Maybe it's just me, but if I think someone is unfairly characterizing me as violent, I'm not going to assault them.
Am I being soft? Would a mouthful of broken teeth better make my point that I'm a man of peace? _________________ ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 14585 Location: Toronto, ON
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 7:10 pm Post subject:
Its these kind of violent whackjobs who give all Muslims a bad name. _________________ "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Am I being soft? Would a mouthful of broken teeth better make my point that I'm a man of peace?
Well, I'm guessing that there really isn't much of a personal contradiction here, since the guy who butted the cartoonist probably wouldn't deny that Islam is a violent religion. Violence, in fact, is probably part-and-parcel of the way he interprets his religion.
I suspect the reason he doesn't like that guy's cartoon is because it's insulting to the Prophet, not because it says Muslims are violent(if that indeed is what it did say).
Joined: 22 Aug 2006 Posts: 4004 Location: Central USA, Earth
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:25 pm Post subject:
Not much to say, I did note differences in media coverage.
Mohammed cartoons
Satirical weekly offices attacked
2 November 2011; Charlie Hebdo, 2 November 2011
Quote:
"One hundred lashes if you don’t die laughing". The French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo [“Charlie Weekly”] features a cartoon Mohammed on its front cover, which has been renamed Sharia Hebdo in reaction to the 23 October victory of the Islamist Ennahda in Tunisian elections, and the announcement that sharia law is to be adopted in Libya. The prophet has even been designated editor in chief of this special edition.
Six years after the publication of the cartoons of Mohammed in the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten, the initiative has not been universally well-received: on the night of November 1st, the weekly’s offices were burned down, and its website was hacked. In 2006, Charlie Hebdo republished the Danish cartoons.
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 6048 Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 6:23 pm Post subject:
Quote:
It's interesting to me that already, anything like this gets framed as an "attempt to provoke" Muslims.
Yeah, what's provocative about that?
Nevertheless, I'd be more interested in seeing how you'd react when the Vatican is under Muslim occupation, unmanned Pakistani and Iraqi drones are incinerating shoppers on Times Square, and the Algerian air force helps topple the dastardly regime of Steve "The mad Dog of Sussex Drive" Harper. _________________ "The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl
As a small "a" atheist, I don't think you'll find many good examples of me identifying with any religious group to the point that I'm going to commit some kind of violence or destruction here in Canada.
Curious that when discussing terrorism, the left will insist that it's all about material things, occupation being chief among them ("They don't hate us for our freedoms, they hate us because of American boots on Afghan soil") but then when something like this happens, it's right back to religion, isn't it?
When some Somali-born Canadian wants to blow some stuff up here in Canada, is it because Canadians are occupying Somalia? Is it because he's somehow Afghani, even though he was born in Somalia?
Or is it because of his religion?
Anyway, the United States should be leaving Iraq soon enough, and hopefully Afghanistan after that. Are you pretty sure that at that point, the French will be able to draw a picture of Mohammed without "provoking" nonsense like this? Because I somehow kind of doubt it. _________________ ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,
I'm just saying that as a non-believer, if the Vatican is ever occupied by Muslims, I'm unlikely to want to blow up a Muslim convenience store here in Canada in solidarity with Italy's Catholics. _________________ ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,
Your post kind of boiled down to "What do these people want exactly anyway?" which I automatically hear in a Pukka Anglo-Indian accent, in much the same way as I hear the "Kids these days!" type statements in Andy Rooney's voice.
There's an intersection of European xenophobia and a few decades of immigration from places like Turkey and Algeria at issue here - focussing on the religious aspect of it is a dodge frankly. While the ostensible target of this brand of "satire" may be Islam, the very clear inference is that the dark-skinned people who live in the outer suburbs and clean our offices at night are violent/backward/superstitious and don't belong here in France/Denmark/Germany/Holland/Britain/Canada.
They feature Mohammed on the cover, and from that we can clearly infer that Muslims aren't welcome in France?
Evidently Christians aren't either. Charlie Hebdo has published lots of covers featuring Jesus, the Pope, etc. _________________ ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,
It's the other way around - Muslims aren't welcome in France, or to be more specific, North Africans and Turks aren't welcome there. It's a different dynamic. It's basically poking fun at the help. Hardly surprising some of them don't like it much.
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 Posts: 923 Location: squelch~~big waves and high smiles from the stomach and intestine of capital.
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 9:36 pm Post subject:
I wonder what sort of letters to the editor the Grope and Flail would receive for publishing this sort of thing under the heading...Freaky Friday Edition...on good Friday. And you'd have to wonder just how many threatening letters do they receive in the mailbag everyday in response to articles on practically anything, for which they choose not to bother alerting the public to. Is there a specific agenda involved when corporate media organizations go public with certain death threats, and not others? .... the same organizatons who can be counted on to time and time again beat the drums of war when it comes to invading and pillaging the resources of countries where Islam is the dominant religion? No doubt, they're simply performing a public service in warning everyone of the dangers among us. It certainly must go some way toward marginalizing certain voices in this country and elsewhere when they come together to protest the warmongering actions of corporate governance abroad.
I wonder what sort of letters to the editor the Grope and Flail would receive for publishing this sort of thing under the heading...Freaky Friday Edition...on good Friday. And you'd have to wonder just how many threatening letters do they receive in the mailbag everyday in response to articles on practically anything, for which they choose not to bother alerting the public to.
I would certainly have a low opinion of the Globe And Mail if they published something like that heavy-metal blasphemy on Good Friday. Not because I'd be offended on religious grounds, but just because that sort of in-your-face insult isn't what a respectable newspaper should be publishing.
My understanding, though, is that the Charlie Hebdo is more comparable to South Park than to The Globe And Mail. Obviously, there is a different standard when we're talking about satirical humour than when we're talking about a newspaper of record.
Quote:
Nevertheless, I'd be more interested in seeing how you'd react when the Vatican is under Muslim occupation, unmanned Pakistani and Iraqi drones are incinerating shoppers on Times Square, and the Algerian air force helps topple the dastardly regime of Steve "The mad Dog of Sussex Drive" Harper.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians have fled for their lives as a result of Bush's war in Iraq. So the "top dog" status of their religion certainly hasn't done much to protect them. Granted, their situtation isn't representative of the situation of Christians worldwide, but neither is the situation of Iraqi Muslims representative of Muslims worldwide.
I'd also observe that one of the major criticisms of the Iraq War, coming from the left, was that it destroyed a secular Baathist government. The same criticism was made of western support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, which destroyed a secular, socialist government.
But these critiques seem to complicate the idea that it's Islam which is under attack. Since Baathist Iraq and the Democratic Republic Of Afghanistan were pretty much the opposite of Islamic regimes.
And I'd be willing to bet that at least some of the Muslims now supposedly so outraged about western imperialism were quite happy to look the other way back in the 1980s, when Reagan and his allies were pumping weapons into Afghanistan to defeat the Soviets(and using Islam as a rallying cry for their propaganda).
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 Posts: 923 Location: squelch~~big waves and high smiles from the stomach and intestine of capital.
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 11:54 pm Post subject:
voice of the damned wrote:
I would certainly have a low opinion of the Globe And Mail if they published something like that heavy-metal blasphemy on Good Friday. Not because I'd be offended on religious grounds, but just because that sort of in-your-face insult isn't what a respectable newspaper should be publishing.
If you're not offended, how do you come to describe it as an 'in-your-face' insult? .... because you sense that others may be offended, and you're relating on how they would perceive it? If that is the case, are you confident that all of those who are offended would exercise restraint in their responses to an editor or TV station manager.
If that is the case, are you confident that all of those who are offended would exercise restraint in their responses to an editor or TV station manager.
I wouldn't be surprised if a paper-of-record got death-threats or possibly even vandlalism from Christians if they published that image you posted. It would probably surprise me more if a satirical magazine got firebombed for publishing the same thing.
Religious terrorism is common to almost all faiths, but it doesn't manifest itself in a uniform manner among them. You don't hear much about Muslims blowing up abortion clinics, for example, even though there seems to be opposition to abortion within Islam.
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 6048 Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:14 am Post subject:
Quote:
Curious that when discussing terrorism, the left will insist that it's all about material things, occupation being chief among them ("They don't hate us for our freedoms, they hate us because of American boots on Afghan soil") but then when something like this happens, it's right back to religion, isn't it?
Maybe in your eyes, but I hardly think anyone, regardless of her religion. would be happy to live under the humiliation of foreign occupation, never mind worrying about the chance of being vaporised by a hellfire missile while out on a shopping trip. _________________ "The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 6048 Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:41 am Post subject:
By the way, it's cute how this thread was opened in the "Culture" section. _________________ "The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 Posts: 923 Location: squelch~~big waves and high smiles from the stomach and intestine of capital.
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:37 am Post subject:
When people shoot abortion doctors or set off explosives at the clinics, we usually just chalk it up to some deranged individual extremist who has taken their bible thumping a little too seriously. You wouldn't normally expect the general public as a result to think it right and proper for undercover anti-terrorism agents to infiltrate the neighborhood tabernacles, in order to start a database on everyone coming and going.
I wonder what sort of letters to the editor the Grope and Flail would receive for publishing this sort of thing under the heading...Freaky Friday Edition...on good Friday.
Charlie Hebdo didn't show Mohammed cavorting with naked sex demons. If you want a far more honest comparison, how about this, from the same exact magazine?
Now, back to imagining the violent outburst from the Christian community. _________________ ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,
That's a pretty mild mannered cartoon making fun of miracles.
What if the cartoon attacked the notion of transubstantiation by depicting followers feasting on different body parts of Jesus? Or maybe represented a fleet of bombers with the words, White Fathers' Mission on them? _________________ “If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a tractor.”
That's a pretty mild mannered cartoon making fun of miracles.
And as I understand it, the proposed cover that prompted this firebombing featured a drawing of Mohammed saying "100 lashes if you are not dying of laughter".
Pretty strong stuff!
Anyway, here's another Jesus cover. It seems there have been plenty of them.
If you google "charlie hebdo jesus" you can also see the actual Mohammed cover. Nobody's feasting on any humans or anything quite so outrageous. _________________ ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 6048 Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:07 pm Post subject:
sparqui wrote:
That's a pretty mild mannered cartoon making fun of miracles.
What if the cartoon attacked the notion of transubstantiation by depicting followers feasting on different body parts of Jesus? Or maybe represented a fleet of bombers with the words, White Fathers' Mission on them?
This isn't happening in a vacuum. People in Muslim countries are being invaded, occupied, bombed and humiliated, largely because they live in Muslim countries. Comparing a Muslim's reaction to this sort of mockery to that of a hypothetical Christian is both absurd and disingenuous. _________________ "The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 4564 Location: Hamilton
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:07 pm Post subject:
Well, you solved one thing for me:
Quote:
Not knowing what he looked like at the time, I just noticed a normal-looking guy who spent a lot of time pushing his newborn baby around in a stroller in the second-floor lobby of the theatre. He seemed very nice. I know, now, that he isn’t. But I know that I’m still glad to have shaken his hand.
So, not only has the ugly puke found someone stupid enough to find him attractive, he's spawned.
And, I say those mean-spirited words with the knowledge that the talentless piece-of-shit continues to insult Maher Arar as a "liar" for saying that he was tortured in Syria. And levant is lying himself simply to do his cowardly part in the imperialist "war on terror." _________________ Man! I hate them fancy-lads!
And, I say those mean-spirited words with the knowledge that the talentless piece-of-shit continues to insult Maher Arar as a "liar" for saying that he was tortured in Syria. And levant is lying himself simply to do his cowardly part in the imperialist "war on terror."
The problem with those words is that they're not just mean-spirited against Levant. They're mean-spirited against anyone who might happen to share his general physical appearance, because they posit a connection between being "an ugly puke" and being worthy of scorn.
It's like if I say "That goddam cripple Joesph Goebbels", and then try to justify myself by pointing out that Goebells was a bad guy. But the defense doesn't work, because I'm not just insulting Goebbels, I am by implication insulting everyone who has a physical disability.
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 14585 Location: Toronto, ON
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:56 pm Post subject:
voice of the damned wrote:
Quote:
And, I say those mean-spirited words with the knowledge that the talentless piece-of-shit continues to insult Maher Arar as a "liar" for saying that he was tortured in Syria. And levant is lying himself simply to do his cowardly part in the imperialist "war on terror."
The problem with those words is that they're not just mean-spirited against Levant. They're mean-spirited against anyone who might happen to share his general physical appearance, because they posit a connection between being "an ugly puke" and being worthy of scorn.
It's like if I say "That goddam cripple Joesph Goebbels", and then try to justify myself by pointing out that Goebells was a bad guy. But the defense doesn't work, because I'm not just insulting Goebbels, I am by implication insulting everyone who has a physical disability.
The two are hardly the same. Thwap called Levant an "ugly puke". "Ugly" and "puke", while not nice things to call someone, are hardly in the same league of pejoratives as "cripples". "Ugly" is also a subjective judgment, which anyone is entitled to take. A person who is ugly to me may well be attractive to someone else. "Cripple" is an objective statement. _________________ "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
The two are hardly the same. Thwap called Levant an "ugly puke". "Ugly" and "puke", while not nice things to call someone, are hardly in the same league of pejoratives as "cripples". "Ugly" is also a subjective judgment, which anyone is entitled to take. A person who is ugly to me may well be attractive to someone else. "Cripple" is an objective statement.
The fact remains, though, that you are passing judgement on people for something that they have no control over. Nobody asks to be born with particular physical features. Whether Thawp's view of ugliness is shared by everyone or not, it remains the case that he is condemning Levant(and by implication anyone else who looks like him) for things that are beyond their power to control.
Also, Thwap said that a woman would have to be "stupid" to find Levant attractive, thus suggesting that his own criteria for physical attractiveness is objectively more logical.
I have a very hard time believing anybody finds Levant attractive, based entirly on the things that he says. Same goes for Mark Steyn.
Okay, so I guess "Ugly puke, how did he ever spawn?" is okay terminology on EM, as long as we claim it's linked to our extreme dislike for someone's ideas. I will keep this in mind.
Thwap called Levant an "ugly puke". "Ugly" and "puke", while not nice things to call someone, are hardly in the same league of pejoratives as "cripples". .
Perhaps, depending on one's 'lived experience', so I'm told.
But, whatever.
What it does do is eliminate any doubt that this community is becoming a fucking disgrace.
(and you forgot 'piece-of-shit)
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 4564 Location: Hamilton
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:00 pm Post subject:
caoimhin wrote:
TS. wrote:
Thwap called Levant an "ugly puke". "Ugly" and "puke", while not nice things to call someone, are hardly in the same league of pejoratives as "cripples". .
Perhaps, depending on one's 'lived experience', so I'm told.
But, whatever.
What it does do is eliminate any doubt that this community is becoming a fucking disgrace.
(and you forgot 'piece-of-shit)
the fainting couch is over there. quick! before you do a face plant on the floor!
Levant is an ugly excuse for a human being. Anyone who would fall in love with such a disgusting creature must have some problems his or herself.
The idea that we should restrain ourselves in the face of such a scum-bag is mind-boggling. _________________ Man! I hate them fancy-lads!
On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues, 11 and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all. 12 When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, “Woman, you are set free from your infirmity.” 13 Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God.
"Cripple" is a fine old word, and is pejorative only if the intent is insulting. _________________ "The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl
Joined: 22 Aug 2006 Posts: 4004 Location: Central USA, Earth
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:15 pm Post subject:
[Baiting]Anyone espousing, "Man! I hate them fancy-lads!" must be suspected of insecurity or conviction of appearance inadequacies.
[/Baiting]
'Cripple' can be used to deride one's mental and emotional adequacies as well as a physical handicap. Nowadays, the last is the least often meant use of the word.
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 6048 Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:19 pm Post subject:
Quote:
'Cripple' can be used to deride one's mental and emotional adequacies...
So can "bone," "potato" and "meat," when used as prefixes for "head."
Imagine the pain you may cause someone when you describe a typical western meal!
Quote:
On the Sabbath-day Jesus walked among these poor helpless and suffering people, who were waiting for the water to rise. Jesus looked at one man, and though no one told him, he knew that this man had been a cripple, without power to walk, for almost forty years. He said to this man, "Do you wish to be made well?"
The man did not know who Jesus was. He answered, "Sir, I cannot walk; and I have no man to carry me down to the water when it rises in the pool; but while I am trying to crawl down, others crowd in before me, and the place is full, so that I cannot reach the water and be cured."
Jesus said to the man, "Rise, take up your bed, and walk!" The cripple had never heard words like these before; but as they were spoken he felt a new power shoot through his limbs.
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 14585 Location: Toronto, ON
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:22 pm Post subject:
caoimhin wrote:
TS. wrote:
Thwap called Levant an "ugly puke". "Ugly" and "puke", while not nice things to call someone, are hardly in the same league of pejoratives as "cripples". .
Perhaps, depending on one's 'lived experience', so I'm told.
But, whatever.
What it does do is eliminate any doubt that this community is becoming a fucking disgrace.
(and you forgot 'piece-of-shit)
If "this community is becoming a fucking disgrace", the door is that way. Feel free to use it. _________________ "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 6048 Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:57 pm Post subject:
TS. wrote:
If "this community is becoming a fucking disgrace", the door is that way. Feel free to use it.
I dunno, there are few enough voices left around here. I wouldn't be encouraging anyone to leave. _________________ "The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl
What it does do is eliminate any doubt that this community is becoming a fucking disgrace.
'
I disagree. Thwap is not the entire community, and his immature and excessively profane name-calling is not becoming a fucking disgrace - it always has been as far as I can remember. But no matter how much it has disgraced him so far, it hasn't become a big problem to the community as a whole. If/when it does, I expect he will be banned.
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 Posts: 923 Location: squelch~~big waves and high smiles from the stomach and intestine of capital.
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:29 am Post subject:
I live solely from here to there inside a little word in whose inflexion I lose my useless head. (Kafka) ... 1911
It's not a question of what comes out of ones mouth, but of what is shoved into it. (Slumberjack) ... a few minutes ago
I was rounded on the other day for suggesting that instead of calling 911, Fob Ford should have tasered the 22 Minutes crew with his portable defibrillator, and that he didn't look as if he could stand up to many sudden surprises....I was thinking more here about the mystery child he implicated in the affair. Fatphobia was the designation. Anyway, it was a proper call on an unchivalrous quip to say the least. I was in the wrong and offered an apology for it.
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 14585 Location: Toronto, ON
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:29 am Post subject:
al-Qa'bong wrote:
TS. wrote:
If "this community is becoming a fucking disgrace", the door is that way. Feel free to use it.
I dunno, there are few enough voices left around here. I wouldn't be encouraging anyone to leave.
Considering that he seems to show up just to stir the pot, he doesn't add much of a voice. And it seems odd that he would stick around a community that he considers to be a "fucking disgrace". _________________ "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
"Cripple" is a fine old word, and is pejorative only if the intent is insulting.
Used as a verb, no problem. Used as a noun, it's in the same category as "gimp" or "tard". _________________ ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,
That's a pretty mild mannered cartoon making fun of miracles.
And as I understand it, the proposed cover that prompted this firebombing featured a drawing of Mohammed saying "100 lashes if you are not dying of laughter".
Pretty strong stuff!
Anyway, here's another Jesus cover. It seems there have been plenty of them.
If you google "charlie hebdo jesus" you can also see the actual Mohammed cover. Nobody's feasting on any humans or anything quite so outrageous.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm not in favour of taking away someone's right to make fun of Jesus (or Mohammed, or Krishna or Buddha or Thor....etc) but c'mon surely you realize that one might perceive that a Westerner may have different motives from making fun of Christianity than when he/she pokes fun at Islam (Christianity being the dominant religion while Islam is that of an often despised and persecuted minority, many of whom are not white ). To me, saying that Christian and Muslim reactions should be the same reminds me of those white male heterosexuals who claim that they too are equally victims of bigotry because of being called "breeders" or "honky" or groped by women. Not to say these things don't happen and that they can cause hurt, but seriously you don't think it's the same as the discrimination gays, POC or women face everyday do you?
For another example, I live in a country where Christians are the dominant group and have the ear of our PM. So when Heph called the Pope "Joey the Rat" and countless posters on here, Babble and across the Canadian internet poke fun at Christians, their beliefs and their leaders, I laugh. However my roots are from a part of the world where Christians are an often despised and persecuted group (often very violent persecution - thousands have been killed, raped and forced to "reconvert" to Hinduism). So what I'm asking is, do you think Heph and Enmassers attacking the Pope and Christianity is the same as the Hindu extremist BJP, RSS or VHP attack the Pope or Christian practices? You do understand that motives are important, yes?
Quote:
In India, there is an increasing amount of violence being perpetrated by Hindu Nationalists against Christians, forcing thousands of Christians to convert to Hinduism.[193] The increase in anti-Christian violence in India bears a direct relationship to the ascendancy of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).[194] Incidents of violence against Christians have occurred in many parts of India. It is especially prevalent in the States of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and New Delhi.[194] The Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), the Bajrang Dal, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) are the most responsible organizations for violence against Christians.[193] These organizations, which are off-shoot organizations of their umbrella organization, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) also known as the Sangh Parivar, and local media were involved in promoting anti-Christian propaganda in Gujarat.[193] The Sangh Parivar and related organisations have stated that the violence is an expression of "spontaneous anger" of "vanvasis" against "forcible conversion" activities undertaken by missionaries. These claims have been disputed by Christians[195] a belief described as mythical[196] and propaganda by Sangh Parivar;[197] the Parivar objects in any case to all conversions as a "threat to national unity".[198]
In recent years, there has been a sharp increase in violent attacks on Christians in India. From 1964 to 1996, thirty-eight incidents of violence against Christians were reported.[194] In 1997, twenty-four such incidents were reported.[199] In 1998, it went up to ninety.[194] Between January 1998 and February 1999 alone, there were one hundred and sixteen attacks against Christians in India.[200] Between 1 January and 30 July 2000, more than fifty-seven attacks on Christians were reported.[201] The acts of violence include arson of churches, forcible conversion of Christians to Hinduism, distribution of threatening literature, burning of Bibles, murder of Christian priests and destruction of Christian schools, colleges, and cemeteries.[194][193] The attacks often accompanied by large amounts of anti-Christian hate literature.[201]
In some cases, anti-Christian violence has been co-ordinated, involving multiple attacks. In 2007 Orissa violence Christians were attacked in Kandhamal, Orissa, resulting in 9 deaths and destruction of houses and churches.[202][203] Nearly twelve churches were targeted in the attack by Hindu activists.[204][205][206] Human rights groups consider the violence as the failure of the state government that did not address the problem before it became violent. The authorities failed to react quickly enough to save human lives and property.[207]
Foreign Christian missionaries have also been targets of attacks. In a well-publicised case Graham Staines, an Australian missionary, was burnt to death while he was sleeping with his two sons Timothy (aged 9) and Philip (aged 7) in his station wagon at Manoharpur village in Keonjhar district in Orissa in January 1999.[193][208][209] In 2003, the Hindu nationalist activist Dara Singh was convicted of leading the gang responsible.[210]
In its controversial annual human rights reports for 1999, the United States Department of State criticised India for "increasing societal violence against Christians."[211] The report listed over 90 incidents of anti-Christian violence, ranging from damage of religious property to violence against Christians pilgrims.[211]
According to Rudolf C Heredia, religious conversion was a critical issue even before the creation of the modern state. Whereas Nehru wanted to establish a "a secular state in a religious society"[212] Gandhi opposed the Christian missionaries calling them as the remnants of colonial Western culture.[213] He claimed that by converting into Christianity, Hindus have changed their nationality.[214]
source _________________ I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day. - Assclown Rob Ford
but c'mon surely you realize that one might perceive that a Westerner may have different motives from making fun of Christianity than when he/she pokes fun at Islam (Christianity being the dominant religion while Islam is that of an often despised and persecuted minority, many of whom are not white ).
Thing is, when you poke fun at, mock, satirize or even insult ANY religion, the blowback is always from the most conservative or fundamentalist wing of that religion.
Somehow the moderates seem to find the strength to just move on with their lives. We can talk of the Danish Cartoons "insulting Islam", but really, they appeared to insult about 2% of Islam. The Last Temptation of Christ got about a thousand Catholics braying, and the rest of Christianity apparently couldn't have cared less.
Everyone forgets that when originally published, the Danish Cartoons weren't even a wee little blip in the world. It took a few Imams and a trip to the Middle East to really whip up a lather of anger and resentment. Had the Imams not had their own agenda, the big "insult to all Islam" wouldn't have been. _________________ ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1283 Location: Left . . . of the plate
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:06 pm Post subject:
Slumberjack wrote:
When people shoot abortion doctors or set off explosives at the clinics, we usually just chalk it up to some deranged individual extremist who has taken their bible thumping a little too seriously.
That would depend who "we" is. The "we" I usually include myself in, and which appears to include significant numbers of people, recognizes anti-abortion violence for the terrorism it is. And I would think it right and proper for the authorities to treat it as such. Seeing this violence as something perpetrated by extremists acting on their own is something usually done by those seeking to disassociate the terrorist from "their" religion.
al-Qa'bong wrote:
"Cripple" is a fine old word, and is pejorative only if the intent is insulting.
Cuz of some translation of something some guy named Luke said a coupla thousand years ago? Cuz some bible lesson on the internet uses it? Cuz, as we all know, language is static and if it was OK then, it's OK now?
TS. wrote:
"Cripple" is an objective statement.
Mobility International USA discourages the use of the term, and here are the opinions of some people who get called "cripple". Hardly unanimous, but seen by many as having negative connotations. Enough to make it not an objective term.
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 14585 Location: Toronto, ON
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:14 pm Post subject:
fork wrote:
TS. wrote:
"Cripple" is an objective statement.
Mobility International USA discourages the use of the term, and here are the opinions of some people who get called "cripple". Hardly unanimous, but seen by many as having negative connotations. Enough to make it not an objective term.
I didn't mean "objective" in the sense of non-pejorative, and as I think you will see, I said that "ugly" and "puke" are way lower in the order of how offensive things are than "cripple". I meant objective in that one is either objectively disabled or not. There is not generally a dispute as to whether a hypothetical person who uses a wheelchair is disabled, while quite clearly there is dispute as to whether or not Levant is "ugly", making "ugly" a subjective term while "cripple" is objective. I also don't mean to suggest for a moment that because something is objective that makes it okay, or better than something else. _________________ "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Voting Centre
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Front Page
Links
Acceptable Use Policy
Donate
Today's Active Topics