Comments:Home of controversial book publisher set ablaze

Absolutely yes.

Should books that could be considered offensive to some religions still be published?
Of course they should. Christians, Jews and Muslims might consider books claiming the earth is more than 6000 years old, or that humans are descended from lower primates offensive but we need them. At one time the notion of a speroid earth or a heliocentric view of the universe was supressed as sacriligious by HRE. Granted fiction that imagines the thoughts and motivations of significant figures in a religious history are not quite the same but I hardly think that they stand a chance of toppling a faith that has stood for 1400 years. It is precisely because of islam's adoration of mohammed that percieved slights and criticisms cannot not hurt him.-Chris Wright —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.120.72.194 (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Books that could be considered offensive to some religions should be published. Dogma needs to be eroded from all sides in society. Publishing those books means exercising the most basic right in a free society - freedom of speech. When religion dominates what books can be published we will go back to the Dark Ages. If people think that religious sensibilities trump civil liberties, they do not belong in a free society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.148.237 (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The Bible, the Koran, and the Torah are all books that are considered offensive to some religions, namely each other's. Any book can be offensive to some. If religions are allowed to stifle or prevent the publication of books they find offensive, they are each other's most obvious targets. Any religion which wishes the freedom to make its own teachings heard must support this same freedom for dissenting viewpoints, or run the risk of being a target of censorship itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.5.80 (talk) 05:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this question should read, "Should our news outlets stop pretending that radical Islam is not a big deal?"
The fact that wikinews even asked this question is silly. What? Is free speech up for debate because Muslims can't handle a little freedom without loading up a few fire bombs? Seriously, of course books that are offensive to religion should be published. The issue in this story is how it was reacted to by Britain's Muslim community. Remember the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie? He got a Fatwa put on his head. Remember Theo van Gogh, he was murdered. I'm not saying Islam is the only religion that has reacted violently to adverse thought, but Christianity got over that, for the most part, centuries ago. Yes, yes, I know, ninety percent of Muslims are moderates, and that's fantastic, but that leaves 10% of a billion people who think its a good idea to destroy and explode Judaism and Western civilization from the map. That's a hundred million people. It's a BIG freaking problem.

And by the way, humans will never escape Dogma, we just need to find some that everyone can agree upon. Even you Mr. Free thought, follow some kind of personal Dogma, I'm sure.

Check it:

http://jihadwatch.org/

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020472.php

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010009.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.163.254 (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of press, speech, and expression says yes.
If you believe in any or all of those freedoms, then yes, these books should be allowed to be published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.15.93 (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course they should be published. The whole notion of banning the publishing of books because it offends a religion is idiocy, it's our freedom of speech! Some people don't seem to understand that we don't live in a fascistic country that has relinquished our rights to speak our mind. As George Orwell once said, "The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary."

Unfortunately, it seems that still holds true in 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.90.247.140 (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)