I disagree that the cartoons border on racist or intolerant.

Racist or intolerant or intolerant would be separating them because of what
they beleive, or some other character trait.

The images juxtapose muhammed with violeance - which is a product of muslim
behavior over the last 10 years.

No other religion sees it's followers commits mass murder in the name of
their God. The only time you hear the word Muslim these days is when it's
included with 'extremist', which is usually linked to some story about someone
getting blown up or beheaded.

They created this persona about islam/muslims that they are a violent group, then
cry foul when something like these cartoons comes out that only expresses what people
around the world are already feeling.






>>>Why would they be offended if non-Muslims depicted Muhammad? In Judaism, the word God isn't written because it is considered disrespectful, but (as far as I can tell) they don't object to other people from writing the word God. BTW, you will see Jewish texts use G-d.
>>
>>It troubles me that some religions can throw their weight about like this. People are always having to make concessions, tread on eggshells, pussy-foot about them. If they want to follow this illogical path them let 'em, but why must evreryone else follow.
>>
>>It troubles me also in that my daughter has had an RE school book at home, about Mohammed, as a way of making christians aware of other religions, to foster toleration and understanding. This book features "cartoons" (in the original sense of the word) depicting stages of the Prophet's life. Obviously not oil paintings or photographs. Does this mean that a child's picture story book is an offence to Islam also?
>
>What is an RE school book?
>
>I don't have any problem with the history of religions being taught in school. In fact even religion being taught in school. Just as long as they don't disguise religion as science ala intelligent design.
>
>The cartooons bother me in the sense that they could be racist or intolerant.