Britain FUNDED writing obscentities in the Bible! *Remember!*

What double-standards! So many people condemn the Koran-burning by some radical Christian in Florida, yet most people knew of, or forgot about, Britain FUNDING an art gallery where people scribbled whatever they wanted in the Bible:

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Now personally, I am politically secular.

I have no problem with a mosque at "ground zero" because it's nothing but a building.

At the same time, the Koran is nothing but a book made of paper, and burning it is physically no different than burning an old newspaper or something like that.

Why is Islam exempt from disrespect?

The answer is: People are scared of Islam. The Pope (I don't care if you don't like him, but he's intelligent and powerful, so I'll show his views..) condemns the Koran burning, and also condemned the gov-funded defacing of the Bible. He also mentioned that the "art gallery" that allowed people to write obscenities in the Bible would NEVER have allowed the same to happen to the Koran. For those who don't know, the Koran is just as (if not more) sexist, homophobic, etc... One more thing about the pope. Remember when he mentioned (quoted an ancient script) that, "Islam has brought nothing new except violence." What happened? Muslims rioted and became violent. (Not all did, but many did.)

I'm beginning to think Islam already rules the world, or is slowly near to its goal of world domination. If a Koran cannot be burned anywhere in the world, then the whole world is under Sharia Law.

If a church in Baghdad is blown up, Christians peacefully move away, and no one cares. If a pregnant Israeli woman is gunned down, the world seems to rejoice in pleasure. When the Bible is defaced, it's either considered art or comedy. If a Koran is burned, Muslims around the world will riot and burn American flags, even if was just one pastor in a small church and not the American government funding it, as was the case in Britain with the Bible.

Just as Muslims showed their true colors by rioting when the Pope called the religion violent, they will riot like devils and demons when a church burns their Koran claiming "Islam is of the Devil."

(note: I don't hate Muslims. I'm not Islamophobic. I'm secular, and I believe that Radical Islam is not compatible with Secularism because there is no separation of church & state in Islam.)

Originally posted by bettermakings
Why is Islam exempt from disrespect?

The answer is: People are scared of Islam.

Some nice points in there.

However, I'm scared of Christianity. I'm not scared of Islam - Islam doesn't threaten my way of life in the UK.

Christianity does.

Look at the number of Christian faith schools indoctrinating our children, then look at the number of Islamic schools doing the same. Which one is more prevalent and therefore more dangerous?

Parallex.

Originally posted by Parallex
Look at the number of Christian faith schools indoctrinating our children, then look at the number of Islamic schools doing the same. Which one is more prevalent and therefore more dangerous?

I have to say, this is an interesting point for the discussion. The great danger, in my opinion, is Christian faith schools perform academical better than most - so certain parents have lied about their child's faith (Catholicism, for example) to be enlisted in a good school. Is this really a good thing, not just for society, but our education system.

A very interesting point you raise Parallex

reply to post by Parallex


Maybe there should be a survey done. Yes, people are scared of Christianity too, but are vocal about it. Many are so scared of Islam that they aren't vocal about it.

For example:

If you are an abortion doctor, there is a possibility you might get killed after working at an abortion clinic for years & years, doing partial birth abortions and so on.

If you are an artist/writer/etc, there is a possibility you might get killed for disrespecting Islam in some way, especially if it is continuous.

I think physically Islam is more of a threat, while mentally Christianity should be more feared. It's easier to convince a child that the world evolved in 6 days, than to convince them to kill anyone who insults Moh.

reply to post by bettermakings

Book burning is an ancient custom that can go back in cultural memory probably as long as writing has existed.
The German author Heinrich Heine commented in the 19th century that where books are burned, people are usually "burned" next. He wrote this about the burning of the Koran during the Inquisition. (On this and a history of Biblioclasm see en.wikipedia.org...).
When I was involved with Charismatic Christians in the early 1990s, book burning usually followed conversion. This was apparently instructed by the very Bible in Acts 19:19, where new converts in Ephesus burnt their sorcery books to the value of 50, 000 Drachmas.
The books burnt were whatever one could find on one's shelf that weren't (immoral) fiction or Christian. In my case it was books on astrology, astral travel and some Eastern philosophy and ISKCON texts (some of which I never read). People also brought their records, rock posters, tarot cards and He-Man dolls. Christian books at the time claimed that the demons in these "occult" books and toys could literally jump out of the fire and enter the pets. So all my stuff went to a pastor for burning, whose pets were annointed (still wonder if he actually burnt them though, since it all went on a church exhibition about Satanism and the youth).
The Koran could well have been included, but it simply wasn't an issue. The Muslims were pretty segregated from us, and nobody cared about it either way. The focus was then on Eastern religions, especially Hinduism, the occult and the New Age movement. Now Islam seems to have totally replaced the paranoia about the Buddha statue on the mantelpiece, or other former Eastern "devilishness".
The Church I was in did not view the physical Bible as sacrosanct (they believed it was treated as a false idol in some denominations and masonry). People scribbled, wrote and highlighted in their Bibles during the sermons.
There were however cases of Christian resistence against what they saw as blasphemy. People had stink-bombs thrown at them during performances of "Jesus Christ Superstar", and protestors pulled special screenings of the "Last Temptation of Christ" (banned then in SA). Later, at our town's gallery in the public library, they stole a Bible from an exhibit that placed it with an erect phallus. It was only returned when the artist layed a charge of theft against the Christian activists.
So this tit-for-tat burning has been going on for ages. I figure whatever has been paid for is your property to do with as you like - or don't sell it, if it's that holy. Otherwise buy it and burn it if that's your choice - you're the sucker paying the the other religion for it. But I do think the current context around this case is tasteless and downright dangerous.

Originally posted by bettermakings
I think physically Islam is more of a threat, while mentally Christianity should be more feared. It's easier to convince a child that the world evolved in 6 days, than to convince them to kill anyone who insults Moh.

You are aware, for the record, Christian fundamentalists carry out the most terrorist incidents in the United States than Islam? The same applies to Africa too. We cannot have double standards here, and simply focus on radical Islam - while ignoring extremists in other religious denominations.

Islam is an easy target for the national and international media. You can criticizing without creating a public backlash. Write an article criticizing Judaism - you're anti-Semitic, Christianity results in political correctness. While antipathies about Islam go without questioning.

An evangelical group in the United Kingdom, will find their name, advocate the stoning of homosexuals in public. And yes, that is a Christian group advocating it in Britain.

Originally posted by Parallex
Look at the number of Christian faith schools indoctrinating our children, then look at the number of Islamic schools doing the same. Which one is more prevalent and therefore more dangerous?

I think that just reflects the number of adherents that belong to the respective religions, and also because many of the Christian schools date back to a time when it was virtually the only religion in the UK.

There's only something like 4-5% of British people that are Muslims, so it's only natural that there won't be a large number of Islamic faith schools.

I personally don't have a problem with any faith school, whether it be Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc., just so long as they teach the ''normal'' stuff, as well.


As to the subject in the OP, I believe intentionally disrespecting a book that many people revere, is pretty disrespectful, and a recipe for incitement.

I see in this example, it was done under the pretext of ''art'', which can often be used as an excuse to justify any puerile activity.

I'm surprised the Florida pastor hasn't used this excuse, yet.

reply to post by bettermakings

I think physically Islam is more of a threat, while mentally Christianity should be more feared. It's easier to convince a child that the world evolved in 6 days, than to convince them to kill anyone who insults Moh.

That would depend what country or region you speak from.
I'm sure the Muslim countries bombed by "Christian America" post-9/11 saw Christianity as a very real physical threat. President Bush and several rightwing commentators used phaseology like "crusades" and deliberately fused the invasions with American Christianity. adultthought.ucsd.edu...
And how many people died in those bombings? Do we even know? A few 100 000? A real physical threat by any standards.

reply to post by bettermakings


Most of the people that I have heard object to this proposed burning of the Quran seem to be mainly concerned about the extra danger that it may bring to Western troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and also over the possibility that it may provoke terrorist attacks. We really don't need those things for the sake of such a puerile gesture.

That wasn't really an issue with the Bible thing, although I don't think either is right - bringing distress to people by wantonly offending their religious beliefs isn't right whatever religion they belong to

BTW - the thread title is a bit misleading - it was not 'Britain' that funded writing obscenities in the Bible, or the British government - it was Glasgow City Council who organised it and the Scottish Arts Council who funded it according to the article.
Nevertheless, I'm sure many people objected, just like they're objecting to the Quran-burning.

reply to post by bettermakings

Methinks the Buddhas of Bamyan (bombed by the Taliban in March 2001 - when they were still kinda Western allies) are having their karmic revenge.
Now those were priceless pieces of art.
Translations of books are really just capitalist artifacts, part of the capitalist religion industry.To reiterate, you can buy the text, and then it's your property to cherish, underline, burn, whatever. You can idolize it, or toss it into the audience at Christian Heavy Metal concerts (as the band Stryper controversially did with their yellow and black Bibles).

Books in SA are extremely expensive, including Bibles and Korans. Buy it and burn it - the cash stays with the group you want to offend! What a lovely circus. What's the going rate for a Koran in the US?
Perhaps some of the Korans were donated, in which case they were most likely funded by Saudi Arabia, the biggest player in Koranic translations and distributions. And who does lots of business with Saudi Arabia? The US oil industry. So in a way, the Dove Pastor may be burning his own money.
Has anybody told him that?

Because of manipulation over a decade by the NWO the capitalist artifact now signifies a lot more.
Surely, if the paper itself is holy, then the sin lies with the person selling it to unbelievers.

As far as art goes, one cannot legislate taste. Perhaps it can be seen as performance art (although I think they'll pull it at the last moment, at least in that location).

Ultimately the ideas expressed in these scriptures, no matter how good or bad, cannot be defiled by burning copies of print. Since the invention of printing that is impossible. Any religion that recognizes this will have the true high ground. How pointless both ways. Pity about the dead trees.

reply to post by halfoldman

Oh how I love to be right:

As far as art goes, one cannot legislate taste. Perhaps it can be seen as performance art (although I think they'll pull it at the last moment, at least in that location).

Breaking news on ATS, Pastor says it's cancelled!
nya, nya, nya

However, this thread, since it deals with issues of art, public funding and taste could continue with many other examples.
I wonder how silly all the US-flag burning Muslim protesters fell now. Probably not very silly (do they ever?).
Excellent manipulation and sales pitch for the Koran and general religious capitalism (copies will doubtlessly be bought and burnt in less public scenarios).
Just wonder, what will the good pastor do now with his Quran collection?