I love the freedom that I have.
I love that I can read and write about things from both sides of any argument.
I love drinking beer, vodka and scotch-whiskey.
I love partying.
I love ogling at scantily-clad women on the beach, in the pub and on the streets.
I’m ok with pre-marital sex. (Sex? Yes please.)
I’m ok with homosexuality. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
I’m ok with marriages that cross cultural, racial and religious lines.
I’m ok with marriages that cross economic classes. (Ain’t love grand?)
Yes I love the freedom that I have and my way of life.
But I know it’s not for everyone. In fact, you may strongly oppose any, if not all of the things that I’ve wrote above. Which is why I don’t impose my views on you. And I’d ask the same respect from you.
Shame on your cartoonists for not showing respect. Shame on you editors for trying to impose “freedom of speech” on societies that are clearly not used to handling it. Yes you’ve made your point loud and clear but look at what you’ve caused.
Shame on you extremists for burning down consular offices and embassies. Shame on you radicals for threatening citizens of the countries that you’d perceived to have slighted your religion. Shame on you imams who’d advocate the beheading of the editors and cartoonists.
Not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all Muslims are fanatics. Islam is not to blame. Why is that so hard to understand?
Not all Danish citizens, or for that matter citizens of the countries whose press have reprinted those cartoons, are disrespectful idiots. The governments of these countries are not to blame – the press have freedom and some have chosen to exercise that freedom in a misguided attempt to show *you* that yes, “We have freedom of speech!” Not everyone deserves your wrath and anger, disproportionate though they may be. Why is that so hard to understand?
Restraint on either sides do not indicate weakness. It indicates intelligence. And less ppl gets hurt. And that’s good isn’t it? Why is that so hard to understand?