Thank you Brian from Brooklyn. I couldn't agree with you more.

It's almost funny, except it's so serious. The liberal West derides religion, makes fun of it. But now they've run up against a religion that won't stand being made fun of.

Dave from Croton on Hudson,

Thanks for your response. I think I am being fair. I have little regard for the film makers, but far, far less regard for those who would try to silence insulting satire with violence and murder. I think there is no equivalence between the two and although I appreciated the conversation today I felt that that was a point that should have been made more strongly. I think one can and indeed must distinguish between the violent actors and the larger Muslim world, but that the violent actors can and indeed must be spoken against. I think I got that just about right, to be honest, and I truly don’t appreciate the “canard” line. We may disagree here on certain points but do me the courtesy of trusting that my convictions are sincere and I will do the same for you.

Here’s that Rushdie piece if you haven’t had a chance to read it yet: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/09/17/120917fa_fact_rushdie

"It startles me to see secular, liberal, peaceful people go out of their way on behalf of the feelings of a fanatically religious, deeply conservative, violent segment of the world culture."

-

It would startle me too but I have not seen that here. Let's be fair about what is really being said.

It sounds like you agree that the violence is perpetrated by a small fanatical segment of the population. Also you agree that the offensive cartoons and films are repugnant and meant to drum up controversy. It is a small step from there to agreeing that both sides are to blame and defending either on the basis of free speech is a canard.

It startles me to see secular, liberal, peaceful people go out of their way on behalf of the feelings of a fanatically religious, deeply conservative, violent segment of the world culture. But maybe that’s just each group doing its thing.

I have no illusions about the ill intentions of the makers of the “Innocence of Muslims” or the coming French cartoons. But did anyone here read the Rushdie piece in last week’s New Yorker? It’s interesting not to include that example in this discussion. We could be having this same conversation not about a provocative, low-brow film in 2012, but about a serious novel dealing with serious ideas in 1989. The reaction to both: threats and murders. So this is not just about reactions to willful provocation. This is about a segment (only a segment) of the culture that doesn’t want to live in the 21st century, and frankly doesn’t want you too, either.


This talk of censorship and self-censorship -- even censorship of some pretty lousy stuff -- ultimately gives control over what can be published to whomever is willing to react in reliably violent fashion to a critique. There’s no place for it.

I appreciate the comments of Dave from Croton & TF from NYC, & all those who distinguished Muslim extremists from Muslims in general. There were many more Muslims protesting peacefully than attacking embassies. The ones committing violence aren't representative of all the Muslim protestors, all Muslims who felt offended by the video, or "the Muslim world," just as the makers of the video aren't representative of all Copts, all Christians, or "the West."

To those asking why Muslims aren't speaking out against the violence, they are. They just aren't getting enough news coverage. Try searching on "muslims speak out against violence" & see how many hits you get. It's too bad we have to go looking for it--maybe you should ask why more of the media don't mention the Muslim leaders, organizations, & individuals who do speak out. There was even at least 1 fatwa against terrorism (http://www.isna.net/Interfaith/pages/UP-Fatwa.aspx).

There are several reactions to questions raised. First of all comparing right to draw cartoons- free speech to saying France is not that free because they don't allow women cover their faces is ridiculous- women don't choose that so it is good that government enforces that freedom for women [this should be compared more to making slavery illegal if anything]! Cartoons are cartoons- people make fun of Jesus and Moses all the time on FB, magazines etc - and some might get upset about it but it does not justify anyone killing people for that! However, on the other hand - the newspaper chose the wrong time- because this is not about making a statement it is about being smarter and better than radical barbarians. And if they want to make a point- they should focus on making fun of those radicals not targeting some fictional figure they are obsessed about.

"but we are also careful to recognize offensive speech when we see it"
-
I recognize over two dozen examples below. None too careful here, most are, but not all.

One more thought about the reaction to offensive speech.

Yes, we have the right to free speech in the US. We are very lucky. We proudly defend it, but we are also careful to recognize offensive speech when we see it. We don't generally use offensive racial stereotypes, and when we see them used they are condemned and hounded from the public sphere. That's because we understand instinctively that offensive stereotypes against blacks, jews, Catholics, WASPs, you name it, are pointlessly insulting and provoke angry reaction. Why can we not see that when it is offensive stereotypes against Muslims?

And Charlie Hebdo will be "shocked," just shocked, when they provoke the violent reaction they are looking for. For them it is a cheap and irresponsible publicity stunt. Unless they want to insult ALL OF US, why should we encourage them to put a stick in the eye of one group and then claim impunity on the basis of free speech?

Perhaps the brits should declare mohammad a member of the british royal family and that he lives on- in spirit just like kate lives in the flesh. To depict him would therefore be like taking pictures of kate.What hypocrites we westerners are-even here in america -we had people demonstrating in the streets around the "ground zero" mosque-because non muslims' feelings were hurt and they successfully shut down the freedom of muslims to build a mosque.And what's wrong with muslims taking to the streets demonstrating?In america when the "piss christ" exhibit opened,there were people in power condemning it as there are many catholics in positions in power . Hence the offense was mitigated-when it comes to islam the media for years is speading hate filled anti muslim propaganda.Even as we accuse them of spreading hate -we do the same.And our wars and unjust policies put a lie to the notion that we're not murderers too.In the name of our religion-americanism.

I think the use of pejorative terms in discussion boards like this is counterproductive.

In my opinion these forums should be an opportunity to learn, not just provide your views, and use of derogatory language entrenches people in their positions rather than fosters open mindedness.

Some of the below posts treat diverse groups as monoliths which I think is counterproductive in these types of discussions.

Certainly a small portion of muslims are violent. Certainly there are also irrational, violent people in the Western world.

Should we consider Norwegians violent, intolerant people because of the acts of Breivik?

Would there be this violent reaction to a movie and cartoons if there wasn't a backdrop of Western intervention in the Middle East? I honestly don't know but I doubt it.

This post isn't judging Western intervention in the Middle East which is obviously a complex subject.

Rather I am trying to understand what I hear a lot of people in the West are having a hard time understanding which is why would a movie and cartoons incite this much anger.

"Slay the idolators (non-believers) wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and ambush them wherever you may find them."

Qur'an - Sura 9: verse 5,
..also verse 29
..also verse 41

If this is truly in the Qur'an, then perhaps we should have a discussion about WHY we should have ANY respect for this religion or its followers. No amount of "Peace be upon Him"s will make up for the murder of innocent people in "His" name. Why anyone would want to give credence to some idiot's rantings in some obscure movie clip is beyond my comprehension. These mobs are made up of young men who have no jobs and nothing to do but foment trouble and be influenced by extremist groups. Our inner cities in the US also have problems with young men with no future who turn to violence and crime. What we DO have however, are laws that are upheld by the police and the courts to try to curb these types of activities and political leaders who condemn them in no uncertain terms.
The sooner the US can extricate itself from the Middle East, the better.
As for the cartoons, I would like to see every country's press publish such cartoons - only if you are going to insult Islam, you should include every other religion as well - Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and any others you can think of.

1) I am very disappointed at the tone of the discussion--extremely careful and tending heavily against the French cartoonist--starting with a statement by Brian Lehrer, essentially saying that the cartoonists' decision to publish now was dumb. How so?

Maybe the cartoonists made a statement that Muslim violence will not deter free speech?

2) How is hatred of Jews comparable to criticism of Islam? Have the cartoonists called for Muslims to be murdered? Did they condone a past genocide of Muslims?

3) How come Brian and his guest failed to make a single mention of the extreme hatred spewing forth from Muslim media worldwide, including blood libels and outright calls for the murder of Jews and Christians and the destruction of their houses of worship. Not a single word. See today's article by Thomas Friedman, "Muslims, Look in the Mirror" at http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/thomas-l-friedman-muslims-look-in-the-mirror-654068/.

It's all very well to uphold freedom of speech, but it is not absolute and there exists a huge double standard. Freedom of speech should mean to have the right to tell it like it is, not to insult and demean a religion and culture, as is done against Moslems by Islamophobes every day and in this vile film as well, and as in a poster produced by the notorious Islamophobe Pamela Geller which will soon be displayed in NYC subways. Just try to post a swastika anywhere; you would soon see that "freedom of speech" would go right out the window.

Sinead O'Connor, way back when, burned a picture of the Pope on national television. It may have damaged her career, but it did not facilitate rioting, mayhem and murder anywhere, as far as I know. I hesitate to say this, as a liberal minded person who considers it a benefit to society that there are many traditions, though I'm going to say it anyway: I am concerned about a tradition (Islam) that engenders this level of violence. It seems the entire world should be afraid to express itself for fear of what a few (and I wonder what we consider a 'few') extremists will do as a result of that expression - however distasteful or ridiculous.
I will definitely ask all the muslims I know and will meet what they think about this extreme take on their tradition.

OK so why aren't they protesting in the streets of France or burning the President of that Country in effigy?!

It's all very well to uphold freedom of speech, but such freedom is not absolute, and there exists a huge double standard. It's touted as all-encompassing and totally acceptable whenever the Moslem religion or culture is deliberately insulted by groups whose only raison d'etre is saying the vilest things about them. A case in point is the poster by the professional Islamophobe Pamela Geller which will soon be displayed in subway stations in NY. However, just try to exhibit a poster with a swastika on it, you'll see that "freedom of speech" goes right out the window.

One problem I see in the conversation is that it often quickly turns into a blanket condemnation of Muslims. The violent protests are instigated by a small, but dangerous, group of people. Many Muslims are speaking out to say that these people do not represent the broad swath of their co-religionists. We should listen to those voices.

Also, many commenters seem to think that Muslims are the only ones who have committed violence in the name of their religion. A quick look at history shows that people have claimed legitimacy for violence in the name of many religions. And religious leaders of all faiths would deny any legitimacy to the use of violence. This is common to most religions. It is also possible to quote selectively from any religious text to try to justify one's position. This should not be cast unfairly at Islam.

Finally, I think that there are reasons for the unrest in the region that go beyond the offensive cartoons and films (though those certainly exacerbate the problem). Years of subjugation to dictators, of wealth inequality, many years of war in the region, and recent deaths by drone strikes are all major causes of strife and protest. If these things were happening in our country imagine how we would protest.

This is not to condone the violence. But I think Brian's ability to raise the whole conversation and get people talking together is exemplary.

Thank you.

The debate we should be having is related to the root problem of a lack of understanding of ethics and issues associated with Sacred Values. See www.EthicsDefined.org for information on both core concepts.
Religions try to assert authority over moral matters but refuse to be questioned. Is the sacred value of not depicting Mohad valid? Is insulting someone's faith unethical? Or any authority for that matter. These are the types of questions we need to answer to move forward in a positive direction.

I can't say enough about how much I strongly disagree with the West inhibiting their free speech one iota to calm extremist Muslims. We of all belief systems, races, religions, etc etc in the West are used to satire, irony, insults - whatever - and we don't have to like it, but we understand it is the freedom we all have to express ourselves. To curtail our freedoms because of "sensitivities" (and I use that term ironically) on the part of people who will kill and burn because of insults is not the answer. In this globalized age, cultures not used to freedom have to learn to develop a thicker skin and act more civilized.

Melissa - simple... the US has gotten more rich... when countries are more rich there is less religious fervor. Do you not think during the days of the Puritans early in the history of this country that there wouldn't be repercussions for "blasphemy"??? I think you know the answer. In Europe Jews were killed by Christians for centuries before the Nazi's... now that Europe is more wealthy (and as the result of WW2) - there is much less religious fervor.

The callers have hit upon the key issue here. The caller Mohammad wants the world press to be censored to appease Muslim sensibilities and he likened the Muslim reverence for the Prophet Mohammad to the Christian's reverence for Jesus and made other comparisons. The difference is that other religious groups don't attack other countries embassies and kill people in the name of their religion over cartoons published by random individuals from those countries. Let's start seeing this evil religion for what it really is and stop listening to Muslims who would have us believe that their religion does not promote this type of violence, because, I'm sorry to say, ti does. Read the Koran. Not the one they have translated and give us to read in English. Find a westerner fluent in Persian Farsi, like I have done and ask them to tell you what is in the real Koran. We are seeing worldwide what is in the real Koran.

To uphold & strengthen our democratic values we must denounce false propaganda, abandon ignorance, understand reality, embrace rationality & endorse the truth.

I'm with Matt: You can't be sensitive to crazy. The behavior of reacting so violently to something published is over the top. I think we have spent too much time, money and US lives on these countries. I'd say we do as Jesus suggested when a community doesn't want what you offer. "Shake the dust from your sandals and leave the town." Let's get the heck out of Dodge. Bring our people and our troops home. Let's keep our funding for other things and let god sort it out.

For the past 20 years we have been hearing attacks on the beliefs of "fundamentalist" Christians, including:
- their literalist understanding of the Bible
- Their denial of evolution
- Etc.

What exactly do Muslims believe, and why should we respect those beliefs that deny the modern world any more than we should respect those of fundamentist Christians?

I have not see a lot of tolerance for fundamentalist Christian?

Why should there be any more tolerance for Muslims (who pretty much seem fundamentalist almost by definition)???????

Is it because they kill people and burn embassies?

Would it be possible to bring a civil lawsuit against the producer of that film or the magazine that published the cartoon seeking compensation for any deaths caused by reaction to either or do free speech laws also protect against civil lawsuits?

Can media personel recognize that, even though they have "free speach", they don't always have to demonstrate it. If it is understood that certain words and images are offensive, then it should be accepted that those images and words are only used to offend.

just because you can - doesn't mean you should

I have not heard any discussion of the real thing that is going on here: Another campaign dirty trick aimed at defeating a Democratic Presidential candidate who has a big lead in foreign policy issues. It is like the "Swift Boat" tactic that was so effective against John Kerry. The supposed producer of this film a Coptic Christian Egyptian immigrant who is on probation for minor financial fraud OBVIOUSLY could not have raised the money to make this video. Last I heard, he was claiming, like the original actors, that he had been tricked about the video. WHO financed this is deadly provocation is much more important for the USA than even the lives it has cost and the chaos it has unleashed. What if a thorough investigation could link it Karl Rove or the Koch Brothers, or a Super PAC?

To continue my last point... making inflammatory videos about other religions has nothing to do with Christianity. You should never purposely do something that you know will put others in danger. You can effectively preach the gospel without making any videos about any religious figures. As far as freedom of speech - that's an issue for the governments.

I am in support keeping speech legal and murder illegal.

Martin, you did it again...

idolators = (non-believers) -- NOT TRUE!!!

Idolatry is a pejorative term for the worship of an idol, a physical object such as a cult image, as a god

freedom stops where other peoples freedom starts

I object to the characterizations of the film. I am a film reviwer and I gave it four stars. Tee-hee.

Cartoons or movies don't kill. It's people who does.
Maybe is time to ask where personal responsibility is.

And someone adds: "Free Speech insensitivity" here

Nuts.

People need to accept thart the muslim world is acting crazy here

You don't act sensitive to crazy

PRotest is fine worldwide, in all kinds of countries, but killing people? Muslims denegrate Christians and Jews in cartoons, films, whatever daily, and we don't kill them in reaction. The world would agree it's just not civilized.

Sheldon- Bravo!

Can we go a day without coverin this or Israel? It is a basic cultural clash that can never be resolved because when people think a Koran or Bible is a historical work, and we should base actual national boundaries on what a god in the sky said, this will never end.

-Atheist waiting for the second Enlightement

Shamim from India: Unfortunately, you fail to recognize that many Muslims who worship their Qurans are also in reality also Satan-worshippers. Any organized religion consists of Satan-worshipping because spiritual growth must always be a matter of personal conscience. Children of Muslim immigrants to the west assimilate faster than others because they weant to escape the repressive, spirit-killing mentality of organized Islam.

Who made the rule that Mohammed cannot be made fun of/ridiculed? Mohammed himself? Serious question.

As far as making fun of religion, I give you "Life of Brian" the almost brilliant gift to Christianity from the Monty Pythons.

"The less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice." Thus saith Clint Eastwood. ;-)

Following your caller's logic, we would have to also ban any passages in the Qoran or scholarly Islamic works that cast aspersions on us infidels. How's he feel about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_violence#Scholars.27_comment_in_favor_of_Jihad:

Shaykh Aḥmad Sirhindī (d. 1624) was an Islamic scholar and a prominent Sufi. He wrote,
“Shariat can be fostered through the sword.
Kufr and Islam are opposed to each other. The progress of one is possible only at the expense of the other and co-existences between these two contradictory faiths in unthinkable.
The honor of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects kafirs, dishonors the Muslims. To respect them does not merely mean honouring them and assigning them a seat of honor in any assembly, but it also implies keeping company with them or showing considerations to them. They should be kept at an arm's length like dogs. ...
The real purpose in levying jizya on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that, on account of fear of jizya, they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling. It is intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the honor and might of Islam...

Whenever a Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam”

—A. Sirhindi, Excerpted from Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, Muslim Revivalist Movements in Northern India in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Agra, Lucknow: Agra University, Balkrishna Book Co., 1965), pp.247-50; and Yohanan Friedmann, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi: An Outline of His Thought and a Study of His Image in the Eyes of Posterity (Montreal, Quebec: McGill University, Institute of Islamic Studies, 1971), pp. 73-74."

Mustafa doesnt get it that some of the people from his religion KILLED US diplomats over a Film.
Long live free speech, press and expression
Peace on earth

Remember Piss Christ at the Brooklyn Museum? Did we allow it? So are we also narrow-minded as the listener accuses Muslims of being?

If insulting Jesus had the same result from Christians, Madonna would be in trouble. She goes around the world insulting Jesus.

The person who made the video claims to be a Christian... well "what would Jesus do"??? Would Jesus make a video that He knew would incite violence???? Rubbish!! Real Christians preach the gospel of God... they don't need to waste time talking about what other religions do and don't do. When Paul and the apostles preached and spoke against the gods of the Roman world - riots were caused and they themselves were put in prison... Paul and the other apostles didn't play dumb and think it wouldn't have happened - they knew full well. What happened to Paul when he told the crowd "Diana of the Ephesians" was an idol. He was almost stoned to death. Let's get serious ppl. Humans don't change.

It's fascinating, but not surprising that the Muslim world is allowed to express their outrage by killing people because they take offense to a couple of people out of 330 million who wouldn't look to incite anyone, yet nobody in the Western world firebombs Arab embassies, murders their own citizens when Jews, Christians or others are made fun of, defaced, and worse, murdered in almost all Arab and Muslim countries and there isn't any global uprising in the West, yet we have to put up with these criminals, murderers and thugs who on almost a daily basis commit crimes, not jokes, puns or cartoons about a religion, not to mention burning down embassies.

Did you hear that?: "Set aside" free-speech

Per the latter's call: Appeasement. It's because we are not saying affirmatively: This is unequivocally how to run a society

And yes, you see the Hypocrisy of Germany, France etc with their repression of free speech coming home to roost

All you do is martyrize groups when y ou suppress them

The Muslim world needs to get educated quickly.!

I have two words to add to this discussion:

Piss Christ.

Oh, okay, I'll add Andre Serano (sp?) as the artist who produced the aforementioned Piss Christ for anyone who doesn't remember, and also add Alphonse D'Amato for anyone who doesn't remember the abuse he took for being offended by the aforementioned Piss Christ.

Even saying (typing) the words "Piss Christ" feels offensive.

But the only problem with Piss Christ? That the art itself was taxpayer funded.

I am not a Muslim, THANK GOD!, and I will never submit to Muslim dogma.

Let God decide which religion is true.

That is something Islam MUST accept.

how about we put the value of actual real human beings over that of imaginary friends (god), muhammad, spaghetti monster in the sky)?

are these growing pains? people are just learning about freedom

Nice report on USA's relative free speech insensitivity,
with Noah Feldman, Harvard Law:
http://www.npr.org/2012/09/19/161439562/held-dear-in-u-s-free-speech-perplexing-abroad

Why can't Islamic extremists take a page from Jesus and learn to turn the other cheek?

if someone has something to say they should say it...

What's up with Erlanger's reference to the Armenian Genocide as the "supposed" Armenian Genocide? The fact that what happened to Armenians - as well as Ottoman Assyrians and Greeks - constitutes genocide is unequivocal. Mr. Erlanger's credibility thus seems questionable and undercuts his ideas on the current issue.

Also, with all the things going on in NYC, the new Barclay Center, new taxis, new Brooklyn democratic mob boss appointed to replace Vito Lopez, Pedro Espada still apparently being a crook. Why is this show leading off with this nonsense?

Brian, as someone who has listened to your show for over 15 years, you are starting to forget this show's original mission.

What about respect?
It looks like bullying between adults.

Oh oh. Your caller is nudging us toward the slippery slope. How about a government censor for your show?

Muslims are so against idol-worship that no depiction of the Prophet is tolerated, yet they worship the Quran. Before you disagree that a book produced of man-made paper is being worshipped, ask yourself: "How would people act differently if the Quran WERE being worhipped?" I cannot imagine another answer except, "There would be no difference". By and large, Muslims the world over have confused their own medieval cultural practices that were historically justified with words from the Quran from the Quran itself. The problem essentially originates with Muslims. That said, I might not burn a Quran during the Haj (or even in Florida) just because it is rude and inconsiderate.

Holocaust denial is permitted here in the US. Personally, I don't believe World War II ever happened. It's all made up and if you disagree with me - prove it. (tongue firmly in cheek).

Yelling "fire" in the absence of fire in a crowded theater is illegal.

What's the difference in the case of publishing these cartoons at this time?

I am a strong believer in freedom of speech but I think this is an interesting question.

Violent reaction should never call free speech into question. If we allow the religious taboos of one religion to qualify our free speech then where does that snowball stop? Do we ban 'issue A' and allow those who fan the flames of poverty and ignorance to claim the power they wish to hold?

What is to stop the incitement of violence over another taboo, in any religion, as a means to acquire more power over others? 'Issue A' today, 'issue B' tomorrow and C, D, etc...

You can't react to the bully by giving him your lunch money and you should not react with violence either. You carry on and make it clear that if you want to play in the modern world, you keep your religion to yourself and you keep your taboos in-house. Leave the rest of us alone.

TO Dave - LOVE your comment about Kate Middleton - brilliant! If you don't want your boobs photographed, don't take your top off. Do you REALLY not know by now that the paparazzi is lurking around every corner? Off subject, sorry, but I couldn't resist.

Muslims kill Muslims over various disputes.

Blaming Infidels, Jews, Zionists, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Bahais for various problems in the Muslim world is a diversion.

Just look at the 8 year Iraq/Iran war. One million died in that war.

Muslims should be outraged how Muslim terrorists bring shame unto Islam.

On the one hand hand, extremist islamic terrorists kill 30 INNOCENT people because of an asinine satirical film. On the other hand, extremist islamic terrorists have amputated limbs of SUSPECTED thieves and stoned unmarried parents to death in north Mali. If allah says that the babies of these murdered people must be orphans, civilised people the world over MUST resist, fight & defeat these people. That is all.

Comparing this to the Kate Middleton photos is a false analogy. That case has to do with her right to privacy.

I understand the impetus behind the laws that prohibit Holocaust denial, but as an American who believes the rights of EVERYONE to free speech to be of paramount importance (including Nazis, the KKK, etc.), I couldn't disagree with it more. Let hatemongers speak publicly, get the poison out there where everyone can see it and hear it and be appalled by it. Don't suppress it, that way lies far more danger (in my humble opinion).

My problem with "moderate" Muslims living in the west is that their silence during the violence suggests they are supportive of it.

It is scary that the western world now has to cower to islamic reactionary fanaticism by self-censoring what they say or publish.

However, to the editor of this magazine, do you really need this right now? Are you trying to make up for France no longer being a world power by feeling the need for attention?

When does free speech/hate speech cross the line of a hate crime when they know it will cause such violent reactions? And how can hate speech a hate crime when it is a form of abuse?

Great quote, Martin.

The French enjoy antagonizing Muslims, with head scarf laws, etc. They will reap what they sow.

Once again, "my god is better than your god" makes this atheist laugh at the ridiculousness of arguing over mythical figures who live in the sky.

So we blame the magazine and thereby avoid attributing any responsibility to the Muslim street mobs.

I would be interested to hear your comments, and Steve's, on the contrast between free speech for the offensive cartoon while at the same time strictly prohibiting publication of the pictures of Kate Middleton (to protect her feelings and those of the royal family). That both of these are happening at the same time is a contradiction that I don't hear many people, least of all in France, talking about.

I'd be interested to hear how the french can square that circle.

Thank you.

Ed from Wash Heights...may have been Steve Martin but ya classic

Irreverence is a way of life in France. More power to them.

I like George Carlin asking, is it okay to yell THEATER! in a crowded firehouse.

there is no god, lets make fun of his prophets!

What's the over under for someone saying the old "like yelling fire in a crowded theatre".

Shamim from India
The vast majority of American Muslims do well here, are highly educated and embarrassed by you and those like you. Don't dare speak for them. Go back to your child bride.

Martin, do you believe this guy! While people die each day in india in religious violence, Hindu v Muslim, Muslim v. Hindu and 90% of the population does not have access to a toilet, he is worried about a movie, a bad one at that.

I actually agree with you on this one. La Shana Tova !

"Slay the idolators (non-believers) wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and ambush them wherever you may find them."

Qur'an - Sura 9: verse 5,
..also verse 29
..also verse 41

Don't criticize my religion of peace or I will kill you.
You will be drenched in blood. (Peace Be Upon You)

Shamim from India

How about not killing people over a cartoon or a dumb film. Your societies should worry about sanitation, having toilets, not killing each other, treating each other like humans instead of animals. Jews and Christians are not out rioting over nonsense.

Mean while you enslave your women and are headed backward to the middle ages. The west should disengage and let your world sink into anarchy.

Thank you for showing, should I say, the true face of Judaism & Christianity which teaches to disrespect the Holy personality of Islam to get some cheap publicity. It seems you actually follow Satan rather following Moses or Jesus [Peace Be Upon Them]. You see this is the beauty of Islam which teaches all its followers to respect the Holy personalities of other faiths from the core of their heart, that is why we muslims always add "Peace Be Upon Him" just after saying Moses / Jesus [PBUH]. That's why those who have brain & high moral values (which people like you will never ever have), are embracing Islam in large numbers especially in Europe & America. These types of dirty works of yours, will force more & more people to reject your satanic way of life & embrace Islam. The continuous dirty works of you brainsick people prove how much hysteric you are with the popularity of Islam in your own society.