This thread demonstrates there is indeed no possibility of satirizing the Muhammad cartoonists by adding other religious figures. I must repeat however that we all know that insulting other people is a mainstay of humor.
Nor is there any legitimate function for cartoons of Muhammad as defiant stands for freedom of speech, made against threats of violence. Essentially the only people who need to fear such violence are those who offend their co-religionists, not those who promote religious bigotry against other religions. Those other religions are also wrong but the enemy that matters should be the one at hand, threatening you, not someone far off.
Some of the Muslim violence supposedly provoked by mere blasphemies, such as the riots in Afghanistan over the burned Qurans, are merely the politically correct form of resistance to other policies. Afghans who protest the murders of other Afghans by invaders or their drones may be themselves murdered as rebels by the invaders or their puppets. If the survivors accepted the blood money they have forfeited their rights, even if it was only by force of necessity. Yet, officially, the invasion of Afghanistan was not motivated in the least by anti-Muslim bigotry, though no one can honestly say they know why the war continues. Plus, the invaders like to divide to conquer, encouraging not just tribal but sectarian divisions. Thus, they must pretend that they are genuinely accepting of religious grounds for offense. Afghans can express their hatred of the occupation by rioting against the burning of Qurans. Even the puppet government must pretend to have some claim to virtue other than subservience to power. In other cases of course such religious violence is aimed at the same goal as most religious violence, the intimidation and control of the local population, particularly would be secular/democratic/socialist elements.
...obsessive need to try and provoke a negative response from religious people analogous to the very intolerant believers...counter to the point of becoming an atheist in the first place, and "wildly non-humble" itself. Pompous atheists...unfairly give the rest of us a bad name and are an embarrassment, just as pompous and misbehaving religious folk unfairly give their peers a bad name.
The problem with theism is that it's wrong, so utterly wrong that the believers have to reject reason. This kind of critique of religion, that believers are not very nice, is merely snobbery covered with a veneer of principle. It is amazing how often it's some body else's religion that is not nice, but that of our own friends and neighbors and country is really characteristically nice with only a few fringe elements. But it's our supposedly humble and well behaving religious folk who blindly support the Zionist tyranny over the Palestinians, who supported war against Iraq, support war against Afghanistan, support war against Somalia---War against Somalia?!
A country without a functional state has to have both Ethiopia and Kenya sicced onto it by the US government! I believe only residual Christian bigotry allows such murderous insanity to go
unnoticed. The attitude above isn't just snobbery, it's snobbery with violence. The contempt for reason in favor of a parochial and smug self-approval is far, far worse than pomposity.
also look up roman historian Taitus, letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan and Jewish historian Josephus. Also critics of Christ in first centuries never question the extiance of Christ at all. So to say Jesus was fitctional dosent hold water.
I haven't watched the Yoda dance video in a while, so my memory's a bit foggy. But damn, Solo!
