Journalists often talk about free speech, why then support religious intolerance of free speech? Salon takes pot shots at the "religious right" why then do they express sympathetic views toward intolerant muslims in western Europe? People were not threatened with beheadings when the "Life of Brian" played in American theaters. This outrageous hypocrisy proves that some people and journalists will always support polemicism for it's own sake. Why not move to Jeddah and see how long your journalistic freedoms last. This outrageous pro-fanatical-islamic journalism is left of the American mainstream without a doubt.

Funny, if the picture was Jesus Christ, this

would have been viewed as en exercise in the

expression of ideas.

What do you expect from an uptight culture that

represses women, forbids alcohol, practices

arranged marriages, forbids pre-marital sex

and believes that the best carnal sin comes

after dying.

It is no wonder these people are still

bass ackwards after over 5,000 years of

existence.

This is the object lesson against living in the

21st century with 7th century values.

Hey Phil Toms, do us all a favor and go read a fucking civics textbook, then come back when you have a clue. The ability to exercise your rights without fear of government restriction (which is why we limit the power of government) or injury from others (which is why we have government in the first place) does not depend upon what views you espouse, be you a "Zionist" like the publisher of the cartoons (Oh no! A Jew!) or clueless, conspiracy-theorist dipshit like yourself.

Regardless of what the cartoons may or may not be, nobody ought to die because somebody disagreed with somebody else. Write a letter if you don't like it--I'll defend to the death your right to think and say what you want, even when I disagree with it; realize that the guy going door to door trying to stir up people for a protest against the West is just using you for his own political and religious goals (and indeed, most of the people who took part in these demonstrations were used like pawns, and some wound up dead. The "Muslim world" didn't erupt in violence over these cartoons, only a few thousand hotheads stirred up by extremist rabble-rousers--and that could happen virtually anywhere, over anything); speak up if you have a point to make, and if your country doesn't allow it, consider emigrating to the U.S. I'm serious. We are not perfect, but we've at least got a blueprint (the Constitution) that's a pretty good start. And you won't wind up dead over a cartoon.

Neither your article or the 4 pages of letters I took the time to wade through mention the man who commissioned, printed then reprinted the article. As a person who hates racism I find it creepy that you bury the fact that Fleminhg Rose is a zionist extremist sympathiser and in fact Jewish. Surely this fact is pivotal to understanding who is winding the handle and why the world is being steered towards another racial conflagration and what is looking more and more like WW3. It appears in this world wide struggle for "free speech" a tragic and murderous hypocracy is at play. Your free speech is racially biased, critically flawed.

How are we to identify the cause?

If there is any freedom,it is for everyone;not just the Arabs,who make nasty cartoons of Christians and Jews on their on Arabic newspapers. The Danes who published the cartoons of Muhammad,and the publishers who published them,have the right of free speech,and the right to free expression of ideas.

Therefore,to threaten violence to the Danes,and kill them,burn their embassies,and ban their business from Arabic countries,is petty,small and extremely stupid and idiotic of the anti-Muhammad-cartoons maniacs.

If the Muslim empire is to prove to the rest of the world,that it has intellect and not just mad,uncontrolled raging savagery in it's nature and religion,than it had better get a grip on itself,over these cartoons.

Oscar Wilde would have known how to cartoon or write a fitting rebuttal to anyone who made him an insult;instead of flying into a gorilla-rage,he would simply have made a dry,cryptic,and bitingly humourous and sarcastic reply.

I also believe that the original Muhammad the Prophet could have better stood up to the controvery of pictures of himself.He would have gazed at the picture,cocked his head to one side,and mused,calmly,"Hmm...did I really gain that much weight?? tsk.tsk."

The anti-cartoon maniacs are just making the real Muhammad look bad,with their anti-Muslim behavior.Maybe they should go join a religion that DOES worship violence.

Having just read the article by Jytte Klausen I must say that the womne is as far away from the truth as one can come. Maybe she should spend some time interviewing europeans before she considers herself an expert on the matter.

Just for the record: "Culture war" as in "the government wanted a culture war" is a translation of the danish word "kulturkamp", but "kamp" doesn't mean "war" but fight.

Islam in not a race. It is a religion. So criticizing it is not racist. There are Muslims of every race. Arabs are not even the majority of Muslims. Those who think the cartoons are racist are displaying there own ignorance. Also if criticizing Islam is racist then isn't criticizing Nazism even more racist since all Nazi's were German. Also crititizing Fascism is racist since all fascists are white. How is criticizing Mohammed any different then criticizing Marx or Hitler?

Religion is an ideology just like any other. It should be subject to criticism. Mohammed in my view was a blood thirsty madman whose religion is a cancer on humanity. Criticizing is the first step to eliminating its pernicious influence. It is in my view no different than any other ideology.

Also if people are going to advocate against the cartoons they also have a duty to speak out against things that are offensive to other religions like Christianity. I don't see anyone speaking out against the piss Christ or the depiction of Jesus in South Park. Why is offending Christians completely acceptible but offending Muslims is insenstive.