Once again we see the followers of Islam venting their spleens at anyone who does not follow their chosen religion, purely over the publication of an image of the Prophet Mohammed. What they do not seem to grasp is that within a democratic, free speaking and predominately Christian society, the people therein tend to have a lot of tolerance towards believers of other religions, whether they are Sikhs, Buddhists, Mormons or whatever. Unlike countries like Saudi Arabia whose intolerant and harsh regime is only tolerated by Western society because of all that black thick oily stuff they produce.
I do not see Westerners taking to the streets calling for the deaths of all Muslims after the beheading of innocents in war torn Iraq. In the name of Islam of course.
I am not a religious man. I abhor the majority of all organised religions and this is the reason why. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the purpose of all this religious bollocks meant to spread peace and goodwill amongst ALL mankind? I think not. It is just a tool used by a lot of fanatics hell bent in being a pain in the arse to the decent, law abiding people of the world that make up the majority of the population.
A good point made by Polly and I quote
But I have a question in this regard, and it is a genuine one. I may be showing my ignorance here, but if Muslims are not allowed to create images of Mohammed, how do they know that the person depicted is who they think it is? And if that is what the cartoonist claimed, how is a northern European nib-dabbler meant to know what the Prophet looked like?
I rest my case.