[Map Kernow]

I don't have much patience for religious leaders that "defend" their religion by bashing another. It seems oppotunistic to me. I want no part of it. If one wants to comment on the merits of Islam's current moral world view as it affects the public square, that is fair comment. Bashing the founder for what happened, or did not happen, long ago, is not. Heck, non believers could start bashing Christ on some matters in theory.

Well, I don't have much patience for people who want to curtail Americans' constitutional "free exercise" rights on grounds of good taste. What do you mean---not defend one's religion by "bashing" another? That's the whole point of apologetics: your religion is right and other religions are wrong. That's not "bashing"--that's argument.

Islam's "current world view" is intimately and inextricably tied to the life, actions, and sayings of Mohammed---it always has been throughout the history of Islam. Therefore, your dismissal of commentary on Mohammed as irrelevant to "the merits of Islam's current moral world view as it affects the public square" shows a fundamental ignorance of Islam.

And finally, non-believers "bash" Christ all the time, haven't you noticed? And I haven't heard of anyone telling them they'd better not do so.

[Torie]

Most religions have gotten out of the business of bashing others. That is one reason this near atheistic agnostic has a quite favorable view of them. If they were in the bashing business, I would have a less favorable view.