Just a working class Aussie not in any way claiming high education, but firmly beleaveing I think like most do.
I think we should see every paper in the world publish them.
Not funny, of little true interest, but the reaction to them surely proves we are looking down the barrel of a war?
Yes it would be good if we could live and evolve together forge links to daily improve relationships.
But every time my lifestyle as a non Muslim is asulted more Muslim leaders start a speach calling for understanding and end in insulting the west .
reality is Islam is not looking for peace with the west but searching for new ways to insult us, care to denie that?

I would like to add something I found in the Jyllands-Posten (English version) website http//:www.jp.dk/english_news/

"A popular newspaper in Cairo printed the much-contested Mohammed drawings already last October during the Muslims' holy month of Ramadan, reported an Egypt-based blog-writer.
The widely read independent opposition newspaper Al-Fagr printed the caricatures just a few weeks after they originally appeared in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten, but no protests were reported, noted the blog-writer, an Egyptian businessman who goes under the name 'Sandmonkey'.

Although Muslim protestors have attacked Danish embassies in a number of countries to protest the publication of the caricatures in Jyllands-Posten, there was no reaction from the Egyptian newspaper's Muslim readers indicating that they found the drawings insulting, Sandmonkey told The Copenhagen Post.

'This whole business has been driving me crazy for the past two weeks,' he said. 'Of all the countries to protest against - why Denmark? You guys have been a friend of the Arabs for years.'

The blog-writer said that he believed authorities in Egypt and other Muslim countries were using the case for political reasons.

'The drawings create a common enemy to distract people from political reforms. It's useful to have something outside the country to focus your anger on,' he said."

If this is true, it gives a very interesting slant on the whole business.

Excellent article Graham - well balanced, respectful to all and timely. I don't believe it is necessary to publish the cartoons, considering OLO posters have already provided links - myself included.

Have Muslims the right to be offended?

Absolutely! Especially considering that there were additional photographs which depicted Mohammed in an unseemly manner.

Jews quite rightly are offended by 'holocaust humour' - if such a thing can ever be funny.

Have Muslims the right to call for special consideration for their religion over others?

Simply: NO.

Have Muslims the right to enact retribution in a wave of violence?

Again, vehemently NO.

To react in a wave of violence over cartoons? This cannot be excused on any level and is appalling and I hope that Muslim community leaders call those responsible to account for their crimes.

A point of interest, however, is that three years ago the little Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten - a right-wing Christian publication, refused to publish some cartoons portraying Jesus. The paper deemed them offensive.

Seems that this little paper holds animal farm values - some are more equal than others.

Link below for full article:

"Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1703501,00.html "

Hardly fair now is it?

As for the much belated timing of Muslim indigination, again I ask why now?

Philo asks me: "Is Yabby claiming the USA military are fundamentalist Christian?" (10feb06 5:19am) -- Answer: No such claim is made. I can't even find where he mentions the US military.

Philo goes on to say: "[The US military] is made up of mostly atheists and probably equally as many Muslims as fundamentalist Christian." -- Wrong. Muslims make up less than 0.27% of the US military, while atheists are 0.3%. 20% give no religious preference, so this group may include many muslims and athiests. However, the vast majority are christians. There is no data on fundamentalism (its vaguely defined) so Philo cannot so conclude. See http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/servingallah/religionmilitary.shtml (checkout where the witches are!)

Answering Keiths "simple question" - Yes. A christian arab is not superior to a non-christian arab. A athiest non-arab is not superior to a athiest arab and so on.

Mister H says he does "not hear about too many christians or others who destroy embassies" (9feb06 7:20pm).

Huh? A Chinese embassy was destroyed by NATO in 1999. The US embassy was attacked at the end of the Vietnam War. Romanian, Polish, and Chinese embassies damaged in Hanoi by US bombing in 1966. The Italian embassy (Szlenkier Palace) in Warsaw was attacked by German bombers in 1939 and I'd be surprised if there were not other examples during World War II.

David you implied a conclusion from Yabby's post with this statement: "It's not quite presented as a claim, but the argument compares deaths by extremist terrorists against death by Western military action in Iraq, Afghanistan."

Both present confrontations are by Western Nations made up mostly of USA military, hence my question and opinion that I couldn't see how one could claim the USA military was fundamentalist Christians. Yabby hasn't posted how he defines "fundamentalist Christian".

It just seems in Yabby's opinion any person he considers Christian. I agree with someones [I think coach] previous definition that essentially a fundamentalist is one who adheres strictly to the fundamentals of the principles of a doctrine, faith or religion. To call someone a fundamentalist Christian who does not adhere to the essential principles of Christ's teaching can hardly be classified as a fundamentalist Christian.

I thought the subject was about freedom of the Press causing offence that results in violence and destruction by posting religious cartoons depicting God or one of the prophets. It does not overstep the bounds of free speech? Could you identify on what occasions Fundamentalist Christians have resorted to similar acts [my definition] similar to the current spate of protests, burnings and threats as we have seen springing from the prints in the Danish paper? Bommings of embasies in wartime can hardly be classified as a protest against the freedom of the press.

When you hear ministers continually including jokes or overhead projected cartoons of St Peter at the Pearly Gates in their sermons obviously they do not consider them offensive. So I am not so sure where all these fundamentalist Christians are that threaten the freedom of the press. We might protest outside a gallery or write letters to galleries that hang obsene images or displays. But that is as far as protest goes.

When the Green's Kerry Nettle claims it is offensive to print these cartoons that offend Muslims then acts with hypocrisy by her public statement "Mr Abbott take your rosary off my ovaries" and considers offense to Catholics as acceptable demonstrates double standards.

I love religion.

It brings earnest religious people together - to fight.

Just look at OLO.

Most people aren't overtly religious.

Most aren't religious fundamentalists.

Its the ones who are that start fights.

And make things worse for the majority.

Was Bush "invented" to fight the fundamentalist Muslim world.

Was Abbott "invented" to guide Australian women.

Is Bush's Christian right more dangerous?

Just exploring the parametres.

Pete