Jordan, I don't dispute your basic premise, however I think it's unfair to label those who are offended by the public display of these images as "extremists". Islam (to my limited understanding) has a fundamental objection to "graven images" and depictions of the Prophet seem to be the most egregious form of this.
I would say that the vast majority of those asking for the removal of those pictures are devout adherents to their faith, and are overall decent people. Some members of this list (as well as most adult citizens of the US) are also devout adherents to their faith, however their faith may not have an issue with graven images. But they are no less devout for all that. Would you consider them extremists? I also think there comes a time when exercise of one's freedom of expression goes beyond a reasonable limit, if enough people are genuinely offended. Imagine if Wikipedia were to display graphic images of sex acts on its home page. This may sound ludicrous, but to some Muslims, a graphic depiction of the Prophet is equally offensive. On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Jordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The more I hear about Islam, the more it becomes apparent that as with > some religions in this country, it has been hijacked by extremists. > I only had to see Jon Stewart's interview with Mark Siegel, Benazir > Bhutto's former speech writer, to be reminded of this. > http://tinyurl.com/yrl2rd > > Steve Rigby wrote: > > Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia, is refusing to remove > > medieval artistic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, despite being > > flooded with complaints from Muslims demanding the images be deleted. ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
