@Suze,
<<If Banjo, Constance , SPQR and comrades don't like what these Lakemba protesters are saying then perhaps they would feel more comfortable in a non-democratic country?>>

For what its worth ...and i know it will have zilch impact on you...what you are missing Suze is that these protesters are seeking to exempt their creed from the sort of criticism and lampooning that every other creed & icon (in the West) regularly faces. They want to vet what gets published.

Hi OTB,
Hitchens was wrong for several reasons.

His argument presented in this video is not just wrong, it's shallow and empty.

The way the Catholic church was organised in the 30s and 40s and is to a large extent still organised today was strictly hierarchical, with specific departments tasked with handing down the latest interpretation of church dogma. Furthermore, it was and is a very large corporation, in the business of selling salvation for cash. How the Church behaves and how individual Catholics behave may well be considerably at odds. A very large number of Catholics fought the same regime that Hitchens argues the Catholic Church supported.

The Muslim religion is not hierarchical and there is no central dogmatic body. Individual Muslims are free to interpret the Quran in whatever way they see fit and local Imams sometimes attract considerable personal followings for their particular interpretation. This is not unlike the position of the Dissenters in the Anglican Church in the 17th Century, many of whom were forced out of the country and became settlers in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Dissenters

He then goes on to ridicule the Quran based on the stupid premise that Mohammed was illiterate. If I have to explain why that's stupid, there's no point trying.

Dawkins and Hitchens and Krauss (less so) are all examples of people who are, to use the Australian vernacular "so far up themselves they haven't seen daylight in years". They are arguing at cross purposes to the people they are arguing against, and they are seeking to destroy a framework that has been very successful (after all, it produced them) simply because some part of it are busted, but they don't offer anything to replace it. They are interested in creating controversy and polarising opinion so they can cash in with a few book sales and paid lectures.

My own views on the topic of religion are available on this site. Feel free to look them up.

Craig,

"He then goes on to ridicule the Quran based on the stupid premise that Mohammed was illiterate. If I have to explain why that's stupid, there's no point trying."

Must agree; for a successful merchant to be illiterate stretches the imagination; that a successful businesswoman would hire an illiterate for the work that Muhammad did is also far fetched.

That he is said to have used scribes merely indicates that he could afford their hire or that they wished to work for him.
Henry VIII was undoubtedly literate and moreover, well educated.
He also used scribes.

Some of Henry VIII's writings survive, he was a prolific writer and debater and an enthusiastic humanist, he also wrote songs/music and poetry and devised elaborate theatrical performances to entertain the court.

"They are arguing at cross purposes to the people they are arguing against, and they are seeking to destroy a framework that has been very successful (after all, it produced them) simply because some part of it are busted, but they don't offer anything to replace it.

Please explain.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Vandalism and violence should be punished.