"President Obama, you're a dmned fool."
Options
KTULU IS BACK
Banned Users Posts: 6,617 ✭✭
the following text is not mine, it's from a biology professor named PZ Myers, who became infamous last year for desecrating a catholic communion wafer, a page from a Koran, and also a page from Darwin's "Origin of Species" just to show that he doesn't give a ?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/09/setting_the_koran_on_fire_vs_s.php
You know, I'm something of an expert in the public desecration of sacred objects, and I'm seeing the same madness going on right now with Terry Jones and his plan to burn copies of the Koran that I saw in the response to throwing a ? in the trash — only amplified to a ludicrous degree. People just aren't getting it; they're so blinded by an inappropriate attachment to magic relics that they're missing the real issues.
I publicly destroyed a communion wafer once (OK, a few times). There was a simple reason for it: a few Catholics had responded hysterically to a student who didn't swallow a wafer with harrassment and threats, and I was demonstrating that that was not acceptable — religious believers may not demand that non-believers grant the same reverence to their rituals and beliefs that they have. Jones's motivation seems to be more of a fundie head-butt to Moslems while expecting a greater respect for his Bible, but he's still right — Moslems cannot demand that Christians love their doctrines (and vice versa).
Now what I expected in the wake of my ? -killing was that Catholics would be annoyed, but that it would be easily rationalized — I'm an unbeliever, their rituals have no meaning to me, Jesus can't be harmed by some stunt with bread…what I expected was a combination of "tut, tut" and "so what?" and the cleverer Catholics announcing that their faith was too strong to be shaken by a raspberry from an atheist. That's what I expected; it would have put the poor student's actions in context and made people step back from the screaming that was going on.
It didn't work out that way.
The lesson of that incident wasn't that you can find some ? somewhere who will disrespect what some group finds holy — that was trivial and uninteresting, and I actually had to ignore many of the elaborate suggestions for ? disposal sent my way to emphasize the absolute triviality of tossing a ? /piece of Jesus in the trash. No, the real lesson was that mobs of people will react with irrational freakish hysteria to the idea that other people don't believe as they do.
The problem isn't the desecrators. The problem is the people who have an unwarranted sense of privilege, that their beliefs will not be questioned or criticized, ever, by anyone. What I was saying was that it was crazy to believe a ? turns into Jesus, and what all the outraged Catholics were doing is confirming to an awesome degree just how mad their beliefs were, with their prolonged and excessive outrage.
So I'm looking at this recent episode with Terry Jones — a fellow I don't like at all, and I think he's a fanatical goofball — and I see that the serious problem here isn't Jones at all…it's all the lunatics who are insisting that burning the Koran is a major international catastrophe.
It's just a frackin' book, people.
I am simply astounded at the catalog of high-ranking personages who are contributing to this new frenzy of foolishness.
President Obama, you're a damned fool.
What are you going to do, send in the national guard to prevent Terry Jones' congregation from destroying their own private property? Will there be new legislation to list items that may not be treated disrespectfully? Shall we surrender a few more liberties because religious zealots are threatening us? Obama can do nothing and should do nothing; he accomplishes nothing by complaining about it, other than being part of the mob confirming the madness of the defenders of faith.
And to suggest that some guy burning a book in a remote land will incite more anti-American sentiment is absurd. We've got drones buzzing over Iraq and Afghanistan killing people with a push of a button; we've got an armed force occupying those countries; we have bombed their infrastructure into rubble. We've killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims. And now we're to believe that their love of the West will be suddenly devastated by a video of paper burning on youtube? Get a grip, man.
The United States does have an obligation to protect the basic and fundamental rights of all Americans, and that includes allowing them to burn their own property, in addition to allowing them to practice the religion of their choice.
Here's a hint for appropriate responses. When someone tells you it's an outrage to burn a bible or a Koran, shrug your shoulders and say, "So what? It's their own book." When someone announces that they are going to riot and murder because they are offended, look at them like they're insane, and explain that offending someone is not a capital crime.
The problem isn't a few books being burned; that's not a crime, and it doesn't diminish anyone else's personal freedoms. The problem is a whole fleet of deranged wackaloons, including the president of the USA in addition to raving fundamentalist fanatics, who think open, public criticism and disagreement ought to be forbidden, somehow.
And seriously, this whole silly contretemps would have evaporated if a few people learned to shrug their shoulders and react rationally instead of feeding the fury with Serious Pronouncements and Reprovals.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/09/setting_the_koran_on_fire_vs_s.php
You know, I'm something of an expert in the public desecration of sacred objects, and I'm seeing the same madness going on right now with Terry Jones and his plan to burn copies of the Koran that I saw in the response to throwing a ? in the trash — only amplified to a ludicrous degree. People just aren't getting it; they're so blinded by an inappropriate attachment to magic relics that they're missing the real issues.
I publicly destroyed a communion wafer once (OK, a few times). There was a simple reason for it: a few Catholics had responded hysterically to a student who didn't swallow a wafer with harrassment and threats, and I was demonstrating that that was not acceptable — religious believers may not demand that non-believers grant the same reverence to their rituals and beliefs that they have. Jones's motivation seems to be more of a fundie head-butt to Moslems while expecting a greater respect for his Bible, but he's still right — Moslems cannot demand that Christians love their doctrines (and vice versa).
Now what I expected in the wake of my ? -killing was that Catholics would be annoyed, but that it would be easily rationalized — I'm an unbeliever, their rituals have no meaning to me, Jesus can't be harmed by some stunt with bread…what I expected was a combination of "tut, tut" and "so what?" and the cleverer Catholics announcing that their faith was too strong to be shaken by a raspberry from an atheist. That's what I expected; it would have put the poor student's actions in context and made people step back from the screaming that was going on.
It didn't work out that way.
The lesson of that incident wasn't that you can find some ? somewhere who will disrespect what some group finds holy — that was trivial and uninteresting, and I actually had to ignore many of the elaborate suggestions for ? disposal sent my way to emphasize the absolute triviality of tossing a ? /piece of Jesus in the trash. No, the real lesson was that mobs of people will react with irrational freakish hysteria to the idea that other people don't believe as they do.
The problem isn't the desecrators. The problem is the people who have an unwarranted sense of privilege, that their beliefs will not be questioned or criticized, ever, by anyone. What I was saying was that it was crazy to believe a ? turns into Jesus, and what all the outraged Catholics were doing is confirming to an awesome degree just how mad their beliefs were, with their prolonged and excessive outrage.
So I'm looking at this recent episode with Terry Jones — a fellow I don't like at all, and I think he's a fanatical goofball — and I see that the serious problem here isn't Jones at all…it's all the lunatics who are insisting that burning the Koran is a major international catastrophe.
It's just a frackin' book, people.
I am simply astounded at the catalog of high-ranking personages who are contributing to this new frenzy of foolishness.
US President Barack Obama says plans by a small church to burn copies of the Koran on the anniversary of 9/11 are a "recruitment bonanza" for al-Qaeda.
Mr Obama said that if the Florida burning went ahead, it could endanger US military personnel serving in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
…
Malaysia called it a heinous crime, while Indonesia said it would damage relations between Islam and the West.
In the UK, Downing Street said it would not condone the burning of any book.
"We would strongly oppose any attempt to offend any member of any religious or ethnic group. We are committed to religious tolerance," said a spokesman for Prime Minister David Cameron.
The plan has also sparked condemnation from Iran, the Vatican, Nato and the top US Afghan commander.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called it "disgraceful".
Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki warned that the burning could "provoke the reaction of all Muslims as well as that of the faithful of other religions".
"American statesmen should carry out their obligations in providing the basic and fundamental rights of American Muslims and should prevent the promotion of such obscene and indecent plans," the official Irna news agency quoted him as saying.
On Monday General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Afghanistan, had warned troops' lives would be in danger if the church went ahead with its bonfire.
President Obama, you're a damned fool.
What are you going to do, send in the national guard to prevent Terry Jones' congregation from destroying their own private property? Will there be new legislation to list items that may not be treated disrespectfully? Shall we surrender a few more liberties because religious zealots are threatening us? Obama can do nothing and should do nothing; he accomplishes nothing by complaining about it, other than being part of the mob confirming the madness of the defenders of faith.
And to suggest that some guy burning a book in a remote land will incite more anti-American sentiment is absurd. We've got drones buzzing over Iraq and Afghanistan killing people with a push of a button; we've got an armed force occupying those countries; we have bombed their infrastructure into rubble. We've killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims. And now we're to believe that their love of the West will be suddenly devastated by a video of paper burning on youtube? Get a grip, man.
The United States does have an obligation to protect the basic and fundamental rights of all Americans, and that includes allowing them to burn their own property, in addition to allowing them to practice the religion of their choice.
Here's a hint for appropriate responses. When someone tells you it's an outrage to burn a bible or a Koran, shrug your shoulders and say, "So what? It's their own book." When someone announces that they are going to riot and murder because they are offended, look at them like they're insane, and explain that offending someone is not a capital crime.
The problem isn't a few books being burned; that's not a crime, and it doesn't diminish anyone else's personal freedoms. The problem is a whole fleet of deranged wackaloons, including the president of the USA in addition to raving fundamentalist fanatics, who think open, public criticism and disagreement ought to be forbidden, somehow.
And seriously, this whole silly contretemps would have evaporated if a few people learned to shrug their shoulders and react rationally instead of feeding the fury with Serious Pronouncements and Reprovals.
Comments
-
"No, the real lesson was that mobs of people will react with irrational freakish hysteria to the idea that other people don't believe as they do."
And this doesn't just go for religious people, this goes for all kinds of people who feel their beliefs have been disrespected and/or disregarded.
"There have been some interesting studies in brainwashing. It has been shown that you're brainwashed when you take on or "introject" an idea that isn't yours, that is someone else's. And the funny thing is that you'll be ready to die for this idea. Isn't that strange? The first test of whether you've been brainwashed and have introjected convictions and beliefs occurs the moment they're attacked. You feel stunned, you react emotionally. That's a pretty good sign - not infallible, but a pretty good sign - that we're dealing with brainwashing. You're ready to die for an idea that never was yours. Terrorists or saints (so called) take on an idea, swallow it whole, and are ready to die for it. It's not easy to listen, especially when you get emotional about an idea." ~ Anthony DeMello -
tl;dr ...............
-
The dude's whole point is stupid. Muslims being outraged about the Qurann being burned is not simply a matter of them getting mad because someone doesn't hold the book in as high regard as they do. It's a direct response to disrespect thrown their way. Any group religious or otherwise is going to be formed based on certain things that keep them together. For families it's their bloodlines, for religions it's their doctrines, for countries it's their national connection. If you go out of your way to disrespect the group and attack the ties that bind them, then it should be expected that they will be united against that action.
He's trying to make it seem like Catholic outrage resulted from the destruction of a ? . That's not the case, it's not the ? that was the issue. It was the symbolism. They weren't responding to the fact that he descrated something trivial. They were responding to the fact that he did that as a blatant effort to ? on their beliefs. Of course people will be mad when you do that. The same thing goes with this preacher. It's not just the fact that he's burning books or he doesn't care about the Qurann as much as a Muslim. It's the fact that his actions are basically a big "? You" to that entire group. How do you expect them to respond? How does anyone respond when they get slapped in the face? That's what things like this are, slaps to the face of these groups. Yes, it's easy to do desecrate something that means nothing to you, however, why do something silly like that to prove a point without at least trying to understand what it means to others? Again, it's not a matter of people being mad because someone else doesn't believe as they do. It's a matter of people who believe a certain way being mad because someone else attacks their beliefs for no other reason than to make a ? point. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »It's a matter of people who believe a certain way being mad because someone else attacks their beliefs for no other reason than to make a ? point.
Oh know, someone attacked my beliefs and disrespected something I hold dear, oh my, whatever am I to do?
You laugh at their ignorance and keep it moving.
But they won't because they've introjected the beliefs, made it a part of who they are and feel personally attacked and insulted and then proceed to defend the ill perceived attack at all costs. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Oh know, someone attacked my beliefs and disrespected something I hold dear, oh my, whatever am I to do?
You laugh at their ignorance and keep it moving.
But they won't because they've introjected the beliefs, made it a part of who they are and feel personally attacked and insulted and then proceed to defend the ill perceived attack at all costs.
That's what it means to believe in something or hold it dear. If you have no personal investment in a belief, then you don't really believe in it. Like I said, the same argument can be made for any group and any ties that bind the members of that group. If you go call some guy's mom a ? while they are walking together. He's going to be ready to fight over that. From a logical perspective, there is no reason to react so strongly to a verbal assault on a woman just because you two are genetically tied. However, people are not purely logical. We have emotions and we make attachments. Those things also drive our behavior. I'm not saying some people don't go overboard. Yes, it's ridiculous to try and ? someone because they burned a Bible. However, when a person commits that act expressly to antagonize a group of people, and those people in turn are angered, you can't turn around and say their actions are wrong or unfounded. That's stupid. And you can't say that they are only acting that way out of lack of respect for your right not to believe as they do. That's stupider. They were respecting your rights just fine until you went out of your way to disrespect them. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »That's what it means to believe in something or hold it dear. If you have no personal investment in a belief, then you don't really believe in it. Like I said, the same argument can be made for any group and any ties that bind the members of that group.
And that person will still be just as wrong, as the OP's article is trying to point out. The general lunacy that certain things are above reproach... pffftttIf you go call some guy's mom a ? while they are walking together. He's going to be ready to fight over that. From a logical perspective, there is no reason to react so strongly to a verbal assault on a woman just because you two are genetically tied. However, people are not purely logical.
Obviously. But the funny thing would be if that persons mom was really a ? , what then?We have emotions and we make attachments. Those things also drive our behavior. I'm not saying some people don't go overboard. Yes, it's ridiculous to try and ? someone because they burned a Bible. However, when a person commits that act expressly to antagonize a group of people, and those people in turn are angered, you can't turn around and say their actions are wrong or unfounded. That's stupid.
Actually, you can say it's wrong... unfounded, well they were antagonized. Not to be disrespectful, but for you to say that it is stupid, is stupid in it self. Nothing justifies any type of retalitory actions inless it is in direct defense of you and or your loved one from PHYSICAL harm. But you can say they are wrong, IMO. Why, well if there are things that do not affect your way of life and have no detrimental impact, it SHOULD be shrugged off, but as you said, people are not logical... for that matter humans are far from logical creatures... at first.And you can't say that they are only acting that way out of lack of respect for your right not to believe as they do. That's stupider. They were respecting your rights just fine until you went out of your way to disrespect them.
I highly doubt being condemned to a fictional place is respectful based on the fact that one is not aligned with others personal beliefs... now that is stupid. But history shows that those that were 'different' were silenced, forced to disassociate themselves with what THEY believed for that of the majority, or burned at the stake. Our known history of religiosity and THEIR actions towards non believers completely refute your statement of respect and how it's more stupid. -
kingjust627 wrote: »And that person will still be just as wrong, as the OP's article is trying to point out. The general lunacy that certain things are above reproach... pfffttt
Again, people's actions aren't simply about their beliefs being reproached or criticizes. The problem is people ? on the beliefs of others just to make silly points. It's disrespectful and right or wrong, people react strongly when things that are dear to them are disrespected. This is human nature not some simple characteristic of religious people as the author is trying to imply.Obviously. But the funny thing would be if that persons mom was really a ? , what then?
That might be that person's opinion, but it's not the opinion of the son and as a result the son will defend his mother and rightly so.Actually, you can say it's wrong... unfounded, well they were antagonized. Not to be disrespectful, but for you to say that it is stupid, is stupid in it self. Nothing justifies any type of retalitory actions inless it is in direct defense of you and or your loved one from PHYSICAL harm. But you can say they are wrong, IMO. Why, well if there are things that do not affect your way of life and have no detrimental impact, it SHOULD be shrugged off, but as you said, people are not logical... for that matter humans are far from logical creatures... at first.
lol How is it wrong? If I do something expressly to ? you off, and you get ? off, there is nothing wrong there. It's the intended consequence of an action. You're acting like people are robots. We're not. People have feelings and they have things they attach those feelings too. That's the way humans are designed. Some do it more and some do it less, but all of us do it to some degree. So yes, it's stupid to intentionally play on that fact in an effort to get a reaction and then complain when you get the exact reaction that you're looking for. That doesn't make sense. That's like blowing up a balloon til it pops and then being mad at the balloon because it popped. Everyone has a breaking point, and people like the author of that article purposely push people to that point just to illustrate that there is a point.I highly doubt being condemned to a fictional place is respectful based on the fact that one is not aligned with others personal beliefs... now that is stupid. But history shows that those that were 'different' were silenced, forced to disassociate themselves with what THEY believed for that of the majority, or burned at the stake. That right there completely refutes your statement of respect and how it's more stupid.
I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here. If you believe in Hell then you don't believe that any man or woman is the one that condemns anyone to Hell. That's the work of ? . If you don't believe in hell then why should you even care if someone who does believe in Hell says your actions will send you there? Either way that's not a matter of respect. If someone believes that certain actions take you to hell and you commit those actions, then they believe you will go to hell. It has nothing to do with you not aligning your beliefs with their own. It's simply a consequence of their beliefs. Respect doesn't come into place unless they try to forcefully make you think and act they way they want. Sometimes that does happen, but that is usually the work of extremists or fools.
As for the second point, I'm really not sure where you're going. Yes, humans in general tend to persecute people that are different. Race, religion, sexual preference, and a huge amount of things have been used as reason to divide and destroy. What does that have to do with what we're talking about now? The author of that article hadn't been attacked by a gang of catholics. They weren't antagonizing him or angry with him until he went out of his way to try and ? them off. Then, he got a backlash. So what exactly did his action prove other than if you screw with people they will react? Was it really necessary to do what he did to prove that point? -
You have the right to disrespect people.The Lonious Monk wrote: »The dude's whole point is stupid. Muslims being outraged about the Qurann being burned is not simply a matter of them getting mad because someone doesn't hold the book in as high regard as they do. It's a direct response to disrespect thrown their way.
You do not have the right to never be disrespected.
And you certainly don't have the right to ? people because they disrespected you.
Actually, for Catholics, the ? is not symbolic. It is literally turned into the body of Jesus Christ when the priest says the magic words over it.He's trying to make it seem like Catholic outrage resulted from the destruction of a ? . That's not the case, it's not the ? that was the issue. It was the symbolism.
Being mad is perfectly acceptable.It's a matter of people who believe a certain way being mad because someone else attacks their beliefs for no other reason than to make a ? point.
Threatening violence or carrying through with it is not.
And the reason the belief was attacked in the first place was not simply to "make a ? point." It was to demonstrate that religion does not have the authority to demand that everybody respect its rituals.
Both Christianity and Islam have developed authoritarian defense mechanisms over the centuries, but in an increasingly secular world, they both have to learn that the day of their supremacy is over. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »That's what it means to believe in something or hold it dear. From a logical perspective, there is no reason to react so strongly to a verbal assault. However, people are not purely logical.
There are many people who believe things and hold them very dear to the their heart that do not react that way. Do want to know why? You answered it yourself. Because it's not logical. These people reacting like this are behaving irrationally, as was stated. True people are not purely logical, however the logical mind ought to be stronger than the reactive animal mind. What is asinine is to think something as non-physical as a thought or belief could be attacked in the first place.
You seem to be missing that if they didn't behave so irrationally to something like this, there would be no point in burning the books or throwing the ? in the garbage. It was done expressly for the FACT that they behave so illogically to something that ultimately has no bearing on the strength of their faith, their specific faith ect. Though they irrational believe it does and react accordingly, which is insane behavior.
Also, the book burning people, are behaving just as irrationally and insane as the rest. Its not a logical course of action but rather an emotional one. -
Both of you are missing the point I'm making. Am I saying that jumping off the handle because someone disrespects something you believe in is the best action? No, I'm not. However, it is simple human nature to react strongly to an attack on something that's dear to you.
Of course it's not logical. We also aren't Vulcans. Not everything that humans do are logical. Some things are based on instinct, others on emotion, and still others on intuition.
As a matter of fact, I don't even understand what point you're trying to make anymore. You say something like:You seem to be missing that if they didn't behave so irrationally to something like this, there would be no point in burning the books or throwing the ? in the garbage. It was done expressly for the FACT that they behave so illogically to something that ultimately has no bearing on the strength of their faith, their specific faith ect.
I've already said this. How am I missing anything? I explicity stated that this guy was doing this because he knew exactly what kind of reaction he would get. I'm saying that's stupid, because it's no secret that people behave that way. It's hardwired into us. Everyone has something that's important enough to them that they would react irrationaly too protect. You athiests don't believe in religion so of course you don't feel that way about those types of beliefs. However, there is something in your life that you do be it a family member, prized possession, other type of belief whatever.
Basically I'm pointing out two silly things about what this guy is saying. First of all, he's trying to make the argument that people attack others for simply not believing in the same thing. That's true, there are people who do that. Yet, he believes that desecrating objects that are sacred to others and then noting the bad response is proof of that. What I'm saying is that his actions don't prove his premise. There is a difference in simply believing what you believe and being attacked for it and ? on what someone else believes and being attacked for it. If someone sent him death threats simply because he was an athiest then he'd have a point. However, doing everything you can to ? religious people off and then saying "Oh, look they are mad at me" doesn't prove anything other than you're a ? and people when pushed far enough will weary of your antics.
Secondly, it's not great revelation to show that people don't always act rationally and logically. This should be known by anyone who actually understands logic. So, his little demonstrations are like peforming an experiment to show that water is wet. They are stupid. And then he tries to apply this reasoning to bash religion. The problem is, it's not a religious issue. It's a human issue. Because people react in the same way about issues that aren't related to religion at all. Look at the fiasco with Lebron. It's completely irrational for people to go to the lengths that they did to express distaste the actions of a basketball player, but they did. Why? Because people aren't solely logical beings. That has nothing to do with religion. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Both of you are missing the point I'm making. Am I saying that jumping off the handle because someone disrespects something you believe in is the best action? No, I'm not. However, it is simple human nature to react strongly to an attack on something that's dear to you.
Of course it's not logical. We also aren't Vulcans. Not everything that humans do are logical. Some things are based on instinct, others on emotion, and still others on intuition.
As a matter of fact, I don't even understand what point you're trying to make anymore. You say something like:
I've already said this. How am I missing anything? I explicity stated that this guy was doing this because he knew exactly what kind of reaction he would get. I'm saying that's stupid, because it's no secret that people behave that way. It's hardwired into us. Everyone has something that's important enough to them that they would react irrationaly too protect. You athiests don't believe in religion so of course you don't feel that way about those types of beliefs. However, there is something in your life that you do be it a family member, prized possession, other type of belief whatever.
Basically I'm pointing out two silly things about what this guy is saying. First of all, he's trying to make the argument that people attack others for simply not believing in the same thing. That's true, there are people who do that. Yet, he believes that desecrating objects that are sacred to others and then noting the bad response is proof of that. What I'm saying is that his actions don't prove his premise. There is a difference in simply believing what you believe and being attacked for it and ? on what someone else believes and being attacked for it. If someone sent him death threats simply because he was an athiest then he'd have a point. However, doing everything you can to ? religious people off and then saying "Oh, look they are mad at me" doesn't prove anything other than you're a ? and people when pushed far enough will weary of your antics.
Secondly, it's not great revelation to show that people don't always act rationally and logically. This should be known by anyone who actually understands logic. So, his little demonstrations are like peforming an experiment to show that water is wet. They are stupid. And then he tries to apply this reasoning to bash religion. The problem is, it's not a religious issue. It's a human issue. Because people react in the same way about issues that aren't related to religion at all. Look at the fiasco with Lebron. It's completely irrational for people to go to the lengths that they did to express distaste the actions of a basketball player, but they did. Why? Because people aren't solely logical beings. That has nothing to do with religion.
I understand your point.
The issue comes down to them wanting to do physical harm to americans all b/c this pastor wants to burn their holy book. Totally unreasonable right. However, the fact this professor seems to ignore is that these are unreasonable ppl. We are at war w/these irrational ppl, so it makes perfect sense for them to want to do harm to americans and even recruit b/c of this pastors actions that will be seen by millions online and tv.
Im just stuck on the president being a fool for saying, "burning copies of the koran on the anniversary of 9/11 would be a recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda... That by burning the books it could endanger us military personnel serving in pakistan and afghanistan."
I'm trying to figure out what exactly the president said that was foolish.
It's true.
And I didn't hear him say he was going to stop Terry Jones from doing anything. New legislation... seriously?
The FACT of the matter is, we're dealing w/unreasonable ppl. The FACT is, these ppl said that if the burning takes place they'll do such and such. They don't care what we think is right or wrong. Why shouldn't the president say something about what this pastors doing thats essentially going to put thousands of american soldiers at risk?? How is this foolish.
What's foolish is this pastor doing this dumb ? and this professor claiming that it won't incite more anti-American sentiment from not only fanatical terrorist but moderate muslims as well. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The dude's whole point is stupid. Muslims being outraged about the Qurann being burned is not simply a matter of them getting mad because someone doesn't hold the book in as high regard as they do. It's a direct response to disrespect thrown their way. Any group religious or otherwise is going to be formed based on certain things that keep them together.
This.
You say "? you" to somebody, don't act surprised when they say "? you" right back.
Oh and Jones ain't burnin ? cuz he felt da heat from all sides and ? out, so.... -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »And you certainly don't have the right to ? people because they disrespected you.
Sure you do. You ever been to a inner city nightclub? -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »I've already said this. How am I missing anything? I explicity stated that this guy was doing this because he knew exactly what kind of reaction he would get. I'm saying that's stupid, because it's no secret that people behave that way. It's hardwired into us. Everyone has something that's important enough to them that they would react irrationaly too protect. You athiests don't believe in religion so of course you don't feel that way about those types of beliefs. However, there is something in your life that you do be it a family member, prized possession, other type of belief whatever.
Basically I'm pointing out two silly things about what this guy is saying. First of all, he's trying to make the argument that people attack others for simply not believing in the same thing. That's true, there are people who do that. Yet, he believes that desecrating objects that are sacred to others and then noting the bad response is proof of that. What I'm saying is that his actions don't prove his premise. There is a difference in simply believing what you believe and being attacked for it and ? on what someone else believes and being attacked for it. If someone sent him death threats simply because he was an athiest then he'd have a point. However, doing everything you can to ? religious people off and then saying "Oh, look they are mad at me" doesn't prove anything other than you're a ? and people when pushed far enough will weary of your antics.
Secondly, it's not great revelation to show that people don't always act rationally and logically. This should be known by anyone who actually understands logic. So, his little demonstrations are like peforming an experiment to show that water is wet. They are stupid. And then he tries to apply this reasoning to bash religion. The problem is, it's not a religious issue. It's a human issue. Because people react in the same way about issues that aren't related to religion at all. Look at the fiasco with Lebron. It's completely irrational for people to go to the lengths that they did to express distaste the actions of a basketball player, but they did. Why? Because people aren't solely logical beings. That has nothing to do with religion.
First of all, I'm technically not an atheist.
Secondly, did you miss this part?
"I publicly destroyed a communion wafer once (OK, a few times). There was a simple reason for it: a few Catholics had responded hysterically to a student who didn't swallow a wafer with harrassment and threats, and I was demonstrating that that was not acceptable — religious believers may not demand that non-believers grant the same reverence to their rituals and beliefs that they have. "
The lesson of that incident wasn't that you can find some ? somewhere who will disrespect what some group finds holy — that was trivial and uninteresting, No, the real lesson was that mobs of people will react with irrational freakish hysteria to the idea that other people don't believe as they do.
What I was saying was that it was crazy to believe a ? turns into Jesus, and what all the outraged Catholics were doing is confirming to an awesome degree just how mad their beliefs were, with their prolonged and excessive outrage.
The problem isn't a few books being burned; that's not a crime, and it doesn't diminish anyone else's personal freedoms. The problem is a whole fleet of deranged wackaloons, including the president of the USA in addition to raving fundamentalist fanatics, who think open, public criticism and disagreement ought to be forbidden, somehow.
Him destroying the ? had nothing to do with just trying to ? people off. He said he did it because "a few Catholics had responded hysterically to a student who didn't swallow a wafer with harrassment and threats" and was demonstrating that "religious believers may not demand that non-believers grant the same reverence to their rituals and beliefs that they have." But they do do this, and they have no right to. They have no justified, rational or logical reason to demand others hold the same reverence as they do, and you can tell they expect that by how they react when someone doesn't. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »First of all, I'm technically not an atheist.
Secondly, did you miss this part?
"I publicly destroyed a communion wafer once (OK, a few times). There was a simple reason for it: a few Catholics had responded hysterically to a student who didn't swallow a wafer with harrassment and threats, and I was demonstrating that that was not acceptable — religious believers may not demand that non-believers grant the same reverence to their rituals and beliefs that they have. "
The lesson of that incident wasn't that you can find some ? somewhere who will disrespect what some group finds holy — that was trivial and uninteresting, No, the real lesson was that mobs of people will react with irrational freakish hysteria to the idea that other people don't believe as they do.
What I was saying was that it was crazy to believe a ? turns into Jesus, and what all the outraged Catholics were doing is confirming to an awesome degree just how mad their beliefs were, with their prolonged and excessive outrage.
The problem isn't a few books being burned; that's not a crime, and it doesn't diminish anyone else's personal freedoms. The problem is a whole fleet of deranged wackaloons, including the president of the USA in addition to raving fundamentalist fanatics, who think open, public criticism and disagreement ought to be forbidden, somehow.
Him destroying the ? had nothing to do with just trying to ? people off. He said he did it because "a few Catholics had responded hysterically to a student who didn't swallow a wafer with harrassment and threats" and was demonstrating that "religious believers may not demand that non-believers grant the same reverence to their rituals and beliefs that they have." But they do do this, and they have no right to. They have no justified, rational or logical reason to demand others hold the same reverence as they do, and you can tell they expect that by how they react when someone doesn't.
The point is, the president didn't say burning korans should be forbidden, he responded in a very rational way by stating that by burning the koran this pastor is putting our troops and national security at risk.
Lets say al sharpton decided to hold "a burn police uniform day" for the sean bell anniversary? Would it be wise for the president to speak against an act like that? Would he be foolish to say that by doing he would putting civilians at risk for retaliation by rouge officers? I mean, they have the right to do it, but it will only cause more problems, right? So wouldn't it be wise for a person like the president to say that it isn't a good idea? Would him saying that be a foolish thing to do? -
Swiffness! wrote: »Sure you do. You ever been to a inner city nightclub?
LOL @ even bothering to ask KTULU if he's ever been to a place that involves that level of real-life social interaction. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The dude's whole point is stupid. Muslims being outraged about the Qurann being burned is not simply a matter of them getting mad because someone doesn't hold the book in as high regard as they do. It's a direct response to disrespect thrown their way. Any group religious or otherwise is going to be formed based on certain things that keep them together. For families it's their bloodlines, for religions it's their doctrines, for countries it's their national connection. If you go out of your way to disrespect the group and attack the ties that bind them, then it should be expected that they will be united against that action.
He's trying to make it seem like Catholic outrage resulted from the destruction of a ? . That's not the case, it's not the ? that was the issue. It was the symbolism. They weren't responding to the fact that he descrated something trivial. They were responding to the fact that he did that as a blatant effort to ? on their beliefs. Of course people will be mad when you do that. The same thing goes with this preacher. It's not just the fact that he's burning books or he doesn't care about the Qurann as much as a Muslim. It's the fact that his actions are basically a big "? You" to that entire group. How do you expect them to respond? How does anyone respond when they get slapped in the face? That's what things like this are, slaps to the face of these groups. Yes, it's easy to do desecrate something that means nothing to you, however, why do something silly like that to prove a point without at least trying to understand what it means to others? Again, it's not a matter of people being mad because someone else doesn't believe as they do. It's a matter of people who believe a certain way being mad because someone else attacks their beliefs for no other reason than to make a ? point.
shut this desperate attempt at "logical rationale " down rather quickly with this post.
Great post -
The point is, the president didn't say burning korans should be forbidden, he responded in a very rational way by stating that by burning the koran this pastor is putting our troops and national security at risk.
Lets say al sharpton decided to hold "a burn police uniform day" for the sean bell anniversary? Would it be wise for the president to speak against an act like that? Would he be foolish to say that by doing he would putting civilians at risk for retaliation by rouge officers? I mean, they have the right to do it, but it will only cause more problems, right? So wouldn't it be wise for a person like the president to say that it isn't a good idea? Would him saying that be a foolish thing to do?
these people just do not get it man....its crazy
like their brain is malfunctioning of common sense. -
these people just do not get it man....its crazy
like their brain is malfunctioning of common sense.
You just can't think outside the box. Like a zombie or some ? b. -
Looks like Mr. KTULU failed with this one.
Maybe next "round" -
The point is, the president didn't say burning korans should be forbidden, he responded in a very rational way by stating that by burning the koran this pastor is putting our troops and national security at risk.
Lets say al sharpton decided to hold "a burn police uniform day" for the sean bell anniversary? Would it be wise for the president to speak against an act like that? Would he be foolish to say that by doing he would putting civilians at risk for retaliation by rouge officers? I mean, they have the right to do it, but it will only cause more problems, right? So wouldn't it be wise for a person like the president to say that it isn't a good idea? Would him saying that be a foolish thing to do?
I'm not talking anything about what Obama said. So your post to me is moot. -
Looks like Mr. KTULU failed with this one.
Maybe next "round"
actually, i responded to lonious monk's disagreement with the premise
he did not respond to me, yet -
GOTDAYUM at the titangraphs in this thread... all this tl;dr
-
btw Ktulu, desecrating a Communion wafer isn't even considered a sin if the wafer isn't consecrated. Srsly. Unless dude went to mass, waited in line, then dashed out the door as soon as the priest placed it in his palm, he totally ? failed at blasphemy right there. Please tell your atheist buddies to get it right if they wanna offend people.
-
Swiffness! wrote: »btw Ktulu, desecrating a Communion wafer isn't even considered a sin if the wafer isn't consecrated. Srsly. Unless dude went to mass, waited in line, then dashed out the door as soon as the priest placed it in his palm, he totally ? failed at blasphemy right there. Please tell your atheist buddies to get it right if they wanna offend people.
he had it smuggled out of a church after it was consecrated
