I agree; I think it was inconsistent too. Thing is, many Muslims see it as Disrespect Muslims Day. Now I agree that there is also plenty of disrespect for Christians going around so Muslims can't expect any more special consideration. But Draw Mo day, in the end, is as you say, a deliberate public piss-take: mockery, disrespect. There's no message here about free speech. This is not a noble fight for truth, justice and the American way. This is not a two-finger salute to Fundie terrorists. It is disrespect to Muslims, the vast majority of who would not disrespect Jesus in the same way and have done nothing to invite this disrespect. Just because saying asshole-ish things is enshrined in freedom of speech, does not makes saying them any less asshole-ish.
No, the vast majority of Muslims do not disrespect Jesus (pay attention to the details, please). This is because they consider Jesus one of the prophets of Allah (just not the most recent one, who is Mohammed, and therefore his teachings are considered the most valid). Of course there are plenty of Muslims, especially in the East, who will kick a Hindu's head in as soon as look at him, but Hindus will just as happily attack Muslims without provokation. Most cartoons mocking Christianity come from the Jewish corner. To balance all that, Irani Jews and Christians have a remarkably tolerant time of it in Iran. As for mocking Jesus, feelings run just as deep --but note how cartoons of Mohammed are obviously 'social commentary', while those of Christ are just provocative. I guess that people only see the "message" when it is directed at others.
It's late and I'm tired so I'll make this short. There are those who believe and those who don't. Either side will try to convince you to follow their beliefs. Neither side is wrong or right. And both sides will never yield as long as there is an opposing force. It's like North and south Korea. (Terrible analogy, yes, but quite the same.) Dare I say this. Islam=Christianity in the sense that if You read both books and other work by either religion it basically says the same: 1. Believe in Me as a god and have no others. 2. I have a representative whom You shall follow. 3. Kill those that do not believe in Me. There are extremists on both sides of the fence people. The question is why we let those extreme opposites steal the front page. I for one would like to see church and government divided here where I live. It's so 14th century to have religion influence politics and vice versa. The same goes both in the western world and the East. Only religion I see as being true neutral is Buddhism. All others have extremists. Btw. Just for the record. I'm an atheist bordering on agnostic though Buddhism would be the first choice if I had to choose.
If you want an example on a state where the church has nothing to do with politics then Denmark is one of the prime examples ? so I don't quite understand what your getting at I could understand an American complain about the major influence the religious have there, but a fellow Dane ?
The new testament doesn't have much 'kill the non-believers' in it. I'm not sure where you get that from. (Stance declaration: I'm an agnostic bordering on atheism.) The old testament is a bit of that, but that's the book of Judaism, not of Christianity. Christians tend to have a kind of wary, selective relationship with the OT. So the more correct version of your claim would probably be Islam=Judaism. Which I'd agree with.
Religion or any philosophical framework, being human constructs, evolve and goes through stages which could be roughly named: 1. Faith (personal framework) 2. Religion (communal ritual) 3. Dogma (organisational doctrine) 4. Corruption (political subversion) It's all good at stage 1: people are concerned with their own personal values and morals: with how they live their lives. This is the Jesus phase of peace, love and tolerance and being kind to your fellow man. Stage 2 already gets iffy: social bonding but also social control sets in as it now becomes about how others live their lives and toeing the community line. In-group out-group them-and-us thinking starts here. This is the Ten Commandments/we-are-the-chosen phase. Stage 3 goes off the deep end: meaning is lost and replaced by empty ritual and rules that cannot be questioned any more. Religion becomes organisational: a business with a hierarchical structure which is out to preserve itself for its own sake. Dissent is not tolerated and what happens inside the House stays inside the House. This is the Catholic Church/Opus Dei phase. Donations on a platter please, don't eat pig (or don't eat cow) and kiss the ring of your superiors (occasionally not just the one on his finger). Stage 4 moves the business from self-preservation to expansion and (hostile) take-over: non-believers must be slaughtered, their wives raped, their children enslaved and their land and possessions taken because it is God's will, doncha know. The chosen people, once persecuted (nothing creates in-group cohesion like a shared chip on the shoulder), now become the persecutors. This is when religious texts start using words like "infidel" and "heathen". The words "righteous", "smite" and "judgement" also feature frequently. The Old Testament, by the time it was compiled into the Bible had already moved through all these stages. The New Testament was written at stage 2. Christianity has since moved through all the stages in practice; it is just that the text has not been updated since so it all still sounds quite peaceful and tolerant. Islam was written and updated as it moved through all the stages, which is what accounts for its difference in tone to the New Testament, but the practices of both have been more or less the same. The saving grace of Christianity is that the New Testament, being written at stage 1 and 2, provides no written justification for stage 3 and 4 practices. They are incongruous with the scriptures which therefore challenge such actions rather than unquestioningly endorsing them. Faith is good, but doubt is better.
