The power we wield... [Archive]

Bioptix

02-05-2006, 10:06 AM

This will be a very touchy subject, so I'll tread lightly here.

I'm not sure if it is the artists who wield this power, or the newspapers that commission and distribute the images. Of course an artist can decide whether he takes a commission or not but at the end of the day it only takes one artist to accept the job, and let's be honest not many artists out there are in a position to reject a brief from their employer and expect to retain the good favour of the company.
One of the many sad facts in this case is that the newspaper in question has now sacked the artist responsible for the cartoons as a result of the reaction in the muslim world. I find this highly hypocritical considering they were the ones who specifically asked for these cartoons of the prophet to be created for publication in their paper. There was a documentary a couple of months ago on German TV all about these cartoons (it was shown before all the trouble began) it showed an interview with this artist and he made it very clear even then that his drawings did not reflect his own personal political or religious views, he was simply doing the job he'd been asked to by the paper.

Anyone is free to draw any image they choose (freedom of artistic expression) however, once an image is published and distributed in the national/international press the image may become used as a political tool. These images were published for political reasons and we are now seeing the political backlash of this. Freedom of speech is all very well but when you use it as a justification for insult and desicration of the religion and cultural indentity of an international faith, it is foolishness not to expect an angry reaction. These images were published at a very unstable point in our global history. People of the muslim faith already feel victimised and demonised by western actions since 9/11. In no way do the political actions of terrorists reflect the true message of Islam, which is peaceful. By depicting the Prophet Mohammed (a blasphemous action in itself) as a terrorist and a pig etc in the western press, there is no telling of the damage that may have been done to the already unstable climate and the common views held by (usually) peacefull law abiding muslims in relation to the western attitude towards their faith.

Freedom of speech is of utmost importance but its responsible and respectful use must be even more so, especially in an escalating temperature of violence.

Harvey Human

02-05-2006, 12:22 PM

Freedom of speech is of utmost importance but its responsible and respectful use must be even more so
I disagree.
If we were to follow your rule, we would be obliterating satire.
In some countries, satirizing political or religious figures and institutions will get you thrown in jail. In the middle ages, satirizing Christianity would get you put to death. That's not stupid? That's not evil?

cartoonchaos

02-05-2006, 02:41 PM

It's not an animation topic, but whatever.
Political topics are usually frowned on here.

This news item has nothing to do with the imagined power of animators or illustrators. It's about the power of the press, and the stupidity of religion.

I dunno Harvey, I think anytime that art motivates this kind of global response, I think it concerns all artists, including us, political or not.

I don't know if its about the power of the press... Think about all the newspapers that condemn terrorism and connect that to "jihadism" (if that's a word). It was the graven image of Mohammed that caused all this, and in the form of a cartoon making light of him. I think it's about the power of that image, and its implications toward religion.

Ken Davis

02-05-2006, 02:44 PM

There is no such thing as freedom of speech and there never really has been.

I say that because one cannot express onself to an audience in ANY country on Earth without REPERCUSSIONS , thus one is not privileged to speak in a truly free manner.
If one is alone then the "right" exists because there's no audience, and the self-expression becomes essentially impotent.
If someone utters the word "bomb" in a public place, then they can not only be censured but arrested for implied threats.
That is not free speech, that is restricted speech.

Self-expression without responsibility is reckless.

As for the power we wield, I'm inclined to agree to a certain respect.
One can draw a unflattering caricature of anyone and cause them embarrassment and humilty. All humour entails someone or something being victimized to some degree.
Pointed message though do have their value, as criticism via parody or satire.
The weight of the message though needs to be measured based on the degree of upset it will cause.
Like a comedian telling a joke, a cartoonist has to weight in just how MANY people might take offense.
One cannot effectively measure tolerance, so gauging the reaction of people is hit and miss.

This doesn't mean a cartoonist should abstain from expression though.
No guts equals no glory and the path to glory is oft strewn with guts.
Looks like this is one of those cases in Denmark.

DrSpecter

02-05-2006, 03:27 PM

As an extra on a Twilight Zone box set I have, there's a Mike Wallace interview with Rod Serling. This interview was conducted before TZ aired. Wallace talked to Serling about his career in live television up to that point, then basically asked Serling if he thought he was selling out by doing a sci-fi show. Serling said it just depends on your point of view.

Of course, the Twilight Zone took on a lot of socially and politically charged issues with varying degrees of success. I believe it's still possible to make a point without being topical, or mentioning specific names.

Both politics and religion tend to reside in a particularly primitive compartment in the human brain. It is possible to regard your own views with a sense of irony and an awareness of your fallibility. But for some reason, people tend to place a maximum of emotional weight behind issues they haven't really thought about at all when it comes to these topics.

I'm disgusted enough with this country to leave it, but I would like what I do to be able to make it's point even if someone's completely unfamiliar with the current political situation. Otherwise it's just name calling, and making a cartoon about any real life situation trivialises it, IMO.

Harvey Human

02-05-2006, 03:46 PM

Self-expression without responsibility is reckless.
If anyone's reckless, it's the viewer who burns down a building because he doesn't like a cartoon.

I should be able to put out a cartoon about a character who doesn't like cheese, without enduring the wrath of the dairy industry.

Ken Davis

02-05-2006, 04:35 PM

If anyone's reckless, it's the viewer who burns down a building because he doesn't like a cartoon.

I should be able to put out a cartoon about a character who doesn't like cheese, without enduring the wrath of the dairy industry.

And I agree.

The question is if the cartoon is HURTFUL.

Most cartoonists are not out to malign anyone to a great degree--and its sad that the crowds that are enraged by these cartoons cannot see past their own objections. It really is a case of something being blown all out of proportion.

Haredevil_Hare

02-05-2006, 06:53 PM

As the lawyer for Larry Flint said to the supreme court, "This is more of a case of taste not libel." What the violent protesters don't quite realize is that the problem does not lie with the cartoons demonizing the Middle East or the Nation of Islam but rather that the toons makes the editors of this paper seem like ignorant bigotted assholes (which I'm sure they are).
Portraying the prophet Mohammed as a terrorist with a bomb in hand is just as insulting as a picture of Jesus Christ dressed head to toe in the stars and stripes shooting an AK-47 at Iraqis. Attacking a religion's way of life and some of the people in it is one thing. But you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Both Jesus and Mohammed based their religions on good solid foundations. To blame them for all the wrong decisions made over the centuries is lazy and ignorant.

Yes, I'm all for free speech and the protesters do seem silly. But, in this case, the editors of the paper who print those cartoons deserve some sort of repremand for what they've done. It's just like on message boards. Someone makes an assinine statement, others have a right to call that user on it.

Palette

02-05-2006, 07:13 PM

Its quite difficult to titrate where the line crosses over . I totally agree with hare devil hare though that its really stupid to paint a religion in bad light cos of a perception.

When satire becomes malicious, sensationalist and vulgar the beauty of the medium is trivialised. The popularity and value of caricature stems from the fact that you could see things with a critical eye without being offensive.Well these cartoons at best were the guys personal predilictions but the sad thing is that the editors were stupid enough to publish it.It really smacks of bad intent more than stupidity.If the world was a better place without your cartoon having come out then its worth trashing it.

well,freedom is always a bond too much or too less!

ScatteredLogical

02-05-2006, 07:22 PM

Its quite difficult to titrate where the line crosses over

(my emphasis)

I didn't even know titrate is a word. I've even been sick and in hospitals a lot and I never came across that. Thanks for opening up my vocabulary!

kdiddy13

02-05-2006, 07:32 PM

Today a Muslim mob burned down the Danish consulate in Beirut because of some doodles in a newspaper.
I'm sure the mob sees that as a righteous and intelligent act. You're welcome to share their opinion.
I call it stupidity.

I definitely agree that is a stupid and reckless act based on ignorance. But calling religion stupid is stupid and ignorant as well. Most certainly not on par with burning down buildings to be sure. Certainly there are those in religion (as in any group) that are stupid, that take it too far. But there are many who believe in any number of religious belief systems who do good, don't preach to anyone, and are reasonable human beings.

Perhaps I'm reading into your writings (and you've mentioned religion more than once on here) and you only meant that this act was an example of stupidity WITHIN religion but it sounds as if you're painting with a very broad brush, calling all of religion stupid. Aren't your beliefs a form of religion, even if it isn't formally institutionallized, and as such, you're putting of your beliefs on others just as insulting as them putting their beliefs on you?

As far as freedom of speech, there are results to one's actions, and that goes for what has been said. This is by no means an excuse for people to act like animals (they are, after all, only words, relax), but it is something to keep in mind. To blindly say what ever you want, when ever you want and not expect any reaction is foolish.

skinnylizard

02-05-2006, 09:50 PM

i think what was done by the newspaper was appalling. there was no reason to deliberately go and insult a religion like that (I am not religious at all for the record)

However what they did was well within their right to free speech. It was at their discretion and they excercised their right.

The govt has no business interfering in this an im glad they didnt. There is controversy obviously and everyone will have to live with the fallout of this. So there are consequences.

I think the individuals right to free speech is def more important.

Oberyn

02-06-2006, 12:46 AM

Anyone is free to draw any image they choose (freedom of artistic expression) however, once an image is published and distributed in the national/international press the image may become used as a political tool. These images were published for political reasons and we are now seeing the political backlash of this.

Makes me want to go watch a Clockwork Orange again.

Yea, I guess this is "touchy," but what it comes down to is radicalism. Freedom of speech is important to me, and I would go to just about any length to protect it. I probably wouldn't go so far as to become a brainwashed radical in favor of a pseudo-facistic lifestyle of narrow-mindedness and reactionary violence. [Please notice I didn't mention Islam anywhere in there.]

The answer is none of us would go that far because freedom of speech protects against that very thing. By opening society to public discourse of any kind from any angle, it's impossible for dangerous levels of homogenization to occur.

I think that's actually a paradox, but who's counting?

The muslim world reacting with such outrage does nothing but hurt their own credibility and connection to the rest of the world. Especially the Danish. It's exactly what they don't need to be doing. Radicalism is stupid. This isn't my phrase but, I find it to be as true as any: "Constant shallowness leads to evil."

Politics didn't have anything to do with this at the heart of it. Yes, now they're burning down buildings and telling Danes to flee Lebanon (where the Prime Minister just resigned, btw,) but at the start? It was just some cartoons, man.

The fact that it is on the international table makes it even worse- now religions in other countries can presume to tell cultures thousands of miles away what they can and can't do? Where the hell do these people get off? And it's not Islam, it's radicalism- remember that when I say 'these people.'

Draw a cartoon of Jesus in S+M gear blowing the Pope and get it published in major newspapers in NY and you'll find there are radicals here too. Mostly in or around Texas and the southern states. They just don't seem to be burning buildings over things these days. At least, none in America.

The only thing I can really conclude is that radicalism is bad, humanity is fundamentally stupid, and we are all cosmic schmucks. Which, honestly, is why cartoons are so important.

Yes, I'm all for free speech and the protesters do seem silly. But, in this case, the editors of the paper who print those cartoons deserve some sort of repremand for what they've done. It's just like on message boards. Someone makes an assinine statement, others have a right to call that user on it.

Sorry, Hare, what? Reprimand? For what? What did they do? What about the artists that drew the stuff, should they be punished? Is it this kind of opinion that's bad? What about anti-cheese ads like Harvey's? Where's the line?

As much as I agree with everything you guys are saying about "responsiblity" that comes with free speech, I don't see anyone with the balls to say "free speech is more important than fundamentalist agendas."

Free speech IS more important than radical, free thought stifling agendas.

Doubt

02-06-2006, 12:48 AM

Peacefull people don't want to cut off peoples heads because they draw or publish stupid cartoons. Organized religion has always and probably always will be a common reason to start wars.

For me this whole deal shows how a few news people can act in bad taste (no surprise there) and how a religious group can seriously over-react(also nothing new).

Relax

Oberyn

02-06-2006, 12:52 AM

I think the individuals right to free speech is def more important.

Sry skinny, I missed your post. We agree on free speech- tho "insulting a religion," is no cause for violence, and no justification for what's happening.

If a religion that's thousands of years old can't roll a couple cartoons off its back like water off a duck... that's just sad.

I just lost so much respect for Islam it's palpable. Something close to my POV, or just for good reading:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/02/05/we_are_all_danes_now/

Oberyn

02-06-2006, 01:05 AM

Organized religion has always and probably always will be a common reason to start wars.
...Relax

Organized religion also offers useful tidbits of truth and virtue, moral guidence, self-fulfilling peace and wholeness, knowledge through tradition, family bonds and community, lessons of kindness and compassion...

And I don't follow a single one of them. Yet here I am, perfectly relaxed, defending them from your statement. Why? Because you blanketed thousands of years of human knowledge into an igorant little reality tunnel constructed by you and your brain, and very little else.

Religions don't start wars.

People start wars. Seen the news lately?

Doubt

02-06-2006, 01:33 AM

"organized religion" is behind several wars, if you look you'll notice that there are people involved in all of them. I did not write that religion does not provide a good moral base or support system. The ideology of most of them is peacefull. I think reasonable religious leaders should lean more toward the tolerance and education solution rather than the severed head solution.

p.s. no need for name calling now..

Harvey Human

02-06-2006, 03:25 AM

People who say "religions don't start wars" forget the Crusades, a major source of Middle East strife to this day. They forget that the WTC was blown up - and the Afghan and Iraq wars subsequently started - supposedly because the U.S. military is stationed on "holy land."

And please don't give me that "religions don't kill people, people kill people" crap. Religion is people. Next you'll be saying that armies don't start wars; people start wars. Give me a friggin' break.
_______________
Satirical shows like The Simpsons, South Park, and Family Guy (ah, finally we bring it around to animation) make fun of religion all the time. Should they be punished? Should they be taken off the air?

Religion needs to be mocked and parodied just like any other powerful social or political institution.

I only wish that the paper had satirized other religions beside Islam, so it didn't appear that they were singling-out one religion.

kdiddy13

02-06-2006, 05:36 AM

I think reasonable religious leaders should lean more toward the tolerance and education solution rather than the severed head solution.

Reasonable religious leaders DO lean more towards tolerance and education, unfortunately they just don't make good news like radicals do.

kdiddy13

02-06-2006, 05:47 AM

People who say "religions don't start wars" forget the Crusades, a major source of Middle East strife to this day.

People have been killing people because they were different since the beginning of time. Most of the time it's more to do with who's sitting on what piece of land and the beliefs in question are just an obvious way to get people riled up. "Hey, he doesn't think like you!" "Yeah! Let's get him!" Sometimes it's because a society has built such a warlike culture, it doesn't know what to do with it's soldiers (one of the main contributing factors to the Crusades) and it's a lot easier to kill people you don't agree with than people you like.

Blaming religions for war is just as bad as religions blaming each other for things. Your beliefs in your religion, and blanket statements on other's views of religion, seem to be just as strong as the traditional religous right, they just aren't part of an organized faction.

DIEMERAS Dark Angel

02-06-2006, 06:30 AM

Has everyone heard about the 12 political cartoons that have caused riots throughout the Muslim world? The caricatures depict the prophet Mohammed wearing a bomb shaped turban with a lit fuse and such...

There are thousands of people rioting in the streets and burning flags and embassies.

There are many times throughout history when cartoons and animation have swayed public emotions and caused public unrest, and in this case, flag burning riots and death threats. This is a sobering example of the power we wield as artists.

What do you think is more important? Global freedom of speech and artistic freedom? or maintaining a level of respect for religious beliefs, especially those of a part of the world with an escalating temperature of violence?
Yes I saw these tragic riots which swept that nation, apparently they were angry at the fact that some cartoons of THE prophet Mahadd were demeaning to their culture, it is said that no deplorable images of this sacred entity is to ever be used by anyone.
I do hope all goes well and that it doesn't cause unneccessary bloodshed.

Oberyn

02-06-2006, 08:42 AM

p.s. no need for name calling now..

Don't recall calling anyone names :confused:

As usual, you misunderstand. No f*cking s*it the crusades, thanks Harvey. I must've forgotten I had an education. ;)

What I'm saying is: religion serves its purpose in life. People are the ones who misinterpret it, people are the ones who dub themselves chosen, people are the ones who perpetrate violence (in a rather hypocritical manner, as it is ususally against their dogma.)

They also create the religions...

Edit: So yes, Harvey, in case you need it spelled out clearly, Religion IS INDEED people, you and I are saying close to the same thing...just to different ends.

Oberyn

02-06-2006, 08:44 AM

I do hope all goes well and that it doesn't cause unneccessary bloodshed.

when is bloodshed necessary?

Oberyn

02-06-2006, 08:49 AM

Next you'll be saying that armies don't start wars; people start wars. Give me a friggin' break.

Wow harvey, I thought we had so much in common. Just because you've got an opinion about the nature of religion doesn't mean it's true.

Armies fight wars! Neo-conservative politicians and radical fundamentalists start them.

Wars are fought by armies and religious zealots- but that's not where they start.

Edit: These days they start in a board room and in the streets, it seems. Trying to remember the last war where two armies just up and started fighting for absolutely no reason... Can't think of one.

Oberyn

02-06-2006, 08:50 AM

Religion needs to be mocked and parodied just like any other powerful social or political institution.

At least here we can agree. :)

Oberyn

02-06-2006, 09:01 AM

Sorry for all the compound posts, it's a complicated topic. A kaleidoscope of human rights, religion, free speech...

I can't believe I'm in here defending religion...

phacker

02-06-2006, 12:31 PM

Organized thought of any type can be a powerful thing, and misused easily by those with the power to influence it.

Those that choose to enter organizations, are looking to become part of a group persona, and feel protected by it. They aren't individually responsible any longer... the group is. This holds true for any organization be it the SPCA, a church, an army whatever. Group efforts can accomplish great things, but they can also amaze the world with outrageous attrocities. Rarely are the leaders of such organizations ever held fully accountable. They usually get off on technicalities. Both the publishers and the religious leaders that condoned the actions in this whole incident need to be held truly accountable.

The founding fathers of the US were wise to install checks and balances. Too bad they are becoming eroded.

Oberyn

02-06-2006, 03:08 PM

Both the publishers and the religious leaders that condoned the actions in this whole incident need to be held truly accountable.

I think I'm done posting in this thread. I don't like making enemies.

phacker

02-06-2006, 04:46 PM

That's fine Oberyn. I've never been a joiner. I've lost out on some things because I said no, I didn't want that responsibility. I will be responsible for myself, but I will not force others to follow my view points. I will live my life, and hopefully I can face myself in a mirror. I'll never be a big success, but I will wake in the morning and smell the sunrise, and feel surprised that I made it to another day without harming another living essence. I am an old hippy and that's the way I live and hopefully continue to live. I call no one god mine own, or even one government. I live where I do because of fate. No one guides my life and actions but myself at this stage of my life. The world would be better if more folks operated like I do. If I harm someone, it's because I choose to, but that would be a hard call to make. I would rather harm myself.

Oberyn

02-06-2006, 06:13 PM

Cheers to that pat hacker. Cheers to that.

I think you limit yourself with "never be a big success-" but then again, being a success usually does require stepping on toes.

Personally, I'm at a strange junction between being the most humble, peaceful person- and having strong opinions that I have to make known. Either way, I will do as I have always done, which is to make stuff in as many media as I can learn.

But as you say- we can all disagree in this forum as much as we like, but we're not the ones who have to step outside and live in the mess these things are making.

And with that, I'm done with political forums for a while.

Harvey Human

02-06-2006, 06:25 PM

Yeah, I like you, Oberyn. Don't let me get on your bad side.

People are the ones who misinterpret it, ...
Unfortunately, much of the religion-based evil occurs because people interpret religion correctly.

The Old Testament - the book[s] on which the religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are based - has rules on how to purchase slaves and how to treat slaves, so slave traders and buyers felt justified perpetuating slavery during the dark ages of the American colonies.
The Old Testament says that a woman (not man, mind you) who commits adultery should be stoned to death, so Muslims routinely do.
The Old Testament says that someone who tries to convert you to a different religion should be immediately killed, so this was also going on in Judaism, then Christianity, and still happens in Islam.

more here: http://www.evilbible.com
and here: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Sure there are people who pick and choose only those religious laws that are embraced by popular progressive morality, but if you're going to mold religion to fit your existing ethics, what the hell do you need religion for in the first place?

I prefer free and independent thinkers, and religion is often antithetical to this.

Palette

02-06-2006, 06:36 PM

man this really has got out of hand riots are sweeping in a big way into many countries now. Egypt,lebanon,Turkey...hell even in Delhi here. 2 protesters died in afghanistan, some one killed a church priest man this is absolute bull shit.What a pity religion couldnt cure stupidity or barbarism in a thousand years!...
I know that thier behaviour is anything but religious but at the same time i really cant help feeling that all this could have been avoided. I dont think its a big enough price to pay for the "freedom of speech".

(my emphasis)

I didn't even know titrate is a word. I've even been sick and in hospitals a lot and I never came across that. Thanks for opening up my vocabulary!

It is.Heres a tip scat being in hospitals a lot doesnt help increase your vocabulary look in the dictionary!

DIEMERAS Dark Angel

02-07-2006, 05:20 AM

when is bloodshed necessary?
When a good cause is apparent, don't give me that, if it wasn't for bloodshed, america would not be free...please I don't want to start a history lesson.
But in light of all this, it is wrong to poke fun at religion, mainly because...it is so diverse, it is what forms the basis of one's beliefs, degrade, discriminate or humor this, and you can instantly start a riot....believe me, I know.
Think of it this way...it's like you're watching the superbowl on tv and the winning touchdown is about to be made, your heart is racing your palms are sweating you're ready to scream...AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, THEN...
a commercial of the news appears....NOOOOOOOOOOOO, see, instant riot.

Oberyn

02-07-2006, 11:32 AM

more here: http://www.evilbible.com
and here: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

I prefer free and independent thinkers, and religion is often antithetical to this.

Interesting stuff Harvey, thx for links. :) Yes, religion tends to close minds that would be open to so many other cultures and worldviews.

All the more reason for wise-ass cartoonists to blast it with funny, methinks.

sajdera

02-07-2006, 12:47 PM

sajdera

02-07-2006, 01:05 PM

Also, Harvey, you're also right to look for ways to incorporate animation into this discussion. How about this:

During the long, quite hours I spent as nightshift at a mental health facility, I would tune in to this animated show on Christian Broadcasting Network. It was actually two seperate shows that were very similar, Super Book and The Flying House. Every weekend in the dead of night I'd switch on this show, which was an anime, no less. If you've never seen Jesus Christ in anime-vision, perhaps you can imagine it. By the way, "Super Book" was the Bible, of course, and the crazy Japanese-attitude of it all made me an instant fan.

There was something interesting that I noticed. The end "credits" sequence contained no credits, simply:
Animation by Tatsunoko Studios - Produced by the Christian Broadcast Network
as if any self-respecting, white American Christian would balk at the idea that Godless Japs had created their children's Saturday morning Jesus cartoon. I don't know what's up with that, but I thought it was pretty whack.

kdiddy13

02-08-2006, 03:59 AM

I agree with Harvey Human entirely on the issue of religion.

Genesis 19:8
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

It's better to let a village of rapists have their way with your only daughters than turn out two strange men you just met that day? And this comes from the "Sodom Episode" of the Bible that the religious right uses to condemn homosexuals. Really upstanding morals in that book, there, the Bible. Today, we have Muslims blowing themselves (and others) up in Asia over the Koran, rioting in the streets because of political cartoons. Religion IS people. Well put, Harvey. I don't understand how the mainstream acts like fundamentalist Christians and Muslims are blowing religion out of proportion when, as "fundamentalists", they take it more seriously than anything else and follow it strictly. Quit picking and choosing the parts of your religion as you see fit and either follow it or realize it's just mass political mind-control.

Wow. Dr. Laura can quote the bible, too.

I hope you guys quoting the bible to prove your point realise you sound just as crazy and fanatical as the people quoting it to prove their points. It sounds like you're the ones taking a fundamentalist look on things, again, not formally organized, but your views aren't a whole lot different in timber and tone from those you disagree with. About the same black and white view of things the other side has taken.

And why not be reasonable and realise that each portion of the bible was written in a different time, under different circumstances, in a different context. Many Christians are capable of realizing this (many aren't as well). The parts you've quoted were from a different time when the people writing them had different views. Americans thought slavery was a pretty good thing, as did many other nationalities. The railroad leading to California was built largely on the indentured servitude of Chinese labor. California's entire economoy hinges on the ability of manfacturers and farmers to exploit near slave labor in immigrant workers. Is that something you support by choosing to live in California? I doubt it. But it's the argument you're using.

There are reasonable Christians, Muslims and Jews who don't hold the Old Testament as law, have an accepting view of gays (the Episcopal church has a lesbian Bishop), believe in Darwin and evolution, can think for themselves and still believe in the god they've chosen, and believe in doing good. You guys sound just as bad as all the nut jobs calling homosexuality a sin, and just as intolerant.

And as far as the mind control thing, corporate television is a form of political and economical (many times synonimous these days), and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and believing that you can take the parts of television that you enjoy and find fullfilling without being brainwashed into buying everything their trying to sell. Some people can't. Some people believe that it's important if Nick and Jessica have split up, they buy the newest video game, card game, or junk food. Everything comes with it's goods and bads, it's whether you can separate out the two that becomes important in life. Religion is not different. There are many that take it at face value, believing everything shoveled in front of them, there are many who don't. Don't judge it solely on the people who can't think for themselves.

Ken Davis

02-08-2006, 10:03 AM

Wow. Dr. Laura can quote the bible, too.

I hope you guys quoting the bible to prove your point realise you sound just as crazy and fanatical as the people quoting it to prove their points. It sounds like you're the ones taking a fundamentalist look on things, again, not formally organized, but your views aren't a whole lot different in timber and tone from those you disagree with. About the same black and white view of things the other side has taken.

And why not be reasonable and realise that each portion of the bible was written in a different time, under different circumstances, in a different context. Many Christians are capable of realizing this (many aren't as well). The parts you've quoted were from a different time when the people writing them had different views. Americans thought slavery was a pretty good thing, as did many other nationalities. The railroad leading to California was built largely on the indentured servitude of Chinese labor. California's entire economoy hinges on the ability of manfacturers and farmers to exploit near slave labor in immigrant workers. Is that something you support by choosing to live in California? I doubt it. But it's the argument you're using.

There are reasonable Christians, Muslims and Jews who don't hold the Old Testament as law, have an accepting view of gays (the Episcopal church has a lesbian Bishop), believe in Darwin and evolution, can think for themselves and still believe in the god they've chosen, and believe in doing good. You guys sound just as bad as all the nut jobs calling homosexuality a sin, and just as intolerant.

And as far as the mind control thing, corporate television is a form of political and economical (many times synonimous these days), and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and believing that you can take the parts of television that you enjoy and find fullfilling without being brainwashed into buying everything their trying to sell. Some people can't. Some people believe that it's important if Nick and Jessica have split up, they buy the newest video game, card game, or junk food. Everything comes with it's goods and bads, it's whether you can separate out the two that becomes important in life. Religion is not different. There are many that take it at face value, believing everything shoveled in front of them, there are many who don't. Don't judge it solely on the people who can't think for themselves.

That's the thing though, if the tome is a product of its time, then the Divine Wisdom in it should TRANSCEND time and human cultural evolution.

Its got some good ideas in it, but it betrays its true authorship.

kdiddy13

02-08-2006, 11:07 AM

That's the thing though, if the tome is a product of its time, then the Divine Wisdom in it should TRANSCEND time and human cultural evolution.

Its got some good ideas in it, but it betrays its true authorship.

Absolutely, and many realize and respect that. Note I did not say all. But many are intelligent enough to realize that it's the product of man's desire to interpret the unknown as well as give people a common set of rules to live by. Much of the Divine Wisdom, whether from a supernatural being or just wisdom from those who've gone before us does survive and show up places like charity and many of the more reasonable laws, like not killing, have remained in place. Unfortunately, there's been a resurgance in people to going back to some of the crazier passages, on both sides of the argument. There really is a difference between rational people worshipping their chosen religion and radical fundamentalists.

Bioptix

02-08-2006, 03:35 PM

Well said.

cartoonchaos

02-08-2006, 04:17 PM

Here's a question...

Have you guys SEEN the cartoons we're talking about?

Its not that hard.... just Google "mohammed cartoon" and check them out.

What do you think? Is all the violence warranted? or are the cartoons overrated?

Bioptix

02-08-2006, 05:44 PM

Yes, I've seen the cartoons, no I don't agree with the violence (though peaceful protest is justified). Part of the problem here is that ANY graven image of the Prophet (SAWS) is deemed blasphemous in Islam. However, as I said before, this is a political issue and many of the more extreemist actions are being fuelled by those with a political agenda using religious hatred to incite violence (sadly an common pattern throughout history). It is now emerging that some of the more offensive cartoons have actually been faked (the image of the prophet as a pig was actually taken from a french pig squealing contest but presented by a group of radical Danish imams alongside the other cartoons during a tour of the Arab nations to publicise the images in the Muslim world, see link (http://www.neandernews.com/?p=54%20.) for more details). Below is another article on the BBC about how much of the violence is being 'incited' by Iran and Syria.

Iran and Syria 'incited violence'

Norway's embassy in Iran was also targeted
The US secretary of state has accused Iran and Syria of fuelling anti-Western sentiment, in a row over cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad.
Condoleezza Rice said both countries had used the opportunity to incite violence and exploit Muslim anger.

The accusation came after Western embassies came under attack in Iran, Syria and Lebanon.

Meanwhile the Danish government severed ties with local clerics, saying they had stirred up anti-Danish feeling.

Radical Danish imams made two visits to the Middle East in December and January to complain about the 12 cartoons to political and religious leaders.

The cartoons, first published in a Danish newspaper in September, show the Muslim Prophet Muhammad in a variety of humorous or satirical situations.

They include images of the Prophet carrying a lit bomb on his head and brandishing a sword.

But one of the clerics, Ahmed Akari, told the BBC the imams carried three extra caricatures of Muhammad that were far more inflammatory than the original 12, and were believed to have been drawn by extremists as part of a hatemail campaign.

Mr Akari said the imams had added them to their dossier to demonstrate the kind of attitudes that Muslims were facing in Denmark.

He insisted they were not intended to aggravate reaction in the Middle East.

Protests against the cartoons have continued, with four killed in an Afghan demonstration.

The deaths - at a protest by about 400 people in the town of Qalat - bring to 12 the number of people killed in Afghan protests over the cartoons in recent days.

Afghanistan's top council of Muslim clerics has called for an end to several days of demonstrations.

In other developments:

French magazine Charlie Hebdo becomes the latest to print the cartoons

Hackers attack hundreds of Danish websites, posting pro-Islamic messages condemning publication of the images

Several hundred people march on the Italian embassy in the Bangladeshi capital Dhaka, but are blocked by police

International observers leave their mission in the West Bank town of Hebron, following an attack by hundreds of Palestinian protesters.
'Sentiments inflamed'

Speaking at a joint news conference with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Ms Rice said some countries were behaving responsibly with regard to the row but that others "have also used this opportunity to incite violence."

CARTOON ROW
30 Sept 2005: Danish paper publishes cartoons
20 Oct: Muslim ambassadors complain to Danish PM
10 Jan 2006: Norwegian publication reprints cartoons
30 Jan: Gunmen raid EU's Gaza office demanding apology
1 Feb: Papers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain reprint cartoons
4 Feb: Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus attacked
5 Feb: Protesters set alight Danish embassy in Beirut
6-7 Feb: At least eight killed in protests in Afghanistan

How can row be resolved?

"I don't have any doubt that ... Iran and Syria have gone out of their way to inflame sentiments and to use this to their own purposes. And the world ought to call them on it," she said.

During the day about 200 Iranian demonstrators attacked the UK embassy in Tehran, but were prevented by police from forcing entry to the building.

The Danish and Norwegian embassies in Iran have also been attacked, while those in Beirut and Damascus were set on fire at the weekend.

Meanwhile US President George W Bush urged governments to prevent attacks on diplomatic missions.

"I call upon the governments around the world to stop the violence, to be respectful, to protect property, protect the lives of innocent diplomats who are serving their countries overseas," he said.

French President Jacques Chirac, however, focused on the European media, condemning decisions to republish the cartoons as an "overt provocation".

Bioptix

02-08-2006, 06:08 PM

Sorry, here is another one (I've been doing some research):

How it all began (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4693292.stm)

Ken Davis

02-08-2006, 11:19 PM

Okay, folks, to protect ourselves and our loved ones, we cannot reveal to the world that we are cartoonists.
Should anyone ask what we do for a liviing we shall, instead, divulge that we are gynecologists.

Just to be safe, y'know.

skinnylizard

02-08-2006, 11:30 PM

overt provocation - no doubt.
but it is freedom of the press and freedom of expression, Freedom is non-negotiable.

however they must face the consequences of their actions. stone throwing, burning flags etc, whatever they mabe (not correct or right)

so. what next?

Doubt

02-09-2006, 01:45 AM

skinnylizard

02-09-2006, 01:58 AM

I've met a lot of a**holes in my life but not one of them would kill someone over a cartoon. Disgusting!

Skinny, I think Bombay is probably mostly hindu but what are the normal people around there saying about this whole deal? I imagine most of them are sickened by this as well.

well the city has a sizeable Muslim populations and frankly there has been no protests, flag burnings or anything of that nature here. People arent really discussing it either.
i dont know what to say. im kinda half glad that the news is focused on a lot of other stuff going on here, but then the other half of me wants to know how the people here would really react.

Haredevil_Hare

02-09-2006, 07:59 AM

Sorry, Hare, what? Reprimand? For what? What did they do? What about the artists that drew the stuff, should they be punished?

I think I can answer this question with a press release I found:

DANISH PAPER REFUSED "OFFENSIVE" JESUS CARTOONS
By James Kilner

COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - The Danish newspaper that first published caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad infuriating Muslims worldwide previously turned down cartoons of Jesus as too offensive, a cartoonist said on Wednesday.

Twelve cartoons of the Prophet published last September by Jyllands-Posten newspaper have outraged Muslims, provoking violent protests in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.
"My cartoon, which certainly did not offend any Christians I showed it to, was rejected because the editor felt it would be considered offensive to readers -- readers in general, not necessarily Christians," cartoonist Christoffer Zieler said in an email he sent to Reuters on Wednesday.

Jens Kaiser, the former editor of Jyllands-Posten's Sunday edition who turned down the cartoons three years ago, said he had done so because they were no good.

"Having seen the cartoons, I found that they were not very good. I failed to see the purportedly provocative nature," he said in a statement.

"My fault is that I didn't tell him what I really meant: The cartoons were bad." Kaiser said he told Zieler he had not used the cartoons because they were offensive to some readers.

Zieler's five colored cartoons portrayed Jesus jumping out of holes in floors and walls during his resurrection. In one, gnomes rated Jesus for style, another entitled "Saviour-cam" showed Jesus with a camera on his head staring at his feet.

"I do think the cartoons would offend some readers, but only because they were silly," Kaiser said.

Unlike Muslims, who consider depictions of the Prophet to be deeply offensive, many Christians adorn churches with images and sculptures of Jesus. However, some Christian congregations have protested at portrayals they perceive as blasphemous, especially in the cinema.

The editor of Jyllands-Posten has apologized for offending Muslims by printing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, including one of the founder of Islam holding a bomb in his turban, but defended his right to do so in the interests of free speech.

Dozens of newspapers in Europe and elsewhere have reproduced them with the same justification.

"Perhaps explaining my story of three years ago in its proper context at least won't make matters any worse," Zieler said.

So, these same Danish newspaper editors who had no problems publishing slanderous depictions of Mohammed felt that slanderous pictures of Jesus would offend people? It is clear from these actions that these people don't consider Islam a true religion compared to Christianity. It's this sort of narrow-minded bigotry that lead Arabs to form the Nation of Islam in the first place. While I don't condone the explosively violent protests Arabs are waging on anything Danish right now, I do empathize with them.
I think maybe the best way to end all this bloodshed would be to fire these editors (not the cartoonists though because it was the editors that commisioned these cartoons from them, all the artists did was follow orders) but then tell the protesters that they have been decapitated. This way everyone's happy except for the assholes responsible who now must live in exile for abusing their right to freedom of the press. :mad:

skinnylizard

02-09-2006, 08:13 AM

I think I can answer this question with a press release I found:

DANISH PAPER REFUSED "OFFENSIVE" JESUS CARTOONS
By James Kilner

COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - The Danish newspaper that first published caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad infuriating Muslims worldwide previously turned down cartoons of Jesus as too offensive, a cartoonist said on Wednesday.

Twelve cartoons of the Prophet published last September by Jyllands-Posten newspaper have outraged Muslims, provoking violent protests in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.
"My cartoon, which certainly did not offend any Christians I showed it to, was rejected because the editor felt it would be considered offensive to readers -- readers in general, not necessarily Christians," cartoonist Christoffer Zieler said in an email he sent to Reuters on Wednesday.

Jens Kaiser, the former editor of Jyllands-Posten's Sunday edition who turned down the cartoons three years ago, said he had done so because they were no good.

"Having seen the cartoons, I found that they were not very good. I failed to see the purportedly provocative nature," he said in a statement.

"My fault is that I didn't tell him what I really meant: The cartoons were bad." Kaiser said he told Zieler he had not used the cartoons because they were offensive to some readers.

Zieler's five colored cartoons portrayed Jesus jumping out of holes in floors and walls during his resurrection. In one, gnomes rated Jesus for style, another entitled "Saviour-cam" showed Jesus with a camera on his head staring at his feet.

"I do think the cartoons would offend some readers, but only because they were silly," Kaiser said.

Unlike Muslims, who consider depictions of the Prophet to be deeply offensive, many Christians adorn churches with images and sculptures of Jesus. However, some Christian congregations have protested at portrayals they perceive as blasphemous, especially in the cinema.

The editor of Jyllands-Posten has apologized for offending Muslims by printing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, including one of the founder of Islam holding a bomb in his turban, but defended his right to do so in the interests of free speech.

Dozens of newspapers in Europe and elsewhere have reproduced them with the same justification.

"Perhaps explaining my story of three years ago in its proper context at least won't make matters any worse," Zieler said.

So, these same Danish newspaper editors who had no problems publishing slanderous depictions of Mohammed felt that slanderous pictures of Jesus would offend people? It is clear from these actions that these people don't consider Islam a true religion compared to Christianity. It's this sort of narrow-minded bigotry that lead Arabs to form the Nation of Islam in the first place. While I don't condone the explosively violent protests Arabs are waging on anything Danish right now, I do empathize with them.
I think maybe the best way to end all this bloodshed would be to fire these editors (not the cartoonists though because it was the editors that commisioned these cartoons from them, all the artists did was follow orders) but then tell the protesters that they have been decapitated. This way everyone's happy except for the assholes responsible who now must live in exile for abusing their right to freedom of the press. :mad:

actually i think they should be free to be bigots and racists, because its better to have this out in the open then hidden.

also you take the good with the bad. you have the power of the press but then you have to have the responsibility as well. You abuse your power then you should face the consequences.

Europe is burning because of this,

question is was it worth it ?

i think shaking up the establishment is good, but if you are fighting the good fight..

the more i read of this the more i gather that this was completely the wrong way of going about things.

Bioptix

02-09-2006, 08:31 AM

I think I can answer this question with a press release I found:

[i]DANISH PAPER REFUSED "OFFENSIVE" JESUS CARTOONS
By James Kilner

That's priceless! :D

The editors should be sacked. Then they can be free to be as racist and bigoted as they like, but should people like this really be in charge of reprisenting the freedom of the press in the West? The cartoonists have already been given the boot and most of them are now in hiding with 24hr protection fearing for their lives. Why are the newspaper bosses who commission this 'experiment' still going around with business as normal :confused:

phacker

02-09-2006, 08:36 AM

skinnylizard

02-09-2006, 08:59 AM

No one has really answered my question. How did the masses of agitated muslims know this cartoon was about Mohammed? Did some cleric hold it up and point at it? I've been trying to see it on the internet, and maybe I have. I am not sure because the weenie newsstations here in the states are withholding it.

Which I think is an infringement on my freedom of the press. Should I murder and pillage because of that. No I just thinks it shows how we are continuing to be manipulated.

What I've seen look like any picture of my grandfather in a turban. How is that inflamatory. Sure one picture the turban looks like a bomb, hey my grandfather might have worn one of those.

Get real folks, who is really responsible? Whoever is continuing to agitate this situation, and folks stupid enough to get caught up in it.

Do you really think anyone can buy themselves a place in heaven by shedding the blood of others. Whatever you vision of heaven is. And over a cartoon, aren't there more important things for you to consider like feeding your family and creating something the world might remember with joy.

word gets around. it would be the same if it were Jesus cartoons, news people would pick it up, print would take over, word of mouth, then the politicians get together and then the aspirants.

funny thing is you never know how much of this is real and how much news hype.

i mean India has 300+million muslims and there has been ZERO peep or reaction to this.

also a friend said something funny to me (one born into christianity no less)

if heaven is such a great place how the f*** is getting crucified such a sacrifice.

im not trying to be offensive so i hope no one takes any.

Bioptix

02-09-2006, 08:59 AM

Phaker please read my last posts (page 5).

The Muslims knew these images were of the prophet because the paper commissioned them specifically. A group of radical Danish imams took them to the middle east to publicise them in the Arab nations, some of the cartoons were faked and much of the violence has been incited for political reasons.

The last link I posted should answer some of your questions.

Here is an extract:

The issue arose after Danish writer Kare Bluitgen complained he was unable to find an illustrator for his children's book about the Prophet because he said no one dared break an Islamic tenet banning the portrayal of his image.

Jyllands-Posten asked cartoonists to "draw the Prophet as they saw him", as an assertion of free speech and to reject pressure by Muslims groups to respect their sensitivities.

---

How is that inflamatory :confused:

phacker

02-09-2006, 09:02 AM

Excuse my ignorance what's an imam, and why did they feel responsible to do this?

I looked it up:

The Shia believe that The Imam is someone that is able to lead mankind in all aspects of life. In addition they believe that an Imam is a perfect example in everything. According to Shia, an Imam is a leader that must be followed since he is appointed by Allah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah) (GOD).

The catholic's think the same thing about priests, but I don't listen to them without first listening to my own conscience.

skinnylizard

02-09-2006, 09:08 AM

Excuse my ignorance what's an iman, and why did they feel responsible to do this?

google is your friend phacker :)

Imam is the guy who gives the call to prayer and is like a religious head of the mosque i believe.

phacker

02-09-2006, 09:16 AM

Yeah, I looked it up after I posted Skinny. And revised my post. I still say I would never murder and pillage just on the word of my priest or president. I've known some really funky ones. Both priests and presidents. My life is something I own, and have to face. They aren't going to use me for their own little political reasons. When I die I die alone and face whatever it is by myself, and have to explain why. I've never been one to pass the buck and say so and so told me to.

Besides when you pass that way, who knows which names are going to be important. I don't think "Bush" is going to be high on the list. And JC and the big M may be right down on the bottom with him.

Bioptix

02-09-2006, 09:25 AM

i�mam also I�mam (?-m�m')
n. Islam.
In law and theology, the caliph who is successor to Muhammad as the lawful temporal leader of the Islamic community.
The male prayer leader in a mosque.
The Muslim worshiper who leads the recitation of prayer when two or more worshipers are present.
A male spiritual and temporal leader regarded by Shiites as a descendant of Muhammad divinely appointed to guide humans.
An earthly representative of the 12 such leaders recognized by the majority form of Shiism.
A ruler claiming descent from Muhammad and exercising authority in an Islamic state.
Any one of the founders of the four schools of law and theology.
An authoritative scholar who founds a school of law or theology.
Used as a title for an imam.

I imagine they felt responsible, because the Danish press had printed these pictures of Muhammed in a direct challenge to the Islamic law which deems any graven images of the prophet as blasphemous. The paper knew exactly what they were doing, hoping to stir up contraversy and a reaction in the Muslim world. They misjudged the reaction and we are all suffering as a result. No matter what your views on religion, do you think the newspaper acted responsibly?

Reminder:
Population of the world (approx)4billion
Population of muslim world (approx)1.3billion

phacker

02-09-2006, 09:27 AM

I don't think anyone is behaving responsibly, least of all you Imam. They are using you. Get wise.

phacker

02-09-2006, 09:30 AM

Are they out there with the mob killing and burning or are they just stirring the waters and letting the loyal followers take responsibility and loss?

kdiddy13

02-09-2006, 09:41 AM

Are they out there with the mob killing and burning or are they just stirring the waters and letting the loyal followers take responsibility and loss?
Mostly just stirring the waters. They're as much politcal figures as religious, like priests in some countries (or centuries ago).

The whole situation sucks, I think we all agree.

phacker

02-09-2006, 09:46 AM

If my priest was lying bleeding and leading a valiant fight against something I could also see as evil, yes then I might uplift a staff to continue battle. But to base it just on something he voices while he stands behind a safe podium...NO! To me he is just a man, certainly one that has studied, but not one that will take my place for me when the time comes to be held accountable. I only will face my maker, whoever that might be. And I will be held accountable, if only to myself.

Bioptix

02-09-2006, 09:51 AM

I don't think anyone is behaving responsibly, least of all you Imam. They are using you. Get wise.

Who is being used? The only people I feel used by as a free thinking European, are those who are in position to (mis)reprisent me and my culture by acting irresponsibly and using 'Freedom of speach' as their defense. Imagine the uproar if a national paper in the US printed a racist cartoon of Mrs King (RIP) being strung up by the KKK! The whole country would rightfully go INSANE. However, according to Danish rules this image could be justified by freedom of speach or 'testing the boundries of freedom of expression' (as the Danish paper put it). I say again that I do not condone or support the violent actions currently being taken by the muslim protesters. But the danish press should not be able to walk away from this scott free!

phacker

02-09-2006, 09:59 AM

Publishers act on a commercial motivation. What they did they thought would generate news, and it certainly did. What religious radicals are doing just fuels their commerical fires.

In the past here in the states there have been many depictions of the KKK, and obnoxious things. It's left up to the public to deem what is important, and what they want to ignore or respond to, in the seventies there was a push toward being what was considered "politically correct"...what the hell is that? Most of us our here in the country just continued with our lives. Now there is a push to move to the right. Well some of us favour our rights, but that's actually a push to the left! But that's political speak. Most of us just want to live our lives and get on with things. But if you let them "the people in power " will try to use you.

Hold the things that are dear to you close, and tell those you love that you love them! Time on earth is short, don't be redirected by others that will use you.

skinnylizard

02-09-2006, 10:02 AM

i think some of you dont have much personal experience with Muslims, they are generally (not always) quite conservative or quite liberal, not much middle ground there.
the ones who are conservative take their religion very seriously, when they feel they are being attacked, they fight back, Islam as a faith isnt very tolerant of criticism nor very conducive to change.
im not going to comment on what is apt or imp, but ill say that these are things that are known and the newspapers basically 'entrapped' the funadmentalists in this row. Im not sure anymore for what, its weird, i support their right to do what they did but its hard to defend it with the same ferocity.

also if they really wanted to prove something like this they should have just asked for caricatures of Jesus, Buddha, Shiva & The prophet, maybe then we could have judged how it would have gone.

thing with an action like this is that it dosent educate anyone but it prejudices everyone.

phacker

02-09-2006, 10:11 AM

I don't think they are that much different then we are here in the States. Since 9/11 everyone has had to be very careful of what they say. There are certain things that are acceptable and some that aren't. I for one have gotten tired of trying to placate the simple minded that just want someone to protect them. These folks just want one certain direction as long as it it guarranttees them safety, nothing can do that. Life will never be a totally safe place, that's the nature of it.

Bioptix

02-09-2006, 10:18 AM

also if they really wanted to prove something like this they should have just asked for caricatures of Jesus, Buddha, Shiva & The prophet, maybe then we could have judged how it would have gone.

They actually came pretty close (from BBC article):

"The paper chose as its central image a visual joke about the Prophet among other turban-wearing figures in a police line-up and the witness saying: "I don't know which one he is".

It is presumably an ironic appeal for calm over the issue, the suggestion being that, if a Danish illustrator were to portray the Prophet, it is not known what he looks like and is therefore a harmless gesture.

The humour comes from the fact that the line-up also includes people like Jesus Christ, the far-right Danish politician Pia Kjaersgaard and Mr Bluitgen himself (the author who wanted an illustration of Muhammed for his book)."

However, Muhammed is the only one here whose graven image is blasphemous no matter what the context.

Bioptix

02-09-2006, 10:21 AM

Hold the things that are dear to you close, and tell those you love that you love them! Time on earth is short, don't be redirected by others that will use you.

Wise words phacker, thanks for putting things back in perspective :D

phacker

02-09-2006, 10:34 AM

Animated Ape

02-09-2006, 11:29 AM

I haven't seen a picture of the comic in question, but I have a question of my own:

If these devout muslims have never seen an image of their prophet how do they know this depiction is of him? Is it labeled? Or are they all being drawn into some mass hysteria spurred on by a power that is using their unfounded outrage.

Devout Jews avoid using the term god or any specific name that may be connected with it, but they don't usually create havoc when they hear a non believer use it.
Just moving this. It was in the wrong thread.

sajdera

02-09-2006, 06:23 PM

I hope you guys quoting the bible to prove your point realise you sound just as crazy and fanatical as the people quoting it to prove their points. It sounds like you're the ones taking a fundamentalist look on things, again, not formally organized, but your views aren't a whole lot different in timber and tone from those you disagree with. About the same black and white view of things the other side has taken.

Let me get his strait, KDiddy. You're saying that people who claim to believe in Jesus Christ, swear on the bible and call themselves Christians and then pick and choose which parts of their holy book they're going to "take seriously" are somehow BETTER than those that are fanatical about it? It's kind of hard to be objective about Mr. Nice-Guy-in-the-Sky.

And why not be reasonable and realise that each portion of the bible was written in a different time, under different circumstances, in a different context. Many Christians are capable of realizing this (many aren't as well). The parts you've quoted were from a different time when the people writing them had different views.

What does that have to do with what I'm saying? I'm not using the bible as proof of anything regarding human nature or whatever you seem to have thought I was saying. I was pointing out a passage I find particularly interesting, the one that implies that even the savage raping of one's own daughters is worth saving two complete strangers from the same fate. It's their book, dude, and the whole thing is just as relatively ancient as any other one part of it. Most people that call themselves Christians don't live Christian lives because they're hedonists. I'm not judging them for being hedonists, but they still say I'm going to hell. Wowzers.

There are reasonable Christians, Muslims and Jews who don't hold the Old Testament as law, have an accepting view of gays (the Episcopal church has a lesbian Bishop), believe in Darwin and evolution, can think for themselves and still believe in the god they've chosen, and believe in doing good. You guys sound just as bad as all the nut jobs calling homosexuality a sin, and just as intolerant.

Christians that believe in evolution are fine by me, no problem, but I can't very well say that Christianity is a sin, can I? So, it's not the same thing. Telling somebody that they're going to hell and telling someone that they're a fanatical ignoramus are different things, no?

And as far as the mind control thing, corporate television is a form of political and economical (many times synonimous these days), and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and believing that you can take the parts of television that you enjoy and find fullfilling without being brainwashed into buying everything their trying to sell.

See, you made this analogy to religion yourself. I'd be willing to accept that religion is just a grand and all-encompassing form of entertainment. But to say that the folks who just watch Family Guy whenever they feel like it are better than the folks who think it's the best show and buy all the stuffed toys, I don't agree with. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Don't judge it solely on the people who can't think for themselves.

What makes you think I haven't made my conclusions about religion based on religion itself? It's clear to me that believing and having faith in things you cannot prove and don't even make sense is a gigantic waste of time and energy. It wouldn't be so bad if the people doing it would knock it off with the wars and suicide bombings, especially since religion doesn't benefit humanity in any exclusive way that I can imagine, meaning helping the poor, doing good deeds, living a virtuous life, and et cetera. Those things happen with or without religion, despite what religious people would have you believe.

Of course, nothing personal, Diddy. That's how I see it, though.

sajdera

02-09-2006, 06:26 PM

However, Muhammed is the only one here whose graven image is blasphemous no matter what the context.

"Nobody is to stone anybody until I blow this whistle, do you understand!?!? I want to make this absolutely clear!!
...
Even if they do say 'Jehovah...'"

skinnylizard

02-09-2006, 08:53 PM

Well if his graven image is considered blasphemous, and it's never been seen, then only the great holy "amin" who should be directing their flocks in a harmonious manner are the ones that pointed him out and caused the hoopla. My question is why, what's in it for them? I bet someone has some money in their pocket these days, and it's not the irrate mob, or little guy.

I don't care if you wear a turban and beard, or cowboy boots, money rules. And the little guy usually gets used and discarded as a commodity. Time the Muslim world learned the rules of the global economy. I think it's a push to force the US into war with Iran, and it just may work work for PNAC (http://www.newamericancentury.org/). Those guys seem to be able to pull strings on all political and religious fronts for their specific purposes, and the rest of us just get caught up in it. And Haliburton and the rest just get richer. They have a plan and they aren't going to be held up. Unless those of us little guys that make their plan work wise up and say do it yourself, by yourself.

Phacker, im afraid with the global economy so far entrenched in the natural resources of the muslim world it would end up us having to learn their rules.

i think the Dane running the paper should have learnt about the relationship of power and responsibility.

he is allowed his provocation but there is going to be fallout, some people are passive and some people are quite invested in their religion and it is a big part of their lives just like freedom is for some.

what they arent doing is def not right but then what the newspaper did isnt right either.

Us vs Them is guranteed to blow up in everyones face.

sajdera

02-09-2006, 10:07 PM

what they arent doing is def not right but then what the newspaper did isnt right either.

I nor anyone else in the United States owes any religion any respect, period. Whether the fundamentalist Muslims sit on vast oil fileds or not, nobody, and that means NOBODY is ever required to respect their religious beliefs AT ALL, not in America or any country's citizens with the right to freely worship (or not), write and assemble as they please.

I didn't mean to rant on my personal worldview in my last post, that was beyond the scope and purpose of this thread (and board). However, as far as the debate on whether or not there was any accountability on the part of artists or the press to walk on eggshells for religion, I say NO WAY.

skinnylizard

02-09-2006, 10:23 PM

I nor anyone else in the United States owes any religion any respect, period. Whether the fundamentalist Muslims sit on vast oil fileds or not, nobody, and that means NOBODY is ever required to respect their religious beliefs AT ALL, not in America or any country's citizens with the right to freely worship (or not), write and assemble as they please.

I didn't mean to rant on my personal worldview in my last post, that was beyond the scope and purpose of this thread (and board). However, as far as the debate on whether or not there was any accountability on the part of artists or the press to walk on eggshells for religion, I say NO WAY.

well first, this isnt an American issue so i dont think it needs to made out to be one.

secondly no one said anything about eggshells, it is a question of bias and bigotry, which is how it comes across.

i dont think bigotry is acceptable ? or is it ok to be a bigot when it comes to Islam?

Ken Davis

02-09-2006, 10:51 PM

well first, this isnt an American issue so i dont think it needs to made out to be one.

secondly no one said anything about eggshells, it is a question of bias and bigotry, which is how it comes across.

i dont think bigotry is acceptable ? or is it ok to be a bigot when it comes to Islam?

One has to be a bigot to go to war. Otherwise, without bogtry, there is no reason to war in the first place.

Since the war on terror is focused on OFFSHOOT followers of Islam, the more radical Muslims have an incredibly easy sell to blackball the West as bigots that directly threaten their culture, religion and everything they value.
Any slight, no matter how minor is enough to ignite things.
The bigotry exists here ( and there too) and always has.
There is a GREAT conceit in the West regarding the perception that such "backwards" people control such valuable resources. The conceit is in a mocking dismissive tone at best--just look at hour popular media here portrays Arabs and Muslims in general. Its pretty shoddy.

Fed with this kind of media diet, its no wonder our perceptions are tainted.
And they know it over there. If I was Muslim, looking over to the West, I would be appalled and disgusted with what I saw coming out of this land.
Its not the news stories that betray the "true" feelings, its everything else.

When a person senses that someone dislikes them, their sensitivities focus on the minutae and the subtle rather than the obvious and overt.
They been looking at the subtle signals we've been communicating for decades now.

And now we have apparently stumbled with a pretty overt message.

Their camel's back has been broken and WE placed the last piece of straw on it that did it.

sajdera

02-09-2006, 11:09 PM

well first, this isnt an American issue so i dont think it needs to made out to be one.

secondly no one said anything about eggshells, it is a question of bias and bigotry, which is how it comes across.

i dont think bigotry is acceptable ? or is it ok to be a bigot when it comes to Islam?

First on your list, I can't speak for the artist or his country, so I wanted to make it clear that I was giving an American opinion. However, it kind of is an American issue not only because of the occupation, but because the American new media won't even show the stupid cartoons. Totally PC.

Secondly, it's not an issue of bias. Where's the bias?

Third, I don't see any bigotry on my part, either. Christians, for example, believe I'm going to hell, which I understand is, alledgedly, not exactly a big colorful ball pen at Chuck E. Cheese's. That's fine, I go about my day just the same, despite their threats. However, the people in the attacked embassy can't go about their day the same, because fundamentalist muslims seem to think the rest of the world owes the religion of Islam respect.

We don't. However, mankind ought to respect what should be their right to their beliefs, whatever they are. There's a difference between allowing someone to exercise their religion (freedom of religion) and buying into politically-correct bullshit that says we can't say anything bad or mock that religion.

skinnylizard

02-09-2006, 11:19 PM

First on your list, I can't speak for the artist or his country, so I wanted to make it clear that I was giving an American opinion. However, it kind of is an American issue not only because of the occupation, but because the American new media won't even show the stupid cartoons. Totally PC.

Secondly, it's not an issue of bias. Where's the bias?

Third, I don't see any bigotry on my part, either. Christians, for example, believe I'm going to hell, which I understand is, alledgedly, not exactly a big colorful ball pen at Chuck E. Cheese's. That's fine, I go about my day just the same, despite their threats. However, the people in the attacked embassy can't go about their day the same, because fundamentalist muslims seem to think the rest of the world owes the religion of Islam respect.

We don't. However, mankind ought to respect what should be their right to their beliefs, whatever they are. There's a difference between allowing someone to exercise their religion (freedom of religion) and buying into politically-correct bullshit that says we can't say anything bad or mock that religion.

Saj, none of my comments were directed at you except the first one. Being American is completely irrelevant to me because an opinion is an opinion and being cloaked in nationality makes little difference.

while you think Islam or any other religion is owed any respect , ok, but it isnt owed any disrespect either. So to go out of your way and insult it is unacceptable.

it is fine to go on say PC this and PC that, lets just all say what is on our minds no matter who gets offended.

it sounds like a great idea in principle, unchecked, irresponsible freedom, but it dosent work, never has and will not begin now.

so instead of fighting dogma, point is to see where this came from and how it could either be salvaged or solved.

sajdera

02-09-2006, 11:34 PM

One has to be a bigot to go to war. Otherwise, without bogtry, there is no reason to war in the first place.

Money, resources and power aren't reasons for war? I've never started a war myself or been a soldier, either, but check out the footage of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein or Bush holding hands with King Abdullah and tell me that this is all about "bigotry".

I just read an editorial article in my local paper today (which happens to be totally Republican, by the way), that examined the American Vice President's statements and contradictory actions regarding America's dependancy on foreign oil. Every step of the way, the powers that be thwart any and all transition towards corn sugar-based fuels (or whatever the hell it is, I always heard hemp was the magic fuel) because the fat cats are invested in Saudi oil. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Anyway, I'll say this again: no offense to you guys. I don't mind heated political discussion if my company doesn't, but honestly, this whole evil-comics "issue" seems like a bunch of hyped-up bullshit to me. Peace :cool: .

sajdera

02-09-2006, 11:53 PM

Saj, none of my comments were directed at you except the first one. Being American is completely irrelevant to me because an opinion is an opinion and being cloaked in nationality makes little difference.

while you think Islam or any other religion is owed any respect , ok, but it isnt owed any disrespect either. So to go out of your way and insult it is unacceptable.

I hear you, we're cool. The only reason the American issue came up is because, frankly, I don't know exactly what kind of press rights these countries have, so it was a disclaimer towards whether what happened had legal repercussions beyond my understanding. That's all.

Secondly, it's my (American) right to disrespect Islam and any religion, and it should be so throughout the world. It's my right to nail a Star Wars storm trooper to a crucifix, draw blood all over it and take pictures of it (which I did), because I'm not required to give a two shits about Christianity in any way.

It's not my right to spray paint slurs on churches or reject a muslim from working in my business based on his religion, but I could tell a Mormon or a Shinto that I think his religion is a bunch of bullshit and I think he's a complete idiot, if I were so inclined to do so (of course, in reality, I don't do those things because I just don't care about religion in general and it doesn't really bother me otherwise).

THAT'S how freedom of religion works. You are free to practice your religion, but nowhere does it say you'll be protected from mockery or that people can't draw cartoons of your sacred figures. That's the way I understand democracy is supposed to work, whether it actually plays out in real life or not.

skinnylizard

02-10-2006, 12:21 AM

I hear you, we're cool. The only reason the American issue came up is because, frankly, I don't know exactly what kind of press rights these countries have, so it was a disclaimer towards whether what happened had legal repercussions beyond my understanding. That's all.

Secondly, it's my (American) right to disrespect Islam and any religion, and it should be so throughout the world. It's my right to nail a Star Wars storm trooper to a crucifix, draw blood all over it and take pictures of it (which I did), because I'm not required to give a two shits about Christianity in any way.

It's not my right to spray paint slurs on churches or reject a muslim from working in my business based on his religion, but I could tell a Mormon or a Shinto that I think his religion is a bunch of bullshit and I think he's a complete idiot, if I were so inclined to do so (of course, in reality, I don't do those things because I just don't care about religion in general and it doesn't really bother me otherwise).

THAT'S how freedom of religion works. You are free to practice your religion, but nowhere does it say you'll be protected from mockery or that people can't draw cartoons of your sacred figures. That's the way I understand democracy is supposed to work, whether it actually plays out in real life or not.

well at what point is it harassment vs your right to free speech?

say i have a person working in my office and he screws up, so i can call him a moron or a dumb hebrew or stupid cow worshipper...

so where does it end?

sajdera

02-10-2006, 12:48 AM

well at what point is it harassment vs your right to free speech?

say i have a person working in my office and he screws up, so i can call him a moron or a dumb hebrew or stupid cow worshipper...

so where does it end?

It's against the law to discriminate against individuals based on race, gender, religion, ethnicity (and in some states) sexual orientation in the work place, and rightfully so. You could get seriously sued for such harrassment.

Now, let's say you hold your temper when your employee screws up, and later on you head out to lunch. Outside the coffee shop is some missionary handing out tracts and he comes up to you with his speil and you say, "get out my face, I don't want to hear your bullshit. Jesus SUX!" That would be your (hopefully) unalienable right to do so, and if that's how you really felt, then that's what you should say.

Personally, I just ignore those people and they move on and I move on. Now, in recent world developments, fundamentalist muslims are forming terrorist organizations and blowing shit up in the name of Islam and people are making comments about it, including in the form of comics. There's nothing they can do about it except riot and blow more shit up. It's lunacy.

Let me put it this way: I've heard more than one Islamic community leader come on the air to say that the hijackers and insurgents aren't really following "true" Islam and that they're not legitimate. BULLSHIT. Religion is religion, and Osama bin Laden's Islam carries the same weight as non-violent, mainstream Islam. Just because you don't agree with fundamentalist Islam because you're the one at the short end of the stick getting suicide bombed doesn't make that religion worth any less than any other. It's total hypocrisy.

skinnylizard

02-10-2006, 01:45 AM

It's against the law to discriminate against individuals based on race, gender, religion, ethnicity (and in some states) sexual orientation in the work place, and rightfully so. You could get seriously sued for such harrassment.

Now, let's say you hold your temper when your employee screws up, and later on you head out to lunch. Outside the coffee shop is some missionary handing out tracts and he comes up to you with his speil and you say, "get out my face, I don't want to hear your bullshit. Jesus SUX!" That would be your (hopefully) unalienable right to do so, and if that's how you really felt, then that's what you should say.

Personally, I just ignore those people and they move on and I move on. Now, in recent world developments, fundamentalist muslims are forming terrorist organizations and blowing shit up in the name of Islam and people are making comments about it, including in the form of comics. There's nothing they can do about it except riot and blow more shit up. It's lunacy.

Let me put it this way: I've heard more than one Islamic community leader come on the air to say that the hijackers and insurgents aren't really following "true" Islam and that they're not legitimate. BULLSHIT. Religion is religion, and Osama bin Laden's Islam carries the same weight as non-violent, mainstream Islam. Just because you don't agree with fundamentalist Islam because you're the one at the short end of the stick getting suicide bombed doesn't make that religion worth any less than any other. It's total hypocrisy.

why is it hypocrisy? things are always open to interpretation arent they?

we dont see an inquisition or a Salem witch hunty anymore? i think its a bit excessive to say that Osama is the same as my family friends who are well educated, well employed, well to do muslims who have absolutely no desire to bomb hurt or maim christians or anyone else.

it would be hypocrisy if they said Osama dosent speak for us and then go psst, bombs away.

cant be that rigid.

DIEMERAS Dark Angel

02-10-2006, 05:27 AM

Don't want to get involved, but please keep Skiz on his good side, please.:)

Bioptix

02-10-2006, 06:45 AM

Let me put it this way: I've heard more than one Islamic community leader come on the air to say that the hijackers and insurgents aren't really following "true" Islam and that they're not legitimate. BULLSHIT. Religion is religion, and Osama bin Laden's Islam carries the same weight as non-violent, mainstream Islam. Just because you don't agree with fundamentalist Islam because you're the one at the short end of the stick getting suicide bombed doesn't make that religion worth any less than any other. It's total hypocrisy.

It is worth mentioning here that not all members of the Islamic community are in fact religious at all, some do not pray, some do not go to mosque, some do not even read the Qur'an. All of them, however, identify with the Prophet Muhammed as the man who united the Arab tribes under one faith. He is the founder of their culture, and is beloved by all regardless of their personal beliefs. No doubt a percentage of the protesters are not religious but will protest with just as much (and maybe more) passion to protect their culture as those with religious views. This issue is as much about politics, culture and identity as religious belief.
Islam is in fact a multi-faceted religion with many different branches (Sunni, Shiite, Sufi...etc) similar to the denominations of Christianity. The bitter struggles between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland perfectly illustrate the polarisations that can take place within the same faith, nevermind totally seperate faiths. However, the struggles in Ireland are more about the political situation there than the differences in spiritual belief. People wear their faith like a badge, it stands for their background and upbringing, their roots and their family. To insult the faith is to insult the identity of the badge wearer, whether he believes in his faith or not is irrelevant. The same goes for Muslims in the Islamic world where the political pressure is just as great, if not more so.

My opinion on this now is that perhaps this was all inevitable. Perhaps it was unavoidable that this massive clash of cultures would have to take place before we can all move forward into a future world that is shrinking at a rapid rate. A dialogue between these two cultures is now essential to reduce the present level of ignorance that exists on both sides. I praise the Malaysian presidents' decision to call for a world council, it is the only way to ensure this sorry situation does not happen again.

skinnylizard

02-10-2006, 07:29 AM

Bioptix

02-10-2006, 08:14 AM

all this reminds me of one of my fav stories that i heard once again on the Sopranos rerun.

there is a frog and there is a scorpion and they meet at the bank of the flooding river . the scorpion says to the frog can you carry me on your back and take me across. the frog says " you will bite me" and he says "no, i wont, i promise" they banter back and forth for a bit and the frog ultimately agrees. the scorpion on the frogs back is trying his damndest not to sting the frog and its taking all his possible will power not to. Halfway through the river he stings the frog and they both begin to drown, right before they both go down, the frog asks the scorpion "why? we are both dead now" so the scorpion says "i cant help it, its my nature"

so in the end i think it dosent matter, im sure we will find a new way to piss them off or they will find one to piss us off.

after all this is what we do.

Well played Skinnylizard! :D

It's like at the end of 'Time Bandits' after the 'good guys' appear to have won the Final Battle, the last smoking tarry lump of Evil gets left behind and slowly starts to seep back into the world (Terry Gilliam is the MAN). As long as there is 'good' in the world there will always be 'evil' too. Problems occur when people find something they can identify as Evil, it makes them feel so much better to know they must therefore be on the side of Good. If only things were so simple ;)

kdiddy13

02-10-2006, 09:18 AM

Let me get his strait, KDiddy. You're saying that people who claim to believe in Jesus Christ, swear on the bible and call themselves Christians and then pick and choose which parts of their holy book they're going to "take seriously" are somehow BETTER than those that are fanatical about it? It's kind of hard to be objective about Mr. Nice-Guy-in-the-Sky.
So do you want more crazy fundamentalist religous zealots? Or are you playing the 'holier than thou' card? Because that's a bit of a BS argument if you ask me. And I'm not saying better, as much as I don't think that their intolerance and hatred is really what the bible was after. It's fairly obvious what the intent of the book is (be nice to people and don't kill each other) while filtering out the stuff that is obviously politically motivated by whatever leaders were in charge at the time. Many Christians are smart enough to realize that the Bible has been rewritten hundreds of times through history and can look at it as a general picture of things. Reason. It is possible in the context of religion.

What does that have to do with what I'm saying? I'm not using the bible as proof of anything regarding human nature or whatever you seem to have thought I was saying. I was pointing out a passage I find particularly interesting, the one that implies that even the savage raping of one's own daughters is worth saving two complete strangers from the same fate. It's their book, dude, and the whole thing is just as relatively ancient as any other one part of it. Most people that call themselves Christians don't live Christian lives because they're hedonists. I'm not judging them for being hedonists, but they still say I'm going to hell. Wowzers.
So why quote it then, other than to prove your point? Fundamentalists are picking and choosing their quotes from the bible to prove their point, just as you are. And just like they are, you are using it to judge people you obviously don't agree with. Not much different from my perspective.

And so now you want people to be reasonable? Do you think that Christians should treat their daughters this way? Me neither. Reason. And it isn't as relatively ancient as other parts. Much of it was rewritten in the past half millenium and new bibles continue to come out today with different wording. Some parts get rewritten, others don't, some just get deleted.

And I'm not sure why you think you're going to hell. Some Christians might believe it. Hey, I trim my sideburns, but I'm not particularly worried about being forced to play Monopoly for eternity and only rolling 2's. Many Christians believe that everyone eventually goes to heaven. Many don't think others are going to hell due to a difference in views or even beliefs. Hell doesn't play prominently in many Christian churches anymore.

Christians that believe in evolution are fine by me, no problem, but I can't very well say that Christianity is a sin, can I? So, it's not the same thing. Telling somebody that they're going to hell and telling someone that they're a fanatical ignoramus are different things, no?
How so? It's still condeming them for their beliefs. "Fanatical ignoramus" is a condemning insult for you, just as "you're going to hell" is for them. Again, you sound as intolerant of their views and lifestyles as they do, you're just using different words.

See, you made this analogy to religion yourself. I'd be willing to accept that religion is just a grand and all-encompassing form of entertainment. But to say that the folks who just watch Family Guy whenever they feel like it are better than the folks who think it's the best show and buy all the stuffed toys, I don't agree with. That doesn't make any sense to me.

My point is that there's brainwashing everywhere. Everywhere you go someone is trying to get you to think their way. I'm sure you've seen the Raiders fans who've gone to far and it's become all life encompassing. A difference sure. Religion at least has the benefit of encouraging people to do good.

What makes you think I haven't made my conclusions about religion based on religion itself? It's clear to me that believing and having faith in things you cannot prove and don't even make sense is a gigantic waste of time and energy. It wouldn't be so bad if the people doing it would knock it off with the wars and suicide bombings, especially since religion doesn't benefit humanity in any exclusive way that I can imagine, meaning helping the poor, doing good deeds, living a virtuous life, and et cetera. Those things happen with or without religion, despite what religious people would have you believe.

The fact that your only arguments are based on the most unreasonable portions of it that many don't believe in or follow, for one. Watching TV is a gigantic waste of time, and the news blows things out of proportion (to the point of getting a whole nation to go to war), and yet I don't hear any significant complaints here about TV or the newspaper causing problems. And what's wrong with believing in something you can't prove, especially if it gives you comfort and encourages charity.

There aren't many things that are exclusive like that and many wouldn't do those things without religion. And no one is arguing that the wars caused over religion aren't stupid. Wars are always stupid, it doesn't take religion to make it so. Wars and suicide bombings, and hating your neighbors aren't exclusive to religion either, and they aren't a part of it for a majority of religious followers. I've never met a Muslim suicide bomber, but I do know Muslims, just as most of the Christians I know are for gay rights, believe in evolution, and don't think that anyone who disagrees with them is going to hell (and come to think of it, don't mention hell or heaven at all).
Of course, nothing personal, Diddy. That's how I see it, though.
I haven't taken offense. I just hope that you can take a step back and see that quoting the bible, pointing out the Crusades, etc. makes you sound just as crazy and intolerant as the people doing the same thing on the other side. And for the record, I don't agree with them either, and I would be arguing just as strongly against what they were saying for being ignorant and intolerant.

sajdera

02-10-2006, 11:34 AM

Skinnylizard and KDiddy seem to be on the same tack, so rather than run through two more lists of quote points, I'll make one general response.

I see the recent issue like this: fundamentalist muslims have rioted because some cartoonists have broken the deadly rule of visually depicting Mohammed and now there's some kind of backwards talk that the press needs to be more "responsible". The rest of the world can draw Mohammed cartoons as much as they want, not owing anything to Islam whatsoever. I'm not muslim and depictions of Mohammed mean nothing to me. If the rioters have a problem with that, then get a new religion, because the non-muslim world doesn't have to abide by their rules.

Skinny wanted to know about the hypocricy I called out. I wasn't saying anything about your muslim friends with their nice jobs and all that, it's like this: it's hypocritical to say that your friends' religion and faith is worth more or is superior to Osama bin Laden's. You don't like bin Laden's because it includes the part where he blows you up, and that's fair I don't blame you, but to act like he and his don't believe in their faith just as much as your friends do is whack. And I'll take it further and say that the bin Laden-brand Islam is just a valid and any other, because it's faith, it's belief, and how can you be objective about that?

Finally, to say that all religions basically boil down to mean "be good and love everybody" is imagination and wishful thinking. There are as many ways to interpret the Bible or Koran as there are interpreters, and not a single one of them is incorrect, whether it calls for love or violence or whatever. Personally, I'm less than impressed with the interpretation of Genesis 19:8 that says, "oh, well, we don't really believe in that, but the rest of the Bible is okay." Lame.

Bioptix

02-10-2006, 12:16 PM

it's hypocritical to say that your friends' religion and faith is worth more or is superior to Osama bin Laden's. You don't like bin Laden's because it includes the part where he blows you up, and that's fair I don't blame you, but to act like he and his don't believe in their faith just as much as your friends do is whack. And I'll take it further and say that the bin Laden-brand Islam is just a valid and any other, because it's faith, it's belief, and how can you be objective about that?
The point is, you can't justify demonising an entire religion/culture because of the actions of a few religious extreemists with political ambitions/motivations. Even if they can justify their actions by their own interpretations of the Qur'an. Extreemists and fanatics will always use the platforms of Religion and Politics to get their message across to the masses. However, this doesn't mean Religion and Politics have no use or have no positive role to play in the formation and maintanence of society. Throughout history dictators such as Hitler have used Politics to spread fear and hatered around the world and have tried to justify the genocide of millions using it. However, no one says Politics has no use or is Evil, only the evil politicians/dictators like Adolf Hitler deserve that label. The same goes for Religion, those that misuse power should be held responsible for their actions, but you can't tar everyone with the same brush.

DSB

02-10-2006, 12:51 PM

...the non-muslim world doesn't have to abide by their rules.
I think this is the crux of the matter. Expecting those who don't subscribe to one's belief set to abide by the beliefs in said set invites these types of situations. Yes, Muhammed was depicted unflatteringly, and Muslims have every right to be upset about that (not "burning down buildings" upset, but upset). But the point I keep hearing over and over isn't that the depiction wasn't flattering, but that there was a depiction at all.

sajdera

02-10-2006, 01:52 PM

The point is, you can't justify demonising an entire religion/culture because of the actions of a few religious extreemists with political ambitions/motivations.

I agree with you! Where did I say otherwise? I haven't demonized anyone.

Also, in response to DSB: Yes, I also think that's the big point, the "crux" of the whole issue. The funny thing about "free speach" is that people tend to think only about the revolutionary patriots calling together their countrymen or progressive leaders like King speaking out against inequality, and that's definately part of it.

But it also has to do with:
* marches by the Ku Klux Klan
* the WBC (godhatesfags.com) picketing soldiers' funerals
* Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ
* driving down the street with abortion photos all over your truck
* ridiculing the "Star Wars Kid" all over the internet

and it covers controversial political cartoons.

ScatteredLogical

02-10-2006, 02:10 PM

Personally, I try to treat my rights with responsibility. I will allow myself to enjoy my freedoms, but try to make sure in doing so I don't infringe on what could be considered the freedom of another.

Bioptix

02-10-2006, 03:45 PM

I agree with you! Where did I say otherwise? I haven't demonized anyone.

Don't take it personally, I'm talking about the Cartoons (which you are trying to justify) that portrayed Muhammed as an Osama Bin Ladin look-a-like brandishing a sword or with a halo shaped like the crescent moon/devils horns or with a bomb in his turban inscribed with the Islamic declaration of faith. These depictions are inflammatory to say the least and offer a very narrow-minded (demonised) view of a global culture with a population in the billions. I think 'unflattering' is too mild an adjective. These images are politically charged and those responsible purposefully set out to cause offence to Muslims at a time when there are already great tensions between the two cultures.

This is about respect and responsibility. Sure, groups like the KKK have a right to freedom of speach like everyone else, just don't expect people not to react angrily when they hear their views, hence the race riots. However, the KKK are not in control of the press (I hope).

Sajdera, you say:

"I'm not muslim and depictions of Mohammed mean nothing to me.If the rioters have a problem with that, then get a new religion, because the non-muslim world doesn't have to abide by their rules."

How does that justify drawing insulting cartoons of their Prophet? It is an ignorant attitude to say "I'm not insulted by this therefore I don't care if anyone else takes offence". Of course we are 'free' to make these images, but is it 'right' to have done so at the risk of offending +25% of the worlds population.

I don't know your mother and images of her mean nothing to me, does that mean you wouldn't be pissed off if I drew a cartoon of her as a hooker and published it in the international press? I doubt your protests would be very peaceful. I'd expect a bloody lip from you at the very least and I'd rightfully deserve it. (again, don't take this personally I'm just 'illustrating' my point).

Originally quoted by Sajdera:
"now there's some kind of backwards talk that the press needs to be more "responsible".

Do you really think asking for responsibilty in the press is 'backwards'?

sajdera

02-10-2006, 05:45 PM

Your comparison doesn't make any sense to me because my mom is a real person and Mohammed is a mythological religious character.

I feel like this discussion is going in circles. DSB recognized the point I was trying to make and that's pretty much my stand on the issue, whatever it's worth.

Haredevil_Hare

02-10-2006, 06:12 PM

Your comparison doesn't make any sense to me because my mom is a real person and Mohammed is a mythological religious character.

Correction: Mohammed did exist the same way Jesus did. Really, the religious debate around these two is 'were they actual prophets sent by God or just regular guys?'

Bioptix

02-10-2006, 06:34 PM

[QUOTE=sajdera]Mohammed is a mythological religious character.[QUOTE]

Mohammed's life is well documented and he certainly did exist as a real person even if you don't believe some of the 'myths' that surrounded his life.

Here is an example of how Muslims feel about their prophet as originally quoted by Guevara (AWN member) from the Qur'an:

�We were with the Prophet and he was holding the hand of Omar Ibnul-Khattab. Omar said to him, �O Allah's Messenger! You are dearer to me than everything except my own self.� The Prophet said, �No, by Him in Whose Hand my soul is, (you will not have complete faith) till I am dearer to you than your own self.� Then Omar said to him, �However, now, by Allah, you are dearer to me than my own self.� The Prophet said, �Now, O Omar, (now you are a believer).��[12]

"Being a true believer is conditioned with loving Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) more than our own selves." (originally quoted by Guevara)

"more than our own selves" in other words more than anything in the world (including their own mothers).

Fair enough, you've made your points and I've responded to them, I hope not unfairly. I do agree with your view that Islamic laws should not be expected to restrict the freedoms of the secular West. But at the same time respect, responsibility and open dialouge should always be practised before stirring up the shit just to proove a point, especially in this present climate of fear and paranoia.

Peace.

Doubt

02-10-2006, 08:37 PM

Just want to bring something new ito this...

Sometimes cartoonists like animators need to pay rent. sometimes they stay up and work too late. when we stay up till 3am the ideas can get a little whacked out, have 12 or more people been killed just because someone needed to pay the phone bill??

skinnylizard

02-10-2006, 09:24 PM

well Saj, here is the thing -

simply drawing the cartoons wasnt the focal point of the rioting. it was drawing M'med in all kinds of poses etc which would be offensive.

it was made to be offensive, that is, it wasnt an expression of thought which later turned out to be offensive like in the case of the Satanic Verses

i think the Muslim words needs to chill out and not go flippy everytime there is something negative happening about their religion or prophet. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.

if they do want to protest they should feel free to picket, sue or use economic backlash (which we all wouldnt like) to pursue their action rather than stone and burn which in the end makes them look stupid

but another thing to consider is that the Islamic or Arab world is under attack by the West (Afghanistan was justified) and they feel they are under threat. Everyday you hear about racial profiling, Guantanamo, prison abuse in Iraq. This makes it look like Islam is being attacked and the depiction of the prophet eating bacon is just one in the line of things.

some people show restraint when they are attacked, some fight back. Islam hasnt been known for its restraint as religion is pretty much a big part of who they are. Also, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. It just depends what side you look at this from.

Islam isnt a religion alone it is a polity and that is how it began right from day one and that is how it has expanded for more than a thousand years. That is the model they chose and went with.

i dont want to get into the Crusades but there are a lot of examples where Islamic side showed a lot more restraint than the Christian crusaders. They were a dark time and i dont think either side would be proud of what went on then.

the way i see it is, the cartoons shouldnt have run, they shouldnt have attacked iraq, 9-11 shouldnt have happened etc etc.

in this case, neither side is correct but freedom is right, freedom is true and freedom is greather than god and religion. Simply because i have never felt god or seen him but i have felt freedom.

DSB

02-10-2006, 10:12 PM

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.

Y'know, we toss this phrase around like it's a universal concept. It's not. It tends to have it's roots in western politics and democratic governments - not something the Arab world is noted for. Also, saying "freedom of speech is freedom of speech" is akin to saying "there should never be any depictions of Muhammed, ever." It's an absolute statement presented as a universal truth, when in fact it's far from it.

skinnylizard

02-10-2006, 10:30 PM

Y'know, we toss this phrase around like it's a universal concept. It's not. It tends to have it's roots in western politics and democratic governments - not something the Arab world is noted for. Also, saying "freedom of speech is freedom of speech" is akin to saying "there should never be any depictions of Muhammed, ever." It's an absolute statement presented as a universal truth, when in fact it's far from it.

its not. freedom is non-negotiable. It isnt free of responsibility. So if you say something stupid or libelous you are free to say it and are open to its consequences.

the problem with having and not having freedom of speech is really about who's POV you look at it from the western or arab world.

Bioptix

02-10-2006, 10:34 PM

in this case, neither side is correct but freedom is right, freedom is true and freedom is greather than god and religion. Simply because i have never felt god or seen him but i have felt freedom.

Well...according to religion (monotheism) freedom is how it all began with the fall of mankind in the garden of Eden. That's what separates humanity from the beasts, knowledge of good and evil and the 'free will' to choose between them. Our eyes were opened and we became like the gods 'knowing good and evil'. God gave us the opportunity to disobey him and we gave into that temptation. Given the choice between 'good' (following God's will) and 'evil' (choosing our own path) we chose 'evil' because we prefer to be autonomous, in other words we chose 'freedom'. Therefore, we will always be free to follow our own Will but we will also have to take responsibilty for our own choices and accept the hard lessons that may sometimes follow. Given a 2nd chance, what would you choose? The mortal knowledge of suffering or the eternal bliss of ignorance?

Sorry, that sounded like a sermon, I'm actually not religious but sometimes these old stories do provide food for thought. I'm probably gonna get toasted now :o

Anyway, back to the cartoons...

(talk about ideas getting wacked out after 3am, I'm going to bed...)

skinnylizard

02-10-2006, 10:43 PM

well the beauty of this whole thing is there is no good and evil. Who decided what is what?

the fall of man because god might think so, but way i see it is the rise of man.

so its all quite subjective.

anyway. yeah. im through.

sajdera

02-10-2006, 11:47 PM

"more than our own selves" in other words more than anything in the world (including their own mothers).

There it is.

kdiddy13

02-11-2006, 05:04 AM

I see the recent issue like this: fundamentalist muslims have rioted because some cartoonists have broken the deadly rule of visually depicting Mohammed and now there's some kind of backwards talk that the press needs to be more "responsible". The rest of the world can draw Mohammed cartoons as much as they want, not owing anything to Islam whatsoever. I'm not muslim and depictions of Mohammed mean nothing to me. If the rioters have a problem with that, then get a new religion, because the non-muslim world doesn't have to abide by their rules.

I don't think anyone is arguing that with you. We've all pretty much agreed that you can disagree with people as much as you want, but rioting, killing, burning, etc. over some cartoons is pretty stupid.

Finally, to say that all religions basically boil down to mean "be good and love everybody" is imagination and wishful thinking. There are as many ways to interpret the Bible or Koran as there are interpreters, and not a single one of them is incorrect, whether it calls for love or violence or whatever. Personally, I'm less than impressed with the interpretation of Genesis 19:8 that says, "oh, well, we don't really believe in that, but the rest of the Bible is okay." Lame.
So do you like anime? All of it? No? That sounds kind of lame. Kind of stupid argument isn't it? I'm sorry but the world isn't as black and white, or all right and wrong as you make it out to be. And given the choice between people interpreting their religious texts for peace or violence, I'm going to have to side with the peaceful ones. I'm also going to side with the ones that can look at the bible and sort through and come out with the general gist of it and leave behind the rules and laws that applied to a different time. The majority of the new testament is written with the idea of peace and love, and much of the non-peace and love portions were written as much as several hundred years after Jesus was even alive. Many Christians realize this and take an overall look at things.

I'm still having a hard time following you. On one hand you say the fundamentalists are wrong, on the other you say they should all be fundamentalists. You can believe what ever you want. I believe whatever I want. We all can believe whatever we want. That's the beauty of it all.

I gather that one of your main complaints about organized religion is many of their intolerant views of other people. That's probably my biggest complaint, too. But I find your rhetoric and tone remarkably similar to those on the other side of the fence preaching for more fundamental approach, and I hope some day you can take a step back and realize it.

kdiddy13

02-11-2006, 06:20 AM

Sorry, Saj. I didn't address one of your points. How can I justify the selective intrepretation of the bible (or any religious text for that matter)? What makes one interpretation better than another? Why not ditch the whole thing? I'll put forth the argument that the interpretation that is most beneficial to the majority of human kind is most likely the best one, if only because it's of a larger benefit. There are a great many contradictions in the bible to be sure. On one hand it says you should kill people for various crimes on the other it says don't kill. But mostly, especially the later parts, emphasize the charity and good will.

Let me go back with a little theory/history (note theory). We would not be where we are if it weren't for organized religion. Religion gave the leaders of the world a common set of rules to get behind just long enough to keep us from killing each other with sticks and rocks. Much of our entire law system is based on the rules set forth in religious texts from as far back as ancient Greece. Anarchy would most likely be the result of no such rules and we'd probably be huddled in piles of sticks, chasing deer with pointy sticks without such rules (I probably would have been abandoned or eaten long ago because of my poor eyesight).

Now in the present, why do we hold on to these beliefs? Well, we don't have to. No one has to. But many of the core beliefs, fables, and stories still hold true. The good Samaritan isn't just about helping a stranger on the side of the road, but helping someone you viscerly hate (the main characters of the parable were frequently at war). Pretty good stuff to live by, even if you don't believe in Jesus. But no one should be forced to read it if they don't want to. It's there, like all philosophies to take from it what you want or don't want. There's bunches of stories that help guide people when given difficult life decisions. It's a philosophy as much as a religion.

At one time, while a people were dieing off in the desert it probably made sense to outlaw gay relationships. Today it doesn't. Women in the past have always been treated poorly. Today, it's getting better (not great yet, but I hope it's heading that way). It's unfortunate that so many still hold to old, outdated rules, obviously put in there for a different time for a different reason.

I hope I explained myself. It's much more nebulous than black or white, right or wrong. Reasonable people are capable of free though even within their religious beliefs. It is possible to have different types and shades of religion, some are beneficial to the greater good, others not so much. It's unfortunate that for many people the bad represents the whole.

Harvey Human

02-11-2006, 07:21 PM

Aren't your beliefs a form of religion, even if it isn't formally institutionallized, ...
... sorry about the delay of response to this. At first I thought it was too silly to respond to, but I keep thinking about it so here goes.

You can stretch the definition of religion by saying that it's any enthusiastic belief: "I love cartoons, therefore I'm religious."

However, we're obviously talking about the type of religion that is founded on the belief in the spiritual and supernatural.
It deals with things that are presented as fact although there is no direct physical evidence of their existence. Usually there is a deity involved in the type of religion we're discussing, although sometimes it's flying saucers or environmental spirits/ghosts.
... and as such, you're putting of your beliefs on others just as insulting as them putting their beliefs on you?
The difference is that I'm not demanding that others conform to my beliefs. I'm not jailing or killing people who don't believe what I do.

SpaceGhost2K

02-12-2006, 11:38 AM

Today a Muslim mob burned down the Danish consulate in Beirut because of some doodles in a newspaper.
I'm sure the mob sees that as a righteous and intelligent act. You're welcome to share their opinion.
I call it stupidity.

I disagree. Their fanaticism is stupid. Religion, as a whole or in parts, is not.

Religion has done more to curtail violence and spread peace and compassion than it has the reverse. Sadly, it's the reverse that gets the press.

How many more people have been fed, clothed, housed or received medical treatment today in the name of God than have been killed in the same name?

SpaceGhost2K

02-12-2006, 12:13 PM

I agree with Harvey Human entirely on the issue of religion.

Genesis 19:8
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

It's better to let a village of rapists have their way with your only daughters than turn out two strange men you just met that day? And this comes from the "Sodom Episode" of the Bible that the religious right uses to condemn homosexuals. Really upstanding morals in that book, there, the Bible. Today, we have Muslims blowing themselves (and others) up in Asia over the Koran, rioting in the streets because of political cartoons. Religion IS people. Well put, Harvey. I don't understand how the mainstream acts like fundamentalist Christians and Muslims are blowing religion out of proportion when, as "fundamentalists", they take it more seriously than anything else and follow it strictly. Quit picking and choosing the parts of your religion as you see fit and either follow it or realize it's just mass political mind-control.

So telling what happened makes the Bible bad? If the New York Times says that a guy killed another guy by slitting his throat, is that the same thing as saying that the NYT endorses murder, and more specifically, endorses murder in that manner? No. It's reporting it, not approving it.

The Bible reports that people had slaves. It even tells the rules they had for having slaves. That does not make it a statement that it's okay to have slaves. It makes it simply a reporting that people did and that was HOW they did. Leviticus and Deuteronomy detail laws and punishments of the time. There are two things to learn from those books. How we should pattern our behavior and how people did it back then. Stated Truth #1: Remain faithful; don't commit adultery. Stated Truth #2: You would be killed for infidelity back then. Inferred Truth #3: There is nothing good to be gained by being unfaithful. Erroneously Inferred Truth #4: If somebody is unfaithful today, we should kill them. #4 is what happens if you take things out of context or don't study the bigger picture. This is where 90% of the religion haters are, because they haven't seen enough of the big picture to "get it."

I also am ofended at ther use of the term "fundmenalist." You know why John Wooden is the greatest basketball coach ever? Because he taught the fundamentals. You know why Billy Graham is the greatest Christian speaker in 2,000 years? Because he doesn't get distracted by the minutia. He preaches the fundamentals. The fact that people use the term as an insult is what's most insulting. You.. you.. cartoonist, you. It's a non-offensive term that, when used as an insult, just makes people look silly.

phacker

02-12-2006, 12:27 PM

I guess it's always been used by those in power trying to manipulate the masses to their ends, but when did personal responsibility take a back seat to a a forced mass mentality. Funny how the left here in the states always cite personal responsibility when they cut charitable programs for the poor or allow invasions into your personal life, so that businesses can check your credit rating and perform testing on you before they hire you, but they want us to act as some mindless unit when it comes to their goals.

You all need to reason out what it is that you are being faithful to...I have things I hold dear and would protect, but not necessarily if it lead to the death of another.

SpaceGhost2K

02-12-2006, 12:27 PM

I think I can answer this question with a press release I found:

DANISH PAPER REFUSED "OFFENSIVE" JESUS CARTOONS
By James Kilner

COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - The Danish newspaper that first published caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad infuriating Muslims worldwide previously turned down cartoons of Jesus as too offensive, a cartoonist said on Wednesday.

Twelve cartoons of the Prophet published last September by Jyllands-Posten newspaper have outraged Muslims, provoking violent protests in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.
"My cartoon, which certainly did not offend any Christians I showed it to, was rejected because the editor felt it would be considered offensive to readers -- readers in general, not necessarily Christians," cartoonist Christoffer Zieler said in an email he sent to Reuters on Wednesday.

Jens Kaiser, the former editor of Jyllands-Posten's Sunday edition who turned down the cartoons three years ago, said he had done so because they were no good.

"Having seen the cartoons, I found that they were not very good. I failed to see the purportedly provocative nature," he said in a statement.

"My fault is that I didn't tell him what I really meant: The cartoons were bad." Kaiser said he told Zieler he had not used the cartoons because they were offensive to some readers.

Zieler's five colored cartoons portrayed Jesus jumping out of holes in floors and walls during his resurrection. In one, gnomes rated Jesus for style, another entitled "Saviour-cam" showed Jesus with a camera on his head staring at his feet.

"I do think the cartoons would offend some readers, but only because they were silly," Kaiser said.

Unlike Muslims, who consider depictions of the Prophet to be deeply offensive, many Christians adorn churches with images and sculptures of Jesus. However, some Christian congregations have protested at portrayals they perceive as blasphemous, especially in the cinema.

The editor of Jyllands-Posten has apologized for offending Muslims by printing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, including one of the founder of Islam holding a bomb in his turban, but defended his right to do so in the interests of free speech.

Dozens of newspapers in Europe and elsewhere have reproduced them with the same justification.

"Perhaps explaining my story of three years ago in its proper context at least won't make matters any worse," Zieler said.

So, these same Danish newspaper editors who had no problems publishing slanderous depictions of Mohammed felt that slanderous pictures of Jesus would offend people? It is clear from these actions that these people don't consider Islam a true religion compared to Christianity. It's this sort of narrow-minded bigotry that lead Arabs to form the Nation of Islam in the first place. While I don't condone the explosively violent protests Arabs are waging on anything Danish right now, I do empathize with them.
I think maybe the best way to end all this bloodshed would be to fire these editors (not the cartoonists though because it was the editors that commisioned these cartoons from them, all the artists did was follow orders) but then tell the protesters that they have been decapitated. This way everyone's happy except for the assholes responsible who now must live in exile for abusing their right to freedom of the press. :mad:

Did you read the points in bold? Try it. What he told the artist was an attempt at not hurting his feelings, not a statement of editorial content. His real reason for rejecting the cartoons was because they just weren't any good.

Never mind the fact that that guy was a completely different editor than the one who approved the recent offensive cartoons.

Read the description of the "Savior-Cam." I'm not offended, except by the fact that somebody thought there was something to say or that it was funny. It's not funny, and it's really not saying anything. It should have been rejected. Jesus coming out of the tomb on the third day, praying for a Starbucks would be funny. Most Christian youth groups have shown Monty Python's The Holy Grail at a youth meeting. I would think that if they were easily offended or didn't have a sense of humor, that wouldn't be likely to have happened.

Harvey Human

02-12-2006, 02:02 PM

Today a Muslim mob burned down the Danish consulate in Beirut because of some doodles in a newspaper.
I'm sure the mob sees that as a righteous and intelligent act. You're welcome to share their opinion.
I call it stupidity.I disagree.
You disagree that it's stupid to burn down buildings and kill people because of one's religious beliefs?
Their fanaticism is stupid. Religion, as a whole or in parts, is not.
...
Their fanaticism is a part of their religion. How can that part of their religion be simultaneously stupid and not stupid?

I'm sorry, Space. You've said many ridiculous things in your last few posts, but I only have time to respond to your first few sentences. If I responded to each ridiculous thing you've typed today, I'd be at this keyboard all day.

sajdera

02-12-2006, 02:58 PM

If I responded to each ridiculous thing you've typed today, I'd be at this keyboard all day.

I feel like that as well with some of the discussion on this thread. It's become frustrating to read some of the responses because it doesn't seem like what I say is just taken the way I said it. All these other diabolical meanings are inferred. It may be because I don't feel the need to say something positive about religion for every negative. I've actually been rather self-conscience about tacking on a bunch of "disclaimers" to everything I write because it's patronizing, inane and I just can't stand reading that kind of mush.

Like, I happen to know that "fundamentalist" is a charged word, but I approach this topic assuming we're all on a more or less objective level or whatever. Religious fundamentalists are... religious fundamentalists. SpaceGhost claims that their "fanaticism" is the problem, not the religion, but the fanaticism is the religion. Please note: that I'm the one that's actually been defending the fanatics, to an extent. The only problem is when the rules of their unprovable belief system try to establish themselves as the law of the land. So, I'll draw the line here: believe whatever you want except leave me and my precious life out of it.

Here's a little hypothetical scenerio:
Let's say I decided to create my own religion that said because of the Disney Corporation's various instances of perceived cultural appropriation and their use of sweat shops and child labor, Disney is the Great Satan. Let's say I attracted some followers and we ritualized our beliefs by staging protests outside Disney Land where we all dressed up as Disney characters and whipped each other, beat each other with sticks and chanted in tongues.

Can you imagine how The Daily Show or Conan O'brien would riff on this situation? Imagine that Jon Stewart blasted the cult so harshly that one of the members infiltrated the Daily Show set dressed as Micky Mouse and blew the place up with a suicide bomb.

After all, his devout belief system had been mocked by some Jewish infidel. Meanwhile, I, as the leader of the cult, go on CNN to say that my true followers are non-violent and it's against the law to kill. However, it's also against our religious law to ever speak badly of me, the prophet that has fortold the end of the Disney Satan, and that sin is punishable by death.

Does this all sound totally bat-shit crazy ridiculuous? Well, NO SHIT.

SpaceGhost2K

02-12-2006, 03:39 PM

You disagree that it's stupid to burn down buildings and kill people because of one's religious beliefs?

I disagree because you are dissing all religions because, not even one religion, but one sect of one religion. I don't see Christians, Hindus or Buddhists, or Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses or Scientologists or even Satan worshippers behaving like this. However, because these wackos are part of a religion, it's okay to piss on all religions?

Calling these fringe wackos stupid is fine. Expanding that to all Muslims is certainly pushing it. Expanding it to cover all religions is moronic.

I'll try to reman civil and tolerate the religion bashing in here just like I do at teamxbox.com and most of the other forums I frequent. But your credibility with me right now is at zero.

In the immortal words of a friend of mine, "You're a sad, strange little man. You have my pity."

SpaceGhost2K

02-12-2006, 03:43 PM

I'm sorry, Space. You've said many ridiculous things in your last few posts, but I only have time to respond to your first few sentences. If I responded to each ridiculous thing you've typed today, I'd be at this keyboard all day.

I spend all day at my work selling wireless Internet service, with a computer connected to it and a lot of time to read and post.

But it's one thing to have a rational discussion with someone and another thing entirely to banter with you.

As another friend once said, "Never scold a pig. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

So I'm done with you.

sajdera

02-12-2006, 03:56 PM

As another friend once said, "Never scold a pig. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

So I'm done with you.

http://www.geocities.com/wjsaj/mcharvey.gif

Don't blow yo' cool, Space. :cool: Religion is a touchy subject, but we can still stay friendly.

Haredevil_Hare

02-12-2006, 07:44 PM

Hey, y'know what? Recently, some footage of American soldiers beating Iraqi civilians "Rodney King" style were just released by the media. NOW these Muslims have something more legitimate to protest against instead of a few doodles. :eek:

skinnylizard

02-12-2006, 09:04 PM

im not going to participate in this discussion but all ill say is lets stick to animation and picking on DDA

this is getting ugly, we dont need divisions here, were all struggling artists ;)

Ken Davis

02-12-2006, 11:17 PM

kdiddy13

02-13-2006, 06:29 AM

... sorry about the delay of response to this. At first I thought it was too silly to respond to, but I keep thinking about it so here goes.

You can stretch the definition of religion by saying that it's any enthusiastic belief: "I love cartoons, therefore I'm religious."

However, we're obviously talking about the type of religion that is founded on the belief in the spiritual and supernatural.
It deals with things that are presented as fact although there is no direct physical evidence of their existence. Usually there is a deity involved in the type of religion we're discussing, although sometimes it's flying saucers or environmental spirits/ghosts.
I understand your definition and I'll partially agree on it, but I thought we were talking about people's beliefs in religion. Yours are very strong on religion (you've posted several times on your feelings on god in this board without it actually coming up before hand). You aren't bombing and killing people, and I don't suspect you ever would. My point was that your views on religion and your preaching about how you emphatically dislike religion is as welcome as someone showing up and saying I should be saved or go to hell, or not speak poorly of Mohamed. I don't appreciate being told my belief system is useless or even harmful as much as you don't. And for the record, I haven't told you what my belief system is, only how I feel about views on tolerance (or intolerance in this case) towards other people's beliefs as that's the portion of religion I thought was pertinent towards the conversation.

I'll put forth that your beliefs in religion are just as likely to be unsavory to others as organized religion is to you. And that's the crux of this conversation, not the content of our beliefs but our commitment to them and our feelings towards people who don't believe the same thing. Lack of an organization doesn't make your views on religion any different than someone in an organization. You're disdain and insults towards people who think differently are just as distasteful as someone saying it in the name of their god.

The difference is that I'm not demanding that others conform to my beliefs. I'm not jailing or killing people who don't believe what I do.
Most practicing an organized religion aren't either. No one here is demanding that either. And everyone here has agreed that the fanatics are not good for anyone, and that religious zealots are bad news for everyone involved. No one here has defended the ills done to the world by religion (except Saj who now seems to be defending their actions....?). Many (most depending on the religion) within the given relgions don't agree with this behavior either. Yet, you and others here keep holding up the fanatics as the reason that ALL religion is stupid, useless, and bad for the world, etc. A tact that fanatics for organized religion also hold to, holding the worst of one group up as the representation of the whole.

As much as you might like it to be, the world is not black or white. Not all of religion is bad (most of it actually isn't), not all anime is bad, not all animation is bad, not all government is bad, very rarely is all of anything bad, and yet that's your whole argument. Saj, if all you were doing was calling out bad behavior and not quoting the good, that's fine, but you're using the bad actions as sole proof of religion's value, and that's just a flawed argument. "Some of religion is bad, so it's all bad." It doesn't work for any other topic and I don't see why it would hold water here. I'll hold to my position that you guys may be using different words, but you're saying the same things as the fanatics.

This has all been about tolerance and it sounds like there are several people here that are awfully intolerant. And damn it, now I sound just as intolerant as you guys. Hopefully, being intolerant of intolerance actually makes a difference, and separates me, if only through the virtue of self-awareness from the other fanatics in the world.

I've said the same thing over and over now. So I'll stop with this post. In fairness I'll check back to see if there are responses and take them into consideration as I continue to weigh and revise my personal beliefs in religion. If someone specifically asks me to respond to a question I will, but I don't seem to be getting my point across, so I'll quit and go back to animating. I truly hope that all of us can learn to be more tolerant of each others views on the world, whether they're in the supernatural, or just what type of animation they like to watch.

Haredevil_Hare

02-13-2006, 07:16 AM

It was footage of British Soliders.

Yup. I saw the news this morning and they were indeed British soldiers. My bad. :o I certainly wish they would have 'minded their bullocks' at that time. :rolleyes:

Harvey Human

02-13-2006, 08:21 AM

kdiddy13

02-13-2006, 09:43 AM

The main reason that religion can have a negative effect on cultures is that they encourage blind faith. They discourage people from reasoning things out with their own brains. They encourage people to be stupid. Lest anyone assume that I'm describing the entirety of all the world's religions, indoctrination is not the sole trait of religion.

Sometimes good things come out of religions like charity, but that doesn't mean that religion is entirely good. Plenty of evil organizations throughout history have performed charity. Charity can and does exist without religion.

More importantly, ...

There seems to be this attitude by some in this thread that we can criticize philosophies, movies, various industries, and the weather, but that religion should be completely immune from criticism. We can say that we don't like this or that cartoon or politician, but if we say there's something we don't like about religion, suddenly we're "intolerant" or "fanatics" or "bigots."

I guess I lied. I can't resist when I feel that I'm being misunderstood.

That's the first reasonable quote from you so far. Up until now you're posts have been filled with either a lack of quantifiers (which could easily be read as saying 'all'), or actually saying 'all'. I hope you can see that this could lead someone to the impression that you weren't taking any exceptions to your rules and viewing religion as all bad or all good.

Nearly everyone here has criticized religion and the people involved in the ills done in the name of religion. It's not the criticisms but the idea that you've been lumping ALL of religion into a good or bad scenario. That was my point on intolerance. Your taking a few examples from a small sample size and claiming it as proof positive to the evil of religion as a whole and your sniping at religion in other forums when it hadn't come up before, that was my point on being a fanatic.

We all see what we want to see and from your posts you've given me the impression that you want very badly to hate religion in all of its forms. Not proof positive for me, but just my impression as to how you've been coming across here and that is how fanatics often end up sounding.

Harvey Human

02-13-2006, 10:48 AM

Up until now you're posts have been filled with either a lack of quantifiers (which could easily be read as saying 'all'), or actually saying 'all'. I hope you can see that this could lead someone to the impression that you weren't taking any exceptions to your rules and viewing religion as all bad or all good.
If I were to say "I love animation," no sane and intelligent person would think that I mean that I love every second of animation ever produced. They would assume I mean that I either loved the field of animation or that there are some animated movies that I love.
If I were to say "horror movies are scary," nobody is going to assume that I'm frightened by bad horror movies like Attack of the Eye Creatures.
If I were to say "politicians lie," nobody is going to assume that I mean that every sentence that every politician utters is a lie.

... and your sniping at religion in other forums when it hadn't come up before, that was my point on being a fanatic.
You make it sound like I'm on a campaign against religion. I criticize many cultural institutions and practices on these forums. Religion is just one of them, and it's almost always because either someone else brought it up first or because it's related to an animation topic. The previous instance, I believe, was two months ago in the "Happy Holidays" / War Against Christmas thread. I believe it was in that thread that I actually praised the values taught by Jesus (values which only an extreme minority of Christians follow to the letter), which might be a clue that I don't believe that everything about all religions is bad.

If the moderators want to ban all discussion of religion or politics or whatever on this forum, I don't have a huge problem with it; but then then need to lock down these threads immediately and maybe post some rules somewhere.

kdiddy13

02-13-2006, 11:27 AM

If I were to say "I love animation," no sane and intelligent person would think that I mean that I love every second of animation ever produced. They would assume I mean that I either loved the field of animation or that there are some animated movies that I love.
If I were to say "horror movies are scary," nobody is going to assume that I'm frightened by bad horror movies like Attack of the Eye Creatures.
If I were to say "politicians lie," nobody is going to assume that I mean that every sentence that every politician utters is a lie.

You make it sound like I'm on a campaign against religion. I criticize many cultural institutions and practices on these forums. Religion is just one of them, and it's almost always because either someone else brought it up first or because it's related to an animation topic. The previous instance, I believe, was two months ago in the "Happy Holidays" / War Against Christmas thread. I believe it was in that thread that I actually praised the values taught by Jesus (values which only an extreme minority of Christians follow to the letter), which might be a clue that I don't believe that everything about all religions is bad.

If the moderators want to ban all discussion of religion or politics or whatever on this forum, I don't have a huge problem with it; but then then need to lock down these threads immediately and maybe post some rules somewhere.

I apologize if I've read into your posts, it's just the impression that I've gotten. Call it a feeling, a misunderstanding due to the impersonal nature of a web forum, it just sounded like the rhetoric of someone out to prove that religion in all its forms was bad. Again, I want to emphasize that I'm not against the critisizing of any institution, especially one that has the potential to do so much harm. The funny thing is that we all agree that what happened due to some pen and ink was absurd and that part of religion is reprehensible to say the least.

Unfortunately 'god' is too short a search word to work as I'm certain you've brought it up before with a tone of disdain out of context, but since I can't sort through the amount of posts on this board, it's possible it was someone else, and I didn't read the "Christmas thread" (mostly because I didn't feel like discussing it) I'll leave it at taking your word for not hating all of religion with a sincere apology.

If it weren't for religion, people would find something else to band together and kill each other over. Religion isn't the sole cause of mob thought, war, or disagreements, but there being other causes isn't an excuse for it either. It's more of a problem with the human mind and the instinctual need to dislike those who are different than anything else, religious leaders are just a few of the many to capitalize on this.

Harvey Human

02-13-2006, 01:02 PM

ScatteredLogical

02-13-2006, 01:25 PM

They want children to be less intelligent.

It's the truth, though. I read a few months back on another forum a woman who actually used the phrase "dinosaurs and other mythological creatures."

phacker

02-13-2006, 01:38 PM

The major flaw in any group based mainly on ideology and irrational belief, is that those that follow it can be manipulated by it, by those that want more control and power, and need an army to call up to meet their own personal agendas. Think of the crusades, the civil war and today.

Check out the date on this document. And read it's doctrine. Who's controlling the "democratic" world? And they even have tried using the religious card very effectively, just think back to the elections.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Make sure to check out the signatures at the bottom of it endorsing these goals.

kdiddy13

02-14-2006, 07:44 AM

I've stated that religions can be damaging, but I didn't offer many contemporary examples; so here are some.

bigotry
Without religion, this country would not be so anti-gay. In Islamic countries, the state just executes gay people, as the Christian countries did back in the Middle Ages.
In this country (America), gay people are regularly attacked and killed, and are denied the same rights as straight people.

spread of disease and unwanted pregnancy
Because of religion, condoms aren't distributed as widely as they could be, so there is an AIDS epidemic and population explosion in Africa, and a spread of VD and pregnancy in this country which could otherwise be curtailed.

against medical advancement
Stem cell research is prevented in this country because of religious belief, so people who are sick and dying are denied potential cures.

pro-stupidity
Religions have been effective at keeping scientific theories about the origins of the universe and mankind out of the classroom, in preference of creation mythology. They want children to be less intelligent.

I'm not sure the point of this. Should I post the benefits now or all the examples of religious leaders and groups standing up against these problems? I can if you want. We all realize these are some of the bad things religion has and continues to do, but not all religious sects hold to some or even any of these beliefs. All of the religious people I know are pro-evolution, pro-birth control (not just abstinence), are comfortable enough in their faith to not be afraid of science, etc. These are examples from extremists and portions of the whole, not the whole. The news focuses on these groups (thus giving them more power) because it's more interesting than, "Today in the news, a reasonable Christian said, 'Stem cell research and gays are ok with him'."

Pointing out that groups do horrible things is obvious. You get two or more people together and their going to try and keep the 'others' out. It's instinct. If public leaders weren't using religion for this, they'd be using something else (and have in the past). There will always be people who fear change and those who are different, and it doesn't take religion to make it so. It's no excuse for it, but it's in our nature and the sudden abscence of religion wouldn't solve it, something else would just take it's place.

We're talking in circles now. You keep saying that religion does bad things. I keep agreeing but pointing out that it doesn't represent the whole, and you come back and point out that religions do bad things. Repeat.

Harvey Human

02-14-2006, 09:26 AM

I'm not sure the point of this.but I didn't offer many contemporary examplesThat was not my direct response to you. I was expanding on things I'd said earlier to everybody.We're talking in circles now.
Not exactly. I wanted to use examples that are close to home so it didn't seen that I was singling out Islam and foreign countries, or that Christian oppression only existed in the Middle Ages.
I wanted to point out that religion effects not just religious people, but the entire society. Because of religious belief, this entire country has to suffer.

Using just one of those examples, religion has been stifling medical research not only recently, but for hundreds of years.
Imagine how much more advanced science and medicine would be today if not for religion.

I'm sorry if you're taking this discussion personally, Kdiddy.
If you feel you're repeating yourself, know that you're not required to respond to anything I have to say.

sajdera

02-14-2006, 11:49 AM

You keep saying that religion does bad things. I keep agreeing but pointing out that it doesn't represent the whole, and you come back and point out that religions do bad things. Repeat.

It's going in a circle because certain points aren't getting acknowledged or addressed, and after awhile it's gets trickier to come of with new ways of explaining those points. Earlier in the discussion, I said:

There are as many ways to interpret the Bible or Koran as there are interpreters, and not a single one of them is incorrect, whether it calls for love or violence or whatever.

And Harvey Human made this point:

If I were to say "horror movies are scary," nobody is going to assume that I'm frightened by bad horror movies like Attack of the Eye Creatures.

I'm not trying to speak for Harvey, but I do sense that we're going in circles because this is being ignored or forgotten or... something. I've never made any statements like, "all religion leads to suicide bombers," but somehow that's some people are hearing. When I say, "there are as many ways to interpret the Bible or Koran as there are interpreters," haven't I given religion as much credit as it deserves? And Harvey's quote above (with which I concur) I see as refuting allegations of bigotry.

What I see is a discussion where one side is saying, "religions trying to impose their beliefs and laws on others is wrong," and another side that's saying "not all religions are violent." We're not even really discussing the same thing.

kdiddy13

02-14-2006, 11:55 AM

That was not my direct response to you. I was expanding on things I'd said earlier to everybody.
Not exactly. I wanted to use examples that are close to home so it didn't seen that I was singling out Islam and foreign countries, or that Christian oppression only existed in the Middle Ages.
I wanted to point out that religion effects not just religious people, but the entire society. Because of religious belief, this entire country has to suffer.

Using just one of those examples, religion has been stifling medical research not only recently, but for hundreds of years.
Imagine how much more advanced science and medicine would be today if not for religion.

I'm sorry if you're taking this discussion personally, Kdiddy.
If you feel you're repeating yourself, know that you're not required to respond to anything I have to say.

We're all repeating ourselves. All of these things have been said in one form or another. Nice try with the "taking it personally" insult. Your style of debating, trying to bate people with veiled insults is, well, insulting. There's nothing new in either of these posts, except a new insult.

There's a common denominator in all of this, ignorance. The examples you quoted, specifically ones that have unfortunately become the rallying points for the Republican party, are all based around ignorance and intolerance. But more importantly they are focused on a portion of the population that typically has little education beyond high school, and of that it generally isn't the best available (there's not much denying that America's education system isn't up to snuff when compared with the rest of the industrial world). As if to prove it, the portions of the population that typically voted 'red' read like a map of under funded schools in the country. Religion happened to work with them. It was easier than saying, "sorry your job was outsourced, so hate Asia." But it didn't work with the portions of the country with higher education, even if they were religious. Education doesn't negate the ability to believe in religion, but it does tend to negate the ability to be controlled by religion or any other means. The same goes towards those using Islam to similar ends. It isn't working in populations where people have actually finished a high school education, but it's working like gang busters in areas where education is almost unheard of.

Ignorance and lack of education tends to breed contempt towards those with education. It can also leave people feeling disillusioned, angry at their status in life, upset at the 'haves'. This leaves them ripe for someone to come along and say, "You know who you can blame.... and here's the best part, it isn't you." It's always worked. Sometimes they use religion. Sometimes they use skin color. Sometimes they use gender. Sometimes they use geography. But the point is they prey on a people's dissatisfaction and give them a common enemy based on fear.

If you want to really blame someone, blame school administrations that cut art programs so they can give the football team new jerseys every year, blame the beauarcracy that has twice as many administrators than actual teachers, blame a society that puts a higher premium on being able to afford cheap DVD players and disposible electronics over paying taxes towards better education. Blame ignorance. Blame the leaders that foster this ignorance and then use it to their advantage. Then get upset at them using religion as a tool for bending ignorance towards their will. Without religion there would still be (and is) people killing gays because they're gay, people scared of technology because it's 'magic' to them and they don't understand it, people killing others because they're different, people acting like animals because they're angry and want to blame someone that they don't identify with.

If it weren't for religion, the Republican party and militant Islamic groups would have been able to rile their core constituancy up the same way they did by using religion, simply by saying, "They're different and it's their fault." They wanted a common enemy, religion was just an easy way in for them. But it isn't for everyone.

Again, would you like me to quote all of the ways that relgious organizations have gone against each of your 'religion is bad' items and have benefitted all of society? I can. And they would be contemporary examples, as if that undoes the bad, just as if the bad undoes the good.

phacker

02-14-2006, 12:01 PM

I think that's the magic of the way the US was formed. Certainly people banded together in a way to accomplish the seperation from England. But once that seperation was accomplished. Our founding fathers stood back and set up a constitution and bill of rights with checks and balances so no one interest could overpower the others and wrest total control. But the times they are a changing, and maybe their good intentions and foundation for a democratic republic will soon be a thing of the past. In other parts of the world they've never experienced that kind of freedom, and have only acted on the part of their leaders for whatever reasons, maybe they promised them security. But still there is the individual and their conscience.

kdiddy13

02-14-2006, 12:10 PM

What I see is a discussion where one side is saying, "religions trying to impose their beliefs and laws on others is wrong," and another side that's saying "not all religions are violent." We're not even really discussing the same thing.
I whole heartedly agree. That's probably the smartest thing that has been said since we left the original topic of free speech, actually, since the whole thread began.

Let me also offer my apologies. I never said bigotted (I don't think I did anyway), but I did my share of name calling. I was just responding to the tone of some posts, and due to the lack of tone on a forum like this seem to have read into them (as much as you may have read into mine). I apologize for my accusations, I hope that we can all walk away from this with a better understanding of tolerance towards other people's views.

The funniest thing is that no one here has disagreed that some pretty awful things have been done in the name of religion and no matter how you cut it, that sucks. And everyone has agreed that not all of religion does this. And yet we've continued to argue in circles about it, agreeing the entire time with the loud angry voices of people who are disagreeing.

I agree, I can't stand religions (or those without religion) impossing their beliefs on anyone. It's foolish and shows a fundamental lack of faith if they can't handle that someone doesn't believe what they do. Realizing that, I'll leave it at that and go back to the animation board and talk about animation. I think I'm going to take my son to see Curious George tomorrow.

Thank you Saj, I sincerely appreciate your voice of reason.

sajdera

02-14-2006, 01:03 PM

Leave to humanity to come up with words and concepts (i.e. "fuck", "Jehovah", Allah) and then vow not to utter or depict them.

To me, it doesn't seem like the Danish cartoons were drawn with the conscience intent of violating Islamic law, but even if they were, the violent retaliation to them is totally outrageous. How can depicting Mohammed be a sin if it was done by somebody that wasn't muslim? If a muslim did it, then that would be a problem between him and Islam. The Danish cartoonist (I imagine) doesn't pray in the direction of Mecca three times a day, either. Where do you draw the line? You draw it at the boundry between believing or not believing in Islam. That's how I see it.

Harvey Human

02-14-2006, 01:03 PM

I'm sorry if you're taking this discussion personally, Kdiddy.Nice try with the "taking it personally" insult. Your style of debating, trying to bate people with veiled insults is, well, insulting. There's nothing new in either of these posts, except a new insult.
Oh my God, that was not intended as an insult or a bait.
It's just that, if you are taking it personally, I would be sorry if you felt like you were being attacked.

If anyone deserves to feel insulted, it's me, after being called "intolerant" and a "fanatic" by you, Kdiddy.

If it weren't for religion, the Republican party and militant Islamic groups would have been able to rile their core constituancy up the same way they did by using religion, simply by saying, "They're different and it's their fault."
You keep saying that if religion didn't exist, we'd still have these problems; but there is no basis for believing this since the problems I listed above stem directly from religious dogma.

I don't think Arabs would be rioting in the streets if someone drew an insulting cartoon of one of their political figures.

We can look at our European counterparts, where there is greater social justice than in U.S.A., to see what a Western government that is not significantly run by religious fundamentalists looks like.

Bioptix

02-14-2006, 01:33 PM

I think we're losing sight of the real topic here ie. the cartoons. What I see is a discussion where:

A says) The cartoons that were published can be justified by freedom of the Western press and the fact that Religion deserves to be satirised no matter what the cost.

B says) The cartoons that were published were irresponsible and the freedom of the Western press should not be used as an excuse for bigotry and rascism. Religion as a whole should not be demonised by the actions of a few.

However, this is just a general overview, of course it's not as black and white as that.

Maybe we do 'agree' on many points but the center of this argument revolves around whether we agree on if these cartoons were justified or irresponsible. The reason we seem to talk in circles is because people tend to take issues concerning religion and politics personally and disagreement with a point of view becomes misconcieved as a personal attack.

PS. This is my point of view, I could be wrong, please don't think I'm insulting anyone here by making these comments. ;)

kdiddy13

02-14-2006, 02:46 PM

You keep saying that if religion didn't exist, we'd still have these problems; but there is no basis for believing this since the problems I listed above stem directly from religious dogma.

I'm sorry but I'm going to call bullshit on that one. With the exception of stem cell research, everyone of those items is not the sole responsibility of religion. Grown men who have no care in the world for religion, beat up and kill gay men simply because they're gay and it makes them uncomfortable. To blame it on religion is absurd.

I know of plenty of blue collar workers who hold anyone with a degree higher than high school with a certain degree of disdain, football players in high school constantly harass the math squad and artists encouraging continued ignorance and stupidity without the help of religion.

The male dominated society that doesn't want to use a rubber is as much if not more to blame for the spread of aids and unwanted pregnancies in much of the world, it was a problem before religion even got involved. Religion, however misguided, is trying to stop the spread, in the way they think will work. Misguided, yes, but to blame a problem that existed before religion was involved is silly.

People are afraid of clones and cloning for no other reason than having seen too many science fiction films. People fear the unknown, always have and always will, if it wasn't stem cells and religion people would be upset about something else. Some technologies come in easy, others don't. Give it time and people will get used to it, just like they did nuclear power, computers, the internet, photographs, telephones, and soon robots.

I don't think Arabs would be rioting in the streets if someone drew an insulting cartoon of one of their political figures.

Possibly not. At least not likely in another country. But people have rioted because their sports team won or lost. People will riot when conditions are bad enough and they're given a reason to believe that it's someone else's fault. Sometimes it's because of religion, sometimes it's because of unions, somtimes it's because someone of a different color would dare enter your building, sometimes it's because of The Bulls winning/loosing. But it isn't the sole domain of religion.

We can look at our European counterparts, where there is greater social justice than in U.S.A., to see what a Western government that is not significantly run by religious fundamentalists looks like.

Again what's your point? I have not said once that fundamentalists are good in any form, I have agreed over and over again that fundamentalists are bad news, our own government is a perfect example, and yet that seems to be your only argument. No one here has disagreed that fundamentalists are bad, and yet whenever the argument comes around to your side, you again say, "See the fundamentalists are bad." Duh, we've all been saying that. If you're trying to make a point other than you dislike religion due to anything other than the fundamentalists you aren't making it.

sajdera

02-14-2006, 03:55 PM

No one here has disagreed that fundamentalists are bad, and yet whenever the argument comes around to your side, you again say, "See the fundamentalists are bad." Duh, we've all been saying that.

Not me! I've been giving the fundamentalists the same respect as the mainstreamers. I tried to point out that while you can disagree with fundies when they harrass or kill you (indeed), you can't say that their flavor of religion is "wrong" or isn't the "true" religion because all that is in the eye of the beholder.

If fundamentalist Islamic law calls for death upon those who mocketh the prophet (for example only, I don't know if that's true or not), then I guess that's the way it's gotta be... for the fundamentalist muslims. The death sentence doesn't apply for non-muslims because we don't subscribe to the religion.

The only religion I have a problem with is the one that decides to include me in it whether I like it or not. Many fundamentalist religions, including fundie-Islam and fundie-Christianity, have indeed decided to include me against my wishes and for that reason they deserve to be mocked, scorned and savagely ridiculed, obliterated if possible.

I live in a country that calls intelligent design "science" and all I got was this lousy T-shirt and a bunch of dumb-ass kids.

kdiddy13

02-14-2006, 04:02 PM

Not me! I've been giving the fundamentalists the same respect as the mainstreamers. I tried to point out that while you can disagree with fundies when they harrass or kill you (indeed), you can't say that their flavor of religion is "wrong" or isn't the "true" religion because all that is in the eye of the beholder.

If fundamentalist Islamic law calls for death upon those who mocketh the prophet (for example only, I don't know if that's true or not), then I guess that's the way it's gotta be... for the fundamentalist muslims. The death sentence doesn't apply for non-muslims because we don't subscribe to the religion.

The only religion I have a problem with is the one that decides to include me in it whether I like it or not. Many fundamentalist religions, including fundie-Islam and fundie-Christianity, have indeed decided to include me against my wishes and for that reason they deserve to be mocked, scorned and savagely ridiculed, obliterated if possible.

I live in a country that calls intelligent design "science" and all I got was this lousy T-shirt and a bunch of dumb-ass kids.

Yup. Fundamentalists are bad news, and I'd rather they didn't involve the rest of us either.

Harvey Human

02-14-2006, 04:22 PM

I'm sorry but I'm going to call bullshit on that one. With the exception of stem cell research, everyone of those items is not the sole responsibility of religion. ... To blame it on religion is absurd.
First you admit that religion is partly responsible ("not the sole responsiblity" means they're partially responsible), then you say it's absurd to blame them. Which is it?

Yes, individuals can do stupid or evil things without religion. So can whales and monkeys, but I'm not talking about them. I'm specifically talking about the stupid things that are caused by religious belief, which is what this thread is about, after all.

If I said, "Well, horror movies scare people," would you object, "What's your point!? Spiders scared people before movies even existed! To blame horror movies for scaring people is absurd!"

to blame a problem that existed before religion was involved is silly..
Your latest point is that it's silly and pointless to blame religion for causing problems because other things cause those problems as well.
And naturally you realize how ludicrous that sounds.

Also, when was this mythical time you speak of when religion wasn't involved in the sociopolitical processes? If you go back in history, there is more religious control of government and communities, not less.

kdiddy13

02-14-2006, 04:24 PM

Not me! I've been giving the fundamentalists the same respect as the mainstreamers. I tried to point out that while you can disagree with fundies when they harrass or kill you (indeed), you can't say that their flavor of religion is "wrong" or isn't the "true" religion because all that is in the eye of the beholder.

If fundamentalist Islamic law calls for death upon those who mocketh the prophet (for example only, I don't know if that's true or not), then I guess that's the way it's gotta be... for the fundamentalist muslims. The death sentence doesn't apply for non-muslims because we don't subscribe to the religion.

I'll weigh in on these comments with my opinion (for what little that's worth at this point). Mostly that's a theological question for people with in the religion to struggle with. I have an orthodox jew for a friend who takes a great deal of joy in debating and discussing the absurdities based on chemistry (his words, not mine) in his religion and where true faith falls (all while holding to the very absurdities he talks of). It's actually quite interesting to hear his perspective on his faith.

As long as one people's beliefs don't branch out to effect people not involved, they can obviously believe whatever they want. As soon as it branches out to effect me or others who don't wish to be involved, then I'm going to take issue with it. I don't expect people to believe or not believe in my beliefs, and I expect them to respect the same of me.

kdiddy13

02-14-2006, 04:53 PM

First you admit that religion is partly responsible ("not the sole responsiblity" means they're partially responsible), then you say it's absurd to blame them. Which is it?
You keep saying that if religion didn't exist, we'd still have these problems; but there is no basis for believing this since the problems I listed above stem directly from religious dogma.
Not actually what I meant, and I'm fairly certain you know that as the rest of my post illustrated what I was talking about. But to clarify since I may apparently used an incorrect word (hey, it happends), what I meant was that all of these (in particular the ones you claimed to "stem directly from religious dogma") problems are around even without religion. And yet your post seemed to claim that they are ONLY because of religion. So which is it? Is religion entirely to blame? Or does it have it's part in it along with all the other reasons people have come up with for ignorance and hatred? You're sending mixed messages, Harv.

Yes, individuals can do stupid or evil things without religion. So can whales and monkeys, but I'm not talking about them. I'm specifically talking about the stupid things that are caused by religious belief, which is what this thread is about, after all.

If I said, "Well, horror movies scare people," would you object, "What's your point!? Spiders scared people before movies even existed! To blame horror movies for scaring people is absurd!"

Your latest point is that it's silly and pointless to blame religion for causing problems because other things cause those problems as well.
And naturally you realize how ludicrous that sounds.

From my perspective, you sound ludicrous. You said that all of the problems you listed stem from religous dogma. I was merely countering your point that they were the only ones involved in the cause of this behavior with my point that no, religion isn't necessary for this behavior and they aren't the only ones involved. My point is that you DID claim that those specific problems stemmed from religion, not were a part of it but were caused by it. I never claimed that religion doesn't take a role in these problems. I haven't absolved them of all blame, we've all agreed repeatedly that bad things have been done in the name of religion, over and over in every post, but you don't seem to be listening. I've agreed with you repeatedly that religion has done bad things, and pointed out that it isn't all their fault (again, it's human nature to hate the other tribe, monkeys kill each other for smelling different, we aren't much different apparently), and all you hear from me is, "I think religion is without blame because other people did it too." I never said that.

Harvey Human

02-14-2006, 06:57 PM

kdiddy13

02-14-2006, 07:22 PM

How many times do we have to clarify this, Kdiddy?
No one on this thread is claiming that religion is the lone cause of the world's problems, and there is absolutely no evidence on this thread to support that suspicion. I'm simply saying that religious dogma is often a significant cause of social disfunction, as it certainly is in the examples I listed above. Clearly, without the influence of religion, this country would be much less anti-gay, anti-science, anti-stem cell, and anti-condom use. That's not to say that those problems would be completely eliminated. Obviously, individuals can be insane without the influence of religion, but religion has the power to unite lunatics and idiots as few other institutions do.

When the governments of the Western world were completely controlled by religion, it was a nightmare for any independent thinker to live in those countries. Most religions are based in superstition and mythology, so their natural antithesis is based in reason and fact.
Gradually, the Western countries are becoming less religious, and much more liveable.

Sorry but when you said "stemmed from" it implies that it is the cause of not part of. And you're only clarifying what I've been saying. Of course religion isn't absolved of these problems, I never said it was, but you keep implying that I did.

And just a side note, but when governments have sought to completely expunge relgion from the public conscious (namely the Soviet Union and China) it also coincided with some of the worst human rights violations in the history of mankind. More people died in Russia due to their beliefs than in the death camps of World War II. Just a thought, but it seems that neither extreme is no good.

sajdera

02-14-2006, 08:41 PM

when governments have sought to completely expunge relgion from the public conscious (namely the Soviet Union and China) it also coincided with some of the worst human rights violations in the history of mankind. More people died in Russia due to their beliefs than in the death camps of World War II. Just a thought, but it seems that neither extreme is no good.

Perhaps religion is not unlike the birdshot currently lodged in the organs Harry Whittington, Whittington representing humanity. Whilst engaged in a normally safe operation, it was put there by a cruel, ruthless power-monger, wielding the power of life and death in a completely reckless manner. The birdshot has caused Whittington numerous ills, but to surgically remove the offending matter would cause even more trouble, even death to the patient. If Whittington survives, he will forever carry the scar of that careless act, but may come to terms with the vast ignorance and repugnancy the wound, the act, and the dumbass that perpetrated it.

Splatman

02-14-2006, 08:44 PM

seems there's something lodged in a certain part of your body, too! ;)

Splatman :D

sajdera

02-14-2006, 08:52 PM

seems there's something lodged in a certain part of your body, too! ;)

Splatman :D

Oh, my lip ring?! It's the only piercing I have (with body modification, I say "less is more" ;) ). It's my tribute to he who provided the greatest inspiration to my own overall devotion and study of music, art and video, and that is Marilyn Manson, who had the same piercing.

Splatman

02-14-2006, 09:20 PM

Mine is Homer Simpson!

Splatman :D

Graphiteman

02-14-2006, 09:21 PM

As I've stated before; my kids are allowed a piercing as long as it's like this:

http://www3.telus.net/drard/pierce.JPG

:D

sajdera

02-15-2006, 12:08 AM

As I've stated before; my kids are allowed a piercing as long as it's like this:

http://www3.telus.net/drard/pierce.JPG

:D

Spoken (and drawn, no less) like a true cartoonist. Thanks for not vainly threatening to kick my ass, always appreciated.

Splatman

02-15-2006, 12:46 AM

Why would he "vainly threaten to kick your ass"? :confused:

Splatman :D

sajdera

02-15-2006, 01:42 AM

Why would he "vainly threaten to kick your ass"? :confused:

Splatman :D

:D Hey... come and go for a walk with me down Chase Ave. in El Cajon, CA. There, some skinhead with probably zoom by in a giant truck and yell obscenities at you, but if that's not vile enough, you can drive about 15 miles east to Lakeside and hang out with dudes that have Hilter tattooed on the back of their head. I even ran into those scary shitheads in the middle of El Cajon when I delivered pizza.

Still, it's better than the way I've been treated in Nebraska or Illinois. I actually feared that I might get some kind of all-American Deliverance-style treatment in them there parts while I was just gassing up on a road trip. Those people think G. Dubya is a righteous Christ warrior. Seriously scary shit.

sajdera

02-15-2006, 01:58 AM

Why would he "vainly threaten...

Actually, I didn't even answer you're question. I was just being sarcastic. His wacky, witty little comment reminded me of when I was a labor temp in this plastic factory working on the edge-bevling machine. The smug-ass supervisor I reported to asked me about my "fishing accident" and chuckled their self-righteous little lungs out. I guess Ghraphite's commentary just reminded me of that endearing experience. :o

kdiddy13

02-15-2006, 04:35 AM

Perhaps religion is not unlike the birdshot currently lodged in the organs Harry Whittington, Whittington representing humanity. Whilst engaged in a normally safe operation, it was put there by a cruel, ruthless power-monger, wielding the power of life and death in a completely reckless manner. The birdshot has caused Whittington numerous ills, but to surgically remove the offending matter would cause even more trouble, even death to the patient. If Whittington survives, he will forever carry the scar of that careless act, but may come to terms with the vast ignorance and repugnancy the wound, the act, and the dumbass that perpetrated it.
Perhaps. I get your analogy and it's an interesting argument. I'd say it was the effort to control a population absolutely rather than the act of removing religion from it that was the problem.

And, I'd hardly call religion buckshot, nor that it was or is created by some "dumbass". That's the type of oversimplification and sweeping statement that I was speaking of earlier. Religion is the foundation of our reasoning: "Where did we come from? I can make things, so someone must have made us." These are no longer facts, but to an early people trying to figure out what was going on in the world it was as close to science as they were able to get. Religion in the past served a very specific purpose as it provided a common moral ground and common laws for our society in the past to work from. Some have abused it throughout history to be sure, but many of those rules (like not killing, not stealing, love thy neighbor, etc.) are still in place where more reasonable humans still follow them and use them as their guide. And before you go back to your argument on who's right when picking and choosing these rules, I'll repeat myself by saying, I'm going to agree with you by saying no one is, but as soon as it effects someone adversely outside your sphere of religion then I draw the line. Believe what they want, but if they're about to hurt someone because of what they believe, that's when I'm going to going to get really pissed.

I'd argue that without the common moral ground those in charge wouldn't have anything to keep them in check. People would be nothing more than bags of flesh for them to do with as they pleased (there are still countries that act like this, like China for instance). Societies without the value religion puts on human life have tended to be just as bad as those societies that claim to alone have the ear of god. I'd argue that extremists either for or against religion have been and are bad for everyone.

When the governments of the Western world were completely controlled by religion, it was a nightmare for any independent thinker to live in those countries. Most religions are based in superstition and mythology, so their natural antithesis is based in reason and fact.
Gradually, the Western countries are becoming less religious, and much more liveable.
I agree, and have agreed. Religion with too much involvement in government, or outside their sphere for that matter, is a bad thing. Many people are capable of believing in their religion and living with fact and science. Darwin doesn't disprove god, just as any incompleteness in his theories don't prove god either (I'm very pissed at the creative design issue, I thought we'd answered that question 150 years ago, you want to teach it teach it philosophy and Sunday school, not biology class). Reason and fact are the bane of ignorance, a definite problem in some religious sects to be sure. The things Bush does in the name of religion is horrible. Extremism is bad. It's bad in religion, it's bad in government, it's bad when someone says all animations are for kids, all anime is bad, all anything.

I'm sorry to hear about your experiences in your home town, Saj. I grew up in a similar town hanging out with other art students. I saw and experienced very similar behavior from the more ignorant of the population. There's no excuse for it, whether they're quoting a religious text, or just acting as the common gang known as the varsity football team. Do you still live there? You should make the leap to somplace like San Francisco. I REALLY dug it there. It's not without it's problems but it tended to be a much more enlightened community. Plus, there's a pretty active animation community there.

Harvey Human

02-15-2006, 07:51 AM

Of course religion isn't absolved of these problems, I never said it was, but you keep implying that I did.To blame it on religion is absurd.
...
when governments have sought to completely expunge relgion from the public conscious (namely the Soviet Union and China) it also coincided with some of the worst human rights violations in the history of mankind.
Those particular secular governments silenced anyone who disagreed with them, not just religious people. Those governments behaved the same as many religion-based governments have over the centuries. It is overwhelmingly religion-based governments that have killed, tortured, banished, and suppressed people who practiced religions other than the official one.

"I don't think witchcraft is a religion. I would hope the military officials would take a second look at the decision they made."
"I do not think witchcraft is a religion, and I do not think it is in any way appropriate for the U.S. military to promote it."
- George W. Bush, pandering to his Christian supporters. He disapproved of Wiccan soldiers being given the same religious rights as others in the military.
Notice how Bush does away with the Wiccan's right to religious liberty by redefining Wicca as not a religion and further denigrating it with the term witchcraft.

"I don't see how we can allow public dollars to fund programs where spite and hate is the core of the message. Louis Farrakhan preaches hate."
-- George W. Bush, on being asked by a reporter if the Nation of Islam would be eligible for federal money, but failing to distinguish between the "hate" that he says Farrakhan preaches and the hate (against atheists and other non-Christians) that many Christian churches preach.

sources: http://www.religioustolerance.org http://www.positiveatheism.org

kdiddy13

02-15-2006, 09:00 AM

...

Like I said, I was replying to your comment that those particular problems "stemmed" from religion, not that religion didn't also take part in them. Stemmed from implies the root of, or cause. I was disagreeing that religion was the cause of those problems, not that they weren't problems. That's all. If you're looking for contradiction in what I've been saying, you might want to start by re-examining your scary movie analogies. I never said all, and to imply I meant it is absurd.

Those particular secular governments silenced anyone who disagreed with them, not just religious people. Those governments behaved the same as many religion-based governments have over the centuries. It is overwhelmingly religion-based governments that have killed, tortured, banished, and suppressed people who practiced religions other than the official one.

"I don't think witchcraft is a religion. I would hope the military officials would take a second look at the decision they made."
"I do not think witchcraft is a religion, and I do not think it is in any way appropriate for the U.S. military to promote it."
- George W. Bush, pandering to his Christian supporters. He disapproved of Wiccan soldiers being given the same religious rights as others in the military.
Notice how Bush does away with the Wiccan's right to religious liberty by redefining Wicca as not a religion and further denigrating it with the term witchcraft.

"I don't see how we can allow public dollars to fund programs where spite and hate is the core of the message. Louis Farrakhan preaches hate."
-- George W. Bush, on being asked by a reporter if the Nation of Islam would be eligible for federal money, but failing to distinguish between the "hate" that he says Farrakhan preaches and the hate (against atheists and other non-Christians) that many Christian churches preach.

sources: http://www.religioustolerance.org http://www.positiveatheism.org

I was just pointing out that the expirements in government devoid of religion were horrible as well. You did ask about a 'mythical time' when religion wasn't involved in government, I was just giving you some examples from recent history where governments based on absolutely no religion have failed as well.

I definitely agree that Bush is an intolerant idiot. And his use of religion for stupid, intolerant laws makes me very upset, too. I've also said repeatedly that governments entirely based on religion are a bad deal.

Splatman

02-15-2006, 09:16 AM

Move on up here to Seattle!

Less ass-kicking! We have VERY liberal politics here, and more pierced bodies than you could shake a stick at!

Want to really feel out of place? Try being a conservative working in a liberal state, in a liberal county, in a liberal city, in a liberal industry, MARRIED to a liberal!!! *sniff* That's me! *sniff*

(Seriously, if you're into 3D you may actually get a job...lots of Gaming companies located here.)

Splatman:D

Harvey Human

02-15-2006, 10:40 AM

Stemmed from implies the root of, or cause. I was disagreeing that religion was the cause of those problems, not that they weren't problems.
A problem can stem for various sources. As I've stated repeatedly, religion is not the cause of all the world's problems, but religion certainly has the global power to contribute in a big way. The problems I listed above stem primarily from religious dogma. One needs only to look at our European counterparts where there is less religious interference in government and where those sorts of problems are greatly reduced.

sajdera

02-15-2006, 11:16 AM

Less ass-kicking! We have VERY liberal politics here, and more pierced bodies than you could shake a stick at!

But it won't save me money on my car insurance...

Splatman

02-15-2006, 11:18 AM

...can't help ya there!;)

Splatman:D

ScatteredLogical

02-15-2006, 11:26 AM

One needs only to look at our European counterparts where there is less religious interference in government and where those sorts of problems are greatly reduced.

A nice point. You don't always need the direct experience when within your field of vision is a direct observation through which a model of the world can be developed.

phacker

02-15-2006, 11:31 AM

But it won't save me money on my car insurance...

But every argument and policy the Repulicans and some democrats broach say it will, and not only that it will reduce medical costs, who are we to believe? And not only savings, if you agree with them the "stock market" will prosper and your retirement fund will double.

kdiddy13

02-15-2006, 02:05 PM

A problem can stem for various sources. As I've stated repeatedly, religion is not the cause of all the world's problems, but religion certainly has the global power to contribute in a big way. The problems I listed above stem primarily from religious dogma. One needs only to look at our European counterparts where there is less religious interference in government and where those sorts of problems are greatly reduced.
So what was the point of posting them in the first place then (and why mention me in the title of it)? We've all agreed that evils done in the name of religion are bad news. I find your choice of words like "stem", "primarily," etc. coupled with your constant and obvious examples to imply very heavily that these wouldn't be problems without religion.

I do get what you're trying to say and agree that religion can influence people in a big way (helpfully and harmfully). I never argued against that.

You choose words with heavy implications, and claim to not know why I'm reading you differently. This has been my perspective so far, you don't like religion at all, and hold people who follow relgion in a great deal of disdain for the evils that religion does. And from the tone it doesn't sound like there's much of a middle ground. I'm just saying that's my impression from your rhetoric as a whole from these posts, an overall feeling. Can you see where I'm finding that in your posts? I can try to be more specific if you need me to. I'm really not trying to be insulting, I'm just trying to get you to understand my perspective. And it's beginning to feel like you are going out of your way to not understand what I'm saying.

And you keep bringing up Europe. I've said repeatedly, I agree, our government sucks big time (especially the religious zealot in charge). There's no argument from me that religion taking that large a role, especially one that presumes to push it's beliefs on others beyond "don't kill and don't hurt each other," is bad for everyone involved, even religion itself.

kdiddy13

02-15-2006, 04:18 PM

I'm sorry, ignore my last post (I'm leaving it with the intent of being honest, and in case someone is responding while I write this).

Have any of you seen Joe Vs. The Volcano? There's a scene early on where Joe's boss keeps yelling into the phone, "I'm not arguing that with you... I know, but I'm not arguing that with you!" Over and over. It's one of my favorite scenes in a movie. The absurdity of the argument he must have been in always makes me laugh.

Do you guys feel like you keep yelling "I'm not arguing that!" over and over? I do.

Here's the deal as I see it. We all agree that anything done to hurt someone else is bad, and it doesn't matter if it's in the name of Jehovah, because of a passage in a book, or just because you don't like them. We also agree that these people don't represent the whole. Right? So, I guess there isn't much else to say since we all agree on everything.

Harvey Human

02-15-2006, 05:12 PM

So what was the point of posting them in the first place then?
I stated in that very post and a number of times afterwards why.
We are having a discussion and a related topic is the damage religion and religiously-motivated people do.
If the discussion that some of us are having makes you uncomfortable, you are not obligated to participate.

This has been my perspective so far, you don't like religion at all, ...
not true

... and hold people who follow relgion in a great deal of disdain for the evils that religion does.
not necessarily true

I'm just trying to get you to understand my perspective.
You seem to see criticism of religion as an attack on the people who practice it.
This is the interpretation of the people perpetuating those cartoon riots.

People always trot out the platitude that we must respect people of different faiths, but I don't believe that's necessarily true; especially when they commit evil.

If people don't see that a specific criticism of Pat Robertson is not a criticism of Jesus and of all Christians throughout history, it is just another manifestation of their narrow-mindedness, and is more their problem than mine (unless they start rioting in front of my house).

kdiddy13

02-15-2006, 05:58 PM

I stated in that very post and a number of times afterwards why.
We are having a discussion and a related topic is the damage religion and religiously-motivated people do.
If the discussion that some of us are having makes you uncomfortable, you are not obligated to participate.

Holy crap, Harvey. "I'm not arguing that with you!" I know what the topic is, I've contributed in a number of well thought out posts (for the most part anyway), and have agreed the whole time that religion does some crappy things. I know I don't have to respond, I just would like to express myself as much as you do. Feel free to stop responding to me if I exasperate you so much. But please stop 'reminding' me I don't have to post.

not true

not necessarily true

Thanks for clearing it up.

You seem to see criticism of religion as an attack on the people who practice it.
This is the interpretation of the people perpetuating those cartoon riots.

Not necessarily true. Now you're reading into my posts. I don't mind the criticism on religion, I've done it myself, in virtually every post. I was merely expressing that to me your tone sounded very radical towards being anti-religion from the start. I've gotten in similar arguments over people wearing "Jesus is a cunt" t-shirts, and the arguments you were using sounded alot like theirs in tone as well as content (quoting many of the same old examples, like the crusades, gay bashing etc.), where they would argue that all of religion was bad so deserved criticizing, make a couple of exceptions, and then continue with all of religion is bad. They didn't like hearing that their views were as strong and outrageous as the people they were protesting against either and were as welcome as a guy on the street corner insisting I be saved by his particular relgion. I apologize for bringing previous experience into a new discussion. You have denied that was your intent so I'll leave it at that.

Harvey Human

02-15-2006, 06:46 PM

Holy crap, Harvey. ... Feel free to stop responding to me if I exasperate you so much.
It's mildly annoying to have to offer the same explanations over and over, but far from exasperating.
You seem to be having very emotional reactions to this discussion, possibly because it's a very personal topic. To me, it's just another discussion of culture. It's just an interesting diversion. If you want to see me truly exasperated, you might start a thread that is actually animation-related. A thread where you state that you hate some non-conformist, non-American style of animation will do nicely.

kdiddy13

02-15-2006, 07:08 PM

It's mildly annoying to have to offer the same explanations over and over, but far from exasperating.
You seem to be having very emotional reactions to this discussion, possibly because it's a very personal topic. To me, it's just another discussion of culture. It's just an interesting diversion. If you want to see me truly exasperated, you might start a thread that is actually animation-related. A thread where you state that you hate some non-conformist, non-American style of animation will do nicely.
It's definitely annoying to be doing the same on my end. Perhaps it's a personal topic (as it sounds to you as well, whether you want to admit it or not), perhaps it isn't, I haven't mentioned my personal faith on purpose, but it's more likely that I'm annoyed at the level of purposeful ignorance towards my posts. But the repetition and content of my posts have differed little from yours. We're two stubborn fools who refuse to let the other have the last word. You seem to go out of your way to disagree, even when I agree. Hey, we both have, I'll admit it. But for each time I've extended an offer of a truce you've repeated yourself and asked me why I wasn't getting it (even though I had just said I agreed). Not a, "I get what you're saying," a "you have a point," or even a "I hear ya", not even coupled with a "but" even when I had just agreed with you. You don't want to agree with me, even when I'm agreeing with you, fine. You win. You're more stuborn than I am. Post your last post, have the last word, and we can let this drift off the end of the page where it will be forgotten.