Show me someone that *isn't jewish*.
(Creator of SouthPark Trey is jewish, not Kyle)
Burning the Quran in Norway, Sweden - Racism and Islamophobia Rampant in Europe
- Thread starter Iron
- Start date
Recommended Videos
(Creator of SouthPark Trey is jewish, not Kyle)
I disagree.
Being offensive "just for the sake of it" is a charge that could be leveled at almost any piece of media. The actual film, Life of Brian, is sattire on Christianity, even if it's a critique that, as pointed out, could be applied to any religion (certainly any Abrahamic one). Christians were offended by the film. Some were so offended that they attempted to have it banned. Thankfully, that didn't happen. And thankfully, although Monty Python had death threats (at least according to Holy Flying Circus), no-one followed up on it.
So either religion is free to be mocked, or it isn't. You can't say it's okay to poke fun at one religion and not another.
More the line "Christianity is a metaphor for all organized religion, and the abuse they're open to."
Again, either Christianity and Islam can both be criticized and mocked, or neither of them can.
On this thread? No.
In response to he CH incident? Yes.
Bill Maher isn't Jewish.
Maher was born in New York City. His father, William Aloysius Maher Jr.,[1] was a network news editor and radio announcer, and his mother, Julie Maher (née Berman), was a nurse.[2] He was raised in his Irish-American father's Roman Catholic religion. Until his early teens, he was unaware that his mother, whose family was from Hungary, was Jewish.[12][13][14][15] Owing to his disagreement with the Catholic Church's doctrine about birth control, Maher's father stopped taking Maher and his sister to Catholic church services when Maher was thirteen.[16]
en.wikipedia.org
Learn something new every day
Bill Maher - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Learn something new every day
Yeah, but that doesn't exempt that particular criticism or ridicule from being open to criticism itself. I'll speak up for the right to criticize and ridicule religion, but I won't defend a lot of people that throw shit at Islam, for example, because I know what direction it's coming from (alt-right), and I know they're only doing it to be assholes.
I don't know what it's like in other countries, but over here (the Netherlands) it was habitual at soccer matches for crowds of people to yell "gas the jews", or other anti-semitic things. It's died down sigficantly in recent years, but back when it was a thing it was just viewed as 'well, that's just people at soccer matches'. And anti-semitism is on the rise again thanks to the rise of alt-right dipshits.
The guy behind all of it, Rasmus Paludan, is a mentally damaged (literally, he was in a car accident that harmed his brain) racist, xenophobic, lawyer turned politician/agitator. He should be given no platform and be thoroughly ignored.
On the topic of criticising or mocking religion I'd say that the latter is a negative and the first is somewhat more positive, as long as we adhere to the purpose of criticism, fostering improvement.
Burning a quran and yelling slurs is not helpful, it is agitation, it does not push towards improvement. The reasons are many, firstly there is a different culture when it comes to sacred and profane in western islam and western christianity. Secondly there is a difference between being the minority set upon by the majority, and it is not a pleasant feeling, not even if the criticisms are justified. Third, there have been few attempts to actually engage in a meaningful fashion and the successes thereof are never given as much attention as agitation or failures to engage.
I consider a lot of this analogous to a friend teasingly insulting me and some random person coming up and delivering the same insult on the street. I am familiar with my friend, I know his intention and we understand the boundaries of our teasing banter. I do not have the same relationship with a random person on the street. But should the random person be met under different circumstances we might be able to create a relationship in which we can also teasingly insult each other.
On the topic of criticising or mocking religion I'd say that the latter is a negative and the first is somewhat more positive, as long as we adhere to the purpose of criticism, fostering improvement.
Burning a quran and yelling slurs is not helpful, it is agitation, it does not push towards improvement. The reasons are many, firstly there is a different culture when it comes to sacred and profane in western islam and western christianity. Secondly there is a difference between being the minority set upon by the majority, and it is not a pleasant feeling, not even if the criticisms are justified. Third, there have been few attempts to actually engage in a meaningful fashion and the successes thereof are never given as much attention as agitation or failures to engage.
I consider a lot of this analogous to a friend teasingly insulting me and some random person coming up and delivering the same insult on the street. I am familiar with my friend, I know his intention and we understand the boundaries of our teasing banter. I do not have the same relationship with a random person on the street. But should the random person be met under different circumstances we might be able to create a relationship in which we can also teasingly insult each other.
That Maher was raised Catholic and only found out his mother was Jewish as a teenager? What's your point?
It's a stretch to say that a child automatically belongs to a denomination just because their parent belonged to it.
Anyway, even if we're not counting Maher, here's stuff from Seth McFarlene:
So, there's a saying I've used, and I'll use it again - "no work is above criticism, and no criticism is above critique."
So, yes. Any criticism of religion is open to critique. If I say "Buddhism is a terrible religion because it promotes Lord Zenu," you'd probably say "that's Scientology, dumbass." On the other hand, when I think of criticism of religion, it's more in the vein of Krauss, Dawkins, and Hitchens. I remember when Hitchens was accused of "Islamophobia" on Al Jazeera, despite him criticizing Christianity with the same vigor.
Most of what I hold dear is people, who are tangible and ephemeral. So yes, I would object with over the top violence if someone tried to set them on fire. If someone tries to set fire to a copy of a book I like I'm just going to roll my eyes and call them an idiot.
As for sacred personages, well, here's my Holy Trinity
The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit
None of them would approve with rioting because of the burning of a text by a moron who's only goal is to upset me. They would be most disappointed with me indeed.
Last edited:
"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings."Most of what I hold dear is people, who are tangible and ephemeral. So yes, I would object with over the top violence if someone tried to set them on fire. If someone tries to set fire to a copy of a book I like I'm just going to roll my eyes and call them an idiot.
As for sacred personages, well, here's my Holy Trinity
The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit
None of them would approve with rioting because of the burning of a text by a moron who's only goal is to upset me. They would be most disappointed with me indeed.
Considering how the Bible and Qaran endorse slavery, it seems that Optimus is a better messiah by default.
You've clearly never done a renegade playthrough, renegade Shepard would not only start the riot, she'd bludgeon the guy to death with the burning book.
That's a bit of a weird example of criticizing criticism, since that's just pointing out something that is factually wrong.
USA
Yea, I have pretty much had to deal with Christian extremists my entire life so I understand all too well how any religious extremist can be a nightmare. However, the only thing this does is make people feel disrespected and cut off from society, even when they are not extremists. I try to show people respect because that is the only way I can expect respect in return.
I do not really like any religion and view them as a means to manipulate and control people rather than actually helping them. I don't think that we are helping them understand that though by just treating them badly, so I do not see the point in such gestures as burning their texts. It reminds me of the church burning harry potter books and acting like they were " burning witches" in Salem. MADNESS.
EDIT: *If anyone has a photo of when they tied harry potter books to stakes and were burning them like witches pls post here* I can't seem to find it anymore.
Last edited:
I don't think anyone who's watched Life of Brian could say that it was offensive "for the sake of it"; it clearly served the narrative/comedic purposes of the film, and made several quasi-political points on the way.
It's satire, and satire has purpose.
Once again, it's a good thing I'm not saying that, then.
This is a platitude. It doesn't actually address the substance of what people have been arguing in this thread. Book-burning isn't "poking fun"; hosting rallies about how much one hates a specific demographic isn't "poking fun". We don't have regulations about jokes, but we have regulations about hate speech or suppressing freedom-of-expression (of which book-burning is a form).
You do realize the first crusade was an attempt to retake Christian land conquered by muslims, right? And that Islam's prophet was the Islamic equivalent of a "crusader"?
How we stop racism against the Muslim community is very simple actually: you tell the Muslim community to stop acting like they have conquered Europe and that they cannot consider it as Islamic territory. This doesn't hold true for all Muslims in Europe (luckily) but when you realize that more than half of them are Fundamentalists the problem is quite significant.
The whole incident you mentioned is just yet another example of why the Muslim community needs to do some introspecting. It is not normal to react so violently for something as trivial as an idiot burning a book. Heck, it is exactly because the reaction was so predictible that the Quran was burnt to begin with. If no Muslim had reacted with violence it would have been a huge flop. Unfortunately some decided to prove the far right to be correct yet again.
No, you're not supposed to feel sorry for rioters. But you can empathise with why they do.
This is not a statement about free speech, it is absolutely a bunch of people telling another bunch of people that they are not welcome and should fuck off "back to where they came from" (which of course for many in this case would probably be Malmo). This is a long-standing form of provocation. The British Union of Fascists didn't try to march through one of the most Jewish areas of London by chance. The Orange Order in Northern Ireland marched through Catholic areas to send a message. I think that's what really annoys the immigrants. It's that they already feel excluded, insecure, like second class citizens, are probably poor, and here comes some twat to disrespect and humiliate them that extra bit more.
This pisses me off, because what we're actually doing is letting the fucking fascists piggy back on free speech. It's not that I don't disagree with the notion that you should be free to burn a Koran or Bible without violence, I just think that we don't need to give these scum the publicity and de facto apologia in the process. We just do their work for them: congratulations, they incited some Muslims to violence, and they're getting people like you to effectively help them promote the idea that Muslims are a threat to Western society. I'm of course not saying that's necessarily what you yourself believe or that you mean to help them - just that in effect you are.
So you'll just have to accept that I prefer to pick my fights, and I'm not picking the free rights battles which are transparently bigot-recruitment vehicles.
The attitude towards muslims in the west has gotten worse and worse ever since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. That being said, if it weren't muslism, it'd be Romani People or Eastern Europeans or Southern Europeans or any other easy target. There's simply a lack of solidarity among people, in many cases one that expresses itself as outright hostility. There is a deep sickness in our society. There is a cure and that cure is Socialism, Antifascism, Internationalism. Things can't go on like this.
Somehow I doubt the validity of that report.
As is your right.
But does anyone else find it weird that nobody here is questioning why these Koran burnings are going on? What might have prompted such an action? Do people think that some racist just got up one morning and decided to provoke Muslims? No? Just me?
Well, not too long ago in Norway a racist just got up one morning and decided to shoot 50 children. Your average racist is a violent and primitive person. Burning books is among the more benign things he could have done. Not that they don't have a history of doing that, too.