So, am I to conclude we now also have fundamentalist atheists?
You don't advance a cause by being antagonistic like this. If you have a problem with Muslims committing violence because of insults to Mohammed (and you should have a problem with that, no matter what your creed) then you don't achieve much by insulting him some more.
The better way would be to take it one-on-one with people that display such tendencies (and i'm thinking of moderate Muslims here) that can express in terms that both parties understand why this is not a big deal. Not in a group confrontation like this, mob intelligence is on the whole a lot lower than individual intelligence.
The original cartoons were a provocation, this is raising the stakes. What is needed is de-escalation and less fundamentalism, by all parties.
You will not change peoples minds by antagonizing them and polarizing the issue.
Religious people (of all religions) will have to come to terms with the fact that their religious laws do not apply to those that do not share that religion. This will take another 1,000 years and a few more actions like this and it might take 2,000 years.
Tell that to Abraham Lincoln. He effectively ended slavery in the US, you will recall. Antagonizing people and polarizing the issue were necessary to achieve what he did.
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
Well you're arguing against yourself. On the one hand, you say confrontation doesn't work; on the other hand, you say it did work. The cartoons come first, before the guns. The guns only come out if they are needed - hopefully not. True, I wouldn't like to see it escalate that way.
The cartoons are an attempt at education - you say "only with education" will this be solved, so then you should agree that antagonizing with cartoons, in a way that is educational, should work... but somehow I have a feeling that you are going to disagree with yourself again.
"The better way would be to take it one-on-one with people that display such tendencies" makes me think you're not. How could that plan possibly work given the numbers involved?
I don't think you get things moving in the right direction to have the factions on the outer fringes talking, there is more to be gained from getting people talking that are closer in viewpoint.
You don't advance a cause by being antagonistic like this. If you have a problem with Muslims committing violence because of insults to Mohammed (and you should have a problem with that, no matter what your creed) then you don't achieve much by insulting him some more.
The better way would be to take it one-on-one with people that display such tendencies (and i'm thinking of moderate Muslims here) that can express in terms that both parties understand why this is not a big deal. Not in a group confrontation like this, mob intelligence is on the whole a lot lower than individual intelligence.
The original cartoons were a provocation, this is raising the stakes. What is needed is de-escalation and less fundamentalism, by all parties.
You will not change peoples minds by antagonizing them and polarizing the issue.
Religious people (of all religions) will have to come to terms with the fact that their religious laws do not apply to those that do not share that religion. This will take another 1,000 years and a few more actions like this and it might take 2,000 years.