Comment Re:A useful link for all of ya ... (Score 1) 1097
Negative drawings of Muhammad should be viewed as negative drawings of any other religious figure and (unless the context strongly implies otherwise) construed as an attack on an ideology, not an attack on a heterogeneous community. To the extent that we still have way too many faces that require spitting in, I am inclined to view this as a more immediately useful act than negative portrayals of Jesus. It's lamentable when asshats (or worse, as you say) are the ones doing it, but as Sam Harris[2] points out this should be viewed as pointing out a failing of liberalism, not praising conservatism... and shying away from these activities because there are so many conservative blowhards are involved only makes it much worse. I'm not sure what this continued polarization is going to lead to, but the obvious fear is we could have another generation of neocons (the phrase "neoconservative" originally referring to ex-liberals who broke with the left over the issue of confronting the USSR.)
1. In the case of either positive or negative portrayals, the reaction of "I think you should be thrown in jail for doing it" should be treated with contempt and (civilized) hostility.
2. No, I'm not some huge fanboy of his--I disagree with his views on torture, airport profiling and nuclear war game theory. But he makes very solid arguments on some other points.