It is frightening to comprehend such an extent of disconnect between the intelect and principles, morality and humanity. All in the body of one human being who seems to belive that he know what "the West" respresents and stands for. West is not a monolith, and US can arguably be defined as not West at all. By mentality, US is much closer to Middle East concepts of revenge, and takes it to the level where right and wrong are merely definitional categories. Needless to say, the "compartmentalization" of Western mind is often creating a being without elemental integrity. It cannot comprehend that hurts to oneself are no more odious, then the identical hurts he inflicts on others. And what on earth has "democracy" got to do with it? If I were to pursue my happiness under US Constitution, I have a right to demand not to be offended. And the definition of offence is not up to the offender, but the one who is offended. Islam and its Prophet are not illegal entities in Western society. For as long as this is the case, it is up to the believers in an accepted religion to define what offends them. If Catholics do not mind Pope being offended, that is their standard --- not everybody's.

I don't know what bizarre reading of the U.S. Constitution you got, but there is no right to demand to not be offended here. If a private citizen does something you find disrespectful, you are with in your rights to disagree, but your hurt feelings do not take away an individuals right to free speech. And nice touch in saying "the West is not a monolith" and then lumping together the mentality of the U.S. and the Middle East in the same manner you just decried. The very idea of what you proposes offends me, but you have a right to state it.

Bianca, There are people in the West who find even the celebration of Christmas offensive to them. Yet the same people find nothing wrong with the defamation of the prophet of another religion. Can you make sense out of this? Is it hypocrisy, political agenda? Please explain.

May 24, 2010, 21:17, Bianca wrote > If I were to pursue my happiness under US Constitution, I have a right to demand not to be offended. Under the United States Constitution there is no right to the pursuit of happiness (nor does that phrase mean what you think it means). You seem to be confusing the Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution, they are very different documents. You certainly have no right to demand not to be offended. To have a right to be offended would directly conflict with the most fundamental right necessary to the existence of a democracy, the freedom of speech. You can be offended all you wish, thankfully there is no legal recourse for mere offense, at least in the U.S.A. I hope this clears up some of the substantial confusion you seem to have.

armen08, Although I can only assume as to what you are referring, so feel free to correct me, I do not think that the general complaints against Christmas in the West (specifically the U.S. as that is what I am familiar with) has anything to do with being offended by individuals choosing to celebrate the holiday. In the United States we have what is referred to as the establishment clause in the Constitution which, as stated by its drafter (Thomas Jefferson) erects a "wall of separation" between the church and state. In the United States Christmas is a national holiday and some believe this to be a violation of the establishment clause. However, the Supreme Court of the U.S. found it not to be such a violation of the Constitution as, in their view, Christmas has become so secularized as to have lost its primarily religious connotation. As such I do not think it is accurate to suggest that people are offended by the celebration of Christmas, although you may be referring to some group of people I am not aware of. In reference to your second sentence, there may indeed be people who are bigoted against Islam and find nothing wrong with insulting that religion or its prophet. It is not, however, the view of the majority that there is nothing wrong with insulting another's religion needlessly. What they are responding to is the use of threats of violence or other coercion to stifle freedom of speech, which as I mentioned above to Bianca, is fundamental to a healthy democracy. Much of the conflict between Islam and "western culture" stems from the fact that most of us value freedom of speech over just about all else, whereas many (or at least some) Muslims not only take offense to that freedom of speech but react to it in such a way as to try to undermine other's rights to speak. You can be just as offended as you please, but you cannot force the silence of those who offend you.

In answer to armen08: there are those , and I am one of them, who are offended by the way that 'the prophet of a different religion' took the teachings of two other religions, Judaism and Christianity, turned them on their heads and then further twisted them to suit his own desire for absolute power. I am further offended by the way that he took another people's history, distorted it, and grafted his people into it, in order to be able to make some claim to a heritage that was not his. How can you defame someone who is himself guilty of defaming the traditions, teachings, and history of others? And the people who don't like Christmas are opposed to religion and displays of religion. What hypocrisy is there in them not caring if someone draws offensive cartoons of a wanna-be prophet? It would be hypocrisy if they DID care. To them Mohamed just represents more of the lies and ignorance that they already hate. If you don't like the secular principle of the west, don't live here.