What is worse : the fact of publishing a cartoon that is offending to some or the violant reaction to it ?

Wierd isn't it? On one hand they say they are a peaceful religion, and honestly the majority of them are, then they turn around and violently protest a cartoon that was published. Isn't what they are doing showing the portrails in the cartoons are right? While the cartoons may be offensive violence to them is more so. Threatening to kill people, burning and rioting isn't helping the cause at all. All that is doing is adding to the stigma alot of people have about Islam. Which is sad. Then there is the fact that anti-semetic and anti-israel cartoons are showing up in the islamic press almost on a daily basis. Isn't that kind of hypocritical? They don't want people doing that to them but it's ok to do it to someone else? How is that right?

Which is worse: burning a wooden statue of Jesus or crapping on his picture in a public square?

How do you feel?

To some Muslims, the very concept of a drawn picture of the Prophet is blasphemous. You might feel different if you were not watching what is happening on the television while in a country which allows just about anything to be said in public.

Perhaps you are being duped by the Western press. All of Islam is not up in arms about this. Why ask a question which is loaded on the side of division and seems to show no tolerance?

Love one another. Stop judging that which you do not know. All it does is get others pulled into the emotional turmoil and does nothing to lead anyone to Divinity.

Which is worse, the carlessly discarded match or the forrest fire that ensues? They are intertwined. In this case the cartoons were offensive to all Muslims but importantly gave extremists an excuse to recruit new members to their cause. I understand that equally(?) offensive Christian cartoons were not published by the same paper. Why? Freedom of the press demands responsibility of the press just as freedom of speach does not permit one to shout Fire!!! in a crowded theater. That said, violence in never justified and only begets more violance, perhaps as planned. Burning flags offends many who were not originally involved and who likely even regretted the offense to Muslims. Situations escalate or de-escalate depending on the wisdom and motivation of all leaders.

Muslims are not peaceful, the ones that live in America must say that because they are trying to avoid being critics of their religion.

However if you study the religion of Islam it's very easy to see that it is nothing more than a cult.

In regards to your question, it's very immature/childish to respond to a cartoon with violence.

If they are offended then voice that feeling through verbal means.

It just goes to show that the whole Islam cult is all about violence and killing all who do not believe in their ALlah/god.

The terrorists who attack us are the true muslims, they are evil but at least they are true to their Qurans teachings.

I am a christian, and I would be offended if I saw a picture of someone wiping his butt with a picture of Jesus. Some would call this art I guess. But I would'nt want to burn his house down for the offense. According to the God I serve. He said "vengeance is mine I will repay". He would judge them righteously. And I would really feel sorry for the wrath they would have to endure from God almighty.

The violent reaction is worse.

We've been publishing offending cartoons for a hundred years.

They are all effects of hatred. However, offending someone is not illegal, at least in the U.S.A.. If being offensive were against the law, more people would be doing twenty to life.

The violent reaction is worse. Everyone has a right to free speech, and they shouldn't be restricted just because someone *could* react badly to it. What really matters is how we respond to problems.

The violent reaction is worse. It's childish and immature. If you can't take the heat, get outta the kitchen!