i expect these people to be themselves. and i expect them to let me be who i am.

i will not change who i am because i might offend them because of what i believe.

in the case of the pope he was quoting a Byzantine emperor.

in the case of the Holland newspaper it was a drawing of the so called prophet.

in the case of France they were enforcing existing laws.

in the case of england who really cares.

and i watched most of the controversial Christ movie and i found nothing in there that wasn't in any other movie about Christ except for the extra blood.

i saw some program on TV this month and they were talking about how the romans persecuted Christ(not Christians) and the romans DID NOT persecute Christ.

the above is what is wrong with america

However, his knighting has a lot to do with UK's foreign policy.

Let me guess.  You are totally clueless on how a Democratic Monarchy works.  Right?  Let me give you a very brief overview.

The Royals are figure heads.  They do not set laws, or conduct foreign policy.  All they do is smile for Cameras, and knight people.  Parliment conducts foreign affairs and passes laws.  And should the occassion arise, they can over rule the house of lords (those who were born to knighthood or were bestowed it).  The latter rarely happens as the lords (and ladies) know they are just there to basically be sub-royals.

The Queen does not make laws, and Parliment does not make knights.  So it has NOTHING to do with their foreign policy, other than it makes international news.

Basically, "The Satanic Verses" has a literary Christian equivalent: The Da Vinci Code. While the parallel isn't perfect, the analogy's close enough to work for us. Dan Brown has received accolade after accolade, and I've never seen you express sensitivity to the Christians these awards offend, TA. Have you once advocated for censoring the Da Vinci Code out of fear that Christian hate groups will act out, and that moderate Christians will support them in their anger? Nope, because it does happen. Others have offered equally strong examples.

England is a sovereign nation, and has a right to bestow awards on writers she deems worthy, regardless of what you or I think of it.

I think I understand what you are saying ThinkAloud but I believe that you are only excusing those who would be offended and not expecting from them what you expect from England, or us for that matter. Why is it that you think we should be concerned with offending those who could be our allies and not expect them to do the same? Should they not respect other peoples opinions as well? Should not liking what someone else writes be enough of an excuse to joing the opposing team?

I agree with some here that you are excusing the actions of those who would be offended instead of expecting them to accept freedom of speech from others. Why should I be carefull with what I say in a society of free speech just because someone does not like what I write? Why should I respect what Muslims believe when they do not respect our beliefs? Why do you not hold Muslims to the same standard as you hold us or England? Why can't these Muslins who get offended simply dismiss the writings of this man as his own opinion?

This sounds like one of those "the truth hurts" situation. They always seem to get up in arms every time someone says anything about their religion, but people on this site constantly make fun or insult other religions and those of these religions do not call for beheadings every time.

Hell, when Jerry Falwell died, the left had a field day. If we had done that when some prominent Islamic leader passed, I can only imagine the outrage.

You're asking people to contain themselves from expressing themselves. In other words you want them to give up the freedom of expression. Why? Because you fear that those would be allies would turn towards the enemy with open arms? Funny, I would think that if they embraced the beliefs of those who would do us harm would mean they had intentions of doing it already and were really only looking for an excuse to join them. How can we depend on a group of people as allies if at the drop of a hat they would join the enemy just because someone said something they didn't like? Are you trying to say Muslims are not smart enough to know the difference between right and wrong? And please don't give me that "I never said that" story.

no their smart enough but they just don't care

you don't have to care if all you have to do is die in a holy war

So it has NOTHING to do with their foreign policy, other than it makes international news.

That is part of Foreign policy. If i am , as you say, clueless you think the majority of Muslims are not?

Thanks for the lesson and great guess.

That is part of Foreign policy. If i am , as you say, clueless you think the majority of Muslims are not?

So when we breath, and the papers pick it up, we have to quake in our boots because we just made foreign policy?

An extreme example, perhaps.  But take your view to a conclusion, and that is what you are saying.

But you are right in one respect.  Those clowns buring flags and bodies in effigy are clueless.  Otherwise, why would they have demanded the death of the Pope who was teaching a course in theology and quoting a Middle ages cleric?  Instead of denouncing the originator of the statement, they wanted to kill the messenger.  Wouldn't you call that clueless?  And would not then we have to rewrite history so as not to offend their tender sensibilities?

Who are you to say he doesn't merit the honor.

I've never seen you express sensitivity to the Christians these awards offend, TA. Have you once advocated for censoring the Da Vinci Code out of fear that Christian hate groups will act out, and that moderate Christians will support them in their anger?

First, I never advocated censoring Rushdie or anyone else for that matter. You are responding to a non-existent issue.

Second, i get offended with some of what is written about Jesus as well as any of God's prophets in general. I didnt write about it because we are not at war with Christian or Jewish people but we are at war with Muslim people. Officials are supposed to measure their actions in a way that serves their countries' interests not hinder it. Censoring Rushdie was never an issue, honoring him was the issue. I have no idea why people are bringing the censoring issue up. i didnt like what he said, but that doesnt mean i asked for censoring him.

In fact i really get upset when most Christians and Jews do not condemn what is sometimes written about Jesus or Moses. These Nobel Figures are icons for many people and whoever insults them insults their people. That doesnt mean that the people get violent or censor the writers, artists,... etc. but they should condemn such insults more consistently.

I believe that you are only excusing those who would be offended and not expecting from them what you expect from England, or us for that matter.

I am not excusing them, i am saying we should recognize how they feel and use it to our advantage.

And you are ABSOLUTELY correct. I am expecting more from England and USA, shouldnt i?. i thinke we all should.

No, we are at war with people whose faith happens to be predominantly Muslim. There is a difference.

So when we breath, and the papers pick it up, we have to quake in our boots because we just made foreign policy?An extreme example, perhaps. But take your view to a conclusion, and that is what you are saying.

Extremes of any kind are not a good idea no matter what. and "WE" are not officials. what "WE" say does not have the same impact as when it is said by the Queen of UK or the President of the USA. Does it?

Everything has its limits, even freedom of speech. that is the supreme court's ruling. and it makes sense. nothing is absolute in this world. so dont take anything to its extreme limits no matter what. This usually leads to disasters. Believe it or not, that is what these criminal terrorists did with Islam. let's not take things, even little things, to extremes. it is a slippery slope.

That's pretty obvious, at least for some of us but as you can see I have to ask cause it does not seem so obvious to some people, like TA.

Of course you are. Instead of expecting them to act like adults and ignore the beliefs of a single man, you expect them to retaliate just because they were offended. What they need to do is grow up and realize that their religion is not supreme and that there will always be those who don't like it. I don't think that raising hell every time someone says something bad about their religion is the best way to deal with the problem.



So then tell me why do you not expect as much from them? Is it because you fear them? Is it because they are more willing to do what our leaders refuse to? Is it because they are willing to fight for survival while we keep sending our soldiers to their deaths because we fear hitting the wrong ones?

I expect them to be mature, I expect them to understand that they are not absolute, that there will be those who will not like how they do things, I expect them to just turn around and ignoreunless their lives were being threatened. But if saying something bad about their religion or prophets is cause for death and destruction then I expect them expect the same retailation from us.

And there you hit it again. The Queen is not the PM, and therefore has no say in the foreign policy of that country. No more than you nor I. It has been many years since the Monarchy ruled by decree.

Some information on the decision to knight Sir Salman can be found here:

WWW Link

On a personal note I saw the Queen being driven past my office at lunch today, but the thought of jumping in front of the car to protest the award never entered my head, for the obvious reason that Sir Salman's knighthood was well deserved. And I was hungry.

So then tell me why do you not expect as much from them?

you expect more from people who are more educated, more free, more powerful,...etc.

That is why.

The Queen is a figurehead. An ambassador to the world, in fact. How can you say she is not part of foreign policy? She may not set foreign policy, but she certainly represents Great Britain in such a way that she can affect it! If she went on TV and said "Screw you, Muslim community" it would certainly affect the relations between Iraq and Great Britain. Basically, knighting this guy is the same thing, except less overt. It doesn't really matter what she says or does - it won't affect the tariffs or anything. But what matters is that people like to pretend words matter, especially when there aren't enough actions to speak louder than them.

What did he say, TA? Have you read the book? Could you give me a few specifics, please?

I thought we agreed that i dont have the intellect to do that? besides, i dont want to turn this discussion into a contest between your knoweldge and mine. This is not the issue here.

The Queen is not the PM, and therefore has no say in the foreign policy of that country

She may not set foreign policy, but she certainly represents Great Britain in such a way that she can affect it!

enough said. Good response Jythier

Actually, if you could give a few specifics, that would be great. I don't care who has more knowledge about it, I just want to have some knowledge about it so I know who I'm posting about.

if you could give a few specifics, that would be great

I really dont want to repeat or discuss what Rushdi said in his novel about Islam and Its Prophet. In short he named several characters in his novel with names very close to those of the Prophet, his wives and companions. He used the name Mahound, for the main character. This name is an insulting European name for the prophet. He presented the prophet as a man possessed by the devil and made him recite verses praising the pagan Idols, Ellat, Manat and Uzza. He also presented him as a womanizer and his wives as .... well .... you can read a good deal about that in this link

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/anglophone/satanic_verses/.