I'm sorry, but the definition I know for 'freedom of speech' includes defending other people's freedom to say things I might not like.

Sounds like they want more of a 'work release' of speech as opposed to freedom.

And Amy is on, with the totally non-prejudicial "go back" comment (seriously). No one is forcing them to live where they do.

Oh, while we're at it, that definition of freedom of speech pretty much trumps 'hate speech' laws. If I say something you think is hateful, speak up and offer a different viewpoint (as happens here a lot).

I treat others as I am treated by them.

The prophet for us is sacred.

To paraphrase Conan (the Barbarian, not the Grammarian) Not my prophet.

Also, to put the other shoe on your Islamic foot, y'all consider Jesus of Nazareth a mere prophet. Christians will find that insulting, since they hold Him to be G*d.

"The prophet for us is sacred."

Yea, well, for me LIFE is sacred.

See, the problem is the people who are complaining are confusing two different issues.

1) Should people be polite? Yes. They SHOULD be polite. It is obnoxious to not be polite.
2) Should people have the right to say something impolite? Yes. They should, and do, have the right to be impolite. This means some people will be obnoxious. It is a trade-off for living in a free society.

So, I'll agree that people shouldn't offend each other's dignity. However, I will disagree that the freedom to do so should be taken away.

Don't ya just love how they think their mores are more important than those of the community/country they live in.

"Then leave Western society and go back.."

But then they'd have to give up their iPods and video games and welfare checks. Surely they should not have to sacrifice such necessities to existence?!!? Surely they can have their cake and eat it too (for free, natch)?!!?

I see where the Communist Pope is joining the dogpile today... will dig up the link later, but he's engaging in the "Of course we belive in free speech, but..." moral equivocating. He said that the Charlie Hebdo people were "provacateurs" and implied that they deserved what happened to them.

Cousin Dave; I saw that too. My guess is that he is trying to tie Charlie Hebdo type cartoons in with such cartoons/mocking against the Catholic church.

Which I would further guess would be a way of trying to further censor those who speak out against the Catholic church with complaints such as priests who steal, molest young children, etc.

That's the real problem with banning "hate" speech.' What one person sees as legitimate speech someone else will claim is "hate" and close down criticism.

The prophet for us is sacred.

Whoopee do for you. I'm not sure what that has to do with me, but thanks for sharing, pal.

Which I would further guess would be a way of trying to further censor those who speak out against the Catholic church with complaints such as priests who steal, molest young children, etc.
_________________________________

Reminds me of what a certain well-known personality said on April 5th, 2002:

"I don't really believe that all the anger about the priests having sex with the minor children is about sex with children. I think it's anger at religion and the church...I interpret what's going on with the church as hatred of the church.
Hatred of Catholicism. Hateful towards religion."

The person?

"Dr" Laura.

Thankfully, that was not the LAST thing she said...but for all I know, the following, which has more sympathy for the victims, was not the last thing either.

From 2010:

http://www.drlaurablog.com/2010/05/19/its-about-time-pope-benedict/

"But I think freedom of speech needs to stop when it harms the dignity of someone else. The prophet for us is sacred."

The divinity of Christ is sacred to us, toots. That means the Qur'an harms our dignity.

"But I think freedom of speech needs to stop when it harms the dignity of someone else. The prophet for us is sacred."

I bet dollars to doughnuts that he doesn't apply that standard to speech that offends Christians or Jews.