but what is the entire point of it all?
i mean, action was taken and punishments were dealt out..
and they’re only affecting themselves. .___.

its all so pointless, the rioting!

Simple, everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how right or wrong it is. This doesn’t mean it is off limits to discussion though, it just means that you don’t have the right to shove your religion down other peoples throats.

‘If you’re tolerating and being respectful of another religion you’re saying “Yes, I accept that your beliefs are different than mine and you have a right to belief in them, and YES YOUR RELIGION HAS EVERY RIGHT TO BE AS VALID AS MINE.”’

Yes and no. Yes, they are allowed to beleive in their beliefs even if they are different. No, being tolerant does not mean you accept that another persons religion is as valid as your own, it just means you will allow the other person to follow their own.
The word Tolerance means to ‘Tolerate’, tolerating something does not mean accepting it is valid.
For instance, you might meet someone who believes the earth is flat (as per someone from the Flat Earth Society), you can accept that they have a right to believe the earth is flat, but still find their belief unacceptable.

‘verybody believes that only their religion is the absolute correct religion,’

If they didn’t then they wouldn’t believe in their religion, they’d believe in another one (and I include Athiesm and Agnosticism in the term religion).
Even agnostics and athiests can be very militant in their attacks on other religions.
Consider the Flat Earth person again - would you consider your belief in a round earth is absolutely correct? I think so.

‘99.99999% are unwilling to consider that perhaps another religion could be just as valid/more valid than theirs.’

Are they? It’s difficult to convince many people of anything, and it is impossible to disprove the existance of any diety (as you can’t prove a negative). This doesn’t mean that the people are unwilling to consider that their religion might be wrong, but it does mean that it’s near impossible to convince them that they have the wrong religion. As such, if you can offer no reason for them to change, how do you expect them to even consider it?
If you have some evidence which proves a religion wrong, I’m sure you could convince a lot of people to change. BUT, like I said, you can’t disprove the existane of any diety, so it is near impossible to give them a reason.

Let’s go back to the Flat Earth person example once again. Do you believe that their belief might be more valid than your own?
No, not without some sort of proof. Guess what, all the scientific proof points in the opposite direction, it all proves the Earth is a sphere in space.
If they could offer proof that the earth is not a sphere, but in fact flat, you might consider it, but as it stands, there s absolutely no reason for you to consider changing to their point of view.

‘And from there stems the intolerence towards other people’s religions…’

I think you might find the intolerance has nothing to do with this. A lot of religions TEACH that other religions are not to be tolerated, and that is where the intolerance comes from.
In other cases people interpret their religious writings/teachings not to tolerate other religions.
You will find that in the majority of the world, the majority of religious people do actually live side by side without intolerance.

‘and the defensive positions taken when it comes about to their religion.’

Everyone has a right to defend their religion. Most defenses occur because someone with a limited understanding of their religion makes intolerant remarks.

You have a right to defend yours as much as I have to defend mine. That’s also a part of religious tolerance, to accept that people have a right to defence.

‘I wonder whether religions intentionally build this mechanism into themselves?’

Not all religions have this built in. Some religions really don’t care if you don’t beleive in what they believe. As such it isn’t built in. I don’t think a follow of Thor would care if you attacked their religion, but if they did and they took offence at it, they still have a right to defend their belief.
Defending beliefs isn’t jsut for religions.
Getting back to our ‘Flat Earth Person’ example, if you met them, would you try to convince them of the error of their ways?
What if they try to convince you that you’re mistaken? Would you defend your belief in a spherical earth?

Nice to hear from you again Curiosity.

SaddNesZ.jc - What will you gain if you won the protest??’
Free Snake burgers for a week.

S-Kay - ‘the Fire Dog year is indeed a very quarrelsome one.’
If I disagree I’m proved wrong … right?

Dreamer - ‘Were u partly inspired by Dabido’s comments ?’
Ah .. er … which comment, I make so many! Waaah!

Beefstew - Have to agree with you.
‘My grandma always say she prefer to worship an idol with faces and all, rather than worshipping a wooden cross’

Not all Christian churches even allow crosses. Several of the ones I went to in Sydney didn’t have crosses at all. Some Christian churches even consider the cross a form of idolatry.

I’ve met supposed experts of Comparitive Religious studies who still get things wrong. I heard a debate once between a Muslim and a Christian, and the Christian obviously had no idea about Islam (but he didn’t claim to, and he accidentally called Muhummad the Islamic God … OUCH!), and the Muslim guy, who was supposedly a lecturer in Comparitive Religions and Christianity really didn’t have a clue about Christianity. Even after the Christian pulled him up on some mistaken beliefs the guy continued claiming it was what Christians believed. It was quite insulting in a way.

Yee How - ‘Christians should spread their religion, I have heard many times that it is the Christian’s ways to help others. OK, I agree, you wish to help me.
But do you have to step on me?’

Yes, it’s in there, Christians have been told to go forth and make desciples of all the world. The reason they believe it helps people is because converting people means the converted will go to heaven. (to allow a person to continue in their unconverted state means they will goto hell).

No, they don’t have to step on you. You’ll find the reason they are so militant (and step on you), is because either 1. they care (and as such want you to get to heaven), or 2. they come from a church where it is important for them to convert people (else they feel the fires of hell will consume them for ignoring Jesus command to go forth and make disciples of all the earth.)

So, please forgive those who do tread on your head, but please understand, they are most likely doing it as they want to see you in heaven.

‘Hairscrunchie - The reason the caricatures were so insulting is because one of the cartoons claimed Muhammad was a terrorist, and secondly, because it is blasphemous to make a picture of any kind of the Prophet.
As I pointed out on my blog, the cartoons were as insulting to Islam as the ‘Piss Christ’ photo was to Christianity.
I don’t blame Muslims for being upset of the cartoons, but they don’t need to kill people or riot over it. Peaceful protests would have been better. The riots made them look intolerant to ‘Freedom of speech’, which was what the cartoons were supposedly trying to prove. It was like they walked into a trap set for them.
Anyway, most of the countries that published the cartoons also allowed the ‘Piss Christ’ photo to be displayed years earlier, so they were being true to their freedom of speech beliefs, where as in Australia, they allowed the ‘Piss Christ’ photo to be displayed, but chose not to display the cartoons. I personally think both should have ben stopped, as both were created in order to insult and be intolerant.

Minishorts - Sorry for abducting your comments section.

And from there stems the intolerence towards other people’s religions and the defensive positions taken when it comes about to their religion.

But the interesting thing is that religions teach tolerence and respect. However, the religions also teach absolute belief in their religion. How do you tolerate and respect another religion if your religion states that no other religion is right?

If you’re tolerating and being respectful of another religion you’re saying “Yes, I accept that your beliefs are different than mine and you have a right to belief in them, and YES YOUR RELIGION HAS EVERY RIGHT TO BE AS VALID AS MINE.” Because the moment you say “Although I tolerate and respect your religion, it is NOT AS VALID/TRUE AS MINE IS.” you are no longer respecting the other person’s religion.

I wonder whether religions intentionally build this mechanism into themselves?

Haha. Well, that’s for religion.

but why is everybody so hard up just cos a particular newspaper published cartoons?

i mean, YES. we should respect other religions.
but it was probably a harmless caricature.

and, like there’s all this big hoo-haa. but what abt underneath the surface?

Muslims argue of free speech but not of provocation.

everybody knows how they hate Jews.
yet it is so wrong to insult the Prophet (which undoubtly, is.) but not wrong to hate Jews? isn’t it the same sort of disrespect?

isn’t every religion insulted in one way or another?
of course, not every one got insulted by rude caricatures.

but i’m sure if there was a publication of caricatures of the Lord Jesus,
The government of our beloved nation wouldn’t care as much.

okay, sorry if i insulted or offended anybody or whatever.
i’m merely a young child (as adults would say. but im not! im a teenager with a big wandering mind. rawr. ahaha!)

But respect begets respect…so this whole fiasco with the caricature should stop. Not everthing from the West is good. Let us keep that in mind. Talking about religion is always a messy affair. Anyway…let’s hope for World Peace(It makes me sound like a contestant in Miss Universe…hell let’s make that Mr. Universe )