Islam vs free speech.

take everything

This intrigues me more and more.
Could this only becoming self-fulfilling.
I mean, the whole world has now seen that a stupid video can inflame some groups of Muslims to murder.
What now.
Surely we can only expect more of this.

And where exactly does the responsibility lie (squarely and only with those doing the murdering i would imagine).
It seems amazing that a kid at home, through say a Youtube video, can use such volatility as a tool to spark this stuff off again. For the lulz or whatever.

Thoughts.

Procrastastudy

take everything wrote: »

This intrigues me more and more.
Could this only becoming self-fulfilling.
I mean, the whole world has now seen that a stupid video can inflame some groups of Muslims to murder.
What now.
Surely we can only expect more of this.

And where exactly does the responsibility lie (squarely and only with those doing the murdering i would imagine).
It seems amazing that a kid at home, through say a Youtube video, can use such volatility as a tool to spark this stuff off again. For the lulz or whatever.

Thoughts.

I'm not sure what you're title was meant to convey? Many Muslims have come forward to state that the correct response would be a peaceful protest. A position I agree with.

take everything

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're title was meant to convey? Many Muslims have come forward to state that the correct response would be a peaceful protest. A position I agree with.

I'm talking about the small group of Muslims who are doing this (in the name of Islam) of course.

Pawwed Rig

These guys are just looking for an excuse to riot about something. It goes to show how little they have to give out about when they have to resort to finding such an obscure low budget movie that would never of had more than a couple of thousand people viewing it had it not been so well publicised by arab TV.

They are being baited by the local media in their countries who could have just ignored this film like the other 99.9999% of the world.


There are so many religions in the world that many forms of expression will be offensive to one of them. It is impossible for us to be sensitive to everyone’s religion. There are parts of other religions that I would find offensive but I would never dream of trying to impose my beliefs on a people thousands of miles away.
I think Obama and Clinton handled this very badly. They should have said they believe in freedom of speech and expression and left it at that.

Gurgle

take everything wrote: »

I mean, the whole world has now seen that a stupid video can inflame some groups of Muslims to murder.
What now.
Surely we can only expect more of this.

And where exactly does the responsibility lie (squarely and only with those doing the murdering i would imagine).
It seems amazing that a kid at home, through say a Youtube video, can use such volatility as a tool to spark this stuff off again. For the lulz or whatever.

Thoughts.

I think you're making a good point, though its a bit tangled.

We've seen in the last couple of weeks that a badly made zero budget hate-flick can get a lot of people all wound up in righteous and riotous indignation.

There are plenty of mis-educated ultra-right-wing Christians in the world who now think their hatred of Muslims has been proven correct by this reaction.

And now they know how to wind them up.

Gurgle

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

They are being baited by the local media in their countries who could have just ignored this film like the other 99.9999% of the world.

That's a damn good point, I wonder how many of the protestors would ever have heard of it if the national news didn't make sure.
Don't underestimate the power of propaganda in the western world either, just look at the ongoing Public sector debate, and the ignorant rants all over boards.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

There are so many religions in the world that many forms of expression will be offensive to one of them. It is impossible for us to be sensitive to everyone’s religion.

There is a big difference though between risking offense and going out of your way to cause offense. I think its pretty clear what was going on with this one.

philologos

Gurgle wrote: »

I think you're making a good point, though its a bit tangled.

We've seen in the last couple of weeks that a badly made zero budget hate-flick can get a lot of people all wound up in righteous and riotous indignation.

There are plenty of mis-educated ultra-right-wing Christians in the world who now think their hatred of Muslims has been proven correct by this reaction.

And now they know how to wind them up.

How would you define an ultra-right wing Christian?

It's still interesting to note that in the West and particularly in Europe Christianity is ridiculed in the media time and time again, and in some cases demonised or regarded as inherently harmful yet you rarely if ever see such a reaction from evangelical Christians or those who could be considered fundamentalist according to secular society.

Denerick

philologos wrote: »

How would you define an ultra-right wing Christian?

It's still interesting to note that in the West and particularly in Europe Christianity is ridiculed in the media time and time again, and in some cases demonised or regarded as inherently harmful yet you rarely if ever see such a reaction from evangelical Christians or those who could be considered fundamentalist according to secular society.

Since we're on the subject of relatively small groups causing chaos in Islamic countries with violent protest, it would be helpful to remind ourselves of the influence of quasi violent white nationalist/racist christian groups in the American south during the 60s and 70s. (And long before that, of course)

philologos

I think you'd be at a real stretch to justify racism as Christian. The Bible certainly precludes it if we look to Jesus' example in the New Testament. I don't think the KKK are comparable to death over violent protests over blasphemy.

The only situations I can think of were where Christianity was abused to justify political goals. First century Christianity didn't encourage killing others over disagreement, and neither does Christianity today. Rather, it is when Christianity was conflated with political agendas and goals that such deaths arose.

The reality is that in this decade and in many previous Christianity has not encouraged violent protest and Biblical Christianity doesn't either particularly if we look to the example of authorities in Romans 13.

Denerick

philologos wrote: »

I think you'd be at a real stretch to justify racism as Christian. The Bible certainly precludes it if we look to Jesus' example in the New Testament. I don't think the KKK are comparable to death over violent protests over blasphemy.

Yet the bible can be used to justify slavery. Indeed the apartheid government of South Africa often employed quasi religious arguments to justify their racism. Calvinism has a long and ugly history of support for racist movements.

mcmoustache

Denerick wrote: »

Since we're on the subject of relatively small groups causing chaos in Islamic countries with violent protest, it would be helpful to remind ourselves of the influence of quasi violent white nationalist/racist christian groups in the American south during the 60s and 70s. (And long before that, of course)

To be fair, that group has been somewhat marginalised by other christians.

It's an interesting contrast.

philologos

Denerick wrote: »

Yet the bible can be used to justify slavery. Indeed the apartheid government of South Africa often employed quasi religious arguments to justify their racism. Calvinism has a long and ugly history of support for racist movements.

Funnily enough, I've looked to slavery in Biblical Israel on boards.ie, it's a rather different kettle of fish than colonial slavery in many many ways. Mostly in Israel, it was used for making restitution for debt. Also the Hebrew Law in Deuteronomy allowed slaves to flee and not be returned if they were subject to abuse from their master:

Deuteronomy 23:15-16 wrote:

“You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16 He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.

By the by, Paul and others encourage masters to be fair and equitable to their slaves see Ephesians 4 and Colossians 6.

The Hebrew Scriptures encourage to treat the foreigner in the land as the Israelites - encouraging them to remember that they were once foreigners in the land of Egypt themselves.

Leviticus 19:33-34 wrote:

“‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

Christianity also says whether Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female we are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28). No ethnic distinction.

It's clearly wrong to say that the Bible advocates racism when it clearly teaches that the Gospel is for everyone. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only son, so that those who believe might not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16)

In addition on Calvinism - I think it is wrong to say that because people twisted Calvinism to suit their own political ends, that predestination as it is believed in Christianity is racist.

The Christian example we have from Jesus and the Apostles says that when Christians are ridiculed and when they are scoffed at it is for the glory of the Gospel. We should turn the other cheek, we should acknowledge that this is what will happen. The Gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing but to us who are being saved it is the power of God (1 Corinthians 1:18). We are to be ready with gentleness and respect to meet others where they are at with the Gospel (1 Peter 3:16). I'm glad in the last few centuries Christians have become more and more ready to live like Jesus and for Jesus' glory.

Denerick

OK, I'm not going to debate scripture with a biblical scholar! I tip my hat to the better argued point.