As to whether any founding figure of a major religion actually lived, there’s far better documentation for Mohammed than for any of the others I can recall. There are letters in his name, for instance, to numerous rulers of the period. To go down the path of questioning the reality of founders is to go to the argument about whether any religion has any factual validity. Now, that’s an interesting argument, but it’s not one that I prefer to conduct here at Crossroads Arabia.

Instead, I’d rather deal with the ‘facts-on-the-ground’ as they say. Some 1.6 billion people profess to belief in the prophethood of Mohammed. They call the religion based on that belief “Islam.” “Islam” is what we have to contend with, for better or worse.

The newness and non-traditional sourcing definitely scares some people off. Others worry about the quality and safety of the construction of the product. Over time, if they prove safe, useful, and affordable, then they’ll get a piece of the pie, too.

When Honda, Toyota, and Nissan (originally Datsun) first entered the US market, they were called ‘rice burners’ and not at all popular. Now, Toyota appears to hold the largest part of the American market.

let’s say a US consumer has the “choice” to buy an american vs a chinese (code for muslim) car. now chinese products are perceived to be inferior but actually the car itself might be of similar quality. Now american car makers are entrenched and dominant in the market and that makes it hard for newcomers to compete. not only that, but they can pay car&driver to write good reviews for their cars and/or write bad ones for the chinese car.

yes the marketplace can be distorted by restrictions on speech but the market is also susceptible to monopolies.

I think my point here is that ideas, like cars or soft drinks, flow through the global marketplace. Some ideas are popular, seem to serve a useful purpose, look better than what’s available locally. Others, not so much.

I believe people should have the freedom to buy–both physically and metaphorically–those goods they think serve them. They may be mistaken; they may have been oversold; they may have misplaced their priorities; perhaps they don’t yet have the skill to use an idea or product to its best advantage. That is the result of being human. Some ideas conflict with others: I can’t drive a car and a motorcycle at the same time, nor can I swim while flying. I’m certainly not going to try to fly a helicopter, though I’d love to have the utility of a helicopter.

To make good decisions, people have to have access to good information. Blocking information by fiat only insures that less-than-the-best information is in the marketplace. Why intentionally handicap people who are the real end consumers?

The Protestant Reformation started out with a guy arguing against the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, lots of people died, Catholic and non-, before the West realized that it was a useless proposition to ban arguments about God and his religions.

Hitler did succeed in killing six million adherents to a religion he hated. It didn’t stop the religion.

I have a problem with that. But not because it is Islam saying it. I think for any religion to try to stiffle and gag ANY discussion, criticism, voice of dissension is a very very dangerous place to go. Who is to say WHAT is considered blasphemous and what isn’t? who is the watchdog to say that something is outside the bounds of Human rights? Can I say that I think stoning of women is wrong? If I am not able to have a say in what I think then that is censorship. There is a difference between standing in a group of Muslims or Christians or Jews and purposely maligning their God…that is malicious with the intention to incite anger, violence etc. Not a good thing, although personally I think God is a big boy and can handle it. It is quite another for someone to say that they, for example, don’t agree with the Pope and think that he is simply a figurhead that is antiquated(I am Catholic so I am giving an example from my faith)How is that blasphemous? It is an opinion and doesn’t ruffle my feathers at all.

I fear that especially since the document had no other mention in it about any other religion in the world other than Islam, it might be used in a very heavy handed, one sided way to force the rest of the world to accept anything Islam says and my fear is that it could lead to a really bad place for people in majority Islamic countries and for women.

As for the KKK as much as what they say is dispicable they are not allowed to incite violence and any actions arising out of that will be dealt with in a court of law and would not be deemed blasphemous. they don’t do it under the pretense of religion. they do it under a white supremicist banner. islamists DO use religion as their platform and that is where I think it could get scary.

Besides they do already have some large measure of free speech as per the PBS show Frontline of the other day which featured two radical Muslims(who admitted on camera that they were of such a stance) who stood on a street corner in NYC the day after the shooting at Ft. Hood and haded out flyers extolling the virtues of Major Hassan and his actions. when the police were asked why no one stopped them for saying what most would consider vile things the police said that they know their rights very well and go just up to the line of incitement and illegality but are very careful not to cross the line. And so they were allowed to spew their vitriol…as despicable as it was…just as the KKK is despicable.

Maybe the religion needs to be a little more resilient about rolling with negative commentary.

Anti-child pornography laws are not so much a constraint on speech–you can talk or write child all you like–but a constraint on action. No child porn is made without injuring a child. In the West, various ages, from 16-18, tend to be recognized as the minimum age at which a person can knowingly consent to have sex. Below that, what the child thinks is immaterial: it’s is a matter of statutory law (hence ‘statutory rape’) that sex with minors is, by definition, not consensual.

You’re wrong about the KKK and ‘Islamic terror’. Here, though, you’re making the same category error: you’re comparing speech and action again. You can talk all you like in support of Islamic extremism, but once it gets to the point of directly encouraging action, you start running into trouble. You can buy books of Usama bin Laden’s writings in the US with no problem–I have several and I’m not under investigation. I can’t raise funds for his operations via speech, though, nor can I recruit to his cause. That changes speech to action.

Similarly, the KKK can speak and print all it likes, short of calling for immediate violence. It can deny whatever it likes, call Jews, Blacks, and Catholics all the names it likes. This is permitted by law. A borderline area is that of ‘expressive speech’, that is, acts that are meant to convey a political message. In the case of the KKK, that essentially means burning crosses on the front yards of Blacks. It certainly sends a political message, and is therefore considered political speech. BUT, it is so historically laden with the threat of violence that courts have decided that it is more ‘act’ than ‘speech’. But wearing or posting symbols of the organization is perfectly legal. Not popular, perhaps, but legal.

People can and do talk about defects they see in the Constitution all the time. They are absolutely free to recommend changes and to work to effect those changes. So I really don’t know what you mean by including it in this list.

As far as Europe’s anti-Holocaust and anti-Semitism laws, I’ve already said that I think these laws are wrong. Most countries don’t have them; no country should need them.

unfortunately, when it comes to the sensibilities of muslims, the West, in a position of power, gets to dictate. so, here the goal is to limit the massive anti-islam media onslaught (which differs from criticism). on the other hand, when muslims criticize the West for its policies, “we” get labeled terrorist-sympathizers and traitors.

again, in general i’m for free speech but with political power the speech flows from the powerful to the weak, not the other way around.