The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

Your first assumption is wrong -- at least according to the oldest, technical, standard definition of blasphemy.

As Gattigap said -- you and Ty are using the term in different ways but you aren't admiting it. I think you know that.
As Ty is using the term -- and it is no secret -- his statements are not contradictory.

It is like you guys are on another planet. Why does it matter what me and Ty think the definition of blasphemy is? Why are you so focused on the word blasphemy when the important word is "offense". Ty said that he did not understand why Christians would consider this stuff offensive or blasphemous. And then he said he never said that Christians should not find it offensive. You throw the concept blasphemy completely out of the equation and the statement is still contradictory. Am I wrong?

[Spanky]

Does putting a cross in urine or putting feces on the virgin mary = blasphemy. I think under almost anyone interpretation it does.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man .

Your first assumption is wrong -- at least according to the oldest, technical, standard definition of blasphemy.

Do you really think that?

Here is the first definition I found: "A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity."

Doesn't that fit?

What definition are you talking about?

P.S. Not that he is an expert, but I remember when Jesses Helms was discussing it on the Senate floor he called the Christ in piss piece "Blasphemy".

[Spanky]

Gattigap:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spanky
What makes you think I don't understand this?[quote]

You said:

"Your last dozen or so posts on the topic."

Now I am totally curious. For the life of me I can't think of any reason why you think this was so (I was trying to show that Ty didn't think that Christians should be offended by Serrano and then claimed he never said that Christians shouldn't be offended by Serrano). It seems that you thought that I didn't understand that some things that are not blasphemous could still be considered offensive being that the blaphemous bubble is wholly inside and smaller than the offensive bubble. I understand that, and I think the fact that everthing that is blasphemous is also offensive supports my contradictory argument. Why would I argue against that concept? It was like I was having one discussion and you think I was having another discussion. Can you print the post or posts you think demonstrate that I didn't understand the following (it should be hard considering there are dozens of them):

"I mean that from the little I've read on the topic, there's something specific about Islam that forbids visual representations of Muhammed.

In Christianity, there may not be a good analogue to that concept. The closest we've come is a reference to "blasphemy," but Ty is pointing out that blasphemy is a pretty garden-variety term often used to refer to religious references, representations, etc. that Christians think dishonor God or otherwise find offensive to their beliefs. In the Venn Diagram, "blasphemy" probably exists entirely within the circle of things that offend (most) Christians, but the "blasphemy" circle is smaller.

That's what I, and others, have been trying to explain."


P.S. It also occured to me that you thought I didn't understand that the Koran specifically forbids visual represntation of Mohammed where the Bible has no similar proscription. But since I have stated that I understand that concept in at least three posts I doubt that is what you meant when you said I didn't understand something.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I agree with Diane that it really is a Timmy argument -- Sorry Ty. I winced when i saw that was where you were going.

Yeah, I basically agree. I have an intuition that the Danish thing is more offensive to Moslems than the Serrano thing was to Christians, but I think it's more that Christians object to what Serrano was doing rather than to newspapers running stories about it.

As for Less's point about republication: I'm not sure. I was really talking about the Danish cartoon that first ran the thing, before the protests, trying to piss people off. I guess I still think that republishing to piss them off shows some degree of insecurity, and that ignoring them would be stronger.

eta: I mostly don't understand why people give a shit about this. Censorship is wrong. Violence is wrong. Offending people is wrong. Condemning Christians doesn't mean you support everything Moslems do, and vice versa.

[Spanky]

quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
This controversy has demonstrated to me why I could never be a responsible editor of a newspaper, magazine or head of news network. I would post this everywhere (just like those European magazines) to show that there is free speech in this country that can't be cowed by fanatics of any stripe. Clearly this would not be in the shareholders interest but I wouldn't be able to help myself. I think those other magazines and newspapers that published the cartoon to show solidarity with the newspaper in Denmark did a very honorable and courageous thing. I applaud it 100%.

Their laws against blasphemy don't apply here or anywhere else in the west and they need to get used to it.


Tys Points:
I guess I don't understand the point of continuing to post the cartoon. If lots and lots of people are offending by it, why? It's not like it's particularly interesting or artistic.

As I understand the protesters, many of them are protesting because the cartoons are offensive to them. I'm all for free speech, but having the right to free speech does not mean you have an obligation to offend.

______________________________________________

The response to my post surprized me. I was expecting people would have a problem with me saying that such an act was not in the "shareholders best interest." Or that by saying I could not be an editor because I would print the cartoons, thereby implying printing the cartoons would be the wrong thing for a responsible editor to do, would anger posters - especially the liberals.

I thought people would jump all over those comments by saying that newspapers etc. have a duty to put free speech principles over profit etc.

But instead I was critisized for my inclination to reprint the cartoons.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Having done more reading and thinking on this cartoon issue, I come to find that I mostly agree now with Spanky and Diane (and Sidd) on the substance. That said, I still think the timing is bad tactically.

Does this mean we can have the make up sex?

[original Hank@judged.com]

Originally posted by Spanky
It is like you guys are on another planet. Why does it matter what me and Ty think the definition of blasphemy is? Why are you so focused on the word blasphemy when the important word is "offense". Ty said that he did not understand why Christians would consider this stuff offensive or blasphemous. And then he said he never said that Christians should not find it offensive. You throw the concept blasphemy completely out of the equation and the statement is still contradictory. Am I wrong?

Ty's people have no time for bother with consistency or definitions. Is easier to make up the rules as he all goes along.

John Kerry was catholic and aginst abortion, but supported abortion rights and then ate communion wafers. When confronted with contradictions he did not care. Spank, have you been to DU?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by LessinSF
I refuse to read what has preceded this, so I ask ...

Is the debate over whether the cartoons should have been republished because they are offensive to certain Muslims to the point that they work themselves into a killing frenzy?

If so, the answer is self-obvious - anything and everything should be done that does so. If it takes poor cartooning, so be it. If it takes bad writing (Rushdie), so be it. Whatever - expose the fuckers.

First, they mostly kill each other, which is good, kind of like the stampedes at Mecca. Like lemmings, nature is saying we have too many Muslamic nutjobs.

Second, it illustrates the danger posed by Islam (as practiced in most of the world, if not the U.S), which is good, if only to scare Europe and Muslim-apologists in the U.S. who think "it is a religion of peace."

Third, it self-identifies the "militant" Muslim from the "moderate" Muslim, which is good, so that the CIA or Mossad can whack them.

Fourth, it reminds us that we are not that far removed from our own witch hunts and Inquisitions, which is good, because the religious right would bring them back in modified form.

And, fifth, it exposes the Tyrones of the world, who are afraid of hurting wackjob's feelings. If flat-earthers were offended if someone satirized them, would Ty feel the same way? Muslims (like any other religious person) believe in something without evidence. Yet, it appeears Ty would grant them special dispensation from ridicule because they really feel strongly about it. In fact, they deserve the most ridicule. A flat-earther is laughable. A flat-earther who would kill, burn, honor-rape, etc. because you impugn their belief in a flat-earth would be committed.

This is not mainly correct; its utterly, unassailably correct, in every regard.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
eta: I mostly don't understand why people give a shit about this. Censorship is wrong. Violence is wrong. Offending people is wrong. Condemning Christians doesn't mean you support everything Moslems do, and vice versa.

Uh, uh... you went a step too far. There are degrees of "wrong." Offending people does not fit in the same pantheon of "wrongs" occupied by violence and censorship. Offending people is something we are all allowed to do in free society. It sits at the very core of freedoms which make a democracy what it is.

The debate here is whether a free society should retreat from free speech because it offends the religious notions of fringe lunatics. The answer to that question is always, unequivocally, no.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Uh, uh... you went a step too far. There are degrees of "wrong." Offending people does not fit in the same pantheon of "wrongs" occupied by violence and censorship. Offending people is something we are all allowed to do in free society. It sits at the very core of freedoms which make a democracy what it is.

The debate here is whether a free society should retreat from free speech because it offends the religious notions of fringe lunatics. The answer to that question is always, unequivocally, no.

2. Sometimes offending people is a moral imperative. If artists aren't offending people they are not doing their jobs. If Hollywood isn't offending Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson they aren't making movies worth seeing.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
2. Sometimes offending people is a moral imperative. If artists aren't offending people they are not doing their jobs. If Hollywood isn't offending Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson they aren't making movies worth seeing.

Question to Ty- put aside the original publication of the cartoons, for purpose of this question I give you that was intended solely to piss people off-

but the reprints- they are newsworthy aren't they? I hear the muslim world is on fire over the cartoons, I wonder what the fuss is about- I want to see for myself. the reprints are to inform the public.

Do you agree the reprints were okay? if you were the editor would you reprint?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
2. Sometimes offending people is a moral imperative. If artists aren't offending people they are not doing their jobs. If Hollywood isn't offending Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson they aren't making movies worth seeing.

Really, there are two issues here.

The underlying issue is that a free society should not be cowed into curtailing offensive speech just because some lunatics say it offends them.

The Left can't argue with that position. So it instead raises a second issue, trying to change the debate into one about whether it is wise to enflame lunatics, or whether its meanspirited or "wrong" to knowingly insult another's religion - a whole other issue.

The problem with avowed lefties and righties - which I noted at the outset of this debate - is that they'll never concede anything. When shoved into a corner on an issue of absolute principle (which this is), they'll do what they did here - change the subject.

When really beaten, they'll argue absurdly that a bedrock principle of democracy cannot be absolute. Sorry, freedom of speech trumping the sensitivities of the audience in a free society is absolute. If Radicals don't like the cartoons, they don't have to look at them.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
2. Sometimes offending people is a moral imperative. If artists aren't offending people they are not doing their jobs. If Hollywood isn't offending Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson they aren't making movies worth seeing.

I wonder if Ty and SAM take the same position in regard to people like Robertson and Falwell, who continually call for boycotts of companies which publish anti-Christian material? I notice the left is selective in whom it says we should take pains to avoid offending. The Radical Islamists' complaints aren't much different that the complaints raised by radical Christians here for years? Why is it that I've never heard the Left decrying our press for provoking crazy Christians here?

My suspicion is that, at its core, the Left always, subconsciously, has to take the side of the underdog, or the group railing against the established order. They're a funny lot in that regard. They seem to have some odd guilt that forces them to sympathize with the outcasts. I'm actually fascinated by them. I quiz my lefty friends constantly to try to find out where the dislike of "the system" comes from. I've found many seem to have quasi-conspiracy theorist leanings. They seem to really believe there is a group of greedy white men running most things. And they want to rebel against this fantastic Star Chamber they've created in their heads.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I wonder if Ty and SAM take the same position in regard to people like Robertson and Falwell, who continually call for boycotts of companies which publish anti-Christian material? I notice the left is selective in whom it says we should take pains to avoid offending. The Radical Islamists' complaints aren't much different that the complaints raised by radical Christians here for years? Why is it that I've never heard the Left decrying our press for provoking crazy Christians here?

My suspicion is that, at its core, the Left always, subconsciously, has to take the side of the underdog, or the group railing against the established order. They're a funny lot in that regard. They seem to have some odd guilt that forces them to sympathize with the outcasts. I'm actually fascinated by them. I quiz my lefty friends constantly to try to find out where the dislike of "the system" comes from. I've found many seem to have quasi-conspiracy theorist leanings. They seem to really believe there is a group of greedy white men running most things. And they want to rebel against this fantastic Star Chamber they've created in their heads.

Ok, I'm with you on the basic issue here. The cartoons were in bad taste, but so what. If the Muslims don't like the cartoons, then tough shit. I don't like people blowing things up and killing people for being offensive. At least until such time as I get to do it to people I find offensive.

On the other hand, let's not go overboard. The world is pretty much run by a small group of greedy white men. They tend to stack the deck in their favor and pass out just enough opportunity to keep the underclass from rising up in enough numbers to actually do anything. I know they exist, and so do an awful lot of us lawyer types, for the simple reason that we get paid much better than fry cooks to do their bidding and make sure that the systems stays within their control while appearing neutral and impartial.

I would now proceed to make a bunch of stupid, simplistic, overly broad generalizations about "the Right," but that's gotten boring as all Hell.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
There are degrees of "wrong." Offending people does not fit in the same pantheon of "wrongs" occupied by violence and censorship. Offending people is something we are all allowed to do in free society. It sits at the very core of freedoms which make a democracy what it is.

I agree completely with everything you say here.

The debate here is whether a free society should retreat from free speech because it offends the religious notions of fringe lunatics. The answer to that question is always, unequivocally, no.

You and I apparently think "free speech" mean different things here. I don't see a threat to free speech here, or anyone proposing that we retreat from free speech.