If recent papal comments against islam are a form of freedom of speech, what about anti-semitic comments?

Question

Why would any thing negative or bad or intolerent said about the islamic faith should not be considered an insult, but a form of freedom of speech, while any negative comment against jewish people is a form of anti semitic behaviour? Why would calling the prophet of islam a pig or an evil person and calling muslims sub human and making drawings about that in magazines and announcements about such things made by important and well respected religious figures like the pop is to be considered normal and an example of freedom and deservant of no reaction from the muslims, while a comment made by an actor(e.g. gibson) while drunk about the jews is considered an example of hatered and anti semitism and unacceptable behaviour?
Why isnist, for several hundereds of years that the jews are the source of all evil, the killers of the christ , and now the same hate is directed to muslims .
If christians are the more civilized, more mature and less violent, why then all this intolerence???

Answer 1

muslims hate everyone as instructed by Muhammad (pork be upon him), the messenger of satan

Answer 2

All lies are an abuse of Freedom of Speech. The Jews are not the source of all evil - how many heads have they cut off lately, and how many innocent people, including children have they targeted with suicide bombers....hmmmmmm? Answer: Zero.

If the Jews did that, then criticizing them for would be fine. But believing and spreading lies is not a valid use of Freedom of Speech.

Oh, and uh...let's see, how many airplanes have the Jews flown into buildings lately, except the people like you will also use "Freedom of Speech" to lie and blame it on them. That is NOT a valid use of freedom of speech. If they did it, yes, but if they didn't do it, no.

How about this - people put their money where their mouth is and agree to to prison terms for everything they say under "freedom of speech" that is false. Then you have "freedom of speech" but not freedom of responsibility or consequences for what you say, which is what a lot of people want.

Now, the fact is that not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists today are Muslims. That is expressing the truth and is a responsible use of Freedom of Speech.

Answer 3

It depends on the nature of the comments. People can say things that they don't agree with Judaism and or find things about Jewish prophets and criticize them. It all comes down to the method of critique. There was nothing in the comments made by the Pope that was demeaning to Muslims as a people as a group in his statements. That differs from the pictures produced first in the Danish newspaper some many months back that were demeaning to the Prophet and indirectly could be seen as an attack upon Muslims.

Answer 4

This is a good question, especially because when one reflects on it, one becomes a lot more aware of how this world operates and the small minority that is behind the seat of power. I think you should explore areas like Zionism, the ownership of media, the very powerful lobbies that determine policy...who they are, and the corporations whose profits are linked to war-mongering who need an enemy figure as an excuse, etc. You'll get to see what's going on , and you may be in for a few rude shocks, too. As much as ignorance may be bliss, it will always be the truth at will set you free.

Answer 5

You are absolutely right, the muslims have a double standard, they scream as loud as they can that the Jews are subhuman and don't have the right to even be alive, but the second ANYONE says anything negative about them, they demand an apology. Pope Benedict should stand strong and say nothing that could be interpreted as an apology.

Answer 6

i'm getting it who the main useful Catholic Mel Gibson, or pope Benedict? i think of there attempting to bypass the blame of the worldwide problem to the different significant religions. all of us no Catholic have reason allot extra problem, yet i think of there problems come whilst others start to combat back, so i think there precise. If it weren't for the Muslims, and Jews scuffling with back then perhaps there does no longer be as many wars, and as for the remark in finished the the Pope mentioned, approximately Mohamed no longer bringing no longer something into the theory that wasn't already there, I ask what did Christan deliver, different then allowing every person to go right into a holy place, the Jews had each and every ingredient else down %. , it substitute into already fillowing the golden rule, so what substitute into the choose of Christianity, they might have merely all started a clean sect of Judaism, that's what i think of Jesus substitute into aiming for contained in the 1st place.

Answer 7

This Pope is more a politician then the holy priest,He was behind the appointment of john Paul the first polish to be a pope this guy had an agenda behind that.To me He looks like a fire starter.

Answer 8

Well, eventually if there is ever a holocaust against muslims, then they will have that pity card that they can play everytime somebody attacks them.

Hey, its worked for the Jews for 60+ years...

Answer 9

The Pope should have thought long and hard before he made his comment, knowing that it will be inflammatory,What Mel Gibson said was also informatory,free speech is fine I support it, but you also have to be tactful, you know you only have to say Muslim and they start burning effigies.

Answer 10

Making racist remarks against a people isn't the same as disagreeing with the tenets of a certain philosophy or religion.

Answer 11

Another example of what religion does to people!