individual,
Again double standards here! You critise others and push your point of view here, yet you want to deny others the same right you give yourself to openly criticise others point of view. Obviously a hypocrite, with selective tastes in friends! If you are true to your opinion why not adhere to your point of view - Why are you posting here. Keep it to youself and stop making judgments on others! This would apply to your proposed standard. However you do not practise what you preach.

Oh dear CJ MORGAN, there you go again with your favourite cuss word.

Islamophobe.

But what on Earth does Islamophobe mean old son?

Does it mean a disdain for Islam? If so I plead guilty. My contempt for Islam must be the worst kept secret on OLO. I find nothing charming in a belief system that reveres a lunatic prepared to sacrifice his own son as a "burnt offering". Even by the standards of 4,000 years ago or whatever that's gross.

And, yes, my choice of example was deliberate and with full knowledge of the implications.

Examinator,

Obviously "little stevie" is getting a bit senile. For the sake of my aging brain could you please point out where you've answered my question? Why do belief systems that are labelled "religion" deserve any special protection? Why can I dis Marxism but not Islam? Why get I "get stuck" into George Bush but not an imam, priest or rabbi who peddles baloney?

And on a note- since when is an individual only focusing on one religion in particular, grounds for preventing them from being able to criticize?
How many religions would one have to criticize on a regular basis to be entitled to the right to critizise? Or do they have to ambiguously state "Religion" when criticizing?

Most people only focus on Christianity or Islam- as these tend to be the only religions that have much impact on our society(s) in some way (be it in legislature, lobbying or terrorism).

Since CJ MORGAN did import Islam into this thread I thought I would reinforce my point about appeasement of Islam by posting a link to a current column in Britain's Independent newspaper.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/brendan-oneill-censorship-is-being-justified-by-imaginary-muslim-outrage-1806778.html

Note that the Independent is about as anti-American and anti-Israel as they come. This is not Murdock's Herald Sun.

The column is headed:

CENSORSHIP IS BEING JUSTIFIED BY IMAGINARY MUSLIM OUTRAGE

(I am not sure how "imaginary" is the outrage)

It describes how a scholarly work on the "Muhammad Cartoons" imbroglio has been censored:

Quote:

"This month, editors at Yale University Press decided to strip all illustrations – including the cartoons – from Jytte Klausen's book. They reportedly gave Klausen, a Danish native and professor of political science at Brandeis University in Boston, an ultimatum: no illustrations or no book."

More quotes:

"…Following the Danish cartoons controversy, the Hull Truck Theatre Company rewrote a play called Up on the Roof and changed a Muslim character to a Rastafarian."

(No need to appease Rastafarians then?)

"…the Barbican cut sections of its production of Tamburlaine the Great for fear of offending Muslims and the Royal Court Theatre in London cancelled an adaptation of Aristophanes' Lysistrata which was set in a Muslim heaven."

As I keep saying, it's not the Muslims, it's the kafir apologists and appeasers of Islam that are the danger.

And once the notion of having to "respect" religion is embedded in our thoughts we're back to blasphemy laws whether legislated or informal.

The article describes what I can only call craven dhimmitude.

King Hazza

Part of political correctness is it's OK to attack Islam if you attack every other religion. While I have no love for other religions I refuse to fall into that trap. It is not Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism or Judaism that is being appeased. Nor, it seems, are Rastafarians. It is Islam that is being appeased.

Told you so.

Philo, Philo, ah well what's the point ? Non religious people do not wreck vulnerable minds.
that's my point