PokerGuy, I am in complete agreement with your post!
Muslims are also part of the society. The "expression of freedom" where Mohammad (SA) is pictorially represented is hurtful to the sentiments of Muslims. The reasonings for this is a separate discussion.
Muslims argue that this form of expression is or should be beyond established limits.
Why should that argument also be ridiculed or considered to be something morally/ethically/socially unacceptable?
That is what some of the posters are trying to convey, that institutions representing Muslims arguing that such expression be made illegal is against the concept of freedom of expression. This is just a nonsensical viewpoint.
Are you saying that there's nothing wrong with Muslims wanting their religious preference against illustrations of Mohammed to be law?
Of course there is. It is against freedom of expression.
In the early days of our country, we had an issue with this. Our second President enjoyed a law Congress passed that made any speech that was 'degrading' to him a crime.
Many political opponents were put in jail for this. Jefferson, his successor, disagreed and ran on a platform to repeal the law, which he did, and it's stayed mostly repealed since.
Now, to digress, there are still laws on the books that aren't enforced, but once were, making things like speech undermining a war ('it's wrong') a crime. They're wrong.
With Muslims, it's an issue of respect for them as people not to publish drawings of Mohammed, but it's a free speech right to do so.
You can march outside the NAACP offices with signs saying 'go back to africa' and the n word, too, and it's also an issue of respecting the people not to do so.
Really, the only reason to publish images of Mohammed is to antagonize or express hate for Muslims mostly, with one exception, to simply 'exercise' free speech, protest violence.
In other words, there is a point to the 'draw Mohammed' days besides hate - it's to say in the face of people who threaten violence, that that won't be tolerated.
It's an act of courage, of defending free speech, in that one case IMO.
There's a sort of tension - normally, it's best not to do it. But the two sides feed on each other - the more people want to do it, the more extreme and violent some people become in response, and the more violent the opposition, the more people want to oppose the violence by exercising the right.
One thing forgotten in this is why the practice was prohibited by Mohammed in the first place. If that were better understood, it might help. I asked before, no one said they knew.
