We need to move away from being world police and back toward a more isolationist policy (IMO).I agree, although, I do not think we can afford to be completely isolated.
I've no problem with isolationism as a practice, just that its been used to justify some pretty ugly things in history. That said, america is full of private organizations and entities that are all for generous charity.
Timothy McVeigh...but I guess these won't fit the "suicide" descriptor. If anything that makes x-ian terrorists more dangerous b/c they live to bomb another day.Northern Ireland, the abortion clinic bomber, the man who shot Dr. George Tiler in church, etc..
When you have Christian suicide bombers taking out marketplaces and police stations, then we'll have something to dialogue about.
I would think there would be some difference between the organized terrorism of muslim extremists who number in the thousands vs. the occasional lunatic who decides to take his anger out on abortion clinics.
Because by that logic, we can now lump all environmentalists and atheists as terrorists too because of the Discovery Channel gunman.And for the record, McVeigh was raised Catholic but became an agnostic and some stuff I read about him suggested he was an atheist.
Fair enough, but there has always been a radical and even violent strain of enviornmentalists AND atheists since those movements started. Still, I agree that we should avoid painting with a broad brush on that one.
I'm equal opportunity...I believe all organized religions are idiotic and nothing more than belief in fairy tales. Am I going to willfuly disrespect one of those (a la burning)? Nope. But if I were so inclined I would make sure they all got an equal level of disrespect.
See... maybe I'm mistaken, but there's a difference between "I don't agree with Atheists" and "I believe all Atheists are self-deluded folk who hide behind a pretentious veil of cynicism". One is a statement of intent. The other, while conveying a similar meaning, is downright vitriolic (and though I needed to illustrate my point, I apologize to anyone who found that insulting).
Although I'm fine that you don't believe the same things I do, much as you have every right to get offended by my above statement, I was offended by "I believe all organized religions are idiotic and nothing more than belief in fairy tales."
Members of my belief system have done and will probably continue to do stupid things by virtue of being human. At the same time, I (hope I) haven't done anything to you besides believe (delude myself if you so prefer) differently. So, I'd appreciate not being tarred with the same collective brush.
So yeah.
I'd appreciate a little bit of toning back on the whole God bashing tone.
Thanks in advance.
I blame Paizo for not distributing their products to more people so that instead of blowing up each other we could just be attacking hillbilly Ogres.
I think there is a fine line that needs to be walked here between appeasing religious organizations (any of them) and the freedom of speech we are guaranteed under the first amendment.
I'd appreciate a little bit of toning back on the whole God bashing tone.
That seems fine... with one caveat: can I have just one free "God bash" for every time I've been told that "atheists have no morals"?
Of course, that would leave me with a lifetime supply...
Or is the right to offend one-way?
I'd appreciate a little bit of toning back on the whole God bashing tone.That seems fine... with one caveat: can I have just one free "God bash" for every time I've been told that "atheists have no morals"?
Of course, that would leave me with a lifetime supply...
Point goes to Kirth.
We need to move away from being world police and back toward a more isolationist policy (IMO).
And give up the power, prestige and profit of that position, not in any of our lifetimes.
I'm going to take a fairly radical stance at first here. Understand that I'm not committed to this point of view, but I don't want to throw it away unexamined, as it were:
What if this crazy preacher's logic has merit, even if his act seems atrocious? Basically what the guy is saying is that "Muslims tell us not to draw cartoons, or to make South Park parodies, and we back down out of fear. Well, it's that kind of appeasement [at the risk of committing a Godwin] that led to WWII. Coexistence is fine, but this total submission by gradual degrees isn't working -- so it's time to make a firm stand that we're not going to let them dictate to us anymore. If an innocent cartoon spurs so many people to murder, let's see what burning their book will do."
How much is enough? For the U.S. to censor South Park because it might offend Muslims is apparently fine. Refusing to print cartoons in the newspaper because they might offend Muslims seems to be official policy for most of the Western world. Telling topless women on the beach in France that they have to cover up, because they're offending Muslims, has already begun. Parts of London have gone so far as to allow Sharia law.
I oppose the censoring of Southpark (or anything else), and was a supporter of "draw the prophet" day on Facebook. Cartoons should be printed. Topless women in France should remain so (well, some of them, at least =P). And this guy should be able to have his book BBQ.
However, that doesn't change the fact that he's being an ass.
It's one thing to not change your behavior to appease someone, but another to change your behavior to provoke someone (and unless of course this guy burns books for fun, that's what he's doing).
I'm an atheist. I believe religion is, on the balance, a negative force in the world. Yet I do not burn bibles. Why? Because I understand that doing so would serve no purpose other than the perpetuation of conflict. Well, that and the fact that I believe destroying pretty much any book is evil, but that's another story.
Is all that not enough? Maybe we should start requiring the burqua for all women, too, so as not to offend Muslims? And maybe we need to scrap the Constitution, too -- at first just the parts we're afraid might offend Muslims, then the parts that conflict with Sharia, and then the rest?Or is it so crazy to say, "Guess what? It's time to call their bluff! Let's see what happens if not only to we fail to meet their demands, but we deliberately provoke them?"
Feel free to discuss.
I see the point of ignoring "their" demands. I do not see the point of trying to provoke "them," unless the goal is to foment violent conflict.
What?! It's true...They are actively hindering a war effort...that is treason.Abandon hope, all ye who enter here...
Is protesting a war treason? What about an unjust war, waged by a country with strong ideals of justice? Woulnd't supporting such a war be treasonous?
As citizens of a nation, where, and to whom, do we owe our allegiance? To the ideals of the country? Or to whomever happens to be in power at that moment?
All I'm trying to say is that is a mighty slipperly slope you're on.
I see the point of ignoring "their" demands. I do not see the point of trying to provoke "them," unless the goal is to foment violent conflict.
See, this is my main concern. Just because it is within your right to do so doesn't mean it is the right time to do so. And sometimes, it's actually never the right time to do so.
This act endangers not just the lives of American troops in the field, but the lives of participants (combatants, medical staff, aid workers, etc) from everywhere else.
And where I live, while my Muslim Co-workers are pretty chill about it, ("Meh... idiots." they say), I'm still concerned that it fosters a siege mentality amongst strata of the population.
The implications of the act go way beyond the United States.
|
I see the point of ignoring "their" demands. I do not see the point of trying to provoke "them," unless the goal is to foment violent conflict.
I could agree with your point here, with one exception. Violent conflict has already been engaged, and further provocation is not necessary.
Basically, what this dude and his church are doing will not further negatively impact the situation, any more than consistent non-compliance with extremist ideals.
I see the point of ignoring "their" demands. I do not see the point of trying to provoke "them," unless the goal is to foment violent conflict.I could agree with your point here, with one exception. Violent conflict has already been engaged, and further provocation is not necessary.
Basically, what this dude and his church are doing will not further negatively impact the situation, any more than consistent non-compliance with extremist ideals.
I disagree. Ultimately, this is a war between hearts and minds rather than a military conflict.
All guerrilla action eventually boils down to this. Removing popular support is a textbook means of suppressing an insurgency. The British proved this exceedingly well during the Communist Insurgency in Malaya (now present day Malaysia and Singapore).
Like it or not, destruction of an item with great symbolic value to one party is more likely to push them into the opposing camp. In this case, away from the United States led coalition by giving Islamic extremists ideological ammunition to use.
Oh, it is. But as a recent noun -> verb convert, it grates. In fact, it cars* me crazy.
* I give this one 5 years. ;)
Oh, it is. But it's a recent noun -> verb convert, and so it grates. In fact, it cars* me crazy.* I give this one 5 years. ;)
Perhaps my English is not up to scratch... but... err... well... what now?
Perhaps my English is not up to scratch... but... err... well... what now?
Oh, it is. But it's a recent noun -> verb convert, and so it grates. In fact, it cars* me crazy.* I give this one 5 years. ;)
No, seriously, your English is fine. Better than that of many native speakers. I was three parts kidding, one part being a pedantic @$$.
Please carry on. :)
Like it or not, destruction of an item with great symbolic value to one party is more likely to push them into the opposing camp.
In my opinion¹, it is un-Christian too.
¹Remember, this is the opinion of a poodle.
While I would find the actual event, the motivations behind it, and likely any "results" we may see from it abhorrent, I still believe it to be my primary duty as an American to defend their right to have such an event.
Other peoples' rights and freedoms should never be restricted simply because I disagree with them, no matter how big an ass I think they are making themselves out to be. If anything, defending someone's freedom to be an ass is one of the most important rights for us to defend, IMNSHO.
I think a group of Muslims should go down to the street across from this guy's church and burn a bible for every 'Koran' he burns.
I think a group of Muslims should go down to the street across from this guy's church and burn a bible for every 'Koran' he burns.
I think if that same group of Muslims down the street -- or any group of them whatsoever, anywhere -- had said "We'll shelter the Danish cartoonists, in order to demonstrate that Islam is peaceful and that murder is antithetical to our beliefs," then this preacher would have no wind in his sails.
|
See... maybe I'm mistaken, but there's a difference between "I don't agree with Atheists" and "I believe all Atheists are self-deluded folk who hide behind a pretentious veil of cynicism". One is a statement of intent. The other, while conveying a similar meaning, is downright vitriolic (and though I needed to illustrate my point, I apologize to anyone who found that insulting).
Although I'm fine that you don't believe the same things I do, much as you have every right to get offended by my above statement, I was offended by "I believe all organized religions are idiotic and nothing more than belief in fairy tales."
Members of my belief system have done and will probably continue to do stupid things by virtue of being human. At the same time, I (hope I) haven't done anything to you besides believe (delude myself if you so prefer) differently. So, I'd appreciate not being tarred with the same collective brush.
So yeah.
I'd appreciate a little bit of toning back on the whole God bashing tone.
Thanks in advance.
Kirth already touched on this, but here's a little anecdote:
My wifes mother, upon finding out we are atheists, was immediately concerned about the welfare of our child who, up until that point, she had no concerns about. She actually asked, "well how are you going to teach him morals?!"
Atheists are the #1 least trusted group of people in the USA. I cannot discuss my beliefs, I have to grin and bear it when people talk about god and religions and how so-and-so group is going to hell...because otherwise, I have to worry about retaliation.
Also, do not forget that atheism is the "default" setting. People are born atheists...religion and spirituality are learned behaviors. A person raised in a padded room would have no more of a concept of god than they would of a car or airplane.
And for the record, I didn't bash "god." I bashed organized religion. I have no problem with spiritual people who do not proselytize and use the church as a crutch...only problem is they are few and far between.
[/rant]
I think a group of Muslims should go down to the street across from this guy's church and burn a bible for every 'Koran' he burns.I think if that same group of Muslims down the street -- or any group of them whatsoever, anywhere -- had said "We'll shelter the Danish cartoonists, in order to demonstrate that Islam is peaceful and that murder is antithetical to our beliefs," then this preacher would have no wind in his sails.
That's probably the biggest factor in why Americans have such a distrust of Muslims is because we never hear the 90% of normal peace loving Muslims standing up to condemn the other 10% who kill in Allah's name.
Silence = compliance.
Edit: Also most Americans can't comprehend the reason they never hear the majority of Muslims condemn their radicals is the majority of Muslims don't live in countries with the right of free speech of even have a free press. Western news outlets are also culpable because they don't give airtime to Muslims condemning radical Islam.
Fla. pastor: Burning Quran is 'direction God wants us to go'
The comments amuse me. Especially the following gem:
"I have to agree with the Rabbi, expose the quran not burn it. Any church that is as old as this one and has only 40-50 members is nothing more than a cult. They are not a Bible teaching church of God. You also have to understand that while God is the God of love and compassion, He is also a very jealous God who expects us to loev and honor only HIM. But, He is no namby pamby either....NEVER forget that.
These people are misguided; but the press has given them all this attention and they are making the most of it.
Do not ever underestimate the Lord. When HE wants the quran burned, beleive me, that sucker will burn."
Almost there…almost…almost. Oops! You just fell on your face.
|
|
I think a group of Muslims should go down to the street across from this guy's church and burn a bible for every 'Koran' he burns.I think if that same group of Muslims down the street -- or any group of them whatsoever, anywhere -- had said "We'll shelter the Danish cartoonists, in order to demonstrate that Islam is peaceful and that murder is antithetical to our beliefs," then this preacher would have no wind in his sails.That's probably the biggest factor in why Americans have such a distrust of Muslims is because we never hear the 90% of normal peace loving Muslims standing up to condemn the other 10% who kill in Allah's name.
Silence = compliance.
Silence = fear IMO. For some reason the Islamic zealots are much more dedicated than other faiths' zealots. If people speak out against the zealots' particular brand of Islam, they genuinely have to fear for their and their family's safety. I, for one, would not place my family in danger over that. Hell, the NY cabbie thing goes to show that even admitting you're a Muslim carries risks.
If people speak out against the zealots' particular brand of Islam, they genuinely have to fear for their and their family's safety. I, for one, would not place my family in danger over that.
If a large-scale movement of Atheists murdering people over Christian movies emerged, I'd be the first guy to stand up and say, "All you Christians under fatwa, you're welcome to seek shelter with me -- and I'll defend you with my life, because murder isn't what atheism is about." And it seems to me that anyone sincere about their beliefs would do the same.
Now here's today's quiz: name one (1) Muslim who publicly offered refuge to Salman Rushdie, or to Kurt Westergaard, or to Theo van Gogh.
I think if that same group of Muslims down the street -- or any group of them whatsoever, anywhere -- had said "We'll shelter the Danish cartoonists, in order to demonstrate that Islam is peaceful and that murder is antithetical to our beliefs," then this preacher would have no wind in his sails.Actually it did happen, but I don't think that 1 in a million makes any difference, specially when written press spreads the opinions of journalists instead of information.
See bold. I'll concede freely that thousands of Muslims were quick to say "Islam is all about peace!" But the point is that not one of them publicly offered to stand up for those beliefs, by sheltering the cartoonists.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
These guys burning a Quran = Ground Zero mosque.
Both are tasteless and absolutely lawful expressions of free speech. The only real difference is that political leaders are turning out in droves to support the mosque but also turning out in droves to condemn the Quran burning.
As for the supposed military consequences: I am a military officer with a qualification in tactical information operations, so I have a professional stake in the information content of this activity. Militant Islamists are threatening violence if the book-burning proceeds as planned. To that I say, f@%@ em. We're already fighting them. What, they're really going to take the kid gloves off this time? This is precisely why we are fighting them: we believe in human rights like the freedom of speech, and they do not. Every time we buckle under pressure the would-be tyrants win. What do you think Islamic extremists think about increased airport security? They love that their actions have made it extremely invasive and inconvenient for Americans to travel and that our rights against search and seizure are being abridged. Kirth is absolutely correct about appeasement. I wouldn't participate in burning the Quran (I find book-burning in general to be distasteful) but I will absolutely go to war, literally, to protect their right to do so.
U.S. service members signed up to risk life and limb in defense of liberty. Might this Quran-burning make our job harder? Sure, but that comes with the territory (and frankly, it's a mere drop in the bucket at this point). You know what makes our job really hard? The media. But nobody seriously considers limiting freedom of the press just for military convenience (except regarding classified information), and that's exactly the way it should be. Should the commanders on the ground be aware of the possible ramifications? Absolutely. But at the end of the day our job is to execute the mission regardless of how inconvenient our civil liberties happen to be at the time.
Has anybody condemned the initiative because burning books is bad? Destruction of knowledge and expression of it is a crime, even if the book in question is not an object of veneration or the Word of anybody's favorite imaginary friend, but just an interesting piece of early medieval/late antiquity literature. Today the Qur'an, tomorrow Darwin, next day Marx, Foucault, Milo Manara, whomever. Book burners do not like to stop one they have started.
These guys burning a Quran = Ground Zero mosque.
Both are tasteless and absolutely lawful expressions of free speech. The only real difference is that political leaders are turning out in droves to support the mosque but also turning out in droves to condemn the Quran burning.
As for the supposed military consequences: I am a military officer with a qualification in tactical information operations, so I have a professional stake in the information content of this activity. Militant Islamists are threatening violence if the book-burning proceeds as planned. To that I say, f@*# em. We're already fighting them. What, they're really going to take the kid gloves off this time? This is precisely why we are fighting them: we believe in human rights like the freedom of speech, and they do not. Every time we buckle under pressure the would-be tyrants win. What do you think Islamic extremists think about increased airport security? They love that their actions have made it extremely invasive and inconvenient for Americans to travel and that our rights against search and seizure are being abridged. Kirth is absolutely correct about appeasement. I wouldn't participate in burning the Quran (I find book-burning in general to be distasteful) but I will absolutely go to war, literally, to protect their right to do so.
...
My respect for you just went up two notches (a not so small feat).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
In related news, the Danish cartoonist is recognized as a human rights hero.
If people speak out against the zealots' particular brand of Islam, they genuinely have to fear for their and their family's safety. I, for one, would not place my family in danger over that.If a large-scale movement of Atheists murdering people over Christian movies emerged, I'd be the first guy to stand up and say, "All you Christians under fatwa, you're welcome to seek shelter with me -- and I'll defend you with my life, because murder isn't what atheism is about." And it seems to me that anyone sincere about their beliefs would do the same.
Now here's today's quiz: name one (1) Muslim who publicly offered refuge to Salman Rushdie, or to Kurt Westergaard, or to Theo van Gogh.
Just because it was not done publicly does not mean it was not done privately. There are several muslims I know of who feel very strongly and very positively about Salman Rushdie. Moreover, due to the differences in culture, public defenses of such people may be seen as more embarrasing or counter productive in a muslim community than in an american one, most people who are into Rushdie would assist a family member of his or a personal friend in their day to day lives or make their lives easier in some way.
Good shiznit
I don't agree with everything you said regarding appeasement, but you raise some excellent points.
If they go through with it prosecute them for criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter. They know from past experience (Muhammed cartoon, Dutch filmmaker, etc.) that this will cause increased violence in the form of riots as well as attacks on American troops in the middle east. They know that this is likely to happen, but are continuing anyway--they are un-American, hypocritical (in both their patriotism and their faith) @ssholes. This is a treasonous act IMO.
Then the terrorist have already won. When we are willing to give up our freedoms out of fear that they may harm us (collectively), then we no longer have that freedom. So even though I believe the action is stupid*, I totally and 100% support this church's effort to do so. To deny them this, is to pander to our worst fears. I would rather have a million dumbass book burnings than a society so scared of offending others that we limit our freedoms to an extreme extent.
*I say it is stupid because, ultimately it is meaningless. Also, they had to buy the book, which means they gave money to people that at least indirectly support muslim activities, thus they essentially funded the people are against. It is like burning CDs of a music artist that said some political statement you disagreed with, but going out and purchasing the CDs first.
Lol. Cause clearly, if you aren't a megachurch, You're Doing It Wrong.Any church that is as old as this one and has only 40-50 members is nothing more than a cult. They are not a Bible teaching church of God.
I was thinking the same thing. If you have a big church, you have obviously sold out and just in it for the money. If you have a small church, you are obviously a cult. LOL
Not to add fuel to the fire.
|
These guys burning a Quran = Ground Zero mosque.
Both are tasteless and absolutely lawful expressions of free speech. The only real difference is that political leaders are turning out in droves to support the mosque but also turning out in droves to condemn the Quran burning.
Yes, burning a holy book with the aim purely of provoking a reaction is exactly the same as converting an old coat warehouse into a place of worship for the many Muslims already living there. And it's several blocks away from Ground Zero anyway.
That said, while burning a book is ALWAYS high dickery and one of the worst things you can do, it's perfectly legal. Will it have an effect in the war on terrorism? Probably. Will get the Taliban more recruits, but the damage has already been done. They'll get more recruits over this, but they would do even if the book wasn't burnt. Local Taliban will just say it was. But still, no reason to put promethium on the fire.
Either way, it's clear this is just being planned to provoke a reaction, and to bring about some PR to a tiny cult with an absurd leader. Sigh.
don't demand any link because honestly I'm not going to invest any time searching a new 5 years old, you can believe it or search it for yourself if you have any interest.
Any interest? I've been looking since the cartoonists were threatened and have yet to find a single example. Then I expanded my search to Rushdie, and to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, etc. Still nothing.
Maybe my Google fu is too weak. I find any number of people saying "we do not support killing them." I find no single example of any Muslim or Muslim group ever offering shelter to anyone under an extremist fatwa. So, yes, I'm not only demanding a link, I'm begging for one -- not necessarly from you, but from anyone -- that provides one single example. Hell, if any genuine Muslim on these boards threw up a post here that said, "I'll shelter them," that would be, to me, a very big deal.
Actually it did happen, but I don't think that 1 in a million makes any difference, specially when written press spreads the opinions of journalists instead of information.
The only thing I will disagree with on this is that it isn't the journalists opinion so much as what is the most sensational thing we can get printed/on the air. Journalism is no longer about actually covering the story or even expressing an opinion it is about ratings/sales.
|
|
These guys burning a Quran = Ground Zero mosque.
Both are tasteless and absolutely lawful expressions of free speech. The only real difference is that political leaders are turning out in droves to support the mosque but also turning out in droves to condemn the Quran burning.
You almost got it right...
They where turning out in Droves to Condemn the Mosque, which is one reason I started losing my faith in people.
These guys burning a Quran = Ground Zero mosque.
Both are tasteless and absolutely lawful expressions of free speech. The only real difference is that political leaders are turning out in droves to support the mosque but also turning out in droves to condemn the Quran burning.
And I would agree if they were actually building it on Ground Zero or across the street but it is 3 blocks away and not even visible from there.
I oppose the censoring of Southpark (or anything else), and was a supporter of "draw the prophet" day on Facebook. Cartoons should be printed. Topless women in France should remain so (well, some of them, at least =P). And this guy should be able to have his book BBQ.
However, that doesn't change the fact that he's being an ass.It's one thing to not change your behavior to appease someone, but another to change your behavior to provoke someone (and unless of course this guy burns books for fun, that's what he's doing).
+1 to this stuff.
I don't think he should be stopped, because I don't think it's appropriate to tell people what they can and cannot do because it might offend someone's sensibilities - but I don't really agree with what he's doing.
And I would agree if they were actually building it on Ground Zero or across the street but it is 3 blocks away and not even visible from there.These guys burning a Quran = Ground Zero mosque.
Both are tasteless and absolutely lawful expressions of free speech. The only real difference is that political leaders are turning out in droves to support the mosque but also turning out in droves to condemn the Quran burning.
I would give more weight to this thought, that it is far away, if it didn't have a 9/11 memorial in it. Either it is close enough to the site that the builders feel a 9/11 memorial is warrented/appropriate, or it is far enough away that the 9/11 site is not relevant to it.
One of the things I found humorous about the mosque thing, some muslim guy was complaining that people protesting it had the nerve to bring their dogs to the protests, because to muslims dogs are unclean animals. I've been to enough public gathers to know in the US, people bring their dogs to just about anything they can. Yeah, some of them probably brought them to rile up the other side, but probably most of them brought the dogs because they bring their dogs just about anywhere. Anyway, off topic.
And I would agree if they were actually building it on Ground Zero or across the street but it is 3 blocks away and not even visible from there.These guys burning a Quran = Ground Zero mosque.
Both are tasteless and absolutely lawful expressions of free speech. The only real difference is that political leaders are turning out in droves to support the mosque but also turning out in droves to condemn the Quran burning.
I would give more weight to this thought, that it is far away, if it didn't have a 9/11 memorial in it. Either it is close enough to the site that the builders feel a 9/11 memorial is warrented/appropriate, or it is far enough away that the 9/11 site is not relevant to it.
For me I guess the question is what is the right distance? Obviously building on Ground Zero would be ill advised at best (i.e. really dumb). Where do you but the cutoff especially in Manhattan where there are not many options and it isn't very big? I know if I walk around in downtown Minneapolis I couldn't tell you what was a block away.
Well, pulling out of any foreign engagements and putting an end to free trade agreements that hurt us more than help us would be a good start.We need to move away from being world police and back toward a more isolationist policy (IMO).I agree, although, I do not think we can afford to be completely isolated.
Like that worked the last time... in the 1920's The Japanese had already started planning eliminate your isolationist nation as a threat in the pacific. You can bet that today China has plans in the event of something "unfortunate". Isolate your self and its even easier to hate you.
One of the things I found humorous about the mosque thing, some muslim guy was complaining that people protesting it had the nerve to bring their dogs to the protests, because to muslims dogs are unclean animals. I've been to enough public gathers to know in the US, people bring their dogs to just about anything they can. Yeah, some of them probably brought them to rile up the other side, but probably most of them brought the dogs because they bring their dogs just about anywhere. Anyway, off topic.
I don't find it at all off-topic, but rather directly to the point. The majority seems to feel that "standing up to demands" is okay, whereas "provoking or insulting others" is not. However, here we have a case in which walking your pet has been declared a provocation and an insult. You can't have it both ways now: either you back down and appease (by taking your dog home, and voluntarily ceding your right to walk it in public if it's "too close" to Muslims), or you provoke and insult people by continuing to walk such a filthy, unclean animal.
Silence = fear IMO. For some reason the Islamic zealots are much more dedicated than other faiths' zealots.
Tell that to the victims of the Troubles (the Northern Ireland conflict) or the KKK (both race and religion).