> It wasn't blasphemous. You can compare the Bible with a filet-o-fish if you want -- what matters is the conclusions you draw. The purpose of the comparison was to illustrate how some things are worth saying in an unusually large number of words. If anything the analogy was a testament to the Bible's importance, as there was the implication that it wasn't guilty of -- as Jordan was accused of being -- overly verbose.

While I thank you, Sam, for your supportive comments - blasphemy (like many things) is all a matter of your point of view ... to a great many people, Rushdie's book was a piece of literature; to others, it was the most profane insult ...

GreenJeanz is entitled to his/her POV, and I respect that - don't necessairly agree with it, but can respect it ...