US church to go ahead with 9/11 Qu'ran burning. - Page 8

I know what you're talking about WRT the college kids straw man thing... and yeah, to an extent, that is true. But I don't think it's unfair to say that everybody else in this thread assumed you were referring more generally to Buddhists worldwide. I responded based on that assumption.
Thank you... I mean that.

Anyone who has a superficial understanding of anything, but purports to know enough about it to fully embrace or dismiss it, tends to be insufferable.

Sure, I was just explicating on the white guilt/orientalism remark, where I'm coming from with it.

I'd take time to construct a well-reasoned and comprehensive destruction of just about everything you've said in this thread.

But it would only be a pale imitation of THIS (the guts of which begins at 9 mins).

I look forward to your comments following.

Man drinking a glass of wine while reading this thread has been the most enjoyable waste of time before a True Blood finale EVER. <3 to all of you especially all the jackoffs who quickly lump entire groups of people together then hate on those groups and then present yourselves as enlightened intelligent men/women/Princess Kates.

Seriously hating on a particular group of people because of their faith is idiotic. Extreme atheists and organized religion haters are just as insufferable and intolerant as the idiots they hate on.

Organized religion is timeless. And unorganized religion is even MORE timeless. Faith in one god, two gods, multiple gods, or no gods is always going to exist. This glass of wine isn't so now I'm going to mount my high horse and ride away.

The image in my head of this moment is way more awesome then my above words will be in a few hours.

It's interesting, this thread has really reminded me of just how partisan and divided - and thus seemingly radicalised in many ways - America is in general, be it with politics or religion or whatever.

Here in Australia we just don't have these vehement religious divides that there seem to be in the states. I know a bunch of atheists and none of them are radicalised and anywhere near as forthright (and some may even say obnoxious) as their American cousins simply because they don't have to defend their belief - or lack of it - against an extreme, uncompromising and seemingly monolithic Christian community as they would in the US. There seems to be much more of a live and let live attitude to peoples spiritual beliefs or lack of here, in fact usually people have the crazy notion that its a persons private business. Hell most people I know to be honest are either agnostic or outright atheist.

As a consequence, its usually the people who insist on trying to foist their belief system onto someone else that get treated with disdain in this country rather than the people who aren't interested in listening.

Don't get me wrong, we still have Islamaphobic types (tho I'd argue they come from more a place of outright racism rather than any kind of religious divide) and we still have whackjob christian extremists - but they and their views are certainly not what I'd call mainstream and they are usually treated with mistrust or at least as being 'not quite right' by most people.

The mainstream opinion here really seems to boil down to 'believe what you want just don't shove it in my face and we're fine' whereas in the US it just seems so vicious and divided.

Maybe it's thanks to our country being founded by convicts rather than religious nutters I dunno, but it's issues like this one that really highlight the difference for me.

ETA: Aaaaaahhh great - then along comes a fuckwit like this clown, who goes and completely undermines my point.

Fucking hell.

(I love that it's the atheist being an epic tool tho and the religious groups calling for calm. Oh the irony)

Yeah toolbags exist in every nation. It's all good.

I would definitely lay the blame at the feet of the evangelical Christian movement in America. Evangelical Christianity, or the Christian Right, or those megachurch dudes, actually make up a huuuuuge portion of the people that identify as Christian in the US. And they came out of the temperance movement of the 19th century which itself can trace it's roots back to the founding of the country and the extremists who sought refuge here.

But I think the extremely annoying defense folks of all faiths employ in the US can also be traced to our very healthy sense of individualism and pride. We're just born to be obstinate assholes about SOMETHING in the US.

Though that's also kind of interesting because I was under the impression that obstinate individualism a big part of Australian culture. Something to do with both nations being bigger then everyone else and cattle and cowboy hats and aboriginals with bows and arrows.

Not that those types (my types, admittedly) can't be either of those things, but are we really as bad as "the types we hate". Keep in mind, this thread is about a Christian pastor who started this. Most of the protests against Muslim community centers (not just in NY, but all over the country), seem to be coming from Christians.

I'm not saying that if atheists ran the world things would be completely different or better, so for the moment let's forget the outright violence and wars, for which you can use anything- religion, economics, nationalism-to initiate and prolong, but can you site some examples of outspoken atheists starting these types of nation-wide attention-grabbing controversies (or ones along the lines of the South Park/Mohamed debacle from a few months ago).

Oh don't worry, we've got those obnoxious assholes in abundance here as well, they just don't seem to get all hung up about religion, theirs is more a rampant secular nationalism with nasty xenephobic undertones.

Assholes

Citing examples of people who use or do not use religion as a reason for being an asshole is kind of pointless. I don't care what people believe and yes that means that as a Christian I'm kind of naughty. Evangelism is kind of a major part of most denominations. But honestly I don't care.

What I do care about is people who get all judgey and assholey because other's don't share their opinion and I've found more then one atheist to be that way. Especially when they're all "yeah well our non-religion didn't lead to genocide, terrorism or book burning and we don't need some magical dude sitting on a cloud to feel good about ourselves." That's a pretty shitty line to take.


EVERYONE of all faiths and creeds should work hard not to judge others for failing to believe what they believe. I can judge this asshole for burning books. He's an asshole and apparently failed to read the Bible and ponder the nature of God or whatever. I can also judge assholes who incite war in the name of whatever god they're worshipping this week. And I can judge the atheists (my sister's one and she's awesome so know that although I use atheist in a general way I mean a specific brand) who believe their faith is superior and castigate those who do not share it. Sure those atheists aren't cutting off limbs or doing something super evil, but they're still assholes right?

All those assholes I mentioned are partaking in some form of bigotry and I'm not down with judging someone just because they don't share my beliefs.

Amen to that sister. A lot more 'live and let live' in the world would make for a vastly improved planet.

Amen.

But that's my point. Atheists can be assholes, of course, fine. But that's not the same thing of starting controversies like Q'uaran burning or threatening cartoonists, where the situation is like to have violent fallout. You seem to equate being an asshole in attitude with being proselytizers of psychotic extremes, which, no, is not the same thing. Point me to current examples of the latter being perpetrated in the name of Atheism.

Also, just in and of itself, how is "our non-religion didn't lead to genocide, terrorism or book burning and we don't need some magical dude sitting on a cloud to feel good about ourselves." all that shitty a line to take? It's not one that I'm like to bust out, but it seems a pretty reasonable stance nonetheless.

Yeah but you can't stop assholes from being assholes, you can only be less of a one yourself. How about respecting everyone elses beliefs regardless of whether you agree with them or not and then expecting nothing but the same in return? How about being the change you'd like to see in others?


The problem with that overly idealistic (and I'd argue naive) line of reasoning is thinking that religion is the cause of wars and violence and not simply just another excuse for them. People are people, if they didn't go to war and were obnoxious, tribal and vicious too each other over religion, it'd be something else. Religion, politics, ideologies, when it comes to the sharp and tribal end of those ideas coming into conflict what you're really talking about at the end of the day is power - who has it, who wants it, and how nasty we can be to each other to get it.

This whole 'religion is a disease and if only it disappeared we'd all be tripping together through fields of daisies as one' line of thinking suggests a lot more faith in humanity than I hold I have to say.

Being disrespectful and disagreeing are different things. There is nothing inherent in religion that demands it be treated with more respect than I'd show to any other ideology that intends to provide a model with which to make the world better. When I talk about libertarianism no one expects a bunch of disclaimers about how I don't mean to disrespect whomever I'm talking to. If I think that it's a naive and unworkable world view I'll say so. I know most people feel more personally about their religion than they do about their politics and tend to take arguing against it as some personal slight but that's their problem. Not mine.

I dunno stel, I've always thought the out-dated notions of simply respectfully disagreeing with someone or even agreeing to disagree gets short shrift these days. Is it really that important to prove how right you believe you may be or how wrong someone else may be at the end of the day?

Of course being respectful is important. It should be the default state for interpersonal relationships. But if the conversation comes to it and you have to say you disagree, even radically, you have to say so.

Take the following statements (all actual things I believe):

a) There is no god who passes down moral guidelines for humanity to follow.
b) Private property is not only good but the drive toward its acquisition can be used as a mechanism for the collective betterment of mankind.
c) A strong, centralized, democratically elected, government, able to enforce the law is absolutely vital to a properly functioning society.

The first statement is way more likely to be viewed as offensive, assholish or arrogant. Even though the tone is exactly in line with the following two. Am I being an asshole or disrespectful by claiming any of these things? I don't think so. It's not my intent at least.

It's kind of weird to see how far this has been allowed to go, as I said earlier in the thread this dude would have been arrested in the UK by now. Free speech is one thing but when it endangers the lives of others then it's a different story.

I don't think this issue even comes down to free speech. Burning books isn't illegal. Legally he can't be stopped unless some serious judicial gymnastics take place. Or using some roundabout way like declaring this a fire hazard. And playing around with the law, no matter how good one's intentions may be, is never good.

Agreed, hence my comment that if he was in the UK he could be stopped under the “inciting of religious hatred” law we have here, as that is basically what he is doing.

The way I look at it is any group of human beings is capable of violence. The problem is with people. Which, somewhat ironically, is a very Christian worldview.

Or what Rain Dog said...

Can you imagine the depressing levels of bullshittery that would take place if the US had that law? Making jokes about Christianity would probably get you sued.

I thought the same thing when it was made law over here but in practice it works quite well, you have to have reached a certain level of nut job to fall foul of it.

Yes, but some beliefs don't actually deserve respect. What if you believe that you need to kill five people every day or the space slugs will eat the world? Or that "Hardware" is actually a good movie? What then, sir? WHAT THEN???


Geoff: thanks for the lecture link a few posts back. Lots to chew on. I enjoyed it immensely, and it made me reconsider a whole host of assumptions.

I've always thought that as long as someone's beliefs aren't hurting anyone and they're not trying to push them onto anyone else, they're welcome to believe whatever bugfuck crazy notion they want to. We're all on our own journeys and as long as we keep them to ourselves what's the harm? Live and let live and all that.

I doubt he'd be arrested for talking about/threatening burning a book. Questioned by the authorities, yes. This is would be an equally large issue here, with a similar level of debate I imagine.

I say burn it. Its a free country here and let the fucking Taliban go crazy in Afganistan. There were deaths during the riots protesting the non-happening Koran burning anyway. If People are going to die, than let them die for something that actually happens.

Burn it.

Nope!

I think Chris Miller's statement still hits the nail on the head--fuck the assholes filled with enough hate to stand in front of the world and show how hateful they are, but also fuck anyone who feels justified to respond with violence when they see said hateful act.

If he wants to burn it, he can burn it. But I still think he's a bloody motherfucking asshole for doing it, and also if he does then he should do it and the media should ignore him. BUT we know that's not gonna happen.

Meanwhile in Portland...

Seriously? The newspaper apologized for having an article about the end of Ramadan in the 9/11 issue? What kind of stark raving lunatic would be offended by that and why are they still not committed to a psychiatric hospital? What kind of gutless, weak excuse for a journalist apologizes for this? This is what pisses me off the most. I know the press is now a faint shadow of its admittedly already pretty weak old self but this is fucking humiliating.

I know (I hope?) that these incidents are not indicative of the feelings of the majority of Americans but you guys are scaring me lately.

Good night, and get fucked.

Murrow is spinning so fast, he's catching fire in his grave.

You and Chairman Mao, Kate. You and Chairman Mao.

I can play the rampant-and-grossly-bigoted-overgeneralization game too. Let's go!

Hey! Chairman Mao argued that all religion is poison! He insisted on a secular state, free from the trappings of religion - which he consistently portrayed as evil. His society was one of torture, violence, injustice, and lack of freedom.

Therefore, since Mao and those who were faithful to him propogated such a barbaric and inhumane reign under the auspices of being "anti-religion," that means that atheism is POISON, and whatever good it does is outweighed by the bad.

You: "That's not fair at all! You're taking the example of a mad man and applying it to a larger belief system filled with MILLIONS of peaceful people to make a point that's grossly bigoted!"

Me: "Exactly."

Zingity zing zing zing! Circle takes the square, g'night everybody!

I love me some Jesse Custer.

Jesus, that editor is such a pussy. I'd argue it's more insensitive to apologize for printing an image of members of the community his paper covers engaging in peaceful religious worship than it was to run the picture in the first place, which wasn't insensitive at all. Americans need to grow some balls-- both the people who complain about everything Muslim-related, and the members of the press who acquiesce to their utterly backwards and incorrect cries of insensitivity.

Meanwhile J.C.'s post can be summed up with one pithy piece of terminology:

Now I want to scour local newspapers for pictures of Japanese people in December 7th editions of newspapers.

At fist, I was like, "What the heck's the Portland Press Herald...?"