[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2011-April-11, 16:16, said:

How so?

his point was that it is no less immoral to insult one than a billion, if in fact insult is immoral... if he is correct, and i don't know why he isn't (i.e. if insult to a billion is immoral then so too is insult to one), we've all at one time or another not much cared, at least if some of our posts are any evidence... nobody has seemed inclined to tone down the "immorality" (assuming insult can be considered such, which i'm not granting) if the religion is christianity

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2011-April-11, 15:57, said:

have you ever felt that way about any posts in the wc concerning religions other than muslim? in any case, i'm not sure morality enters into it (not the words themselves, at least)

This is the second time that you've posted a near identical statement.
If you have a point, state it directly.
Alternatively, if this is just your usual persecution complex...

Few quick points:

There is a significant difference between the Koran burning and, say, Serrano's "Piss Christ"
For better or worse, Christians don't riot and kill people when their religion gets insulted.
Muslim's often do...

This doesn't reflect well on many "modern" Muslim societies. It reflects especially poorly on leaders who whip people into a frenzy as a distraction.
(I think that it does reflect well on the way in which Christianity is integrated into western society)

If I were to try to draw an analogy here in the US I'd point to "The Nuremberg Files" in which radical anti-abortion activists advocated the murder of abortion providers.
I certainly condemn this speech. I don't speak for Barry, but I suspect that he would as well.

You seem to be suggesting that there is some kind of double standard at work.
I don't see any evidence of that.

To the extent that I tend to complain more about evangelical Christians any often defend Muslims; I suspect that the primary motivation is:

1. The Christian evangelicals are the ones ruining the country that I live in...
2. The sheer hypocrisy that they display is mind boggling

I'm quite sure that if I lived in Israel, I'd be much more concerned with the ultra orthodox and the settlers.
Conversely, if I were in India Hindu fundamentalists would be on the radar...

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2011-April-12, 05:24, said:

There is a significant difference between the Koran burning and, say, Serrano's "Piss Christ" For better or worse, Christians don't riot and kill people when their religion gets insulted. Muslim's often do...

do you think he'd ever, in a million years, do a "piss muhammad" exhibit? me either... yes, insulting christianity is safer... i get it... i don't know for a fact, but i suspect it's true that (since your name and location are known) you would definitely have more to fear, personally, if you "insulted" muslims rather than christians... christians aren't very likely to fatwah your ass, so a little healthy fear is understandable

Quote

If I were to try to draw an analogy here in the US I'd point to "The Nuremberg Files" in which radical anti-abortion activists advocated the murder of abortion providers. I certainly condemn this speech. I don't speak for Barry, but I suspect that he would as well.

there are individual crazies in all religious, as well as secular, societies... we both know that isn't the issue here

Quote

You seem to be suggesting that there is some kind of double standard at work. I don't see any evidence of that.

well of course there is, you admitted as much (while trying to explain why)

Quote

To the extent that I tend to complain more about evangelical Christians any often defend Muslims; I suspect that the primary motivation is:

1. The Christian evangelicals are the ones ruining the country that I live in...
2. The sheer hypocrisy that they display is mind boggling

i'd say those are probably motivations for you, but i suspect not the primary one

[kenberg]

mycroft, on 2011-April-11, 15:40, said:

I hate to tell you this, Ken, but those bozos would just *love it* if someone kicked their asses. They know the law (in fact, almost all of the adults are practising lawyers), and they *don't* break it (even if they do bend it a little) - and they sue anyone who *does* break it. And juries convict (or at least award damages).

It is argued that that is their entire reason for what they are doing - they hope to piss off people, and live off the proceeds of the lawsuits. Those people argue that they do not in fact believe anything they rant on about; their goal is simply to cause enough offence to vulnerable people that those people, in retaliation, will do something understandably rash, but legally actionable. I have read that they are quite successful in that (repugnant) way of making a living.

Just when I am thinking that I should really get past some of my cynicism I learn something like this. Yuk!

But perhaps there is a lesson: Just because someone mentions God, it doesn't mean he is a religious person. When I speak of these bozos, I see myself as insulting bozos, not as insulting religion or its adherents. Pretty much the same goes for this pastor. The fact that I regard him as scum in no way indicates my view of religion. Jimmy and I seem to be in agreement that the man is scum.

By their fruits ye shall know them. I think I learned that in Sunday School.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2011-April-12, 06:11, said:

>> You seem to be suggesting that there is some kind of double standard at work. I don't see any evidence of that.

well of course there is, you admitted as much (while trying to explain why)

To be more specific, your postings come across as "The people on this newsgroups excuse away atrocities committed by Muslims while condeming Christians".

I don't think that this is remotely true.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2011-April-12, 06:11, said:

there are individual crazies in all religious, as well as secular, societies... we both know that isn't the issue here

I am happy to broaden the discussion to talk radio which exhibits the same pathologies ina slightly less extreme form.

I'd go so far as to say that many of the evangelical churches are breeding grounds of racism, ignorance, and hatred of the "other".

I don't think that tis at all surprising to discover that 46% of Mississippi republicans think that inter-racial marriage should be banned.

http://tpmdc.talking...-be-illegal.php

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2011-April-12, 06:11, said:

do you think he'd ever, in a million years, do a "piss muhammad" exhibit? me either... yes, insulting christianity is safer... i get it... i don't know for a fact, but i suspect it's true that (since your name and location are known) you would definitely have more to fear, personally, if you "insulted" muslims rather than christians... christians aren't very likely to fatwah your ass, so a little healthy fear is understandable

It's ridiculous to suggest that I govern my behaviour on this newsgroup because I am fearful of a fatwah or being murdered by a muslim fundamentalist. If I were honestly worried about that kind of event, I wouldn't be able to get out of bed in the morning or cross the street. I don't believe that the "evil islamic caliphate" is monitoring this newsgroup nor do I believe that our discussions are going to get picked up by a wire service or make its way into a sermon.

More important: I will point out that the Pastor who burned the Koran didn't get killed. Rather, he set of riots halfway across the world that lead to a bunch of UN worker's being killed. (One of the main reasons that I am so disgusted by the pastor's actions is that he didn't bear any of the cost of what he did).

I will note the following: When I am traveling in muslim countries, I try to avoid any inflamatory discussions of religion. Moreover, while I have traveled extensively in Turkey, Morocco, Indonesia, (and tried to go to Iran) I don't go to Algeria, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.

In much the same vein, when I was in China, I didn't discuss politics. When I was in Thailand, I didn't make disparging comments about the King. When I was in Ireland, I didn't wear Orange. If I had cause to wander into Watts or Harlem, I wouldn't wear Blue or Red.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2011-April-12, 07:05, said:

It's ridiculous to suggest that I govern my behaviour on this newsgroup because I am fearful of a fatwah or being murdered by a muslim fundamentalist. If I were honestly worried about that kind of event, I wouldn't be able to get out of bed in the morning or cross the street. I don't believe that the "evil islamic caliphate" is monitoring this newsgroup nor do I believe that our discussions are going to get picked up by a wire service or make its way into a sermon.

yet, as a way of explaining why christian vs. muslim criticism is viewed differently you dis say, "Christians don't riot and kill people when their religion gets insulted. Muslim's often do..."

i believe you when you say you don't fear such things... but better safe than sorry, eh?

Quote

More important: I will point out that the Pastor who burned the Koran didn't get killed. Rather, he set of riots halfway across the world that lead to a bunch of UN worker's being killed. (One of the main reasons that I am so disgusted by the pastor's actions is that he didn't bear any of the cost of what he did).

what cost would you like him to bear? sure he's an ignorant ass, but the fact remains that he (to my knowledge) didn't murder anyone

Quote

I will note the following: When I am traveling in muslim countries, I try to avoid any inflamatory discussions of religion. Moreover, while I have traveled extensively in Turkey, Morocco, Indonesia, (and tried to go to Iran) I don't go to Algeria, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.

In much the same vein, when I was in China, I didn't discuss politics. When I was in Thailand, I didn't make disparging comments about the King. When I was in Ireland, I didn't wear Orange. If I had cause to wander into Watts or Harlem, I wouldn't wear Blue or Red.

very prudent of you... but even in mississippi, were you to live or travel there, i doubt seriously if you'd be killed if you were in an interracial marriage... i could be wrong of course... probably best to remain prudent there also

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2011-April-12, 09:33, said:

> It's ridiculous to suggest that I govern my behaviour on this newsgroup because I am
> fearful of a fatwah or being murdered by a muslim fundamentalist. If I were honestly
> worried about that kind of event, I wouldn't be able to get out of bed in the morning
> or cross the street. I don't believe that the "evil islamic caliphate" is monitoring
> this newsgroup nor do I believe that our discussions are going to get picked up by a
> wire service or make its way into a sermon.

yet, as a way of explaining why christian vs. muslim criticism is viewed differently you dis say, "Christians don't riot and kill people when their religion gets insulted. Muslim's often do..."

i believe you when you say you don't fear such things... but better safe than sorry, eh?

You're really a worthless little piece of shite, aren't you?

I'm going to try to explain this again.
I'll make sure to make this very simple in the hopes that you might understand this...

1. I live in Natick, Massachusetts while the Muslim's who were rioting live half way across the world. I'm really not concerned about my safety regardless of what I might do/say on these forums.
2. Publicity stunts that involve Koran burnings are much more likely to be publicized in the Muslim world that random postings in obscure threads in a bridge forum.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2011-April-12, 09:33, said:

what cost would you like him to bear? sure he's an ignorant ass, but the fact remains that he (to my knowledge) didn't murder anyone

Honestly, I don't know what the best course of action is...

I am torn between

1. Ignore him completely and trying to starve him of the attention that he so very much craves
2. Civil lawsuit

Doesn't really matter since I don't have standing to bring a lawsuit

[awm]

Every religious group has its crazy extremists; secular causes often have some too. The most extreme of these people will commit violent acts, often fairly indiscriminate violence that doesn't even really target their supposed enemies. There's often a somewhat larger group of extremists who say or write things that seem to endorse or incite violence but don't directly act on their violent rhetoric, and we can argue about where exactly the legal line falls for these people.

It is obvious that Islam has its crazy extremists. It's even possible that Islam has a higher percentage of extremists than other religions. But the overall percentage of muslims who fall into these categories is still very small. In the US, it seems all too frequent that people leap to condemn all of Islam based on the small percentage of muslims who do crazy stuff. Even supposedly respectable people in our political or media sphere seem to take this viewpoint, for example opposing the building of a muslim community center in New York or holding hearings about how "muslims don't cooperate with anti-terrorist investigations" while failing to interview a single person from homeland security (and ignoring the fact that a significant number of terrorist attacks have been prevented due to cooperation from members of the moderate muslim community). Because of this, reasonable Americans are often put in the position of defending Islam or muslims in general simply to set the record straight (because the anti-muslim voices in our country are quite loud).

It is also obvious that Christianity has its crazy extremists. In modern times they may not be so often in the news as the muslim crazies, but there are still many examples. Doctors who provide abortions have been murdered by crazy christians (and a lot of christian religious leaders come very close to endorsing such violence), a lot of anti-gay violence is perpetrated and/or endorsed by crazy christians (for example the guy in Uganda who sponsored the law making homosexuality a death penalty offense was apparently christian). In the US, it seems like the people who endorse or incite this kind of violence are often given a public stage (we have some of them in political office, or commentating regularly on widely-watched TV). While they normally disavow violence if queried on it directly, their rhetoric seems to promote and excuse the violent extreme. Again, reasonable Americans often feel the need to speak out against these christian crazies simply to set the record straight (because our media often gives them a free pass).

So to clarify, it's not that one religion is "better" than another. It's not that Americans are "afraid" to speak against one religion and not the other. It's simply that religious Christianity is a very powerful force in our country and the extremist crazies on the christian right are all over the airwaves (and in our government!) spouting their nonsense. Religious Islam is often under attack in our country, not just the extremist crazies but the ordinary moderate muslims as well. We are just trying to restore some degree of balance, some acknowledgement that all religions have their good and their bad... that we do need to combat extremist Islam and condemn muslim terrorist acts but we don't need to blow up mosques or condemn the innocent muslims living among us... and that we need to combat extremist Christianity too, and stop letting these people promote violence and then claim they "never suspected" that their blaming gays for hurricane katrina or putting up wanted dead-or-alive posters for an abortion doctor might've lead some "crazy loner" to commit a violent act. It's just that the status quo has swung so far to the "Christianity is good, even the crazy kind" and "Islam is bad, even the moderate kind" that we need to push back in the opposite direction.

[mycroft]

nige1, on 2011-April-12, 03:20, said:

If we have no more than "argument" to support such speculation, should we impugn a group's religious integrity? Isn't that what this thread should deplore? Or is it OK to insult a religious group, gratuitously, provided that we don't fear violent retaliation? I admit to the mote in mine own eye.

I agree with you in general, but These guys? Really? Please note, they're banned from entering your country (and mine), because they're classified by those governments as hate groups.

I am happy to discuss the log in my own eye - trust me, I know it's there - but really, these guys base their faith, if faith they truly have, on "what god hates". At that point, I think any relationship they may have to Christ-based Christianity is tenuous at best.

But, less seriously, I thought that it was the English that complained about us LeftPondians not getting subtlety.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2011-April-12, 10:45, said:

You're really a worthless little piece of shite, aren't you?

now that's just plain rude... and it's also, if worthless pieces of shite happen to make up 1/5 of the population, immoral

awm, on 2011-April-12, 10:49, said:

Every religious group has its crazy extremists; secular causes often have some too. The most extreme of these people will commit violent acts, often fairly indiscriminate violence that doesn't even really target their supposed enemies. There's often a somewhat larger group of extremists who say or write things that seem to endorse or incite violence but don't directly act on their violent rhetoric, and we can argue about where exactly the legal line falls for these people.

entire governments are ruled by extremists, though it's likely that the population of the country isn't as extreme

Quote

So to clarify, it's not that one religion is "better" than another. It's not that Americans are "afraid" to speak against one religion and not the other.

i haven't said anything about one religion being better than another... ad for fear, do you sincerely belive an "artist" would have made a piss muhammad exhibit?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2011-April-12, 13:17, said:

now that's just plain rude... and it's also, if worthless pieces of shite happen to make up 1/5 of the population, immoral

You might want to go back and re-read the thread

I never advanced an argument that it was immoral to insult someone's deeply cherished belief.
Indeed, it would be hypocritical in the extreme for me to do so.

My argument against the Koran burning was always based on foreseeable consequences.

• It is readily apparent that the act of publicly burning a Koran was likely to lead to riots
  
• Said riots could easily lead to the death of innocent parties

Barry might agree with the point you are trying to make (score)
I certainly don't

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2011-April-12, 13:17, said:

i haven't said anything about one religion being better than another... ad for fear, do you sincerely belive an "artist" would have made a piss muhammad exhibit?

I seem to recall that any number of artists have taken actions that they knew could lead to their being attacked:
Matt and Trey from South Park and the Danish cartoonists are two obvious examples.

I certainly don't know of any "Piss Mohammed" art displays.
Then again, I also don't know of a "Piss Krishna" or a "Piss Lao-Tze" or a "Piss Buddha"...

Not sure if there is necessarily a strong causal link here

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2011-April-12, 06:11, said:

do you think he'd ever, in a million years, do a "piss muhammad" exhibit? me either... yes, insulting christianity is safer...

Perhaps you did not mean it so, but here you seem to be saying that the Piss Christ photograph insults Christianity. It does not.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2011-April-12, 15:12, said:

Perhaps you did not mean it so, but here you seem to be saying that the Piss Christ photograph insults Christianity. It does not.

why does it not?

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2011-April-12, 15:48, said:

why does it not?

Philistines might feel insulted by the Piss Christ photograph, but not thoughtful Christians. Much has been written about this striking piece of art. Christian theologian Damien Casey, for example, has this to say: Sacrifice, Piss Christ, and liberal excess

Quote

...it is Serrano's exploration of the relation between the abject and the sacred that makes Piss Christ not only good art, but good religious art, bordering on the iconic. I am thinking of the theological meaning of icon in which the icon is less a representation than a window onto a deeper reality. Piss Christ is also a parable in which our expectations are turned outside down in order that the sacred may manifest, because as Hegel expressed: "the familiar is not understood precisely because it is familiar."

Attention grabbing, yes, but in no way insulting.

[Winstonm]

IMO the argument that it is safer to criticize Christianity fails as it is not the religion but the cultures surrounding the religion that makes it safe. The two leading areas of Christian worship are the United States and Europe, I would think, and thus two of the more advanced and civil cultures occupy those areas.

In contrast, I had a good friend who spent time in the U.S. Air Force tell me that when he was sent to Eastern Turkey in the 1970s, it was like being transported back in time 4-5 centuries. That would pretty much be in the middle of the Dark Ages, I think.

There was a time in Christianity where belief was so intesely held as to be a reason for violence, which is precisely the nature of the Inquisition that is estimated to have caused the torture death of over 50,000 people during its many murderous years. But those were times when people also believed that an evil eye from a witch could wipe out an entire village with consumption, and crop failures could be traced to the actions of a warlock and his evil spell.

I submit that for the most part modern Christian beliefs are not nearly so strongly held as to be a basis for murderous actions, though there is a samll minority that way, but most Christian religions have metamorphasized into a more cognitive belief system that at least holds a 1% understanding that their beliefs may be BS. It is hard to kill someone for only a 99% certainty.

On the other hand, if your general culture still believes that the literal words of an invisible superbeing were given to a guy in a cave who rode a magical horse to heaven and back, then your culture probably has more in common with the group that believed in witches and warlocks than the one that believes in American Idol winners as demigods.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2011-April-12, 16:25, said:

Attention grabbing, yes, but in no way insulting.

"opinions vary" - dalton