See: How the Palestinians got 96 embassies and a seat at the UN.

I'm curious.

Explain.

I said terrorism is a good thing. Suuuuuure.

now threaten their tax exempt status and we might see them issue a violent fatwah

Except we have been conditioned to accept some dogmas more easily than others.

Burning them could be a bit difficult.

They really mean it.

Those who traffic in "magic underwear" slurs are no better than Terry Jones. Yet, they exempt themselves from the backlash against Mr. Jones they applaud.

but I think there is a clear difference between religious scholarship and propaganda.

I think the problem in this case is crude propaganda piled on top of a recent history of occupation and demonization. I'm sure if Terry Jones wanted to pursue an academic investigation into the origins of Islam there wouldn't be much outcry.

historically speaking, in a similar way that the origins of Christianity aren't well documented. But that's an argument for the Religion forum and another time.

you should have stopped there.

/Whenever you say "x is never justified, BUT" you are in fact justifying it.

Do you think the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is a legitimate attempt to shed light on the Jewish religion?

No, it's not, it's propaganda designed to inflame hatred. Are the authors of that document directly responsible for anti-semitic actions? No, of course not. But were they irresponsible in promoting that document? Yes, of course, it's reprehensible but it doesn't make them directly responsible for violent actions, they just contribute to an atmosphere that makes them more likely.

I would say that I condemn them.

Not "I condemn them . . . but there is a difference between free speech and . . ."

I'm exercising *my* freedom of speech to condemn the video. IMO it's irresponsible propaganda.

But it is to me... I thought about the situation in light of this. To be honest, this has already happened to us by way of "the Godmakers" film. Fortunately, we didn't storm any post offices or anything. If you aren't strong enough in your beliefs to deal with something like this then you should probably re-examine your beliefs.

by the logic of some DUers, the underwear jokers would be responsible if any nut did go off the deep end and kill because they were offended

But then again, I'm an atheist - I make fun of all religion.

And I'm more than happy to take my share of flames here for it.

Last edited Wed Sep 12, 2012, 02:33 PM - Edit history (2)

I am a recovered mormon and will continue to make fun if I so desire. If the mormons would like to overrun my apartment to punish me, please, come forth.

There is no heaven. There is no hell.
There are no angels and there are no demons.
There is only our real, natural world all around us.
Religion is but myth and superstition.
Religious conviction hardens hearts,
religious faith enslaves minds.

People making fun of other people's beliefs or making bigoted films are assholes. If you are an asshole there's nothing wrong with saying "hey, you're an asshole." That doesn't excuse the rioters in anyway (they are also assholes). My message is - stop being an asshole (not directed at anybody in particular but at everybody including you and including me).

Bryant

But it's still bad and can still be condemned.

Bryant

"I condemn those who killed the ambassador" and "I condemn those who make bigoted films" are being treated as equal.

If the people who killed the ambassador and the people who made the film were both presented to us what should be done with either or both?

Much lighter in the case of the people who made the film.

But you seem to be equating condemnation with sanction - I don't have the power to do anything much to either group. The most i can do is express my disapproval - to condemn those who do bad things. On the other hand if there were attempts to punish people for making a film beyond condemnation I would probably be opposed to those efforts, as they would infringe on free speech.

Bryant

and I actually agree with that.

I wouldn't consider condemnation a penalty so I was curious what else beyond condemnation was deemed necessary.

That's strikes me as too convenient as you obviously feel passionate enough to engage the issue as you have. To suddenly demure appears more of an effort to avoid the obvious.

I don't feel the need to avoid the obvious.

Those who killed the ambassador would be criminally liable. Whether or not they would be put to death is another issue but there is a penalty prescribed under law.

Mr Jones, even though he is despicable as some posters here on DU, is nonetheless protected by the rights of free speech in a free society. It is the same free speech that allows us to tell Mr Jones and those bigots on DU that they are despicable.

One group suffers the penalty of law while the other is protected by the law.

Damn the religious fundamentalists of all stripes and their zealotry in tearing the world apart. Not one theology is more deserving of consideration than another in this time. All have become vehicles for purveying hatred and injustice and for fomenting war and misery. How many millions more must die because you are whipped into frenzy by the words of men who use their power to tell you whatever God has whispered in their ears while they pick your pockets at the same time? How many cities must be destroyed while you satisfy your belief that you are just another "warrior" for peace?

And those who sit silently in the pews, mosques, and synagogues of the world and allow the fundamentalists to rage free are not without sin in this matter. All the deaths and destruction are just as much on your hands as they run amuk trying to cynically and actively set the state for the destruction of the world. How many more of these situations do we need in this world before the separation of church and state is seen as a good and worthy idea.

The communists claim to be secularists and yet they murdered tens of millions in a post-Western Enlightnement world. The fact they were secularists did not insulate them. If I were to look for a common denominator I wouldn't call it religion I would call it a mania for worldy power.