The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[Man Called X]

I'm gonna go ride a unicorn.

You idiots keep arguing over which fairy tale is better.

 

[kosis]

Hallelujah!!!

Maybe you're not happy those discussions are being had, but I think they're exactly the kind of discussions that are needed.

Yeah, that's what's needed. Worshippers need to sit around at their mosque and discuss bigots orchestrating events meant to incite and disrespect them. Not religion and peace, let's spend our time discussing dickheads. How to avoid them and what not to say. How to be polite but still express themselves. How to walk around and be a good Muslim. Be mad at the cartoons but never make it threateningly obvious.

Again, extremists aren't sitting here having discussions at mosques about the rights and wrongs of cartoons. They're out doing extremist things.

Yeah, other religions have been the victim of inflammatory mockery, but you don't go out and give them standing ovations. RE: religion, only anti-Islam stuff is pat-on-the-back patriotic.

You keep objecting to me refusing them the "brave" title. I guess it's also "brave" of the two guys to walk up and start shooting at security guards and getting killed. I guess I just don't use the word in that Oxford dictionary sort of way.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I'm gonna go ride a unicorn.

You idiots keep arguing over which fairy tale is better.

Speaking of unicorns, I think my wife may be going on a trip to Candy Mountain.

 

[Man Called X]

Speaking of unicorns, I think my wife may be going on a trip to Candy Mountain.

Real talk, sorry to read about your wife.

But for real real, all religions are a joke. Why someone wants to hide behind one and denounce the other is beyond me.

 

[kosis]

Heroes.

ALL lives matter!

 

[kosis]

I'm gonna go ride a unicorn.

You idiots keep arguing over which fairy tale is better.

Is that even happening in this thread?

 

[Man Called X]

Is that even happening in this thread?

I don't even know what's going on in half of this thread. Gour's over here calling Q-Tip a bigot. Q-Tip is arguing extremism vs a particular faith.

The argument is boiling down to don't upset other people from this religion because it doesn't help but it's okay to upset other people from other religions because they haven't been as vilified.

I'm not even sure.

And with all that said, people are still having massive wars over some land that apparently multiple Gods have claimed despite the fact that none of these Gods has been heard from in 2000+ years.

But hey, we're 'Murica, we don't have to follow logic. We're the "strongest" so as we say goes.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Yeah, that's what's needed. Worshippers need to sit around at their mosque and discuss bigots orchestrating events meant to incite and disrespect them. Not religion and peace....

Oh, I'd hope such discussions would be very much about peace, and non-violence.

let's spend our time discussing dickheads. How to avoid them and what not to say. How to be polite but still express themselves. How to walk around and be a good Muslim. Be mad at the cartoons but never make it threateningly obvious.

What's amazing about this is that I know you mean all that facetiously, and yet I think it is all something that is very serious. Yes, that's exactly part of what should be discussed. Islam teaches that drawings of the Prophet are blasphemy, right? Then shouldn't Islam also teach how a good Muslim should respond to such blasphemy? Why is that concept such a joke to you? I'm not the most religious Christian in the world, but part of what gets taught in most Christian churches is how Christians should respond to sin that we encounter/commit in our everyday lives. How is that not appropriate?

Again, extremists aren't sitting here having discussions at mosques about the rights and wrongs of cartoons. They're out doing extremist things.

Someone taught them, at some point, that it was blasphemous to depict Muhammad. I assume that was in mosque, or by some religious teacher. They didn't just invent that on their own. So what is so wrong with such teachings including the caveat that the punishment for such blasphemy should come from God, not from other men?

Yeah, other religions have been the victim of inflammatory mockery, but you don't go out and give them standing ovations. RE: religion, only anti-Islam stuff is pat-on-the-back patriotic.

The winning cartoon is more eloquent on that point than anything I could write.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

When Monty Python's "Life of Brian" came out, there were a bunch of Christians who went ape-shyte. They said it mocked their religion and Jesus, etc., urged movie theaters not to show it, etc.... There was a pretty famous on-air debate with an Anglican Bishop, as I remember.

But it was shown anyway. People went, most laughed, a few got upset. The movie made its satirical points, and no theaters were blown up, the Python boys weren't threatened or attacked, etc.. Because that's the way things are generally done here in the U.S.. And to the extent it tweaked the sensibilities of some uptight people....too bad.

Although Norway actually banned it as blasphemous, for which I think they deserved to get some sequels. Just to piss them off. Though they did lift that ban at some point.

 

[Jordan]

This whole conversation reminds me of the Monty Python skit where they discuss "all facts verified by the Rhodesian police."

Geller is a bigot. It's good these Jihadis -- I won't acknowledge they were part of ISIS because that is not official yet -- are dead. But one does not justify the other. Maybe Geller was really trying to be heroic in this event. More than likely, given her history, is this was more made to inflame and offend Muslims.

I am definitely not a fan of religion. I think all religions result in ridiculous conflicts and emotional spats. Nonetheless, if someone had an art show with Jews portrayed as bankers people would be really upset. By no means does this justify the attacks, if anything, it is the reason why I oppose them so vehemently. I think there is a better way to defeat religion than offending believers, who, as @The Human Q-Tip rightfully pointed out, include extremists.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I think there is a better way to defeat religion than offending believers, who, as @The Human Q-Tip rightfully pointed out, include extremists.

I have no interest in defeating religion. Any religion. But I think publicly mockery/criticism of a religion, or of religion in general (I'd include Life of Brian there) is something that should be protected, and not under fear of violent attack.

I don't see why religions should have any special status over and above any other belief system, including secular beliefs. There are non-religious people to whom their political/social beliefs are just as important to them as are the beliefs of a religious person. You only need to run into some Libertarians to know that.

Should we not mock those beliefs either? I mean, what does it really accomplish to mock libertarians, or Republicans, or Democrats, or Vegans, or rednecks, or any other group? Are all those here outraged over religious blasphemy innocent of mocking other beliefs, religious or secular, with which they don't agree? I doubt it.

Any idea, including religious ones, should be fair game for criticism or criticism's cousin, mockery. And I don't see why religions in general, or Islam in particular, should be immune just because the hurt feelings of their adherents are somehow more important that the hurt feelings of others.

 

[gourimoko]

I have no interest in defeating religion. Any religion. But I think publicly mockery/criticism of a religion, or of religion in general (I'd include Life of Brian there) is something that should be protected, and not under fear of violent attack.

It is protected... no one is arguing that people should not have the protections afforded under the First Amendment.

However, not to expect violence, when knowingly inciting violence is an oxymoron and that's the entire point many on both the right and left have made about Geller's stunt.

 

[Jordan]

I have no interest in defeating religion. Any religion. But I think publicly mockery/criticism of a religion, or of religion in general (I'd include Life of Brian there) is something that should be protected, and not under fear of violent attack.

Yeah, I mean, we can get in a debate of the problems with religion but I think it would result in a lot of people calling each of us bigots when we are just trying to have a chill discussion, haha.

I also agree with mockery of religion and free speech. Life of Brian, and Monty Python in general, though, is done from a comedic standpoint. There wasn't anything comedic about this drawing contest. I guess my biggest issue with this is from a purely moral standpoint which is that Geller knew this would be inflammatory and offensive. Should it be? Not in my mind. But I also think McDonalds should not be required to keep their french fries kosher, but hell, when it came out the FFs were soaked in pig fat everyone freaked out and got mad at McDonalds. My larger point is that the Muhammad drawing contest, from a logical standpoint, should not be offensive. But it is and this "contest" was done out of that vain.

Secondly, this inflamed ISIS and AQ, which is just ridiculous. Now you have ISIS calling for more attacks in the United States. Again, they are insane, but Geller's actions put the United States at a higher risk. And she knew that could happen from the start.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I also agree with mockery of religion and free speech. Life of Brian, and Monty Python in general, though, is done from a comedic standpoint. There wasn't anything comedic about this drawing contest.

I'd agree it wasn't comedic, but not all commentary need be comedic to have value.

What do you think of the winning cartoon?

 

[gourimoko]

I don't even know what's going on in half of this thread. Gour's over here calling Q-Tip a bigot. Q-Tip is arguing extremism vs a particular faith.

I'm arguing that Q-Tip's logic lacks self-consistency and is obviously contradictory in numerous aspects. Hence, it's an ad hoc rationalization to support the mockery/shame of a particular group (Muslims) while simultaneously, and admittedly, protecting another group (Jews).

The differentiation between individuals based on religion or race is not relevant here. To protect Blacks and Jews under the same concept of equality should also encompass Muslims; however, in this instance it doesn't.

Therefore, an irrational bias obviously exists.