Why, then, should we be commanded to "respect" those who insist that they alone know something that is both unknowable and unfalsifiable?

I agree with much of the sentiments in Hitchen's article. The intimations of violence and craven reactions of appeasement that result are real enough and disturbing. It isn't acceptable that we let others demand that we follow their religious rules. If you want to venerate the Quran to the point of worshiping the physical book, go to it, knock yourself out. I should be free to take my copy, which I regret wasting my money on, and cut it up and use it for the kitty litter if I so choose. Otherwise, we are not merely respecting their religion, we are enforcing it.

I think the Pace case may start to fall into the gray area. If I pile burning Quarans in the yard of a muslim, well, that's not desecrating the Quaran so much as it's a not-so-veiled threat of violence on my part. If I flush a Quaran down a public toilet, however, the threat is much less clear. The vandalism is clear, maybe even the distaste for the religion, but it is not in itself a threat of violence against an actual person or group. That should be the standard in these cases, whether or not actual threat of violence is behind an act, or whether an act merely offends by flaunting someone else's religious beliefs. Hitchens is right, though, that we should be very careful indeed not to slip into the role of enforcing someone else's religious beliefs with the coercion of law.

Kolmogorov

What you did was state the case against "hate crime" laws beautifully.

It is not religion per se that is protected but the right of each individual to "choose" the religion or creed that they will adhere, ..or not. (Implicit in this right is also the right to personally "reject" any creed or religion). I don't recall the word "respect" ever being used in this regard. One way to define "Religious tolerance" is: Respecting the right of each individual to be wrong regarding the source, meaning, and purpose of creation. Murder, and "incitement to commit murder", are crimes against the state and society as a whole and it doesn't matter if my religion or my god commands me to it. This is the moral high-ground or battlefield that the "War on Terror" ought to be fought. We have the weapons but are such hypocrites that we intuitively know that we can't use them effectively or with a straight face without admitting the wholesale failure of our society to equally respect and protect the basic human rights of citizens of other nations as well as a good portion of our own..

Simply put:

By adhering to the Quranic creed and its death penalty for apostates,and refusing to denounce that doctrinal element, EVERY Muslim is guilty of incitement to the murder of millions, whether they act upon it or not.

By "adhering to" in the way you used the phrase, which is to mean simply believing something, is not the same as actively inciting that action in which you believe. Another way to say it is, I may believe redheads are the spawn of Satan who need to be exterminated, but unless I'm standing on the street corner rallying others to actually kill redheads, I am not inciting. It's not illegal yet to have horrible thoughts.

Having those thoughts make you into a morally inferior person.

True, you are not as bad as the the one actually perpetrating a crime specified by the own doctrine you hold dear, but you are nowhere near as good as that person who is horrified by the doctrine in the first place.

I am of the belief that most intelligent people respect each others religions. Whether they be Jew-Catholic-Baptist-or the weirdos at the Universalist Unitarian Church. Most people are generally apathetic to religion.

One wouldn't associate any Religion with the head slashing Muslims of this day and age. Well, ER.. save a few "neck squeezing" Baptist KKK members of the 50's & 60's.

At any rate, I am curious as to why more (if any) Muslim country's don't condemn, or put a stop to the radicalism? I mean, isn't that what these folks are experts at- keeping the population in check?

I just can't help but feel we are being "Jacked" by the Muslims. And if elected President I propose to end the Muslim Religion. What? we've ended Religion in our schools haven't we? Then what would be so hard ending it among st a bunch of heathen's?

Simple: you just say all Muslim religion is outlawed and if you practice it you will be shot! Period.

It's called Marshall law, which is warranted in times of crisis.

just food for thought

Having those thoughts make you into a morally inferior person.

True, you are not as bad as the the one actually perpetrating a crime specified by the own doctrine you hold dear, but you are nowhere near as good as that person who is horrified by the doctrine in the first place.

Boy quite a backtrack from taking part in the "murder of millions" to "morally inferior".

I never said they took part in murder, I said they were, each one of them, guilty of INCITEMENT to murder, which is something else entirely.

When you adhere to the doctrine that apostates should be killed, that IS incitement to murder.

So, is a christian guilty of inciting murder because the OT says to kill disobedient children and to put to death someone who plant the wrong crops together? I suppose most would say that doesn't apply nowdays, but on what authority? I mean, it IS god's word....

The problem with Hitchens is that he's sloppy.

For instance: this statement is wrong and plays right into the hands of the most common misconception about the Pace University crime.

"a student in New York City has been arrested for an expression, "

--- NO Hitchens, the student was arrested for committing a CRIME: vandalism and larceny. The sentence of the vandalism and larceny crime might be enhanced if it can be shown that the intent of the crimes was meant to threaten a group of students. The rationale for this is that there is greater damage done when the crime also includes a threat than when the crime is isolated.

Furthermore, the victim of the crime (as implied by Christopher Hitchens) is not Islam. It is a small group of students who should have the right to choose their affiliations without fear of harassment -- even if they choose to affiliate themselves with a group with which Christopher Hitchens disapproves. Hitchens' rhetoric which suggests that the students at Pace University who were possibly the victims of intentional harassment deserve different treatment because some imam incited a destructive riot in Afghanistan is nothing less than bigotry mongering.

I'm an atheist. The civil treatment I expect to receive from society should not change if some other atheists in the world commit horrible crimes in the name of atheism (as admittedly unlikely as that is to happen).

In a very real sense it is the core, New Testament, Christian teaching that is under attack. Do we truly believe as Jesus of Nazareth taught that the way of truth is the way of peace and vice versa, or is this vital tenet of Christianity a hopelessly flawed relic of a concept from a time and place that has no relevance in the modern world but remains "on the books" so to speak for the sake of the unrealistically naive, who actually believe that turning the other cheek is a viable alternative to violence even in the case of "legitimate reasons" of self defense.