Topic: Brutal... but effective?

[Pugnate]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:quote:default

[Xessive]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:quote:default

That was still extremely offensive to me as a Muslim since I also believe in Moses and Jesus as holy prophets. Yet as a Muslim I reserve my right to peaceably reject the image as being anything remotely substantial and move on.

[Pugnate]

Had you cried I would have made a joke about the onion bring tears to your eyes. :|

[Cobra951]

I was talking to Sandy about the first episode of South Park, and how no one got murdered over that, only yesterday.

[K-man]

That was still extremely offensive to me as a Muslim since I also believe in Moses and Jesus as holy prophets. Yet as a Muslim I reserve my right to peaceably reject the image as being anything remotely substantial and move on.

And this is really the heart of the issue.  The problem isn't with religious faith so much as it is with extremists with warped views or interpretations.  It's similar to the battle that's being waged with fundamental Christianity in the US. They make the most noise, and either by lack of desire or means, the "normal" practitioners of the faith don't do enough to stamp out the ignorance.

I'd delve further, but then I believe that would make this thread more appropriate for the "serious discussion" forum, so I'll refrain.

[Quemaqua]

Also, "fundamental Christianity" is really completely wrong as a label most of the time. Most of the hateful creeps who get the label are practicing stuff that's either a complete invention separate from scripture, or a ridiculous misinterpretation.

[Xessive]

Also, "fundamental Christianity" is really completely wrong as a label most of the time. Most of the hateful creeps who get the label are practicing stuff that's either a complete invention separate from scripture, or a ridiculous misinterpretation.

Now you know how I feel.

[K-man]

Also, "fundamental Christianity" is really completely wrong as a label most of the time. Most of the hateful creeps who get the label are practicing stuff that's either a complete invention separate from scripture, or a ridiculous misinterpretation.

While I somewhat agree with your statement, I still consider "true" fundamental Christianity very dangerous.  The necessary core belief in inerrancy of scripture being the main reason.  That is a slippery slope for more reasons than I can count.

[Quemaqua]

Eh. 90% of the stuff I see people trying to point out as fallacious or contradictory, destructive, whatever, is taken out of context and has everything to do with misinterpretation and human bias, nothing to do with what's there. I don't need to get into a great debate over infallibility or actual theological discussion (in terms of that being a separate discussion from history, etc.) because this is something that isn't debatable without years of diligent study, but just like the so-called Christians who have been misrepresenting their own religion for countless ages (including most of the groups who took part in founding this country), many of those attacking it are prey to a lot of the same basic issues of faulty perspective.

And yes, X, I do. I've come to feel a great kinship with some of the Muslims I've been lucky enough to know. Whatever differences in doctrine and background there are, it's difficult to watch one's faith get subverted by popular and misinformed opinion, especially when so many represent themselves (and possibly even imagine themselves to be) legitimate authorities. It's frustrating, and in so many places around the world, deadly. Increasingly so even here in America where in my lifetime at least, we always felt we were safe from this kind of shit.

[K-man]

Ultimately my view on faith/religion is this:  I really don't give a fuck what you believe as long as it does not negatively impact (and you don't use it to negatively impact) someone else.  

[Cobra951]

Christian zealots don't normally go around slaughtering innocents either, though there are a few exceptions.

[shock]

I think political systems are more important here than the religious part.  As was mentioned in the other thread, freedom of speech is a mostly foreign concept to the much of the Middle East.  As a result, I think the region tends to be more offended when some idiot makes a dumb movie because it is seen as a western-endorsed youtube video when it is actually just a (poor) product of freedom of speech.

I'm pretty sure if all the Christians were living in politically repressed countries and the Muslims were living in politically open countries that the Christians would also go apeshit when someone made fun of Jesus.

Hopefully this makes sense.  

[K-man]

It makes perfect sense.  And it illustrates another huge issue I have with religion in general.

[Cobra951]

But the fact is they don't.  The facts are, well, the facts.  If it were the 12th century, Christian crusaders might be the greatest villains on Earth.  Today, that shoe is on a different foot.

[K-man]

But the shoe was there at one time, and that's sort of the point I'm trying to make.

And while they are not actively killing people, fundies using their beliefs in an attempt to deny people what I consider a basic right is unacceptable.

[W7RE]

My problem with the image is that it's intentionally offensive to someone's beliefs. It doesn't matter who.


It is NOT okay to tell someone what they are and are not allowed to believe in.

It is NOT okay to make fun of someone for believing what they do.

Every religious group has people that do both of the above. Also, atheism is a religious group. Being an atheist doesn't make it okay to force your religious beliefs on someone else.

[Quemaqua]

Politics and religion are generally inseparable, and whatever noble intent there may be in one is usually perverted by less noble intent of the other.

[Xessive]

The road to Hell is paved with good and noble intentions.

In my experience, religion needs to be viewed as a personal experience. Problems only arise when you gather enough people and have them make decisions that impact more people. Before you know it they've decided they need to be segregated from "non-believers" a generation later they decide they want to move back, cleanse the land, and make everyone a believer. This pattern seems to repeat among religions, cults, and various faith/belief-based groups. The issue goes back to effects of "groupthink" and the relinquishing of one's personal responsibility. It's easier to go along with an idea (as stupid as it can be) if everyone's doing it too.

Religion and politics have been uncomfortably intertwined, almost to the point where you can't distinguish one from the other. The difference is that religion can exist on a personal level, politics cannot because the whole objective of anything political is to affect whole populations.

The more I experience humanity the more appealing the idea of isolating myself in mountain cabin becomes.

[Quemaqua]

I think the group-think is the big issue. You can have some basic core beliefs, a delineation of general morality, whatever, but what we have largely lost (though arguably never had nearly enough of to begin with) is the ability of the people to think for themselves. I'd argue that most Christians are largely ignorant of their beliefs, just as are many Catholics in this country, succumbing to ritual and rote memorization of points that may not even be right, and it makes them susceptible to someone else's poor interpretation of the underlying philosophy.

But yeah, well said, X.