You don't need permission from other DUers to use your brain. Mach what you will.

You've declared things done that you think are wrong as "done under religious pretenses" while those doing them sincerely believe that what they are doing is right and what they are doing is in complete concordance with their religion.

Oh and you didn't address the issue of mocking individuals. Is it ok, for example, to mock some idiot who suggests that the paris massacre was conducted by shape shifting space alien jews? Or must we limit ourselves to the redundant activity of mocking the self-mocking claim alone?

I seem to have hit a tender spot!

For the uninitiated, let me explain that your claim that I've invoked a "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy is specious.

I was simply mocking your OP with an analog.

But hey, that's Satire for ya!

If someone is offended, then they need to grow up.

Just like an elephant who is faithful.

They simply are not doing any good and are making enemies to mock major religions, due to the number of people who follow them. Mock the extremists only.

Mocking Mittens is a different thing. He's made himself publicly known and done some pretty weird shit.

It's not black or white, never mock or always mock. It's like any other politeness; pick your battles.

Mock the ideas, not the person with ideas. That comes naturally with mocking the ideas.

.........

How many virgins does it take to screw in a light bulb for a jihadist?

How many dinosaurs does it take to carry a Christian fundie to the Pearly
Gates?

"Rick Perry went to a "Pray for Rain" Christian revival, but protestors rain on his parade."

.........


It IS a war on Stupidity, not people.

Note: I'm sure the OP is not a bigot and feels righteous in his expression, but that doesn't mean that there aren't disturbing parallels to be found between the messaging here and what the MSM is pushing.

Religiophobes seem to be relishing in the fact that a terrible thing has been done by a handful of people in the name of the religion.

Many in the press are having a field day with it, associating this act with the entire Muslim world.

It's precisely the kind of bigotry that Bush-Cheney used, along with false claims of WMDs, to get us into war.

Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh make millions on Islamophobia.

same propaganda targets and victims.

I hope the French will teach a lesson to America about how to handle this, Europe has a much longer history with such things than infant America. And much less amnesia.

Yes, a handful of people did this, and not, say, a religiously backed operation of the state.

Just some folks.

And if I have a problem with what happened to those two boys and the ideology that supports it (and, I promise you, most of Islam is very homophobic), well, I'm just a religiophobe or something.

I'm sorry. This is comfortable nonsense liberalism. When defense of a pose is more important than human rights.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Asgari_and_Ayaz_Marhoni

(You'll notice, the state called them pedophiles and used it as a flimsy pretext, and provided no evidence whatsoever. LGBTers are used to that.)

an entire religion.
You are not posting satire, you are posting hate....

Where posting human rights violations and homophobia is considered hate.

This is why this subject incenses me. Now simply highlighting evil is hatred.

Do you hear yourself speak?

Moral inversion is a very good description of what I keep seeing around here.

Not a term in common use, but there are definitions on the internet:

It's a false distinction, because people will not keep it. I have done nothing but criticize Islam itself - I have said nothing of individual Muslims. In fact, I recognize Muslims in our culture are a vulnerable minority who should be protected.

However. It doesn't matter. Criticize Islam, and the reply is, "Why are you picking on Muslims?!" You know that is the dialogue that is occurring around this discussion as well as I. It's a dishonest distinction, because no one will hold it true.

Furthemore, I say "the divinity of Christ is a ridiculous notion," I may be mocking the belief, but the people who believe it will feel mocked. After all, if I'm saying a belief is stupid, I must be saying they're stupid.

This is where the dishonesty is key. People are being used as human shields for the idea. By creating a false distinction, the idea can never be criticized, because the people who hold the idea will forever need protecting.

This is a toxic notion in a free society. It's a sneaky tactic to further an illiberal impulse.

If you criticize a religion, the religious will feel criticized. But that is the toll that must be paid when we value freedom.

Not you, but others.

It's far too serious a topic and set of circumstances to be bringing in ridiculous analogies to Mitt Romney, for example.

The GD SOP has rules against religion posts for very good reasons.

Too much heat, not enough light.

Honestly, I don't think many people give much thought to the topic. Ideology tends to proscribe knee-jerk impulses. And that's what 80% of the dialogue consists of. The pat belief and the platitude.

interesting


yet in America Christians routinely and have for decades have used their religion as an excuse to legally enslave humans, legally deny people basic rights, deny people the vote, deny people medical treatment, deny people education, physically attack people for having a different religion or just out and out killing them because the religious just don't like you doing something they don't approve of.

it is not irrational fear when the religions have been acting like bullies since before America was America and it still happens today.

"He's made himself publicly known and done some pretty weird shit."

So I shouldn't mock people who aren't publicly known or who haven't done some pretty weird shit.

Hmmmm..... ok, why would I mock somebody who isn't publicly known? What would be the point? And if they haven't done anything mockable, the mockery would be laughable, deserving of ridicule.

Don't quite get your point there.

Your other point seems worse:

"not doing any good and are making enemies to mock major religions"

so it is ok to mock minor religions 'cause they don't have enough followers to matter?

I would not mock a minor religion in front of its adherents. Maybe I'd be less so to do that as they are more likely to be really offended in that situation. Bigger religions are used to it.

I'd never mock private people - at least not until they really got in my face. And I know a lot of annoying people.

I don't see why you'd think I would, just because I find Mittens mock-worthy. It's about how sincere the person is or how ridiculous. It's not either/or. Some people are being so ridiculous, and are so unreachable that it isn't going to make a big difference and might be good for a laugh - birthers, Mittens, Palin.

the more that they should be mocked.

America is the elephant in the room: we're big and powerful.

What happens when a small helpless country is faced with the pressure of American culture changing its culture? It circles the wagons, the "you're one of us or one of them"; they use religion to to draw people together; they become more fundamental in their religion; they give rise to terrorists, the last hope of the helpless. All in an effort to preserve their way of life.

America doesn't have to do anything to promote this reaction. But we can make this reaction worse.



And, just in case, you haven't noticed, the same reaction is happening here in America. Where did you think the rise of fundamentalist religion come from?

We need to treat these people with respect just as we would be treated.

beliefs, I should bow my head in respect and refrain from hurting their delicate religious feelings?

At the start of last Sunday's Le Show, Harry Shearer said satire generally pokes fun at power (punching up) & right wing humor fails in that it punches down by poking fun at the powerless. Attempts at humor that exaggerate stereotypes, i.e. lazy Mexican/African American, etc, or money grubbing Jew, or drunken Irish, etc, is not satire. We usually call it hate speech.

Harry's words will have something for everyone. Here's a taste of an interview with him about satire and recent events:

Yet, Shearer argued, any satirist worth his or her salt doesn’t hesitate to flout good taste, offend the powers that be, or even mock religious dogma. It’s an occupation that has become increasingly perilous in recent years with the rise of Islamic extremists who answer perceived insults with lethal violence.

“One of the troublesome things for a satirist,” Shearer said, “is that you’re asking a political establishment that is often your victim to come to your aid, and to the aid of your cause. As far as I can tell, this magazine spent as much time making fun of French politicians as it did of Muslims or Islam. That’s a rough one. It’s much easier to come to the support of journalists who are less transgressive. Satirists are often the target of choice because they are isolated and standing by themselves.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/07/harry-shearer-on-the-dangerous-business-of-satire.html

That the American right wing was saying that satire was driving our political conversations in the wrong direction.

Seems like the more fundamentalist and extremist the belief the more reactionary the response to any type of criticism.