Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Super Best Friends No More
Last night South Park broadcast part two of an epic episode that took on the Mohammed cartoons controversy (the Inkifada, as John Tabin and I and no one else has called it) in the inimitable Parker-Stone fashion. I thought the first half was remarkably preachy and dull, and missed the conclusion. Apparently, it was a big deal.
Part one of "Cartoon Wars" ended with a jokey, super-dramatic "stay tuned!" montage that promised next week would showcase an image of Mohammed if "Comedy Central doesn't puss out." In part two, when Mohammed was supposed to appear, a disclaimer blacked out the screen. It wasn't immediately clear if this was an extremely meta joke or whether the network really pussed out. National Review's Stephen Spruill called Comedy Central and they confirmed, yes, they requested that the image be taken out of the episode.
And here we have one of the dumbest milestones in the Mohammed controversy so far. Mohammed has actually appeared on the show before, as part of a Superfriends-style team of religious figures. He had the power of fire; Joseph Smith had the power of ice.
lunchstealer|4.13.06 @ 4:55PM|#
And here we have one of the dumbest milestones in the
Mohammed controversy so far. Mohammed has actually appeared on the
show before, as part of a Superfriends-style team of religious
figures. He had the power of fire; Joseph Smith had the power of
ice.
Holy crap. I'd forgotten about that. Dammit!
I guess that makes Comedy Central even more retarded than ever. I
wonder if Matt & Trey had even thought of that.
|4.13.06 @ 5:01PM|#
They made a biopic about Mohammad in Egypt back in the 1970s. No one compained. No we here that you can't even portray Mohammad without offending Muslims. Times have changed and not for the better. I know these are small things, but the fact is Comedy Central will broadcast South Park episodes where Jesus deficates on things but won't so much as show Mohammad. Why? Because Christians don't burn stuff down and kill people. My guess is that Muslims will continue to push the envelope about what offends them. Any guess on what the next form of expression we are going to loose will be?
|4.13.06 @ 5:05PM|#
I wonder just what the rules are about depicting M. Like, how
accurate does it have to be? If I draw a dot, and label it
Mohammed, does that count as a depiction, though it is wildly
inaccurate? If not, then how does drawing a generically arab
looking person as Moahammed count? They are both equally
not-Mohammed.
And if depictions are forbidden, how does anyone know what he
looked like? If no one knows what he looks like, how is it possible
to know when he is being depicted?
@8 )~~~
Dan T.|4.13.06 @ 5:05PM|#
I think it's great that in American a private organization like
Comedy Central can choose what it does or does not want to show on
its network.
If you don't like it, feel free to turn the channel.
|4.13.06 @ 5:06PM|#
I thought it was a "meta joke" as well. What is Comedy Central thinking? Still, it was a great episode, especially the retaliatory strike by Al Qaeda -- a video of President Bush and various Americans pooping on the American flag.
|4.13.06 @ 5:08PM|#
I think it's great that in American a private organization
like Comedy Central can choose what it does or does not want to
show on its network.
Yes; and we can choose to laugh heartily at both its willingness to
self-censor and its apparent inconsistency.
|4.13.06 @ 5:10PM|#
Hey, consarnit, the software screwed up the label for the
ascii-toon, I had written an arrow and "Mohammed"
Apparently "Hey, consarnit, the software screwed up the label for
the ascii-toon, I had written an arrow and "Mohammed"
Apparently a less-than sign is verboten.
Dan T.|4.13.06 @ 5:12PM|#
Yes; and we can choose to laugh heartily at both its
willingness to self-censor and its apparent
inconsistency.
Sure, but it's really not that hard to figure out why running
Mohammad images is a much bigger deal now that it was before the
whole cartoon flap.
|4.13.06 @ 5:13PM|#
probably because the less-than sign bracket is used in html
coding, the server misunderstood what you wanted
|4.13.06 @ 5:15PM|#
Is anyone else somewhat skeptical that they actually really did make such a request? Is it so unreasonable to be suspicious that Cartoon Network -- the network that brings us Adult Swim and South Park -- might be in on the joke?
|4.13.06 @ 5:16PM|#
Sure, but it's really not that hard to figure out why
running Mohammad images is a much bigger deal now that it was
before the whole cartoon flap.
Sure, but it's really not that hard to figure out why it still
constitutes a ridiculous instance of self-censorship and
inconsistency.
|4.13.06 @ 5:25PM|#
Family Guy is way better than South Park. That
Stewie is soo funny!
Suck it Comedy Central.
Dan T.|4.13.06 @ 5:25PM|#
Sure, but it's really not that hard to figure out why it
still constitutes a ridiculous instance of self-censorship and
inconsistency.
I don't think there is such thing as "self-censorship" and it's not
really inconsistent because of the change in situations.
Assuming it's not part of the joke, it simply means that CC didn't
think the benefits of showing the image were worth the risks.
The more I think about it, though, I think it probably is all a
joke.
|4.13.06 @ 5:33PM|#
I would like to think it was a joke Dan, but I don't think so. I think we live in a world now where people censor what they say about Islam because of the fear of violence. Clearly, this is just one small instance, there are others, like Borders. The U.S. is not as far down this road as Europe where people like Theo Van Gogh have been killed, but this is one step closer.
|4.13.06 @ 5:34PM|#
"Apparently a less-than sign is verboten."
The software tries to read it as html code, so it vanishes.
|4.13.06 @ 5:40PM|#
Does anyone know if those Mohammed t-shirts are still for sale? The ones with the turban in the shape of a bomb? Does anyone have a link to it?
|4.13.06 @ 5:41PM|#
They said everything that needed to be said about Family Guy,
and the prophet Mohammad stuff was entirely secondary.
Except for the sticking your head in the sand, which was great,
too.
|4.13.06 @ 5:43PM|#
They said everything that needed to be said about Family
Guy
I thought the manatee writing staff bit was pretty brilliant.
|4.13.06 @ 5:46PM|#
and it's not really inconsistent because of the change in
situations.
So the "Muslim world" (whatever that means) suddenly decides that
depictions of Mohammed aren't a-okay, notwithstanding SP's previous
airing of a cartoon of Mohammed, and CC's compliance with these
petulant demands doesn't constitute inconsistency?
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one,
Dan.
Assuming it's not part of the joke, it simply means that CC
didn't think the benefits of showing the image were worth the
risks.
The more I think about it, though, I think it probably is all a
joke.
Well, I hope you're right and that this apparent cowardice doesn't
signal a media trend of networks giving into the demands of people
who don't actually watch the networks in question. Because frankly,
I'd rather my television programming not comply perfectly with
Shari'a.
|4.13.06 @ 5:51PM|#
"They made a biopic about Mohammad in Egypt back in the
1970s. No one compained. No we here that you can't even portray
Mohammad without offending Muslims."
If this is the movie I'm thinking of, they never actually showed
Muhammad in frame.
|4.13.06 @ 5:58PM|#
dead_elvis,
Look at it this way. Christians pray to an image of Jesus that
looks nothing like the original (most depictions have him as a
white dude, when he was a bronze-colored Jew).
While I think the whole thing is silly. I find it ironic that
fundamentalist Christians think the no depictions of Mohammed rule
is dumb when it's simply a strict following of the "No Graven
Images" rule that the vast majority of Christians ignore.
mediageek,
You are correct about the Egyptian biopic of Mohammed. Do some
research John.
|4.13.06 @ 6:07PM|#
it's not just not wanting to offend muslims, comedy central refused to rerun the "Tom Cruise is in the closet" episode also.
Timothy|4.13.06 @ 6:08PM|#
I saw the Tom Cruise episode like five times. They must've cut it off after the first few weeks of the controversy.
|4.13.06 @ 6:19PM|#
"I find it ironic that fundamentalist Christians think the no
depictions of Mohammed rule is dumb when it's simply a strict
following of the 'No Graven Images' rule that the vast majority of
Christians ignore."
Mo, you just don't understand. When Jesus came, he repealed all
those silly Old Testament rules -- except for the ones about hating
gays. Those are still 100% good.
|4.13.06 @ 6:48PM|#
As a long time SP fan, I must say the episode sucked enough that
maybe they should just cancel the series.
The head in the sand schtick was sooo lame.
Not airing mohammed, while showing Jesus shitting on the flag?
Hmmmm... I guess at least they know that the Christian Right won't
like them no matter what... but they are holding out hopes of
getting an ad deal from the Muslim friendly cola companies.
|4.13.06 @ 7:01PM|#
south park story
maybe park of Parker and Stone's point is that Comedy Central
doesn't mind offending Christians, but won't risk offending
Muslims, while Parker and Stone are willing to offend all
comers
|4.13.06 @ 7:05PM|#
Because Christians don't burn stuff down and kill
people.
Just when I think you can't get any dumber, you do a triple fucking
axel like this. Does the name Eric Rudolph mean anything to you?
The Nuremberg Files? Bernard Slepian? David Gunn? The Lebanese
goddamned Phalangists?
|4.13.06 @ 7:05PM|#
Christians conveniently ignore the vast majority of their sacred text unless it fits the right wing political agenda. They now believe in a kinder, gentler God that no longer supports killing people for adultery or eternal punishment for eating lobster. In exchange, Jesus has been forced to give up his radical liberal agenda of loving your neighbor, clothing the poor and turning the other cheek. However, both God and Jesus remain steadfast in their hatred of gay people, an Old Testament classic. God has not yet rendered a final decision on the morality of owning slaves, his previous approval may have simply been a youthful indiscretion.
|4.13.06 @ 7:27PM|#
Phil,
Those individuals you mention were basically lone nutcases and had
nothing to do with mainstream Christianity.
On the other hand, the Islamic violence of late has been a fairly
mainstream muslim concern and endorsed by both local and state
muslim leaders. Very different.
Brian|4.13.06 @ 7:48PM|#
Wow, Scott.
You just summed up 2000 years of Christian theology in 7 lines.
Nicely done!
|4.13.06 @ 8:14PM|#
They made a biopic about Mohammad in Egypt back in the
1970s.
That film was shot from Mohammad's point of view, so you never
actually see any sort of representation. But, just the same, way to
go off half-cocked.
|4.13.06 @ 8:31PM|#
biologist -
When's the last time the westboro baptist chu... racist society
forced foriegn embassies to close due to thousands rioting in the
streets? When did westboro have leaders of their "CChristian
religion" offer rewards for people's heads due to pervceived
insults? Etc, etc, etc.
No, westboro is not mainstream, much less Christian mainstream.
|4.13.06 @ 8:45PM|#
Phil,
If those people's actions had any significant support among
Christians, then the same newspapers that avoided printing the
Mohammed pictures for fear of retaliation, would likewise shit
their pants every time they ran a pro-choice editorial.
|4.13.06 @ 8:52PM|#
Reading the regular comments on HnR about Christianity, I've come to the conclusion that my fellow libertarian non-believers are a bunch of ignorant fools (at least when it comes to religion and religious history). I have no use for religion and I still think you people are idiots. I actually hate many of you because you make me want to defend religion! Fucktards.
|4.13.06 @ 9:00PM|#
Comedy Central would never really censor anything.
Muslim extremism is no different than Christian extremism.
Right.
Get your friggin heads out of the sand, people!
b-psycho|4.13.06 @ 9:51PM|#
Comedy Central has to be in on the joke. I can't imagine Trey & Matt actually knuckling under on this, if the yank of the Mohammed image were for real then they'd be doing the Comedy-Central-is-a-bunch-of-dicks tour with Dave Chappelle right now.
|4.13.06 @ 10:07PM|#
Phil,
You are just an ass. There is no other way to describe it. People
in the media are so afraid of being terrorized by angry Christians,
I guess that is why all the South Park episodes that make fun of
Jesus have been censored.
"I find it ironic that fundamentalist Christians think the no
depictions of Mohammed rule is dumb when it's simply a strict
following of the 'No Graven Images' rule that the vast majority of
Christians ignore."
I don't think Christians have a problem with Muslims objecting to
and not depicting Muhammad. The problem is that they threaten death
to those who do.
|4.13.06 @ 10:09PM|#
"Muslim extremism is no different than Christian
extremism...Right"
Yeah, Christians are becoming suicide bombers every day. They are
also highjacking planes and there are fundementalist Christian
nations where it is illegal to own a Koran or be a Jew and who are
building nuclear weapons and promising to use them to wipe Isreal
off the face of the earth. What the hell is the matter with
you?
|4.13.06 @ 10:11PM|#
I almost forgot. There is also that long list of Christian nations where the penalty is death for converting to another religion and also all of those fundementalist Christian sects who routinely issue prolicmation ordering the death of anyone who blasphemes the Bible.
|4.13.06 @ 10:36PM|#
a little off topic, but does anyone here know why Aleister Crowley seemed to respect Joseph Smith as a great man? I figure this as good a place as any to ask.
|4.13.06 @ 10:50PM|#
@8 )~~~
Would this qualify for jihad?
dead elvis,
Lol! Best comment of the thread. You cheeky monkey.
|4.13.06 @ 10:53PM|#
"Christians conveniently ignore the vast majority of their
sacred text unless it fits the right wing political agenda. They
now believe in a kinder, gentler God that no longer supports
killing people for adultery or eternal punishment for eating
lobster. In exchange, Jesus has been forced to give up his radical
liberal agenda of loving your neighbor, clothing the poor and
turning the other cheek. However, both God and Jesus remain
steadfast in their hatred of gay people,"
Comment by: Scott at April 13, 2006 07:05 PM
Which Christians would those be, Scott? The gay priests or the
child-molesting priests? :-)
|4.14.06 @ 12:34AM|#
Those individuals you mention were basically lone nutcases
and had nothing to do with mainstream Christianity.
Semantics. The people Rudolph killed are still dead along with the
millions upon millions that who have been killed in the name of
"God."
Besides, when it comes to religion, there is no such thing as
"extreme" versus "mainstream." The "mainstream" Christian's goals
are the same as the "extremist" whether it's banning abortion or
discriminating against gays, or generally trying to make their
nonsensical notions of "faith" the law of the land. One
accomplishes their goals at the voting booth, the other with pipe
bombs.
When freedom is lost, why is democratic coercion any better than
the terrorist variety? Therefore, I don't see a fucking
difference.
|4.14.06 @ 12:53AM|#
Reading the regular comments on HnR about Christianity, I've
come to the conclusion that my fellow libertarian non-believers are
a bunch of ignorant fools (at least when it comes to religion and
religious history). I have no use for religion and I still think
you people are idiots. I actually hate many of you because you make
me want to defend religion! Fucktards.
Comment by: The Real Bill at April 13, 2006 08:52 PM
Bill, I couldn't agree more.
Ok, I'll just say it for once and for all. You Christian haters are
guilty of the same hypocrisy you accuse them of. Choose your
poison. You either believe that others can have their own beliefs,
or you believe that they are wrong or you are right.
If you are so certain you are right, at least have the decency to
call yourself an abolutist, elitist, fascist. Because, that's what
you really are.
Sad state of affairs if this is what philosophical objectivism got
us.
bruce|4.14.06 @ 1:20AM|#
As of 3 episodes ago, Mohammad has been in the opening/intro to each south park episode. At the end, by the "south Park" sign ("... and meet some friends of mine... *squerk*") mohammed is standing in the back on the right of the screen. So, they actually DID show a pic of mohammad in that very episode. CS probably didn't catch it. And that's Aside from the fact that Mo' was a character in the "super best friends" episode from a few years ago.
|4.14.06 @ 1:24AM|#
a little off topic, but does anyone here know why Aleister
Crowley seemed to respect Joseph Smith as a great man? I figure
this as good a place as any to ask.
I figure Crowley should have been grateful to Smith. After all,
Smith demonstrated that it's possible, with a serious-enough
demeanor and a wacky-enough set of claims, to start a religion
that'll get you enough sex and money to last for the rest of your
life. Crowley learned Smith's scam, and put it to work for himself
(though with a little more faux-yoga and a little less magical
underpants).
Maybe that's why Crowley would have been well-disposed toward
Smith.
|4.14.06 @ 1:28AM|#
You either believe that others can have their own beliefs, or
you believe that they are wrong or you are right.
If you are so certain you are right, at least have the decency to
call yourself an abolutist, elitist, fascist. Because, that's what
you really are.
Comment by: linguist at April 14, 2006 12:53 AM
I don't know that it is an either/or proposition; one can allow
others their beliefs and still think that they wrong and one is
right.
Elitist? maybe. Fascist? doubtful. Absolutist? Absolutely! Are you
going to tell me there are no absolutes? You'll only contradict
yourself, if you try.
I'll agree with you that the Christian haters here do get vitriolic
at times, but no more so than Christians do on other boards. I
don't have any use much for organized religion,...not so much
because I am an unbeliever - I'd feel the same if I were a believer
- but because of the inverted morality system that the major
religions advocate. On the other hand, I am not so ignorant as to
think all religion is and has been all bad - I've read too much
history. But I do think that organized religion has been a
double-edged sword for mankind all through the history of
civilization.
|4.14.06 @ 1:39AM|#
jw, that was supposed to be an "and", not an "or", I
apologize.
But I agree with you. I, like many others who stay here long
enough, are not likely to be terribly religious. But I will say
that the same vitriole directed at other groups (including other
religious groups outside of Christianity!) would never be tolerated
here. Yet it's tolerated and encouraged. It does give the
impression that to be libertarian you must be vehemently atheist. I
simply don't think that's at the heart of the liberalism we're
really aiming at. Is it ok if I'm not vehement about enforcing my
beliefs on anyone else?
!
|4.14.06 @ 1:41AM|#
I think it's great that in American a private organization
like Comedy Central can choose what it does or does not want to
show on its network.
If you don't like it, feel free to turn the channel.
I did.
I hope it was a joke. If not, I imagine we may actually see the
show descend into a whiny more PC show, like Cartman predicted.
That's when I stop watching. If they start pulling punches, I'm
gone-that they don't now is the one thing that makes me watch every
new episode and most re-ruuns.
|4.14.06 @ 1:45AM|#
Real Bill, Linguist:
I've come to the conclusion that my fellow libertarian
non-believers are a bunch of ignorant fools (at least when it comes
to religion and religious history).
Ok, I'll just say it for once and for all. You Christian haters
are guilty of the same hypocrisy you accuse them of. Choose your
poison. You either believe that others can have their own beliefs,
or you believe that they are wrong or you are right.
Oh really? And where is this shining happy history of Christianity?
Did the Crusades never happen? How about the Inquisitions, the
Witch Hunts, Holy Wars, the burning of heretics and the millions up
millions who died or lost their freedom in the name of Jesus over
the centuries?
As for being ignorant of religion, I am well versed In
Christianity; I was one for 25 years. I did everything I was told
made for a good Catholic; I hated gays, called girls "sluts" in
high school health class for arguing that there was nothing wrong
with premarital sex, waved around pictures of allegedly abort
"babies" to argue against abortion, called atheists "commies," and
wasted Sunday morning after Sunday morning with rest of the dupes
praying to a being who the priests said loved us while dealing out
death and judgement to the slightest infraction.
Meanwhile, on my redneck Mother's side of the family, my fundie
relations told me that blacks and whites had to be segregated
because Hamm accidentally saw Noah's dick after the latter got
falling down drunk, that modern Jews were inhuman because they
"killed our Savior," that evolution and dinosaurs were a Satanic
conspiracy, that playing Dungeons & Dragons would turn me into
a pot-using warlock, and that Jesus was going to return sometime
real soon and reign death and destruction on everyone who didn't
the tow the Christian line.
These are stupid beliefs, built on willful ignorance and hate, why
should we not call the believers what they are: Stupid? Neither my
Catholic nor my Protestant relations have any respect for anyone's
freedom, especially for anyone who is different than they are. Tell
me, even as a libertarian, why am I supposed to "tolerate" any of
their intolerance? Given American Christianity's stated desire to
have religion be made law in one way or another, why shouldn't I be
afraid of the America that they have in store for us?
Now, that said, I wouldn't have any trouble with anyone's religion
if they JUST KEPT IT TO THEIR FUCKING SELVES. If they kept their
faith in their homes, their churches, or wherever I didn't have to
listen to or pay for it, then they could believe whatever the fuck
they want. However, that is not the case. They are manipulating the
political process, controlling school boards, drafting laws,
stacking the high courts with sympathetic judges...hell, they've
even got the U.S. Air Force Academy under their sway.
What am I supposed to think, guys? What am I supposed to say or do?
I'm kind of worried for the last few years about the power the
Christians have been obtaining, and I don't see it getting better
anytime soon.
After all the evil they've done for the past two thousand years,
why shouldn't I hate them?
(These aren't rhetorical questions, by the way. I want an
answer.)
|4.14.06 @ 2:06AM|#
OK, Akira, I'll try to give you a straight answer, but
understand this an answer from just one person.
Here's the nutshell: just because you had a bad experience (or
many, from the sound of it) with certain people who were Christian,
doesn't mean that everyone who calls themselves by that is that
way.
I won't elaborate on my own sob stories in this public forum (be
happy to tell you privately if it will make you feel better) but
let me say to you I have very good personal reasons to hate all
Christians, African-Armericans, and men. If I chose to think that
way.
And yet, I don't.
So, seriously, get over it. You're painting with too broad a
stroke.
|4.14.06 @ 2:07AM|#
"is the Westboro Baptist Church mainstream Christian enough for
you, Petunia?"
The Westboro "Baptists" are a bizzare cult of a few hundred people
at most who have almost nothing in common with mainstream or
conservative Baptists.
The Real Bill/linguist,
Speaking as a non-believer, I also tire of the religious bashing as
well.
And dammit, I'm the last person who wants it to even look like I'm
defending Christian extremism, but even the most extreme
"Christians" (like the Westboro Baptists) don't normally resort
murdering their enemies. The dopes just stand around and hold up
signs while yelling bullshit at those they are picketing.
|4.14.06 @ 2:11AM|#
matt and others,
In case you were wondering...I am not a believer. But, like The
Real Bill, I find myself in the strange position of "god's
advocate" (heh) here.
|4.14.06 @ 2:18AM|#
[This post may be sort of disjointed, as I'm too tired to do any
more editing.]
After all the evil they've done for the past two thousand
years, why shouldn't I hate them?
Because most of 'em aren't evil. They're really trying to be good
people, and do good things. Most Germans weren't evil in 1944. Most
Muslims weren't evil in 2001. Most of everyone isn't evil.
And therein lies the problem. I'm an ex-Christian (now atheist) and
an ex-Republican (now libertarian), so I've lived on the other side
of all this. It's something of a catch-22: hating them reinforces
their belief system ("see how persecuted we are for being
Christian?") but failing to work against them results in the thrill
of living in a hostile theocracy.
But there's no Christian alive today on whom you can pin the
Crusades or the Inquisition or the Witch Trials, any more than you
can pin American slavery on a living white guy. Keep your hatred
for individuals who earn it through their actions, not for the
rank-and-file who really don't see what they're doing. After all,
individual responsibility is a big libertarian thing, right?
Let me clarify that I'm right there in the same boat with you,
Akira. Christianity is causing problems, and the world will be
better when it's gone. But people are free to choose to believe
stupid crap, and we need to respect that freedom (even if we don't
respect the particular choice they make). That's the terrible,
beautiful thing about freedom.
But you are free to ridicule their choices, and point out any flaws
you see, and they need to respect your freedom to do that, too.
When they try to take away your freedom or mine, however, it's our
job to try and stop them if we want to keep that freedom.
Just keep in mind that all Christians aren't
trying to take away your freedom, any more than
all Muslims are trying to blow up Americans, or
all clowns love the taste of human flesh. Well,
actually, that last one may be true, but the point remains: save
your wrath for the ones who are doing harm, not the ones who are
merely offensive and stupid. For the offensive and stupid, pity
mixed with either education or ridicule (depending on your
temperament) should suffice.
I don't hate Christians, but I do fear them. Much like I would not
hate, but would fear a toddler who happened to be blithely driving
a bulldozer toward my home.
|4.14.06 @ 2:52AM|#
Akira,
You sound as though you are much more pissed off at yourself than
anyone else. So you spent a bunch of years believing the wrong
stuff - what? you're going to waste even more time and heart hating
people who couldn't care less that you hate them? Hate their ideas
and beliefs, if you wish, but don't waste time and emotion hating
the holders of those beliefs, because you can not directly control
how they believe. And hating them and calling them stupid is not
likely to make them more sympathetic to your point of view.
There are good people and bad - there always has been - in ALL
religions and belief systems. Christians are not the only people
who have done evil things, nor are the members of other religions.
And what about the Communists? My point is this: there are going to
be people who are evil no matter what the prevailing belief system
is.
You express dismay that Christians are gaining political power, but
hell, they have always had it in this country. Check your fifth
paragraph, the one where you say you wish that they would keep
their beliefs to themselves. Do you know that one could just as
easily substitute the terms liberal or multiculturlist for the
subjects in those sentences and they would still be true?
I certainly can not answer all the questions that you ask here -
not tonight,anyway. But I'll leave you with this: tolerance and
acceptance are not the same thing. One can tolerate any number of
beliefs without accepting them as valid. It is only actions that
sometimes can not be tolerated.
Lastly, read more history. You were raised Catholic, so I know that
you have heard of Thomas Aquinas. Read about his influence on the
Renaissance and the Enlightenmnt by his "rediscovery" of the works
of Aristotle. Read more. Think more. And then think even still
more.
|4.14.06 @ 3:21AM|#
Jack Boone,
Most Germans weren't evil in 1944.
You're wrong about that. German support for the war was widespread
and the Nazi government's use of camps was also well known. This in
large measure wasn't based on fear, but true and heartfelt support
for much of the Nazi regime's program by a large cross-section of
the German population. These are well documented things and
something which the past twenty to thirty years of scholarship has
proven beyond a doubt.
Just keep in mind that all Christians aren't trying to take
away your freedom...
All Christians in one fashion or another, in one policy area or
another, are indeed interested in such.
jw,
Aquinas discovered what others wrote about Aristotle, not what
Aristotle actually wrote. Now, Ibn Sina did reintroduce Aristotle
to the West. BTW, Aquinas knew no Greek save a few words.
|4.14.06 @ 3:43AM|#
¡¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª«¬®¯°±²³´µ¶·¸¹º»¼½¾¿ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆÇÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏÐÑÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÙÚÛÜÝÞßàáâãäåæçèéêëìíîïðñòóôõö÷øùúûüýþÿΑΒΓΔΕΖΗΘΙΚΛΜΝΞΟΠΡΣΤΥΦΧΨΩαβγδεζηθικλμνξοπρςστυφχψωϑϒϖ•…′″‾⁄℘ℑℜ™ℵ←↑→↓↔↵⇐⇑⇒⇓⇔∀∂∃∅∇∈∉∋∏∑−∗√∝∞∠∧∨∩∪∫there4;∼≅≈≠≡≤≥⊂⊃⊄⊆⊇⊕⊗⊥⋅⌈⌉⌊⌋〈〉◊♠♣♥♦"&<>ŒœŠšŸˆ˜ --'''"""†‡‰‹›
|4.14.06 @ 3:47AM|#
Hakluyt,
So noted, but without Aquinas would Aristotle's ideas ever have
gained much currency in western Europe?
BTW...where the heck you been lately?
|4.14.06 @ 9:52AM|#
Great. First we'll get some folks insisting that every
individual Christian alive today is responsible for the collective
sins of Christianity over the millenia.
Then somebody else can chime in that all atheists are responsible
for the sins of people like Stalin.
And then Al Sharpton can post under an assumed name to explain why
all whites are responsible for the slave trade of a few centuries
back.
Followed by Andrea Dworkin clones blaming today's American men for
the fact that women couldn't vote a hundred years ago.
Damn. Libertarians may like individualism when it comes to taking
care of your own selves, but some of y'all love to embrace
collectivism when it comes to responsibility for evil, don't
you?
|4.14.06 @ 10:11AM|#
Libertarians may like individualism when it comes to taking
care of your own selves, but some of y'all love to embrace
collectivism when it comes to responsibility for evil, don't
you?
Yes, because it's true.
Didn't Milgram's experiments pretty much demonstrate that to be the
case? That all of us have the capacity for evil, but that we almost
never behave that way without a hierarchy in place?
|4.14.06 @ 10:32AM|#
Didn't Milgram's experiments pretty much demonstrate that to
be the case? That all of us have the capacity for evil, but that we
almost never behave that way without a hierarchy in
place?
What did Milgram's experiments suggest about the amount of
responsibility a person born in 1980, for example, has in regards
to evil things that happened a few decades or centuries before he
was born?
|4.14.06 @ 10:39AM|#
I wish "Crusades" hadn't become some sort of shorthand for
"Christians are bad." The medieval period is one episode after
another of people fighting and killing; Christians killing
Christians, Muslims killing Muslims, Christians killing pagans,
pagans killing Christians, Muslims killing Christians, etc. But
people only seem to care when its Christians killing Muslims.
The other thing is, almost all this fighting and killing is about
politics, not religion. One group wants another's territory or
right to tax or whatever, so they attack them. In fact, the First
Crusade is largely the Catholic West's effort to aid the Eastern
Orthodox Byzantine Empire, which is losing territory to Muslims.
During the era of the Crusades there are many instances of Muslim
leaders going to war with other Muslim leaders, and of Christian
leaders going to war with other Christian leaders. Sometimes
Christians and Muslims would ally to fight other Christians and/or
Muslims.
The Crusaders acted in a way that we today find atrocious and
reprehensible. But so did almost everybody else who lived in the
past. (I sometimes wonder why the Crusaders have such a negative
reputation, while other groups, like pirates, for example, are
romanticized.)
|4.14.06 @ 12:15PM|#
I wish "Crusades" hadn't become some sort of shorthand for
"Christians are bad."
Oh, I dunno, I find it pretty handy.
|4.14.06 @ 12:30PM|#
"Just keep in mind that all Christians aren't trying to take
away your freedom...
All Christians in one fashion or another, in one policy area or
another, are indeed interested in such." - Hakluyt
I'm not.
|4.14.06 @ 12:38PM|#
Hak,
"Just keep in mind that all Christians aren't trying to take away
your freedom...
All Christians in one fashion or another, in one policy area or
another, are indeed interested in such."
That is such utter BS, I am surprised even Hak can state it with a
straight face.
What is missing from this discussion of religion is the fact that
there is a difference between the people who label themselves as
part of a group and the ideals of that group. Just as many of the
libertarians that post here behave and talk in ways that are
inconsistent with libertarianism, many christians act in ways that
are incompatible with christianity, and many muslims act in ways
that are incompatible with Islam. If you are following the doctrine
of christianity, you will not be in the business of limiting others
freedom, since FREEWILL is a major underlying requirement for
salvation. The particular brand of freedom that libertarians base
their philosophy on is a historical outgrowth of Christian
thinking.
Akira's willingness in earlier years to call others sluts
etc...when they disagreed with him is a trait which allows him to
continue the same practice now that he claims to be a libertarian.
The thing is, when he did it as a christian he was being an ass,
not a christian, when he (or Hak, or________) does it on these
boards as a libertarian he is being an ass, not a
libertarian.
Bigotry is ugly in all its forms.
|4.14.06 @ 12:56PM|#
I agree that religious fanaticism is dangerous, but sceaming at blameless religious moderates is not the way to avoid it. It's as asinine as a zero-tolerance school administrator insisting that there is no difference whatsoever between a teenaged heroin addict who steals to support her habit and a teenaged honor student who takes Midol to make her cramps go away--ALL drugs and ALL drug users are exactly alike!
|4.14.06 @ 1:31PM|#
Hak,
"Just keep in mind that all Christians aren't trying to take away
your freedom...
All Christians in one fashion or another, in one policy area or
another, are indeed interested in such."
Science:
That is such utter BS, I am surprised even Hak can state it with a
straight face.
Me:
I agree completely. Normally, I really respect Hakluyt's opinions,
but that argument makes no sense. Even being charitable and
inferring he meant most Christians rather than all, it does really
add anything to the conversation. Is there any group that believes
in total and complete freedom? I mean, I guess anarchasts, but
everybody else wants to limit your freedom somehow. I mean, even
libertarians believe is ome limitations on freedom - how many
people want me to be free to interefere with you private
property.
And for what it's worth, I'm a Christian (Kierkegaard)
existentialist libertarian, so while I don't believe in total and
complete freedom, I doubt that there is really any freedoms that
you want that I would be in favor of limiting.
|4.14.06 @ 4:03PM|#
Life of Brian II
[Officer] "This man has been found guilty of the crime of uttering
The Prophet's name!"
[women voices]
"Stone him! Stone [deep voices] him! Stone him!"
[Prisoner] "All I said is this lamb was fit for Mohammed"
[Officer] "See he said it again!"
[Prisoner] "Mohammed, Mohammed, Mohammed"
...you get the idea.
The movie runs a little shorter than the original, because as soon
a Brian is mistaken as The Prophet the entire cast "riots" because
The Prophet is now being represented on screen, "kills" the crew
and director, and "blows
up" the movie studio to the tune of "Always Look on the Bright Side
of Life". The End.
|4.15.06 @ 12:08AM|#
science,
...and the ideals of that group.
God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that
curseth father or mother, let him die the death. - Matthew
15:4
And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore
every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and
cast into the fire. / I indeed baptize you with water unto
repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose
shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy
Ghost, and with fire: / Whose fan is in his hand, and he will
throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner;
but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. - Matthew
3:10-12
If you are following the doctrine of christianity, you will not
be in the business of limiting others freedom, since FREEWILL is a
major underlying requirement for salvation.
Given the theme of predestination that is often seen in the NT that
is a problematic claim at best. Also, nothing in the NT remotely
resembles a modern concept of freedom, tolerance, etc. You've never
read the NT apparently.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245