It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Christians In Tasmania Take To Streets In Rage And Riot Over Depiction Of Gay Jesus

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's where we're headed unless we start being more flexible and realizing that other people have the same rights as we do to express themselves. Get over it. This planet and its people are changing and growing. Either get used to it or be miserable.


BH, I totally agree. However, I think personal responsibility must also come into play.

Tolerance is an exercise of restraint.

I'm not offended by either the Jesus pics or the Mohammad pics... but I do wonder why so many are willing to wave them around knowing the provocation they represent?

In my view, it appears some have moved the issue from beyond a free speech issue into one that has altogether a different agenda.

Poor taste, is still poor taste.




posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
BH, I totally agree. However, I think personal responsibility must also come into play.


I agree. But since when do I (or we or the public) dictate another's PERSONAL responsibility? If it's personal, then it's for him to decide, isn't it? (Haven't you listened to My Rights vs Your Rights?)



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I find it quite interesting that I and, I suspect, most people who read this, will find this quite amusing-



Moses Action Figure

If there were a fight between the Terminator and Moses, who do you think would win? How about The Hulk and Moses? Godzilla and Moses?




Advertised here.

In the light of recent events, I wonder how the depiction of an equivalent figure from the Islamic religion, in such a trivial manner, would be promoted by people looking to destabilise matters.

Perhaps this highlights a difference in attitudes towards concepts of faith, and such like, between some in both East and West.

(Edit : Pressed wrong button...then spelling)



[edit on 10-2-2006 by KhieuSamphan]

[edit on 10-2-2006 by KhieuSamphan]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But since when do I (or we or the public) dictate another's PERSONAL responsibility? If it's personal, then it's for him to decide, isn't it?


Oh, I don't disagree, BUT! ...advocating personal responsibility is not the same thing as "dictating" it.

At a minimum, if society of any kind is ever to work, we must share a single common value.... the commitment to get along... or ...some other purpose.

The former requires tolerance. The latter requires subordination of another's values. I see these as two extremes....

I prefer the center.


I support the right of any individual to publish or use the images discussed in this thread. I do not, however, support the provocation they represent.

For me there is a BIG difference.

See this thread.



(Haven't you listened to My Rights vs Your Rights?)


Yes. Entirely. I have wanted to participate, but... thought I should wait.


[edit on 10-2-2006 by loam]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   
JungleJake


I've read so many on this board saying that Christians would react the same way under similar circumstances, and, thanks to Mr. McGowan, that has been proven false.


Where have you read that? I haven't seen ONE person say that, in any of the ubiquitous 'Islamics are Animals' type threads, you know the ones I mean. I'd like to see you back up the above quoted statement, because for the life of me I can't remember a single person saying anything even remotely like that.

I do remember a lot of people referencing the poo madonna, and saying "see, Christians are good people because nobody rioted in NY over that exhibit." Nevermind that NY aint Pakistan or Afghanistan or Iran. Nevermind all the socio-economic underpinnings of mob violence.

What people HAVE been saying is that the vast majority of muslims are moderates, and that Christianity is not innocent of crimes of intolerance, not now, not ever - that's all.

loam


Poor taste, is still poor taste.


Yeah, it is. Two things though..first, you can't effectively legislate matters of taste, it's just not feasible.

Second, and most important, HL Mencken once said "Nobody ever lost money underestimating the taste of the American public."
He also said "Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood."

I think they're both applicable in these circumstances, don't you think?

[edit on 10-2-2006 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
The cartoons of Mohammed is not the real reason why they are burning embassies. Its because of theire living coniditions and what happend in the past. You need to realize that the area's which are revolting arent enjoying economical good times.

People should pay more attention to the Muslims who solve this by means which are good like lawsuits.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   
There are a lot of people in this world that live in crappy economic conditions, I don't recall them all employing gas bombs as a solution any time something agitates them.

I understand the hurt feelings and I understand the anger, but I don't think anyone is interested in hearing excuses for firebombing embassies and other buildings with people inside.

Yeah I think a cartoon mocking a religous figure is insulting and wrong, but sorry... there is no excuse on earth that will make me or most people say "i understand" to the conduct displayed this past week.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Where have you read that? I haven't seen ONE person say that, in any of the ubiquitous 'Islamics are Animals' type threads, you know the ones I mean. I'd like to see you back up the above quoted statement, because for the life of me I can't remember a single person saying anything even remotely like that.


I'll give a couple of examples, but don't have the time to search through the rapidly growing Islamic Riots threads, and searching for "religion", "Jews", "Christians", etc. yields kinda large results.


Again ... replace the world Islamic with Jewish and then tell me your opinion .. Iam sure that you will have 180 different opinion.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


If that was turned around, and some Arab leader like Gadhafi started burning images of Jesus and taunting Christians in the media, or depicting our president in a bad light and being unapolagetic, western leaders & religious leaders would be flipping out with righteous indignation! Imagine what Pat Robertson might do or say!
He'd probably predict God would reign down pestilence upon that nation (think: nerve agent) in the not-to-distant future. Pre-indicted Tom DeLay would be shaking his chubby little fist at them from the floor the House, making his acid remarks to score points with red-meat Americans hungry for war.

politics.abovetopsecret.com...

There have been more, but again, you, too, can reread through the threads to find them.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
... you can't effectively legislate matters of taste, it's just not feasible.


I agree, and would oppose any attempt to do so. But, again, that does not absolve me from responsibility to exercise discretion where my fellow man is concerned.

In the example of the T-shirts, provided in the link above, what is really the point other than an outright provocation? Smearing a person's religious belief in this manner does little to advance the purported free speech objective they assert. Don't you think?

I may have a "right" to act like an ass, but that doesn't mean I should.



Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Second, and most important, HL Mencken once said "Nobody ever lost money underestimating the taste of the American public."
He also said "Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood."

I think they're both applicable in these circumstances, don't you think?



I can not disagree.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
can anyone give me a link that shows this "offensive art " or something im just curious to see what u guys are talking about



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I think we've hit on something we disagree on. I am what you probably consider as an extremist on this freedom of speech issue. That's ok, though.



Originally posted by loam
But, again, that does not absolve me from responsibility to exercise discretion where my fellow man is concerned.


It is your choice to practice freedom of speech responsibly and I support it. And I also (most of the time) choose to be responsible when practicing mine. But not always. And that's my choice. It is each man's choice. And none deserve it more than any other, regardless of their reasons or how much of a jerk they are.

If EVERYONE practiced the same personal responsibility as you do when using freedom of speech, we probably wouldn't need freedom of speech. F of S is for those times (like the carton and the t-shirts) when people are NOT acting particularly responsibly.

They have a point to make. It's not my place to tell them whether or not it's valid. I support the t-shirts. I don't care what his reasons are. I don't care if he's a major butt munch. He, too, has the right to express himself.



In the example of the T-shirts, provided in the link above, what is really the point other than an outright provocation?


It doesn't matter what the point is. It doesn't matter if you can understand his desire to make and distribute the shirt. It's not your call, it's his (or hers).


Originally posted by loam
Yes. Entirely. I have wanted to participate, but... thought I should wait.


What are ya waiting for???



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
It is no art to mix Jesus with orgies, as it is no art to show Muhammad with a bomb in his turban.

Freedom of one begins where the freedom of another one ends.

I think all the 'artists' that are doing this are doing it on purpose: they are provocators.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
BH:

Now you are gonna make me answer this in two places...


I think you are confusing the difference between government restraint and personal restraint in the exercise of free speech. Free speech must be protected by law...and from government intrusion. I will always believe that.

When I refer to the personal restraint side of the issue, what I am arguing is that if we fail in our exercise of restraint, and in its absence fail to remain tolerant, there can never be a reasonable expectation for a civil society.

I will not advocate the path to senseless escalation. It is not the responsibility of government to regulate this matter, but it is of the individual. Otherwise, we truly are nothing more than self-interested savages.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Now you are gonna make me answer this in two places...



I won't do that anymore. Sorry
You know how lucious it is to have intelligent debate going in TWO threads!




I think you are confusing the difference between government restraint and personal restraint in the exercise of free speech.


I'm not arguing that point. I realize that you are speaking not of government interference, but of personal judgment and restraint. So that's out of the way.



When I refer to the personal restraint side of the issue, what I am arguing is that if we fail in our exercise of restraint, and in its absence fail to remain tolerant, there can never be a reasonable expectation for a civil society.


I agree with this very statement, BUT... The fault here lies not with those who would express themselves unrestrained, but with those who are intolerant of it and take action against the 'offenders'. I think this is an absoute.

We have a personal choice to be offended or not. It is VERY possible to be offended by what someone says or does and then to sit down to tea with them and enjoy their company. THAT'S tolerance.

In your above supposition, I believe the person who fails to remain tolerant is at fault. I believe that's what's missing in this equasion, NOT restraint on Free Speech. Sure, coupled together, unrestrained free speech and intolerance will lead to destruction, but it's the intolerance that is the problem element.

Is it more responsible to be restrained to avoid causing waves? Probably. Is it the more civilized thing to do? Certainly seems that way. Will it cause resentment and feelings of bitterness toward the intolerant? I think so, yes.

I think Political Correctness (personal restraint) is actually giving people free license to be offended more and more easily and causing resentment that we cannot just all be who we are (different) without having to be careful of offending others. And then when we are offended, we sue people because we think we have a right to NOT be offended.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
We have a personal choice to be offended or not. It is VERY possible to be offended by what someone says or does and then to sit down to tea with them and enjoy their company. THAT'S tolerance.


That offends me so much!!! Why...I'm going to get a Coke that upset me so much!!!


It seems on this issue of free speech, BH, we are 100% in agreement.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
I think the reason we didnt see rioting in Tasmania is two fold. The first reason is that most of the people wouldnt have homes to return to in other countries after they riot. The 2nd reason is more complicated christian reglions have been diluted for example not everyone gose to church or gives any notice to the christian view of society. The other possiblity is that some members of christian reglions realized that if they didnt adopted they would lose there grip on the population.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Did not the exocist movie 1973 depict a cross being inserted in a vagina?

Oh that sounds raw. Yes like Jesus suffered we too have to take it on the chin because when you turn to Christ you become a victim to this world and with faith and prosection you become strong and wise and some times you learn to live with it. Jesus was humilated and rejected too but turned the other cheek.

[edit on 10-2-2006 by The time lord]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I won't do that anymore. Sorry
You know how lucious it is to have intelligent debate going in TWO threads!



One day, I'm going to author a thread concerning the evils of multitasking...



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I agree with this very statement, BUT... The fault here lies not with those who would express themselves unrestrained, but with those who are intolerant of it and take action against the 'offenders'. I think this is an absolute.

We have a personal choice to be offended or not. It is VERY possible to be offended by what someone says or does and then to sit down to tea with them and enjoy their company. THAT'S tolerance.

In your above supposition, I believe the person who fails to remain tolerant is at fault. I believe that's what's missing in this equation, NOT restraint on Free Speech. Sure, coupled together, unrestrained free speech and intolerance will lead to destruction, but it's the intolerance that is the problem element.


I fail to understand why one is more at fault than the other? The old phase, "two wrongs don't make a right," comes to mind.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Is it more responsible to be restrained to avoid causing waves? Probably. Is it the more civilized thing to do? Certainly seems that way.


I see restraint and tolerance as co-equal obligations. *IF* humanity believes it is in its best interest to craft a society that respects its diverse reality, then in must advance BOTH of those obligations....not just one of them. Your next phrase helps make the point:


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Will it cause resentment and feelings of bitterness toward the intolerant? I think so, yes.


Exactly. These are mutually dependent obligations. You can not have a civil society that respects diversity without both obligations.

Too many transgressions against either obligation and the other side starts to think you are out to "get" them.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think Political Correctness (personal restraint) is actually giving people free license to be offended more and more easily and causing resentment that we cannot just all be who we are (different) without having to be careful of offending others.
And then when we are offended, we sue people because we think we have a right to NOT be offended.



I don't understand the "giving people free license to be offended" part...
I think people take free license to be offended as an excuse not to exercise tolerance.

Isn't tolerance what you want?

Again, I maintain you need a societal commitment to both restraint and tolerance. Anything less does not work in my view...


The problem with political correctness is that it fails to require both.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
I think the reason we didnt see rioting in Tasmania is two fold. The first reason is that most of the people wouldnt have homes to return to in other countries after they riot. The 2nd reason is more complicated christian reglions have been diluted for example not everyone gose to church or gives any notice to the christian view of society. The other possiblity is that some members of christian reglions realized that if they didnt adopted they would lose there grip on the population.



huh? the muslims burned EMBASIES not their homes.....the point is Christians didnt go ape trying to pillage and burn....

diluted christianity? there are many forms under the baner of protestant alone methodist,presbyterian,lutheran, nazarene, pentecost, etc..... and then you have Catholicism, Orthodox....

dont turn this into a christian bashing.... the truth is the muslims dont practice what they preach.... ermmm.... maybe they do?!



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
I don't understand the "giving people free license to be offended" part...
I think people take free license to be offended as an excuse not to exercise tolerance.


I think I'm saying it's bluish-green and you're saying it's greenish-blue!


It's interesting that I had a very similar debate with Mr. Heretic last week about this subject.

I agree with you that society would function better if we all use both restraint and tolerance. I agree with that. But, I see that as an ideal. And, since we are human beings, we don't all operate the same way. There are gazillions of factors that make us into the characters we are as adults. Some people NEVER use tolerance. Some NEVER use restraint. It's not balanced, it's all over the place.

And when lack of restraint butts up against lack of tolerance (as in the Muslim cartoon case), one must be set to prevail. And I believe that in those cases, tolerance must bow to Free Speech. Why? Several reasons:

- Because we have a Constitutional right to Free Speech, that must not be abridged.
- Expressing myself has no bearing on anyone else. If they take my expression to bear on them, it is their choice and their problem/issue, not mine.
- We are all responsible for our feelings, whether we acknowledge that responsibility or not. I am NOT responsible for my brother's feelings.

I think we're going to have to disagree on this one. I totally see what you're saying and I am really stubborn about this FS thing. If I were religious, The Constitution would be my Bible. In fact, we could probably have some good debates about the 2nd Amemdment, too, if I'm not mistaken.


So, I'd like to propose that we feel very similarly about this subject, although not exactly the same and let it go at that. Neither has to swing the other into total agreement, especially since I don't think that's going to happen in a million years. I love ya, though.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join