#####Rushdie was a hero as long as he ridiculted the other guy's beliefs. Now that he ridicules ours he's a bum. Typical...and pathetic.#####
How do you come up with that kind of reasoning?
Rushdie wrote a piece of fiction that included a few pages offensive to Muslims. They responded by demanding his death, and even put a bounty on his head.
Rushdie then comes along and attacks ALL religious folks and demands that perfectly peaceful and law abiding Christians should be locked in the cupboard and silenced.
Sounds to me like Rushdie's the hypocrite here. He demands free speech....but only for himself and those who share his views.
That you didn't notice that is typical...and pathetic.
> Rushdie then comes along and attacks ALL religious folks and demands that perfectly peaceful and law abiding Christians should be locked in the cupboard and silenced.
Interesting. I read the article, and didn't see that. Where does Rushdie say that? The closest I saw was: "Even Dan Brown must live,” he said. “Preferably not write, but live.”
Rather a lot of Christians also agree that Dan Brown should nto write, as they're a bit ticked off abut "Da Vinci Code."
But I really want to see where Rushdie said: "perfectly peaceful and law abiding Christians should be locked in the cupboard and silenced."
I don't believe he attacked ALL religious folk...and he certainly didn't demand that they be silenced or locked up. Rather he lamented the return of a certain type of religious outlook to the West and recommended "ridicule, argument and battle (and I am certain he meant political rather than military)" as a way of dealing with it.
Ah! After reading some of your posts to others about this statement I can say that you've misinterpreted it. Rushdie doesn't want to lock up religious folk. He wants to push superstitition back into the cupboard...and his method of doing so is the judicious use of ridicule and argument.