@MarcGravell, The physical assault, theft and murder that are so readily accepted as deplorable by atheists according to both secular and atheist norms are, in the eyes of a religious/traditional person, just as bad (in some cases even worse) than a psychological assault on traditional/religious values. That nowadays these latter forms of assault and offense are not regarded as illegal has much less to do with the logical validity of secular norms than their political supremacy!

So it is not really about one being objective or 'scientific' and the other being subjective and "non-scientific" but simply because the secular ideas have the force secular powers behind them. Traditionalist philosophers strongly argue for objectivity of spiritual realities so long as objective means real and demonstrable.

As for Islam and politics, I disagree. True that many so called 'muslim' leaders and governments are not genuinely motivated by motives other than power and dominance, but Islam as a culture teaches strong resistance against tyranny, foreign subjugation and humility. That's why muslims by their culture are much more resistive to foreign domination than other traditional cultures.

And that's why the conflict perpetuates while the rest of the world has been subjugated by greed-driven materialist powers for centuries now.

Correction: in the first paragraph I meant psychological assault could be considered worse than the physical by a religious person, and not the opposite.

And additionally: Islam teaches resistance against humiliation and not humility.

@infatuated I didn't say anything about "scientific"; don't put words in my mouth; I said about whether something is subjective; whether it is uniquely. There is no sane way of guarding against mere offence, precisely because it is so massively individual. If I said that I was offended by the mention of carrots, should supermarkets stop selling - or at least advertising - them?

You are not immune from being offended. Get over it. If you have been prejudiced, abused, or oppressed, then we have something meaningful to discuss! But "that upset me": really no.

I also think you're conflating Islam and Arab; there are a great many Muslims living perfectly happily and peacefully inside other cultures. It is simply meaningless to say "Muslims by their culture" for such a diverse group. There is no single "Muslim culture".

There is, however, regional cultures of which religion is just one part. That, yes, in some places is very insular and enclave-minded. That says nothing whatsoever of Muslims or Islam in general.

@MarcGravell, First, we have been witnessing something that can be aptly described as systematic offense against muslim beliefs despite public protests and condemnation for years. Second, we are talking about religion, that for many of its adherents, is dearer than the life itself! So why do you think only physical harm must be illegal and not harming the most heartfelt sentiments of billions of people that comprise the human society?

The idea is that there's a cogent reason not allow systematic offense against a major world religion. And that's not comparable to your carrots example as such a thing on the contrary would be blatantly irrational and ridiculous.

Having said that, I should also add that I have no problem with criticizing religion when that's done through a respectful and civil manner, for it is moral to allow people to freely examine the beliefs of any influential group. But what we muslims can not stomach is heinous public depictions or descriptions of respected religious figures apparently with not reason other than infuriating muslims.

> systematic offense against muslim beliefs

yes: if you keep saying "you aren't allowed do [some thing that you clearly are allowed to do]", then expect people to do it on principle, even if they wouldn't have had any reason to do it otherwise; if Muslims keep saying "don't draw or show pictures of Muhammad", expect lots of pictures of Mumammad - simply because you don't get to control what other people can legitimately do

> we are talking about religion, that for many of its adherents, is dearer than the life itself

that is something the adherent needs to figure out for themself; the fact that it is important to them does not give them extra priveleges

> and not harming the most heartfelt sentiments of billions of people

ultimately, because what you have chosen to be sentimental is not something that either can or should be legally enforced

> The idea is that there's a cogent reason not allow systematic offense against a major world religion.

No; simply no. You don't get to be protected from offence. You don't get to be protected from criticism. And you don't get to push your religious restrictions (like: what you personally find offensive) onto other people.

Let's be real here; the "offence" against Muslims that you're talking about here is: words and pictures. The response is often explicit threats - or actual - violence from Muslims; (not all Muslims, but enough). One of these two things is very wrong.

If you find drawings of Muhammad offensive: don't draw one, and don't buy one. Such an image is not inappropriate for any reason - it isn't depicting sex or violence. Heck, we don't even know what Muhammad looked like, other than "probably quite Arabic".

If a drawing of "arbitrary Arabic male" is fine, but it suddenly becomes "offensive" to you if I put the caption "The Prophet Muhammad" against it, then the problem is with the viewer: you. Only you can address that, and only within yourself. You don't get to control what other people can and can't do within wider laws, and "personal offence" is not something that should become protected by law.

Point 1: These are not just pictures. But are drawn with a clear intention to ridicule the Holy Prophet and infuriate muslims. And you admit that they are promoted by malicious people! And that is a sufficient grand to stop the malicious trend by legalities.

Point 2: So just as you don't want people to hurt other's body you don't want them to intentionally harm others' feelings. And no, it is not about choice! It is a reaction that comes naturally for those who believe in religion! But apparently you can't understand this for your are an atheist. And you keep examining the issue based on your secular dominant standards; that itself is a systematic bias against religion.

The problem here is actually more fundamental. Because the modern civil and political laws are fundamentally based on secular anti-religious conceptions and principles. That itself is a bias against religion at the most foundational level.