world, at least—to paper over the cracks. Unpleasant realities cannot be indefinitely disguised or conjured away, however.

Therefore I have removed myself: not that I imagine things are much better, only slightly different, in France. But one does not feel the defects of a foreign country in quite the same lacerating way as the defects of one’s native land; they are more an object of amused, detached interest than of personal despair.

Posted by: treehugger at April 23, 2006 4:02 PM

These developments are DANGEROUS. NEVER must Europe the Originator of the values of freedom of expression, free and critical thought succumb to this destructive, stifling, evil cult.
Even if you can't beat the demographics, don't commit suicide through laws such as these!

Posted by: CHINUBHAI at April 23, 2006 4:07 PM

from the article: "At an OIC meeting in Istanbul this month, OIC secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu urged representatives of Islamic states to approach their counterparts in the West "with the aim of defending the interests of the Muslim world, presenting the true image of Islam and combating the stereotype perceptions about Islam and Muslims.""

Don't worry. We're getting the TRUE image of islam alright. Aggressive, imperialistic, predatory and most of all hypocritical to an absolutely OBSCENE degree. It's really convenient that the truth and the stereotype just happen to coincide, as in the case of these bullying tactics to alter our laws. What part of the stereotype don't Muslims realize they are merely confirming by these tactics? They seem to think they can enforce respect for their odious faith through bullying and intimidation and violence when all they are doing is creating more hostility and disdain and deeper loathing.

Posted by: Caroline at April 23, 2006 4:21 PM

'Our founding fathers did not revolt from European tyrrany to allow this to happen so Americans must resist any attempt by the UN to remove our right to criticize in public or the media'

Amen!

The UN is so corrupt and cowardly I don't know what it would take to clean it up. Perhaps just disbanning it altogether would be best.

Pig Laden just has to show himself every so often to remind people he still exists. He's become impotent. Even HAMAS is trying to seperate themselves from him! HA!

Posted by: beth at April 23, 2006 4:32 PM

The answer given to the Nazis at the Battle of the Bugle, when they demanded the surrender of a surrounded U.S. commander, will suffice:

"NUTS!"

Muslims are in the West to undermine it, not enrich it.

They have no richesto impart.

As Thoreau said:

"Everything that the whip has touched is thenceforth palsied."

Submission to the spiritual whip of Mohmmamad shrivels the Muslims' mind and heart.

They can only spread their misery.

It cheers the most slavish to see others enslaved.

Islam needs its own Spartacus.

Instead, they get endless Bin Laden clones.

Small-souled scum smashing civilizations for their puny hatreds.

They never last, but their path is always monstrous.

Every free hand will oppose them forever.

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 23, 2006 4:47 PM

treehugger - do you have a link to that Dalrymple? I know a sanctimonious, PC, little Stalinist ("an engineer of souls") I want to send it to.

Posted by: Caroline at April 23, 2006 5:08 PM

I love how the story says, "in a drive pursued largely away from the headlines..." It's away from the headlines because the MSM are afraid to cover the cartoon issue, even indirectly, or create more friction with Muslims by pointing out the nasty things they're up to.

Expect the U.S. to abstain on this issue or even vote with the OIC. We're dependent on his Saudi friends for the oil to drive our SUV dhimmimobiles. Note that last week's heckler at the White House has been charged under federal law for "willfully intimidating, coercing, threatening and harassing a foreign official", not mere disorderly conduct. See http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/14405818.htm?source=rss&channel=inquirer_nation. If Bush is taking the position that criticizing Hu Jintao for China's persecution of the Falun Gong is a form of intimidation, harassment or coercion, why shouldn't he side with the OIC's offensiveness limit on free expression?

Posted by: sceptico at April 23, 2006 5:21 PM

HOW CAN YOU PRESS FOR LIMITS ON FREE SPEECH ?
To be Free or not to be-That is the question...
Concerned Citizen says it all' when Christianity is allowed in Saudi Arabia??'
No ordinary person with a grain of commonsense takes the sorry efforts of the U.N and the likes of Ursula Plassnik seriously. I mean would any of us entrust our lives and protection of our property to a U.N soldier? I think not. At present the U.N is a mess of corruption & kickbacks at the highest level starting with Kofi. Officials talk,have expensive lunches,drive around in luxury cars whilst the people who are starving keep on dying.When danger threatens a U.N soldier is well known for
fleeing before the enemy even arrives. They are also immune to prosecution from any charges
the natives of a country bring against them. Now you couldn't get more jammy than that,eh.

Posted by: Morgane at April 23, 2006 5:25 PM

The truth of the matter is that while the Muslims demand respect for their faith, the way they treat non-Muslims have a lot to be desired.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at April 23, 2006 5:35 PM

Kudos to the headline writer of that article. There's no consideration for politically correct sensibilities - it just calls it as it is. A breath of fresh air.

Posted by: Effractor at April 23, 2006 5:55 PM

From the article: "In another development, it was reported last week that E.U. bureaucrats are drawing up a "lexicon" of terminology to use when referring to Islam. Words like "Islamist" and "jihad" are under review, as is the phrase "Islamic terrorism.""

Actually, I hadn’t noticed that the qualifier “Islamic” in front of terrorism was used all that often. It’s redundant and everyone knows that. So go ahead and outlaw it. We’re not stupid.

As to “Islamist” – by all means eliminate it. We’ll just use the term “Muslim” instead. Muslims themselves don’t really use the term “Islamist” anyway. That’s just a term invented by westerners who are under the sway of the “tiny minority of extremist” meme.

IIRC, the term “Islamofacism” was also under dispute. Again, go ahead and eliminate it. Then instead of that term, we’ll use the term “Islam”. As in the case of “Islamist”, it will actually be clarifying in terms of forcing us to use the correct term – Islam, thereby abandoning the idea that there is some mainstream version of Islam that ISN'T fascistic. The fascist aspect will then be forced to adhere directly to the term Islam itself.

Then there is jihad. So westerners could be barred from using the term “jihad” even while Muslims are free to bandy about the term in their fiery sermons? Fine – then we’ll talk about jihad by using terms like “Islamic holy war”, or merely “holy war” (everyone will know what that means even if we are forced to remove the "Islamic" preface). Or more obliquely, one could say, “the jihad, a term used by OBL and other Muslims to descibe what they call a holy war against the infidels” and so on and so on.

A rose is still a rose by any other name. Or in this case, a skunk.

Posted by: Caroline at April 23, 2006 6:29 PM

Okay, here's the thing, and no, of course I don't support the call to censorship, but...

A lot of responses have called Muslims dumb -- in this thread and elsewhere. I agree that it is pretty dumb to adhere to the belief system based on acting like their "prophet", I agree that it is pretty dumb to raise children only to have them go off and be suicide bombers, I agree that their is abundant stupidity, BUT....

they are working our system.

OUR system.

From welfare to the UN they are working it to achieve their own ends and they are doing a pretty good job of it.

So, Americans are DUMB for letting them.
Politicians are DUMB for letting them.

We need to recognize that as much as we dislike this movement. As much as we find it uncivilized and in so many ways (like ultimate quality of life) lacking, we do need to recognize that they are smart enough to use our system, our PCness, our multi-culturalism against us.

The very best of us is being turned against us.
If we don't toughen up and take a serious stand soon it may be too late.

We need an organized campaign.
We need letters that can be signed and sent to our officials that are not "Islamophobic" in any way that can leave them open to being dismissed as such but that make clear to our leaders what we want.

We need to DO something.
And, I don't know what that something is.

More than simply being aware, we need to find a way to take awareness to a place where we can work our own system better than they are so that we can protect our own way of life.

Suggestions?

Posted by: toleranceorappeasement? at April 23, 2006 7:15 PM

"their is abundant stupidity"

Should, of course, read "there"

Stupid typos...

Posted by: toleranceorappeasement? at April 23, 2006 7:16 PM

Caroline, here is the link to the original article.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_oh_to_be.html

Posted by: treehugger at April 23, 2006 7:40 PM

Practicing Christianity in Saudi Arabia - protect one – you got to protect them all!!

Bibles for Iraq then!!

Posted by: Pass It On at April 23, 2006 8:13 PM

treehugger - so very much obliged. I can't tell you how sweet it felt to email that article.

Posted by: Caroline at April 23, 2006 8:16 PM

-toleranceorappeasement?

I wouldn't so much call mohammedans "intelligent" as "cunning". Many animals considered verminous or viscious have amazing abilities when it comes to gaining access to shelter or food. I would not, however, hold my breath waiting for a weasel, rat or a cockroach* to compose a sonnet or propose a new theory in quantum mechanics.

*My use of these animals for illustrative purposes by no means implies that I have anything against these species. They are animals and do what they do to survive. Their behavior is dictated by stimulus and instinct. Unlike a mohammedan, they have no choice. I would much prefer the company of the former to the latter.

Posted by: Eisenhund at April 23, 2006 8:44 PM

Eisenhund: "I wouldn't so much call mohammedans "intelligent" as "cunning""

By the same token, I wouldn't call us westerners "dumb" so much as "humane". Is it "dumb" to be "humane"? No, I am inclined to think that being humane is quite intelligent for the most part (and in any case "intelligent" in the sense that ultimately matters most for human beings). I just think we need to debate and understand the limits of what it means as human beings to be "humane". There's nothing "humane" about burying one's head in the sand and avoiding the reality that one day one may open the front door to a bunch of thugs who are quite prepared to rape one's wife at gunpoint and shoot one's children before one's eyes. In the process of debating and understanding and coming to terms with the limits of our humanesness as westerners, I believe we'll wind up even smarter and more intelligent in a very real sense than we ever were before. We just need to keep talking about it though and forcing people to understand that they MUST think these things through. That there are serious, albeit uncomfortable choices to be made. And that avoidance isn't one of them.

Posted by: Caroline at April 23, 2006 9:31 PM

Freedom of Expression versus Freedom of Religion

That is my point – take the argument to the UN. Regardless of the outcome. It is just making the point for the record.

We should like to curb their freedom of speech as well, namely those fatwas or calls for violent action in return for financial reward - that come out from the mosques.
Here we have a call from an Islamic country to kill someone, in this case the Danish artists, in a non-Islamic country – under the name of the freedom to practice their religion. If they move to stop us – then we should move by the same route to stop them – and shut up those clerics; who should relegated to telling their insanities to their wives around the dinner table – the rest of us don’t want to hear it.

These same Islamic governments will kill you – or take your life away, if you reject their ‘Arab’ god. That’s okay! But drawing a silly picture of their prophet, who most outside of Islam think was insane, is not. Then they should have a debate on their hands, where the teaching of Islam should be openly examined, as they are attempting to protect its contents. The Prophet promoted violence and the picture was a protest against the Islamic violence, which stems from the teachings of the Prophet.

While they try and force everyone to respect their prophet, they bomb Hindu temples, slaughter Buddhist monks and kill and persecute the Christians among them, in the prophet’s name, where there is rarely a large Islamic outcry.

Question – are they trying to say – that because their religious law states that they must kill anyone who offends their prophet – as Cat Stevens stated himself – that by forcing all others to obey their religious law, they no longer have to carry out these death sentences on offenders - as international law will forbid the offence.

What will they ask for next?

It is a clear attempt to force Islamic laws and norms onto the rest of the world.
Never mind that in those countries, a women is not even considered to be a human being – where even your own mother is seen as being like a ‘farm animal’ and all the women have to dress in a uniform colour black under the Arabia sun, to preserve society’s purity, they would presume to tell us about freedom of expression. We should encourage them to open a book and learn something – these are some of the most backward people in the world, who have just begun to develop economically and evolve socially, trying to force everyone into the narrow confines of their religious tunnel vision. Islam hasn’t begun to question itself, if you have to kill people to maintain the group, then the group is weak.

Posted by: Pass It On at April 23, 2006 10:11 PM

A lot of posters above are knocking the Europeans for caving in to Mohammedan intimidation.

Please keep in mind that it was geniusses like Carter, Clinton & Condi who encouraged the Mohammedans to go on this drive against freedom of expression.

The deplorable cowardice in the US-media, the falsehood and pretentiousness of the universities is incomprehensible. The US does not lead in this war on Islam, and it certainly doesn´t follow the mindset that prevails here on Jihad Watch.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 23, 2006 11:31 PM

Ever notice the great frequency with which Moslems use the term humiliation?

Humiliating Islam and Moslems is a crime punishable by death, cuz the koranic god sez so. And almost anything humiliates a Moslem. Already deeply offended by so many things, the ever angry Moslem stands there a-scowl with a chip on his shoulder, just daring you to humiliate him.

Personal murder or mass murder, doesn't matter. If a humiliated Moslem is doing the killing, it's all good.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at April 23, 2006 11:41 PM

Roxane

"You're shocked by this?"

I am shocked because I was under the impression our government was supposed be secular, and should not be discussing changing laws to suit any relgions, and certainly not one which has not undergone some serious revision.

Once again Muslims whining shows how weak, pathetic and ignorant Islam really is.

I am not quite sure what you mean by this statement Roxane, but it sounds good if your venting.

I would tend to disagree with your conlcusion in that the Islamic governments seem quite skilled at manipulating events for political purposes.

Posted by: Peter at April 24, 2006 3:53 AM

... and certainly not one which has not undergone some serious revision.

This seems to imply that JudeoChristianity, Hindusim, Buddhism, and Confucianism would be as rotten as Islam if not for heavy revision some time in the past.

You're not implying this are you?

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at April 24, 2006 6:46 AM

Think of this 20 point list while reading stories like this.
*************************
Shorrosh is a member of the Oxford Society of Scholars, has traveled in 76 countries, and is a lecturer and producer of TV documentaries. ''Islam Revealed'' is a bestseller now in its eighth printing. His forthcoming 10th book, from which the 20-point plan is abridged, is titled ''Islam: A Threat or a Challenge.''

CAIR 20 point plan against America

1. Terminate America's freedom of speech by replacing it with statewide and nationwide hate-crime bills.

2. Wage a war of words using black leaders like Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jesse Jackson and other visible religious personalities who promote Islam as the religion of African-Americans while insisting Christianity is for whites only. What they fail to tell African-Americans is that it was Arab Muslims who captured them and sold them as slaves. In fact, the Arabic word for black and slave is the same, '''Abed.''

3. Engage the American public in dialogues, discussions, debates in colleges, universities, public libraries, radio, TV, churches and mosques on the virtues of Islam. Proclaim how it is historically another religion like Judaism and Christianity with the same monotheistic faith.

4. Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office to bring about favorable legislation toward Islam and support potential sympathizers by block voting.

5. Take control of as much of Hollywood, the press, TV, radio and the Internet as possible by buying the related corporations or a controlling stock.

6. Yield to the fear of the imminent shut-off of the lifeblood of America – black gold. America’s economy depends on oil and 41 percent of it comes from the Middle East.

7. Yell ''foul, out-of-context, personal interpretation, hate crime, Zionist, un- American, inaccurate interpretation of the Quran'' anytime Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena.

8. Encourage Muslims to penetrate the White House, specifically with Islamists who can articulate a marvelous and peaceful picture of Islam. Acquire government positions and get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims as medical doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical companies. (Ever notice how numerous Muslim doctors in America are, when their countries need them more desperately than America?) Take over the computer industry. Establish Middle Eastern restaurants throughout the U.S. to connect planners of Islamization in a discreet way.

9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via:
Massive immigration (100,000 annually since 1961).
Use no birth control whatsoever--every baby of Muslim parents is automatically a Muslim and cannot choose another religion later.
Muslim men must marry American women and Islamize them (10,000 annually). Then divorce them and remarry every five years--since one can't legally marry four at one time. This is a legal solution in America.
Convert angry, alienated black inmates and turn them into militants (so far 2,000 released inmates have joined al-Qaida worldwide). Only a few ''sleeper cells'' have been captured in Afghanistan and on American soil.

10. Reading, writing, arithmetic, and research through the American educational system, mosques and student centers (now 1,500) should be sprinkled with dislike of Jews, evangelical Christians, and democracy. There are currently 300 exclusively Muslim schools in the U.S. which teach loyalty to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution. In January of 2002, Saudi Arabia’s Embassy in Washington mailed 4,500 packets of the Quran and videos promoting Islam to America's high schools--free of charge. Saudi Arabia would not allow the U.S. to reciprocate.

11. Provide very sizeable monetary Muslim grants to colleges and universities in America to establish ''Centers for Islamic studies'' with Muslim directors to promote Islam in higher-education institutions.

12. Let the entire world know through propaganda, speeches, seminars, local and national media that terrorists have hijacked Islam, when in truth, Islam hijacked the terrorists.

13. Appeal to the historically compassionate and sensitive Americans for sympathy and tolerance towards Muslims in America who are portrayed as mainly immigrants from oppressed countries.

14. Nullify America's sense of security by manipulating the intelligence community with misinformation. Periodically terrorize Americans concerning impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings, and malls.

15. Form riots and demonstrations in the prison system demanding Islamic Sharia as the way of life, not America's justice system.

16. Open numerous charities throughout the U.S., but use the funds to support Islamic terrorism with American dollars.

17. Raise interest in Islam on America's campuses by insisting freshman take at least one course on Islam.

18. Unify the numerous Muslim lobbies in Washington, mosques, Islamic student centers, educational organizations, magazines and papers by Internet and an annual convention to coordinate plans, propagate the faith, and engender news in the media.

19. Send intimidating messages and messengers to the outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by hook or crook.

20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the U.S. by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethic groups in America.
~~o~~

Posted by: Jack J at April 24, 2006 7:34 PM

"...respect for different religious beliefs is essential to international peace and security and to the progress of human civilizations..."
Since when do the jihadis have any respect for any 'different' beliefs ie freedom of conscience. I interpret this as "...respect for our religious beleifs is essential to international conquest and the progress of jihad against human civilization."

The justice of allah is spelled just-us!

Posted by: infidelion1095 at April 25, 2006 4:09 AM

The above main news article posting confirms for me the reality that the Muslim faith is weak and is on the way out when they demand for themselves only special protections.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at April 25, 2006 7:21 AM