The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It is down there with the Jesus one. That you are using now. Bad day for you.

perhaps the fact that almost no one gives a shit what you say or think obscures the fact that I do. Your words cut me to the bone.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
To claim your attitude towards a bunch or born-agains burning up Arkansas for Piss-Christ would be the same as your support of these burners is silly.

I'm not sure what this sentence means.

And their "Christianity" isn't yours, so you don't know how they would feel.

Did I say otherwise?

It is ironic that a cartoon portraying the leader of the faith with a bomb-head results in the followers going out and bombing things.

Indeed.

The main point shown here is the violent shades think they can control what everyone worldwide does. how can you try and defend that?

Here again, I don't follow you. Sorry.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't follow you. Sorry.

s'kay. I really don't want people who think the papers are to blame to understand me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
In a civilized, adult society, free speech trumps a particular religion's heightened sensitivities.

You do see what these Islamists are doing, don't you? They can't change the law to fit their religious code, so they're indirectly doing it by force and fear.

When we make apologies and make allowances for Islam's "special status" as a religion we cannot indict or poke fun at in the public sphere, we're allowing a de facto form of shariah to take hold.

We have to set a precedent that secular freedom of expression trumps religious sensitivity. Without that bedrock principle, you're always slouching otward theocracy. And I'm not being hyperbolic here in the least. Preservation of that principle is essential to a democracy.

You are being completely hyperbolic. I'm not saying the speech in question should be banned. I'm saying that editors -- think about why they're called that -- should use their discretion to avoid offending people for no reason. There are all sorts of racial epithets that you won't read in the New York Times. The Times has the First Amendment right to print them, though -- no one argues about that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
s'kay. I really don't want people who think the papers are to blame to understand me.

You read my blog, so you know I blame the Saudis, at least in part.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You are being completely hyperbolic. I'm not saying the speech in question should be banned. I'm saying that editors -- think about why they're called that -- should use their discretion to avoid offending people for no reason. There are all sorts of racial epithets that you won't read in the New York Times. The Times has the First Amendment right to print them, though -- no one argues about that.

So a paper print an editorial that questions whether radical Islam is a potential danger to the world, there just can't be an illustration?

Ty. When a born-again kills an abortion doctor do you take their side because they think Jesus wanted the killing? Do privacy rights sit on a higher plane than first amendment rights?

Is it okay for other posters to not like me temporarially because I publish a Hitler-Hank avatar?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
What you're trying to do is justify why these cartoons were somehow more "wrong" than Serrano's image and that Muslims are more entitled to feel the rage than Christians were over the Serrano piece.

Well, I was trying to point to differences in religious doctrine. I am a Christian. I actually go to church and shit. I wasn't offended by Serrano. I'm sure others were, but I'm not sure I understand the basis for their offense, other than that they felt disrespected and marginalized. That's a little different than a situation where the very act of depicting God (or G-d, as some of my MOT friends call him) is blasphemous.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty says we have to stop posted Mohammed cartoons because more extreme muslims riot when we do.

Harvard called. They want the diploma back.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Ty, on the other hand, made a few recockulous comments and then avoided the board when called on them.

It's not my fault you're so fast out of the gate but lack staying power.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
So a paper print an editorial that questions whether radical Islam is a potential danger to the world, there just can't be an illustration?

No. I think they've got to make some judgment about what the illustration's costs and benefits. You'll recall that I started out by saying that I didn't think these cartoons have much merit to them. Other than as a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, I mean. Y'all seem to be saying the Danish had a responsibility to fight the GWOT by pissing off Moslems however they could.

Ty. When a born-again kills an abortion doctor do you take their side because they think Jesus wanted the killing? Do privacy rights sit on a higher plane than first amendment rights?

You keep trying to make this a question of legal rights. I never said the Danish newspaper shouldn't have a first-amendment-sort of right to publish this stuff. I just think they should have exercised their rights to publish something else.

Is it okay for other posters to not like me temporarially because I publish a Hitler-Hank avatar?

It is both OK and their right.

God bless America.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Well, I was trying to point to differences in religious doctrine. I am a Christian. I actually go to church and shit. I wasn't offended by Serrano. I'm sure others were, but I'm not sure I understand the basis for their offense, other than that they felt disrespected and marginalized. That's a little different than a situation where the very act of depicting God (or G-d, as some of my MOT friends call him) is blasphemous.

The image of The Prophet was blasphemous to the religion of Islam. The image of Mary, Mother of God with elephant feces thrown all over it was blasphemous to religion(s) as well.



If there is a difference in how blasphemous one was as compared to the other, I don't think it's a meaningful one. Maybe you are viewing them as different because of how you view the relative positions of power of those blasphemed (Muslims: downtrodden, poor; Christians: less likely to be downtrodden, poor). I can respect a gut reaction or feeling, but....

[Fish Sunday Thinker]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
My own Muslim friends have all been living in the U.S. for some time (some from Iran, others Pakistan and one UAE) and, presumably, come from some money seeing as how they got here (to attend colleges in the U.S. - they stayed afterward) so their reactions may not reflect much of anything, but...their response to events like 9/11, hearing of this or that head cut off and other things perpetrated "in the name of Allah" has been pretty much the same: they shake their heads, say "Wow, that's fucked up" and then move on to another topic. In private, after a few drinks, they'll allow a lot more and sometimes make clear their feeling that the violence is somehow understandable. Some of these people have themselves been victims of overzealous Muslims (those whose families fled after the Shah left). Is there some value or other principle that prevents Muslims who are against violence from speaking up when these things occur and denouncing violence perpetrated in the name of Allah? A desire not to offend other Muslims? What do you, as a moderate Muslim, feel moderate Muslims should do when someone commits a violent act, purportedly to further the cause of Islam?

As a Pakistani Muslim who has lived in the UK and the US and currently is in the States, my perspective is that I know the attitude that you have encountered but would counter that the super majority of Muslims are moderates or liberals and want peace. And are against violence for any reason. But, we also want to be understood and respected within our adopted societies and within the world community.

While the cartoons are trivial in the grand scheme and any reasonable, civilised and intelligent person know this and seek to move the debate to a higher plane, there is an element of unnecessary hatefulness inherent in this incident and throughout the world based on an ignorance of Islam. Look at some of the posters here.

Anyone who resorts to hate speech or violence, regardless of their god, should be ashamed. I feel my duty as an emissary of my religion and my god is to have respect for all peace-loving, fair-minded people in my native lands, my adopted home and trhoughtout the World, Islamic or not.

The tiny minority of extremist thugs that misrespresent Islam must be roundly chastised and the violence condemned. They are enemies of Allah and Islam. But we should also look into our hearts and purge the shades of racism that exist within Western societies and cure the ignorance that helps fuel the flames of the violent thugs. Ignorance is as much bliss as destructive, it seems and can be as dangerous and provocative as actual violence. No matter where you live or what your faith is.

Diane, I hope you understand this and together the peace loving humanists within both of our societies can find the harmonious common ground.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You read my blog, so you know I blame the Saudis, at least in part.

in about an hour you'll catch up and realize i won this argument by default. let's see if we can't work together.

will you contact judged.com, tell them you're a mod and see if they'll cancel the fake Hank Chinaski on reciprocity or mod-based professional courtesy? The guy just stole the sock to enflame me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
The image of The Prophet was blasphemous to the religion of Islam. The image of Mary, Mother of God with elephant feces thrown all over it was blasphemous to religion(s) as well.

Let's stick to Christianity. What makes that blasphemous?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
in about an hour you'll catch up and realize i won this argument by default.

It's not my fault you're so fast out of the gate but lack staying power.