Comments:Controversial book publisher's house petrol bombed
Should books that could be considered offensive to some religions still be published?[edit]
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
Yes[edit]
Yes i feel they should. The idea of fiction is that it "Is Not Real". It goes the same for films and television dramas. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- So long as the sole purpose of the book is not to preach 'kill all Jews/Muslims/Christians/Whatevers' then yes, without a doubt. Religions that can't take a bit of criticism aren't really much of a religion at all, and most followers of most religions recognise and accept that. (To give credit wehre it's due, that last sentence is based on a remark one of the Pythons made about the Life of Brian) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
A new religion reigns in the West[edit]
"She 'envisaged that [her] book would be a bridge builder' between Islam and the western world."
Of course she did.
A new religion reigns in the West: "Diversity is Our Strength." No matter how many times we Westerners will be clobbered over the head due to this increasingly disasterous belief, we will need to reinterpret events to be compatible with our new religion, especially since so many of our policies now locked into place, like mass legal and illegal immigration, must be justified to maintain never-ending economic-population growth, as well as political correctness, a type of neo-McCarthyism. -- Cheerfully your, Tom Andres —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tma sierra (talk • contribs) 15:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely! Have we forgotten the 1st amendment? If we were to not publish anything offensive, then the libraries and book stores would be empty. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
No censorship[edit]
Censorship is wrong. If a religious group, especially one that prides itself on peace, is offended they should go through legal channels.
Freedom of expression is a primary human right not for Americans, or Britons or Spaniards but for all humans anywher and everywhere.
Books should be published always regardless of content or perception because they offer alternate viewpoints than the narrow dogmatic ones humans so eagerly lap up by the millions like ravenous dogs that religions often peddle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.101.132 (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
So many idiots here. One point for you all to remember, radicals exist in every religion and have no legitimate representative claim for any. 68.210.70.130 02:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)