Mocking religion is wrong but it should not lead to violence

[Nuclear Unicorn]

Unless "magic underwear" has a sedating effect.

[el_bryanto]

1. Well reasoned point.

Thank you for sharing - I am guessing that what you meant to say is "Mocking some religions is wrong but it should not lead to violence."

Bryant

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. Some cows are more sacred than others. n/t

[el_bryanto]

4. exactly - feel free to mock my cow as much as you like, apparently. nt

[treestar]

3. True.

But when you know a certain set of people will react that way, though they may be wrong, there is some intention to show that off by trying to get to them.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. All that does is incite more violence

Each group of malcontents will learn they need only threaten violence to insulate their group from criticism. You cannot honor their threats, we cannot degrade ourselves. That elevates no one.

I think some of the outright appeals to bigotry that have been displayed here recently are beyond disgusting. And those appeals to bigotry have had no substance beyond political expediency. It betrays the shallowness of those making the attacks.

Yet, as repugnant as those attacks may be it would be wrong to condone violence on the part of the aggrieved. Thankfully, those whose most cherished beliefs are being deliberately and viciously insulted have not taken to violence. They appear to accept the ridicule with a demeanor that shames those who insult them.



The moral heroes are the ones who endure without striking back.

If we can appreciate those who are insulted but endure the insults civily then why do we not make the same demands of all others? Are the killers in Libya not as human? Is there some fundamental defect in their being or character? Do we expect less of them because they are less?

Or, as I fear, this is just the flip side of yet another sad display of religous bigotry for political gain?

It seems as if it is acceptable to insult one group for political gain. The point is to diminish an opponent. But then we're asked to sympathize with the literally murderous anger of another insulted group. This too seems as if it is for political gain to diminish an opponent because of how repulsive Terry Jones has made himself.

Too many people have grown too comfortable with condoning bigotry of "magic underwear" slurs while applauding cries of "blasphemy!" for political gain (and hypocritically in the name of ending bigoted likes of Mr. Jones). Maybe I've misdiagnosed the cause of this inconsistency but sensitivity to the beliefs of others is decidedly not what motivates the overall discussion.

[treestar]

9. No one is being asked to sympathize with them

Why people cannot just see an issue without jumping to the most extreme conclusion possible is part of the problem with any civil discussion these days.

No we don't have to condone or sympathize but we can recognize reality. People who defame Mohammed are using that to get this kind of reaction in order to "prove" that Muslims are inferior and uncivilized. There are some whack jobs who can't handle a cartoon making fun of Mohamed without killing somebody. That seems to occur in this culture. Not every Muslim does it. But we know damn well we are playing with fire by making any film that makes fun of Mohamed.

People can make fun of Jesus and do blasphemous things in art, etc., and generally Christians don't kill in response to it. That may not make them overall "superior" to Muslims, however. It may have more to do with the current situation. The freedom of religion we have makes us all less sensitive, even the religious.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. I don't think "whack job" is an accurate descriptor.

Religious labels aside, how exactly does not-murdering make someone not superior to murderers?

[alc]

5. mocking religion is often quite appropriate

Maybe "mocking" is the wrong word, but cartoons, exaggerations, and satire can be the best way to point out inconsistencies in beliefs. For example "abortions are evil, but NO CONDOMS, NO SAME-SEX INTERCOURSE,...", or "he was saved by Jesus, but treats other people like shit not like Jesus would". I can only make those statements in a pretty boring way that no believer would give a second thought to. But there are people who could show those statements in a way that will give believers pause to at least think about what/why they believe.

If the attempt goes over the line from a "humorous" or exaggerated statement to outright mockery, it probably won't be effective. But it is appropriate to try that approach even though only a few people pull it off very well.

Also, while I think it's inappropriate, I see Christians mocked all the time for believing the earth is 6000 years old, and haven't seen a single person defend them from the mockery. Either people agree with the belief and defend the belief, or join the mockery of those "idiots".

[hifiguy]

7. Pointing out logical fallacies and irrationality

is never wrong. Ever. Humankind has one tool that always works, and it is called reason.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. Ditto fallacious and irrational hypocrisy.