As someone raised where I was raised, I agree with you.

As someone firmly rooted in reality - I can't. When we participate in a community (be it religious or otherwise, be it of our own informed choice or not) we are bound by the rules of that community. When we knowingly break the rules of that community, we implicitly accept the potential consequences.

No matter how petty or offensive it seems that insulting a religion is grounds for imprisonment -- within the context of that community this is not something up for debate.

You say that the religion's rules "should not be" part of the rules that run a country. Maybe to your view and mine, this is true - but to the view of a sufficient number of people who actually make up that community, this is not true.

If enough people question it, then the rules of the community will change. But unfortunately, such change will require a critical mass of people breaking those rules - and being willing accept the consequences.

And unfortunately, it's that simple.

I recognize the fact that there are countries with quite a few frustrated people that would like nothing better than to be able to control the rest of their fellow human beings and to tell them how to live and that in such countries one could easily get in trouble with the law for behavior that is perfectly ordinary elsewhere.

My way of dealing with that is to refuse to do business with places that are set up like that. It seems to be the easiest way to deal with this problem, then I don't need to wonder what to say/do/not say/not do in order to avoid giving offense to someone with an ax to grind.

There are countries where it is illegal to write certain words, paint pictures, teach women, get an education, complain that you've been raped and so on. The list is long and makes for very sad reading because it shows us how far we as humanity still have to go to get to a more enlightened level. Some people would happily revert to the stone age if that meant that their bearded invisible friend gets to call the shots.

In the end, it's all just little people wrecking it for the rest of us, and this makes me slightly sad that I'm an atheist and not a Roman Catholic because then I'd be confident that all these little men (the pope included) would one day burn in hell.

I agree that we live in a very sad world, but your remark is also very sad that you believe forcing other people to your view is also correct same as a religious person. Not to Believe is as religious as someone believing in something, just like not to take a decision is also a decision.

Change has to come from within and cannot be forced because we believe it is right or wrong else we create resistance to change, which perpetuates the injustice which we want to remove.

Freedom and Slavery are one and the same thing, it is the level of restrictions which defines whether you are in a Slave environment or Free Environment and it is also complicated by the fact that one person's view of slavery/freedom is different from another person's view.

Avoiding to deal with it does not make the problem go away, it still exists and when intelligent people do this, it will still exist for ever.

It is never little people wrecking it for the rest of us, it is us, the little people wrecking for everyone in the name of dogmas without understanding the consequences of our own actions.

I take issue with your statement that "not to believe is as religious as someone believing in something".

Being atheist myself, this is inaccurate. I consider the existence or non-existence of a deity to be a non-issue, so it is not that I am actively refuting something that is disputed.

The best way to understand this is to look at the "cosmic teapot" anecdote (or the "flying spaghetti monster" to be more current). It is impossible to disprove that there is a giant teapot floating in orbit near Mars which is impervious to all forms of human detection. Does this mean that you or I are members of an anti-teapot religious group? Of course not - the question of whether or not the teapot exists simply has no relevance for us and is therefore ignored.

Refusing to do business with certain countries is not the same as forcing others to believe as I do.

someone who has just been convicted for offending another religion inside their own country is talking about enlightenment. im loving this.

You suffer from serious reading comprehension failure.

you just offended a religion. how different are you from the OP?

> you just offended a religion.

I did? Oh my.

this is freedom of speech. blunt offense and apathy.

I guess the most striking difference is that jacquesm hasn't been convicted of anything.

you had no reason to offend another religion. you take religion lightly. you should be educated on other cultures. it is not smart to see people dying for their religion all around the world, and then go around offending them claiming that it is your digital right. that is extremely apathetic. im against you being jailed, but i am with you being outcast from society until you appreciate other people's cultures. You don't seem to deny offending another religion, so i assume you have been rightly convicted.

I appreciate plenty of cultures, indeed I've tried to learn languages to better understand them, but I'm sure that doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

Assuming I have some criticisms of the application of Islamic laws, why must I ask your permission to express them, and to hold political opinions in general? I'm sure that some of my opinions would be held offensive by someone, does that mean I have "offended a religion/culture"?

if you merely criticized religious laws, then i apologize and take back all what i said and believe the you have been not rightly convicted. if you have been convicted however because you insulted that religion (insensitive photograph, your words nit mine) then you should be outcast like a drunk bee.

> your words nit[sic] mine

This was my first comment on this thread, and I'm not the one who submitted it. Read the usernames attached to the posts.

> if...you insulted that religion

As I said, it depends on my opinions and the definition of insulting - people might be insulted by what I say, I don't know until I've said it, do I.

In Liberal Theory (On Liberty, JS Mill) it is said that freedom of thought (believing something) and freedom of expression (expressing that belief, whether in a wordy article on political theory or a catchy, easy to understand cartoon) are so close as to be indistinguishable; since one cannot really claim to believe something if one cannot express it. You are trying to distinguish between the two; I don't think that's philosophically valid.

Additionally, you seem to be saying that you think it should be against the law to be rude. I will no doubt offend you if I say "how very English that sounds".

i think the human brain is more powerful than what you or what you state believe. humans can easily distinguish between freedom of expression and an offense.

> humans can easily distinguish between freedom of expression and an offense.

Offense is interpretation. This is fundamental to Liberal Theory.

In some cultures, some things are considered racist, in others they are not. see: "Black Person Toothpaste" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darlie (In China, a popular brand of toothpaste. In the UK, US, and I'd hope much of Europe, the name and the packaging would be considered extremely offensive[1].)

If "humans" don't agree on what's offensive (as I have proved with the toothpaste example), then something isn't "offensive" in and of itself; offense is an opinion about the object ("We think this opinion is offensive"). You can hardly convict someone of "causing our people to interpret something as offensive".

[1] although perhaps not in Italy... http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/jul/30/italy...

'Religion' cannot be offended. People can.

And if they are so easily offended, this is not OP's fault.

What if his culture is anti-religious? Aren't you being offensive by saying he should appreciate religious cultures?

there is respect even between enemies. if his religion is anti religious, then he should respect them even more because they are his opponents. taking your enemies lightly is reckless.

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

its interesting that you find this stupid, but not the fact that his religion is anti-relgious. you're really smart.

this is not about religion. this is about the idiots who think the religion is untouchable. how come a religion is getting offended by a picture. can a picture make you think that your religion is less valuable after you see it? imagine that i'm worshiping to cream cheese and you laugh on that. so now i have enough reason to jail you, even better, kill you. because cream cheese said so.

so you're saying a rude picture is not offensive? how can i argue with you?

Dear Moubarak, thank you for expressing your opinion. THIS is the beauty of something called freedom of speech: I don't like what you're saying, I think it's even offending to me, however, you have the right to say this. You don't get jailed and you don't get outcasted.

Based on this comment as well as several others, you appear to be under the impression that jacquesm is the OP. That is not the case, and I'm not sure how you made that mistake.