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

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Spanky
...something about the insanity (definition + belief without evidence) of religion

I say - new bar tonight! "Rye." Can't beat the name.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
What I was talking about was your incredulity over Ty "contradicting" himself, when what Ty was really saying was that blasphemy<offensiveness to those who are Christian.

Here are the quotes:

Ty Said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I am not assuming anything. I am a Christian, and I'm telling you what I think. I haven't said others Christians aren't offended, or shouldn't be offended. .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prior to this he said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I understand why (some) Christians take offense. But it doesn't have to do with Christian doctrine, so far as I know. Want to cite chapter and verse to me?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Let's stick to Christianity. What makes that blasphemous?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To me these sun up as

1) "I never said other Christians shouldn't be offended by Serrno"

Where before, He said:

1) I don't understand the basis for other Christians offense at Serrano's work, as with Mohammed in the Koran the bible doesn't explicity say it is blasphemous (notice offense and blashemous used interchangeably in the above quote)

2) you can't cite chapter or verse from Scripture to show why Christians would take offense.

3) There is no scripture saying it is blasphemous.

It seems to me he said since there is no scripture calling it blasphenous or offensive, Christians should not take it as such. But then later he claims he never said that Christians should not be offended by Serrano.

Did I paraphrase something wrong? Did I take something out of context? Did I misrepresent the meaning of something? Where is the flaw in my logic?

Why is this not as simple and as obvious as I see it.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
When you say blasphemy < offensiveness to those who are Christian.

Do you mean that blasphemy is less offesnive to Christians than to Muslims or

Or do you mean that something that is blasphemous to Christians may not be offensive.

Or do you mean that something that is not offensive to Christians is also not blasphemous.

No, no, and I suppose (though that's really not my point).

I mean that from the little I've read on the topic, there's something specific about Islam that forbids visual representations of Muhammed.

In Christianity, there may not be a good analogue to that concept. The closest we've come is a reference to "blasphemy," but Ty is pointing out that blasphemy is a pretty garden-variety term often used to refer to religious references, representations, etc. that Christians think dishonor God or otherwise find offensive to their beliefs. In the Venn Diagram, "blasphemy" probably exists entirely within the circle of things that offend (most) Christians, but the "blasphemy" circle is smaller.

That's what I, and others, have been trying to explain.

Diane and some others have seemed to grasp this point and reply, Big Deal, So What? Whatever -- I consider it something of a small point myself.

However, you -- far as I can tell -- have siezed upon the concept of blasphemy as one of such stunning obviousness and clarity that you've invested a good day's worth of posts in trying to argue that Ty is being inconsistent. I'm bemused by this, but am finding it hard to believe that you're really having such a hard time understanding what's been explained by now in a dozen different ways.

Gattigap

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Gattigap
No, no, and I suppose (though that's really not my point).

I mean that from the little I've read on the topic, there's something specific about Islam that forbids visual representations of Muhammed.

In Christianity, there may not be a good analogue to that concept. The closest we've come is a reference to "blasphemy," but Ty is pointing out that blasphemy is a pretty garden-variety term often used to refer to religious references, representations, etc. that Christians think dishonor God or otherwise find offensive to their beliefs. In the Venn Diagram, "blasphemy" probably exists entirely within the circle of things that offend (most) Christians, but the "blasphemy" circle is smaller.

That's what I, and others, have been trying to explain.

Diane and some others have seemed to grasp this point and reply, Big Deal, So What? Whatever -- I consider it something of a small point myself.

However, you -- far as I can tell -- have siezed upon the concept of blasphemy as one of such stunning obviousness and clarity that you've invested a good day's worth of posts in trying to argue that Ty is being inconsistent. I'm bemused by this, but am finding it hard to believe that you're really having such a hard time understanding what's been explained by now in a dozen different ways.

Gattigap

You should have asked Coltrane for hte webpage of the Venn Diagram draw-er. Saved yourself some explanation time. Those greater than and less than signs throw people sometimes, you know.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
In my opinion, your meaning is almost always obvious, your only need to "clarify it" when it is shown how ridiculous or illogical your statements were. Instead of admitting it was ridiculous you just clarify it and pretend you meant something else.

Since Gattigap, S_A_M and Diane Keaton all figured it out, and no one else seems confused in the way you are, I'm not worried about my communication skills. I do wonder why I let you get under my skin, but that's between me and my bottle of merlot.

[original Hank@judged.com]

Originally posted by Gattigap
What I was talking about was your incredulity over Ty "contradicting" himself, when what Ty was really saying was that blasphemy<offensiveness to those who are Christian.

I try to support Spank, especially since the time the serbian left him, but he is wrong to being incredulous about Ty's contradictions. The DU and bloggers he relies on are inherently contradictory. It's not so much his fault but he is liable for perpetuating it. He needs a self-censor.

RT, can I be a mod of Ty?

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Since Gattigap, S_A_M and Diane Keaton all figured it out, and no one else seems confused in the way you are, I'm not worried about my communication skills. I do wonder why I let you get under my skin, but that's between me and my bottle of merlot.

I refuse to read what has preceded this, so I ask ...

Is the debate over whether the cartoons should have been republished because they are offensive to certain Muslims to the point that they work themselves into a killing frenzy?

If so, the answer is self-obvious - anything and everything should be done that does so. If it takes poor cartooning, so be it. If it takes bad writing (Rushdie), so be it. Whatever - expose the fuckers.

First, they mostly kill each other, which is good, kind of like the stampedes at Mecca. Like lemmings, nature is saying we have too many Muslamic nutjobs.

Second, it illustrates the danger posed by Islam (as practiced in most of the world, if not the U.S), which is good, if only to scare Europe and Muslim-apologists in the U.S. who think "it is a religion of peace."

Third, it self-identifies the "militant" Muslim from the "moderate" Muslim, which is good, so that the CIA or Mossad can whack them.

Fourth, it reminds us that we are not that far removed from our own witch hunts and Inquisitions, which is good, because the religious right would bring them back in modified form.

And, fifth, it exposes the Tyrones of the world, who are afraid of hurting wackjob's feelings. If flat-earthers were offended if someone satirized them, would Ty feel the same way? Muslims (like any other religious person) believe in something without evidence. Yet, it appeears Ty would grant them special dispensation from ridicule because they really feel strongly about it. In fact, they deserve the most ridicule. A flat-earther is laughable. A flat-earther who would kill, burn, honor-rape, etc. because you impugn their belief in a flat-earth would be committed.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
No, no, and I suppose (though that's really not my point).

I mean that from the little I've read on the topic, there's something specific about Islam that forbids visual representations of Muhammed.

In Christianity, there may not be a good analogue to that concept. The closest we've come is a reference to "blasphemy," but Ty is pointing out that blasphemy is a pretty garden-variety term often used to refer to religious references, representations, etc. that Christians think dishonor God or otherwise find offensive to their beliefs. In the Venn Diagram, "blasphemy" probably exists entirely within the circle of things that offend (most) Christians, but the "blasphemy" circle is smaller.

That's what I, and others, have been trying to explain.

What makes you think I don't understand this? Everything you just stated here is obvious and every person on this board has probably understood this from the beginning (including me). How does this contradict my interpretation of what Ty said. What has this got to do with my quotes that show how Ty contradicted himself?

[Spanky]

The Economist doesn't think the reprints were just sticking it in people's eyes.


The limits to free speech

Cartoon wars
Feb 9th 2006
From The Economist print edition

Free speech should override religious sensitivities. And it is not just the property of the West

I DISAGREE with what you say and even if you are threatened with death I will not defend very strongly your right to say it.” That, with apologies to Voltaire, seems to have been the initial pathetic response of some western governments to the republication by many European newspapers of several cartoons of Muhammad first published in a Danish newspaper in September. When the republished cartoons stirred Muslim violence across the world, Britain and America took fright. It was “unacceptable” to incite religious hatred by publishing such pictures, said America's State Department. Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, called their publication unnecessary, insensitive, disrespectful and wrong.

Really? There is no question that these cartoons are offensive to many Muslims (see article). They offend against a convention in Islam that the Prophet should not be depicted. And they offend because they can be read as equating Islam with terrorism: one cartoon has Muhammad with a bomb for his headgear. It is not a good idea for newspapers to insult people's religious or any other beliefs just for the sake of it. But that is and should be their own decision, not a decision for governments, clerics or other self-appointed arbiters of taste and responsibility. In a free country people should be free to publish whatever they want within the limits set by law.

No country permits completely free speech. Typically, it is limited by prohibitions against libel, defamation, obscenity, judicial or parliamentary privilege and what have you. In seven European countries it is illegal to say that Hitler did not murder millions of Jews. Britain still has a pretty dormant blasphemy law (the Christian God only) on its statute books. Drawing the line requires fine judgements by both lawmakers and juries. Britain, for example, has just jailed a notorious imam, Abu Hamza of London's Finsbury Park mosque, for using language a jury construed as solicitation to murder (see article). Last week, however, another British jury acquitted Nick Griffin, a notorious bigot who calls Islam “vicious and wicked”, on charges of stirring racial hatred.

Drawing the line
In this newspaper's view, the fewer constraints that are placed on free speech the better. Limits designed to protect people (from libel and murder, for example) are easier to justify than those that aim in some way to control thinking (such as laws on blasphemy, obscenity and Holocaust-denial). Denying the Holocaust should certainly not be outlawed: far better to let those who deny well-documented facts expose themselves to ridicule than pose as martyrs. But the Muhammad cartoons were lawful in all the European countries where they were published. And when western newspapers lawfully publish words or pictures that cause offence—be they ever so unnecessary, insensitive or disrespectful—western governments should think very carefully before denouncing them.

Freedom of expression, including the freedom to poke fun at religion, is not just a hard-won human right but the defining freedom of liberal societies. When such a freedom comes under threat of violence, the job of governments should be to defend it without reservation. To their credit, many politicians in continental Europe have done just that. France's interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, said rather magnificently that he preferred “an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship”—though President Jacques Chirac later spoiled the effect by condemning the cartoons as a “manifest provocation”.

Shouldn't the right to free speech be tempered by a sense of responsibility? Of course. Most people do not go about insulting their fellows just because they have a right to. The media ought to show special sensitivity when the things they say might stir up hatred or hurt the feelings of vulnerable minorities. But sensitivity cannot always ordain silence. Protecting free expression will often require hurting the feelings of individuals or groups, even if this damages social harmony. The Muhammad cartoons may be such a case.

In Britain and America, few newspapers feel that their freedoms are at risk. But on the European mainland, some of the papers that published the cartoons say they did so precisely because their right to publish was being called into question. In the Netherlands two years ago a film maker was murdered for daring to criticise Islam. Danish journalists have received death threats. In a climate in which political correctness has morphed into fear of physical attack, showing solidarity may well be the responsible thing for a free press to do. And the decision, of course, must lie with the press, not governments.

It's good to talk
It is no coincidence that the feeblest response to the outpouring of Muslim rage has come from Britain and America. Having sent their armies rampaging into the Muslim heartland, planting their flags in Afghanistan and Iraq and putting Saddam Hussein on trial, George Bush and Tony Blair have some making up to do with Muslims. Long before making a drama out of the Danish cartoons, a great many Muslims had come to equate the war on terrorism with a war against Islam. This is an equation Osama bin Laden and other enemies of the West would like very much to encourage and exploit. In circumstances in which embassies are being torched, isn't denouncing the cartoons the least the West can do to show its respect for Islam, and to stave off a much-feared clash of civilisations?

No. There are many things western countries could usefully say and do to ease relations with Islam, but shutting up their own newspapers is not one of them. People who feel that they are not free to give voice to their worries about terrorism, globalisation or the encroachment of new cultures or religions will not love their neighbours any better. If anything, the opposite is the case: people need to let off steam. And freedom of expression, remember, is not just a pillar of western democracy, as sacred in its own way as Muhammad is to pious Muslims. It is also a freedom that millions of Muslims have come to enjoy or to aspire to themselves. Ultimately, spreading and strengthening it may be one of the best hopes for avoiding the incomprehension that can lead civilisations into conflict.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Spanky:

Basicially, the Republicans are not good enough with words and language and stuff to be able to handle having adjectival and noun forms that are different. Democrats can handle it. So, "Republican" is both a noun and an adjective; "Democrat" is a noun, and "Democratic" is an adjective.

Democrats can also understand that there is both an oft-used adjective "democratic" (with a lower-case "d") that is used generally, and then there is the adjective "Democratic" (with an upper-case "D") that is used when referring to something affiliated with the Democratic Party.

It's sort of like "[c/C]atholic." Mel Gibson is a Catholic [noun] who belongs to the Catholic [adjective] church. Some might say, given the wide range of films he has appeared in and worked on, that his tastes are catholic [adjective] .

However, I will assume that you lost track when you started thinking, "Is Deer an adjective or a noun? Why is it capitalized? What is the plural form?" and/or are poking something sharp through your eye to see if it will make you see pretty colors.

ETA text in color.

Dear Spanky.
There is only 1 female poster who sort of likes me. She asked that I reply to this post because she didn't think you saw it.

To ignore Fringey is really to drink in this board as a decaf no cal substitute. Fringey is truly the Espresso that drives the movers and shakers here. wttw

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by LessinSF
I refuse to read what has preceded this, so I ask ...

Is the debate over whether the cartoons should have been republished because they are offensive to certain Muslims to the point that they work themselves into a killing frenzy?

If so, the answer is self-obvious - anything and everything should be done that does so. If it takes poor cartooning, so be it. If it takes bad writing (Rushdie), so be it. Whatever - expose the fuckers.

First, they mostly kill each other, which is good, kind of like the stampedes at Mecca. Like lemmings, nature is saying we have too many Muslamic nutjobs.

Second, it illustrates the danger posed by Islam (as practiced in most of the world, if not the U.S), which is good, if only to scare Europe and Muslim-apologists in the U.S. who think "it is a religion of peace."

Third, it self-identifies the "militant" Muslim from the "moderate" Muslim, which is good, so that the CIA or Mossad can whack them.

Fourth, it reminds us that we are not that far removed from our own witch hunts and Inquisitions, which is good, because the religious right would bring them back in modified form.

And, fifth, it exposes the Tyrones of the world, who are afraid of hurting wackjob's feelings. If flat-earthers were offended if someone satirized them, would Ty feel the same way? Muslims (like any other religious person) believe in something without evidence. Yet, it appeears Ty would grant them special dispensation from ridicule because they really feel strongly about it. In fact, they deserve the most ridicule. A flat-earther is laughable. A flat-earther who would kill, burn, honor-rape, etc. because you impugn their belief in a flat-earth would be committed.

just FYI- less wrote this indepentantly, and better than my earlier parallel post. I am not a sock!

[Gattigap]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spanky
What makes you think I don't understand this?[quote]

Your last dozen or so posts on the topic.

Everything you just stated here is obvious and every person on this board has probably understood this from the beginning (including me). How does this contradict my interpretation of what Ty said. What has this got to do with my quotes that show how Ty contradicted himself?

OK. I suppose this it the point at which I say, "Then how do you think Ty contradicted himself?" and you say "It's obvious!" Etc. So I think I'll just stop now and have another glass of pinot.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
No I think you have that wrong.

Does putting a cross in urine or putting feces on the virgin mary = blasphemy. I think under almost anyone interpretation it does.

Does putting a cross in urine or putting feces on the virign mary offend Christians for obvious reasons. I think it does.

Does the fact that the Koran particularly proscribes putting Mohammeds face on something and that the bible does not particularly proscribe Christians from depicting Jesus in urine or Mary covered in feces, make one clearly offensive to Muslims while the other not clearly offensive to Christians. Or does it also imply that the Mohammed depiction would be more offensive to muslims than the Christ and Mary depictions to Christians because one is particulary proscribe by the Koran and the other not particular proscribed by the Bible. I don't think it does.

Following all those assumptions the above statements are erroneous and contradictory - am I wrong?

I know this is late, but I never STP.

Your first assumption is wrong -- at least according to the oldest, technical, standard definition of blasphemy.

As Gattigap said -- you and Ty are using the term in different ways but you aren't admiting it. I think you know that.
As Ty is using the term -- and it is no secret -- his statements are not contradictory.

[eta -- but I agree with Diane that it really is a Timmy argument -- Sorry Ty. I winced when i saw that was where you were going.]

S_A_M

P.S. Spanky -- You may be consistent, but you are also wrong to use the form "Democrat Party" and "Democrat program." The official name of the Party is the "United States Democratic Party." You have been fooled by the fact that, while members of the Republican Party are called Republicans, members of the Democratic Party are called Democrats.

See, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democra...onal_Committee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democra...ited_States%29

P.P.S. BTW -- Republican with a small "r" is an adjective too (i.e. "our republican form of government.")

P.P.P.S. Having done more reading and thinking on this cartoon issue, I come to find that I mostly agree now with Spanky and Diane (and Sidd) on the substance. That said, I still think the timing is bad tactically.

Whiel we're confessing error -- I'm also thinking that I may have underestimated the difficulties which a Hamas government in the PA will cause. Interesting times.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Same as political parties. It is the reform party not the reformers party, just like it is the Democrat party not the democratic party. The name of the Democrat party is not an adjective. The name of the party is not Democratic it is Democrat.

Why would the name of a party be an adjective?

I don't know, Spanky -- ask those wacky folks who named it in 1828. Jeez, you are stubborn.

Keep this up and you'll have to retire this sock -- ask Hank about the PT Boat incident.

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
OK. I suppose this it the point at which I say, "Then how do you think Ty contradicted himself?" and you say "It's obvious!" Etc. So I think I'll just stop now and have another glass of pinot.

You have me at a loss. I explained in great detail why I thought he contradicted himself. Why didn't you address this post?

The post you didn't address...........

Here are the quotes:

Ty Said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I am not assuming anything. I am a Christian, and I'm telling you what I think. I haven't said others Christians aren't offended, or shouldn't be offended. .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prior to this he said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I understand why (some) Christians take offense. But it doesn't have to do with Christian doctrine, so far as I know. Want to cite chapter and verse to me?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Let's stick to Christianity. What makes that blasphemous?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To me these sum up as

I never said other Christians shouldn't be offended by Serrno

Where before, He said:

1) I don't understand the basis for other Christians offense at Serrano's work, as with Mohammed in the Koran the bible doesn't explicity say it is blasphemous (notice offense and blashemous used interchangeably in the above quote)

2) you can't cite chapter or verse from Scripture to show why Christians would take offense.

3) There is no scripture saying it is blasphemous.

It seems to me he said since there is no scripture calling it blasphenous or offensive, Christians should not take it as such. But then later he claims he never said that Christians should not be offended by Serrano.

Did I paraphrase something wrong? Did I take something out of context? Did I misrepresent the meaning of something? Where is the flaw in my logic?

Why is this not as simple and as obvious as I see it?