Posted on 02/03/2006 9:04:55 AM PST by thesharkboy
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Washington on Friday condemned caricatures in European newspapers of Islam's Prophet Mohammad, siding with Muslims who are outraged that the publications put press freedom over respect for religion.
"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question.
"We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."
I don't. And I'm a U.S. citizen.
Folks really need to learn how to say:
"I speak for MYSELF" because often they don't speak for me.
Thus placing the burden of responsibility for the violence elsewhere than on those who actually commit the violence.
How many papers DIDN'T run the infamous Mapplethorpe porn pictures.
Time to clean out foggy bottom. I'd like to hear Bolton's thoughts on the matter.
Because it is a legitimate position to argue that their belief system condones, encourages and incites their bad behavior, that's why.
And the fact that the bad actors will threaten violence against anyone who make this argument is reason enough to demonstrate the limits of their "right" to not be offended by publishing these cartoons.
Think of it as a clarifying line in the sand.
That's why.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Washington on Friday condemned caricatures in European newspapers of Islam's Prophet Mohammad, siding with Muslims who are outraged that the publications put press freedom over respect for religion.
"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question.
"We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."
So..is ANYONE still a believer in GWB's lips anymore?
Bush 41: "Read my Lips...No New Taxes!"
Bush 43: "But over time, it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity. You are either with us or you are against us in the fight against terror."
New required reading in the Bush 43 La Hacienda Blanco, and obviously at the State Department...
Now the only question is, do we surrender to Mexico or the Islamazis first under these Globalist PINHEADS!
There is no conflict. The left doesn't really have a coherent political philosophy. Their overriding mandate, seems to me, is to take the side of whoever they think has less power (political, cultural, military, whatever) in a conflict and side with them.
They have an almost pathological need to think that a more powerful opponent is probably wrong. They invariably side with whoever they anoint as the weaker one.
I just called the State Department, and the operator argued with me that it was the right of the papers to publish these cartoons. I have always been told that the State Department represented foreigners over the US, but I was shocked to hear how true it is.
Wouldn't it be more to the point if this cartoon was about an email to Bin Laden than to Mohammed?
No. Osama and company base their actions and beliefs directly on the actions and beliefs of Mohammed. Osama isn't perverting Islam as set forth by Mohammed. He's following it to the letter. You can't separate the two.
The State Department does not speak for the People of America!
bttt
If they think they are scosring brownie points with those people thay are frikin' crazy.
islam is as islam does.
I don't see how the violence and blooshed adocated in the koran can be confused for anything but violence and blooshed.
"Why make fun of someone's belief system,"
Why not?
"The response is of course crazy. But the idea of insulting people's religion is common among liberals and the like."
Many liberals hate religion to the point that they will go out of their way to insult it. If you are angered at pictures of crosses in urine, then you should be angered at this - both are irresponsible depictions meant only to provoke (hate-speech?). It's pretty much the same thing in my opinion. Having rights also means having responsibility which is something all too forgotten these days.
State has a long history of being against US interest imo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.