I’ve read it. There is NOTHING in there. Some sarcastics comments about how Mohammed would view modern Indian Islamic culture. Whoopie. Even the Danish cartoons were at least 50 times as offensive as what is in Satanic Verses.

If this is the truly representative of the intelligence of those who follow the religion of Islam … this is a verse that only Satan could appreciate.

It’s because there is an ideology that exists and is spread by Muslims (not all, but enough to create the problem we have today) that justifies what we call acts of terror in the name of their cause. This ideology is actively taught in schools to the relatively young population of the Muslim world, and in that sense I think we know what the problem is, but we haven’t yet figured out the solution.

We can see the protection of Islam as an immediate effect but this resolution could affect any.

Now the “State” has been hijacked by some unelected, unaccountable “board” to stamp “State” approval on what has already been approved and has stirred up some “State” reactions. This is in fact totally unnecessary from any point of view other than for its own aggrandisement.

For this reason I see no problem with the “State” apologising for causing other “States” offence on their own behalf without dragging the readers into it.

Both have brought a lot of money to media interests, both get death threats, both induce burning protests in ex-colonies, both went to elite universities, both get considerable coverage of what they do in public, both have interesting “partners”, both have rudely challenged “sacred cows”.

It is equally true that most terrorists are Muslim.

I haven’t the answer as to why this is true but I suspect when we find the answer we will be a lot closer to solving this problem.

So that we don’t really see the significance of these moves – by the Islamist being made against us, in the UN, etc. We are so lucky that we are born in the free world – that we have trouble comprehending what all the fuss is about in the Islamic world.

But there is also a problem with this, because the Islamists are trying to replace our way of life with theirs – they are attempting to Islamise the world. This is where Westerners need to know that these demands on our freedoms are not harmless, requests, and that they are intended to collectively erode our way of life. In this respect we could be looking back to the dark ages, to a time when scientists, artist, writers and free thinkers were all persecuted under similar religious laws.

Most of us will never venture into a Muslim country and see and really understand how restricted life is there, but we do have to try harder to comprehend our own freedom, in relation to other people’s lack of freedom, particularly in the Islamic world – because our freedoms need to be protected.

Lev 24:13-16

So…. doesn’t appear to be anything new here. Those who think Rushdie should be executed are probably in the mainstream of human history, and those few of you libertines of present and past couple of centuries are the oddballs.

If the UN puts a quote from an OT prophet on its front step, then why is it unreasonable to think that the concept of blasphemy enters into the process of one of its councils?

If the majority of mankind has some religious sympathy of one kind or another, why would you not expect that an international body picks up on that nature of mankind?