DescentBB

Snoopy, people have brought up that dichotomy for years, but there is one caveat: Christianity doesn't spell out such blasphemy or disrespect in the same terms or even in any major way as Islam. In fact, I don't recall Jesus actually addressing the matter, although the Old Testament makes some mention of 'taking God's name in vain' and the like. As is so often the case, we are talking about cultural differences, which should be respected. As opposed to Islam, the Christian faith has a long tradition of depictions of Jesus, and even God, and Western culture has allowed more disrespectful handling of Christianity for the last century or so('Piss Christ' would have gotten you burned at the stake in 1715,easily).

The way I see this issue…

The anti-tooners: Sure you make good points, but never a peep when people insult Mormons…hypocrisy

The pro-tooners: Making these cartoons insults every Muslim, not only the whack jobs…clueless insensitivity.

Sure you have freedom of speech, but shouldn’t there be some valid reason for using it? Using a right just because you have one, should at least have more positive results than negative ones.

To the other side…just shut up, when I hear some concern for insulting other religions, you will have some cred.

Spidey wrote:....

The pro-tooners: Making these cartoons insults every Muslim, not only the whack jobs…clueless insensitivity.

There is so much in our culture that is both offensive to Christians and completely accepted and supported by the masses that, if we are to be consistent, muslims should be expected to accept the cartoon drawings of Muhammed no matter what they depict him doing. We don't even notice the offensive-to-christians content we produce here and mandate acceptance of. And I think it is partially responsible for the transition from Puritan to progressive modern christianity.

To make an exception for muslim sensativities, especially in light of the psychotic murder campaign to censor it, would be a terrible mistake. It would be the singular most misplaced attempt at 'political correctness', 'diplomacy' or 'empathy' etc. that I can think of.
....

Spidey wrote:.... you have freedom of speech, but shouldn’t there be some valid reason for using it? Using a right just because you have one, should at least have more positive results than negative ones.

I think if the intended result is not to 'just offend' someone, but to cause a change in behavior...to stop the coddling and excuse making...shame peers of the target into addressing their cultural baggage, etc. as well as cause non muslims to have discussions such as the one we are having here, then, due to the scope of the danger from, and the recent increase in the ranks of, the Islamo-facists, the rude cartoon exhibit deserves protection not condemnation. Even if some dicks get to have fun with it...

Spidey wrote: the other side…just shut up, when I hear some concern for insulting other religions, you will have some cred.

They have perfected the state of denial-of-being-a-hypocrit.

Will Robinson wrote:There is so much in our culture that is both offensive to Christians and completely accepted and supported by the masses that, if we are to be consistent, muslims should be expected to accept the cartoon drawings of Muhammed no matter what they depict him doing. We don't even notice the offensive-to-christians content we produce here and mandate acceptance of. And I think it is partially responsible for the transition from Puritan to progressive modern christianity.

To make an exception for muslim sensativities, especially in light of the psychotic murder campaign to censor it, would be a terrible mistake.

I don't think anyone is saying Muslims should not respect the idea of free speech, or that we should be forced to censor ourselves to specifically placate to Muslims.

We should absolutely have the right to offend Muslims. We should also have the good grace not to do so gratuitously. You decry the lack of moderating Muslim influence while poo-pooing the moderating influence of calling someone out for being a dick.

Vander wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:There is so much in our culture that is both offensive to Christians and completely accepted and supported by the masses that, if we are to be consistent, muslims should be expected to accept the cartoon drawings of Muhammed no matter what they depict him doing. We don't even notice the offensive-to-christians content we produce here and mandate acceptance of. And I think it is partially responsible for the transition from Puritan to progressive modern christianity.

To make an exception for muslim sensativities, especially in light of the psychotic murder campaign to censor it, would be a terrible mistake.

I don't think anyone is saying Muslims should not respect the idea of free speech, or that we should be forced to censor ourselves to specifically placate to Muslims.

We should absolutely have the right to offend Muslims. We should also have the good grace not to do so gratuitously. You decry the lack of moderating Muslim influence while poo-pooing the moderating influence of calling someone out for being a dick.

No, I reject the premise that the only motive for the reaction...is gratuitous bigotry.

What the cartoon is/was is a reaction to, not an 'act of'... It is a reaction/commentary on something completely outrageous taking place on an international scale.

The evidence is clear that it is something outrageous because it drew the subjects out in Denmark, then in France and now in Garland Texas to repeat their outrageous acts which validates my assertion...

Where is your evidence that it is not social commentary and merely gratuitous bigotry?

Will Robinson wrote:Where is your evidence that it is not social commentary and merely gratuitous bigotry?

Who claimed it isn't social commentary? Did I say it was gratuitous bigotry? There's probably a bigoted element at play, but it's not a charge I'm making. (did I just make it?)

The only thing I am saying in this thread is that doing something deliberately intended to be offensive to all Muslims in order to supposedly protest/comment on extremist Muslims, is a dick move. It's a more extremist method that I don't agree with.

You should celebrate my disagreement, as it appears to be the very type of disagreement you seek to illicit from Islamic culture.

In the places the attacks occurred muhammed, nor any other prophet, enjoys the deference his followers killed people for not providing. If other Muslims want to be offended by the culture of their environment then they should learn to deal with it like the rest of their peers.

Why did you qualify the premise you 'seemed' to accept with "supposedly"?
Doesn't look like you are genuinely acknowledging the social commentary and typical reaction as the motive.

So if it isn't gratuitous bigotry then are you suggesting Muslims, unlike the rest of us, are to be protected from uncomfortable associations being pointed out? Therefore what is normal for us is a 'gratuitous' commentary?
Remember they aren't publishing these cartoons in Iran or Saudi Arabia. In our cultures, which they claim to be a part of, they have no right to be un-offended.

Will Robinson wrote:Why did you qualify the premise you 'seemed' to accept with "supposedly"?
Doesn't look like you are genuinely acknowledging the social commentary and typical reaction as the motive.

You got me. I equivocated. I don't know the minutia of the event organizers goals because frankly, while reading their literature, I was saddened that people like this were 'on my side,' and turned my attention elsewhere. I may very well ultimately agree with some of their concerns, but they're repellant. That is my entire critique.

Will Robinson wrote:So if it isn't gratuitous bigotry then are you suggesting Muslims, unlike the rest of us, are to be protected from uncomfortable associations being pointed out?

Vander wrote:I don't think anyone is saying Muslims should not respect the idea of free speech, or that we should be forced to censor ourselves to specifically placate to Muslims.

We should absolutely have the right to offend Muslims.

I'm suggesting, and I know this is crazy talk, that just because you can offend someone doesn't mean you have to. If you want respect you have to show respect. If you want respect but don't want to show respect, you're a dick.

that last part, Vander, seems such an obvious distinction(and the right distinction), that I'm stunned that you seem to have to repeat it at least a few times in this one thread.

Before some off you get all weepy eyed, how many of you have gotten a chuckle out of Oliphant or Doonesberry cartoons?:

"Pat Oliphant, the most widely syndicated political cartoonist in the world, has been fiercely attacked by major American Jewish groups for a cartoon published last week which they say is "hideously antisemitic".

The cartoon shows a headless Nazi-like, goose-stepping, jackbooted figure, with one arm raised and outstretched, holding a sword, and the other wheeling a head in the form of a Star of David – one side of which is a wide-open mouth, equipped with vicious teeth, about to devour a very small, fleeing refugee-like female figure holding a baby. The word "Gaza" is emblazoned on her cloak."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... oon-israel

Or about Trudeau
The strip, which ran in Newsday's Sunday editions, features a character who refers to the God of the Old Testament, before Jesus was born, as "crabby and snarky," and the God of the New Testament, which centers around the life of Jesus Christ, as "about love."

"It also seems to single out "money lenders" as the people who get the peace-loving Jesus so upset that he "snaps."

"ADL officials said that the reference to "money lenders" was a pejorative reference to Jews, and that the cartoon relied on a stereotype of Jews as unscrupulous lenders. "

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nass ... -1.1239668

In neither case did anyone run out and shoot the cartoonists nor did anyone say anything about not posting such work as it would inflame the masses of Jewish people. I guess if one is a hypocrite, they only post work they know is safe to do so.

Way to follow along, woodchip.

Vander wrote:...

I'm suggesting, and I know this is crazy talk, that just because you can offend someone doesn't mean you have to. If you want respect you have to show respect. If you want respect but don't want to show respect, you're a dick.

And the distinction that addresses your point, the distinction that should put it in proper perspective for you I will state again:
The level of threat from them not doing enough to clean up their own culture, to make it compatible with multi cultiural societies etc. is ample reason for them to get caught up in the reaction to the degree that they are.

It's a frikken cartoon!
Until they too can deal with the idea that it is acceptable for non Muslims to draw Muhammed and criticize him in these other societies...to cite behavior of Muslims practiced in his name as the violent acts that they are...then all 'offended' Muslims who demand we outsider silence our commentary are part of the problem.
If they want to join in the protest of the cartoon they are joining mass murderous zealots defending their perceived right to kill infidels for daring to offend their prophet!

That is the uncomfortable truth that the cartoons are illustrating. It is a good thing to have done so.

I fully understand that bigots are enjoying the opportunity to jump on a valid soapbox. To be able to mix their lies with this uncomfortable truth. That too however is completely acceptable in america. The protective alternative to that mix is waiting for the offended back in Tehran...Riyadh...etc

Remember where their sense of propriety that hosts their offended sensibilities comes from. In the home culture you can teach your children that Jews are sub humans and yet saying anything even slightly offensive about Muhammed is a serious, sometimes deadly crime.
They need to have their perspective adjusted in a big way if they are going to come outside and play with the neighborhood kids.

It's foolish to think this is going to create some sort of Muslim blanket party, or be anything more than bulletin board material for extremists and repellent to moderates. It will likely do the opposite of what you want.

Though, it does provide the rest of us with a teachable moment. We get to try and reign in our own silly people to show how it's done.

snoopy wrote:You kid yourself if you think you can eliminate hate by taking away people's "reasons" for hating. Humanity has a long and ugly history of hating others simply for existing. It's a fool's errand to try to appease those who hate because hate is also insatiable. I'm not saying that I agree with the Texans... I'm saying that there is no end to the censorship that will be necessary to appease everyone who may hate. I'm not sure how the moral bankruptcy figures in... but you don't have to try to "kill them all" - you just have to make terrorism cost-prohibitive (cost in a general sense, not just in a dollars sense). I see it as the same principle as home security: no means of home security will absolutely protect you from theft - it just makes it difficult enough that your house isn't worth it to the robber.

How much "security" do you want or are willing to put up with then? Are locked doors sufficient, or do you need an electrified wall, security cameras and guards around your property as well? Could you afford that or would you want to live that way? I wouldn't. On the national level, do we as a nation want to live in an essentially locked down compound with constant prying eyes on our every move and conversations, inside and out of our borders, with no freedom to travel any other country of our choice because people in those countries would rather kill us than host us as friends or tourists, all in the name of security from terrorists? Humans are seriously effed up. Maybe God does need to cleanse the earth of humans, for all eternity, just to free up the carbon and water for other better creatures to be created from.

Spock, from Star Trek once said: "Discourse is always preferable to violence".

Vander wrote: Though, it does provide the rest of us with a teachable moment. We get to try and reign in our own silly people to show how it's done.

the word you need there is 'rein' and in what one uses for horses, but otherwise, a perfect sentiment.

callmeslick wrote:

Vander wrote: Though, it does provide the rest of us with a teachable moment. We get to try and reign in our own silly people to show how it's done.

the word you need there is 'rein' and in what one uses for horses, but otherwise, a perfect sentiment.

Selective outrage is not going to cure anything. Why are none of you apologists harping on the promotion of gay marriage when Muslims consider gays offensive also? Oh that's right, no Islamist is killing people for promoting gays...yet.

woodchip wrote:Selective outrage is not going to cure anything.

Neither is blind outrage.

Why are none of you apologists harping on the promotion of gay marriage when Muslims consider gays offensive also?

Because promoting gay marriage makes you mad, too. What better reason could there be for hypocrisy?

Vander wrote:

Why are none of you apologists harping on the promotion of gay marriage when Muslims consider gays offensive also?

Because promoting gay marriage makes you mad, too. What better reason could there be for hypocrisy?

And you know this how?

Total shot in the dark guess. How'd I do?

Vander you are wrong the peer pressure aimed at moderate Muslims in western societies has begun to bear the fruit I'm alluding to.

Vander wrote:Total shot in the dark guess. How'd I do?

You mean total generalization.

Vander wrote:Total shot in the dark guess. How'd I do?

Next time try turning on the lights instead.

So you're cool with gay marriage?

I'm cool with 2 people living together under a civil union. I'm not cool with people forcing their belief that gay marriage is acceptable onto people whose religion forbids it. Now how about you? Are you OK with:
Multiple people joining into the same marriage?
A parent marrying their off-spring?
People marrying their pets?
Banning a religion opposed to such unions?

Just how far are you willing to go?

woodchip wrote:I'm cool with 2 people living together under a civil union. I'm not cool with people forcing their belief that gay marriage is acceptable onto people whose religion forbids it. Now how about you? Are you OK with:
Multiple people joining into the same marriage?
A parent marrying their off-spring?
People marrying their pets?
Banning a religion opposed to such unions?

Just how far are you willing to go?

I object to ANY level of government in the 'definition of marriage' game at all. Which means, take any perks out of the tax code, let folks significant others visit them in hospitals, whatever other goofy legal indignities might be currently on the books can go. Then, any religious/other institution which wishes to confer the Rites of Marriage upon whomever they approve, so be it.

woodchip wrote:I'm cool with 2 people living together under a civil union.

Cool. I apologize for my incorrect assumption.

I'm not cool with people forcing their belief that gay marriage is acceptable onto people whose religion forbids it.

You make it sound like straight people will be forced to marry gay people.

Now how about you? Are you OK with:
Multiple people joining into the same marriage?
A parent marrying their off-spring?
People marrying their pets?
Banning a religion opposed to such unions?

Just how far are you willing to go?

I'm pretty much ok with any arrangement between consenting adults. I'm a traditional marriage guy myself, and I'm baffled by a lot of these alternative lifestyles. But who am I to decide such a thing for other people? Life is too short to waste time begrudging complete strangers their happiness.

woodchip wrote:I'm cool with 2 people living together under a civil union. I'm not cool with people forcing their belief that gay marriage is acceptable onto people whose religion forbids it. Now how about you? Are you OK with:
Multiple people joining into the same marriage?
A parent marrying their off-spring?
People marrying their pets?
Banning a religion opposed to such unions?

Just how far are you willing to go?

hey look at that, slippery slope argument. Maybe this will help, chipper.



Or is it rather, a case of "I'm against gay marriage because icky"? *cracks knuckles*

Ferno, I think you have way too much time on your hands.

why? because he pasted a rather common Facebook meme?

callmeslick wrote:why? because he pasted a rather common Facebook meme?

You know it as such because you too have too much time on your hands...

Any time I see someone say "you don't get to pick and choose" with regards to the Bible and bacon/homosexuality, I just have to facepalm. Because that's a clear indication that they have no idea how much structure there actually is within the Bible, and they have no framework from which to even attempt to make sense of it.

If your idea of how to read the Bible is the same as an uneducated Fundamentalist's idea of how to read the Bible (which, in that meme, it is -- "there's a verse about X" is as deep as it gets) you should stop trying to tell other people how to read the Bible. If it bothers you when TB tells Muslims how to interpret their scripture, don't be that guy when it comes to Christian scripture.

---

FWIW I'm completely in agreement with slick about the government and "definition of marriage". The government should have a completely generic "mutual relationship" that allows any number of adults, regardless of gender or orientation or other relationship, to gain certain benefits with respect to property, visitation, etc. And everyone should stop worrying about what everyone else thinks about their relationships. I don't need your approval and you don't need mine.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:why? because he pasted a rather common Facebook meme?

You know it as such because you too have too much time on your hands...

I'm retired, overseeing 3 grandchildren......that sort of defines time on one's hands.

woodchip wrote:Ferno, I think you have way too much time on your hands.

well actually, I have less time on my hands than I did when I was younger. I have about three to four projects on the go (that takes up a good chunk of time), work (that takes up a majority of my time), so if I had to actually quantify it, I'd say I have about two hours in the week to delve into the dbb.

Also, your position doesn't require much time at all to refute, because it gets easier every time.

Any time I see someone say "you don't get to pick and choose" with regards to the Bible and bacon/homosexuality, I just have to facepalm.

I understand where you're coming from because I found out that there are two distinct [let's call them global] laws. One that still applies to Christians, and one that doesn't. the one that doesn't were the old laws regarding mixed fibers, shellfish, bacon, beards... you get the point. Since Christ died, these old [ceremonial] laws were fulfilled and that was it. But since there's a few things that are in the other [moral] laws, they still apply. And there's one in particular that lands in both areas. Lust.

Yes, lust is condemned in the ten commandments. Burn in hell and all that sort of stuff. Gomorrah was destroyed because of a gang rape fueled by lust.

And this is the point where the penny lands on the traintracks.

Some might go 'man laying with another man!'. But they would be quoting Leviticus and a little bit of Paul aswell. Being in line with cutting hair, mixed fibers, shellfish, pork under the ceremonial law, it no longer applies. Also, the term 'homosexual' was actually coined in 1892, so it would be kind of tough to find that word in the bible unless it was revised in 1893.

Ham sandwich anyone?

Last but not least, since the ceremonial law was fulfilled, non believing gentiles were now welcomed into the faith. And it goes with the teachings of the scripture to accept everyone with open arms. Including homosexuals.

And look where accepting gays as priests got the Catholic church....

woodchip wrote:And look where accepting gays as priests got the Catholic church....

You really shouldn't equate gays with pedophiles. Assuming that was the underlying punchline.

Will Robinson wrote:

woodchip wrote:And look where accepting gays as priests got the Catholic church....

You really shouldn't equate gays with pedophiles. Assuming that was the underlying punchline.

Since it is still male on male it is both pedophilia and homosexuality.

Will Robinson wrote:You really shouldn't equate gays with pedophiles. Assuming that was the underlying punchline.

Why not? He equated gay marriage to people marrying pets earlier. I say let the peacock fly!

Not sure what you are smoking but I didn't know that some sort of age difference of sex between the same sex equated to not being gay. Of course maybe you been reading too many of slicks posts and it is affecting your mind

Lothar wrote:FWIW I'm completely in agreement with slick about the government and "definition of marriage". The government should have a completely generic "mutual relationship" that allows any number of adults, regardless of gender or orientation or other relationship, to gain certain benefits with respect to property, visitation, etc. And everyone should stop worrying about what everyone else thinks about their relationships. I don't need your approval and you don't need mine.

See new The Notion of Government Sanctioned "Mutual Relationships" thread...

woodchip wrote:And look where accepting gays as priests got the Catholic church....

well it had been going on, for like 900 years or more.