Multi-culturalism boon or bane?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And I have to say honestly I would not have the same reaction to a communion wafer as I would to the bible OR the koran. To me that would just be silly to see a grown man stomping a tiny cracker. I would not share with you that blasphemous horror you feel about such actions but I would feel that if it was the koran or the bible. I mean does the same reaction apply if you pour out or spit out communion wine?

Briefly, yes. And from a Catholic PoV, this is far worse than burning a Bible.

I'm intrigued that your diminished sense of offense falls short as soon as the offense is against the more distinctly catholic parts of Xtianity. Particularly since Catholicism, and even catholicism, has always been seen as rather an outsider religion in the USA; shouldn't that again trigger the "home team" reaction, or were you raised Roman/Anglo-Catholic? Or, is it just that ideas like transubstantiation are ridiculous and superstitious, and so an affront against them is not problematic? EDIT: just to clarify, this is a serious question, and I am genuinely curious, not trying to be contentious. I'm just not sure how to frame the question in more neutral terms!

[Comic Book Guy]

OoOoh, I heard PZ Myers lecture and met him once. Lovely man. I hope to go into evo-Devo one day. I love the synthesis of the two most fascinating areas of biology.

The abuse he endured from religious fanatics over their insane superstition was utterly contemptible.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Comic Book Guy

The abuse he endured from religious fanatics over their insane superstition was utterly contemptible.

Well, that answers that question!

I take it then that you consider his deliberate affront to aforementioned insane superstition altogether unobjectionable?

Do you feel the same way about the Terry Jones Koran-burning issue?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Perhaps it's this sort of thinking.

Maybe, deep down, the mainstream media only care about respecting Islam because they are afraid of it. Perhaps they are just as Islamophobic as Jones, divided from him only by cleverness, and a propensity for placating what they fear.

Worth a thought.

Yeah, that's the Heckler's Veto I mentioned above- if your threat to respond with violence is credible enough, people back down and concede.

Not only the media though- everybdy from Obama to Palin condemned this guy.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Its about christianity being the "home team" in my opinion. The suburban "normal" face of america religion. When an american burns a koran it becomes "christian westerners attacking islam". Thats true even if the person involved isnt christian and even if 99% of americans find their actions horribly distasteful. Because its one team doing something to another team that first team is identified with that action in its entirety (as we see here quite frequently in the other direction when certain people post here about the horrible actions of one or a small number of muslims as if to imply ALL muslims are like that). Not simply the one renegade idiot on the team that engages in the action.

Now when a bible is burned I dont feel that same primal urge to try to make it clear that as an american I am against this whole heartedly. Because we (in the collective form) are all "christians" (lower case c) here. Even us agnostics and atheists like it or not. Weve grown up in this society and its decidedly christian. So its an internal thing. We are all on that home team.

Exactly- I thought the whole Myers' communion wafer scene was pointlessly childish ( he also tossed a Koran, Bible and Book of Mormon in the trash can along with the wafer) but I felt it was somewhat worse because Myers was himself not Catholic- raised Lutheran, I believe.

And I have to say honestly I would not have the same reaction to a communion wafer as I would to the bible OR the koran. To me that would just be silly to see a grown man stomping a tiny cracker. I would not share with you that blasphemous horror you feel about such actions but I would feel that if it was the koran or the bible. I mean does the same reaction apply if you pour out or spit out communion wine?

Disagree here- what's important is the symbolism, not the object.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Briefly, yes. And from a Catholic PoV, this is far worse than burning a Bible.

I'm intrigued that your diminished sense of offense falls short as soon as the offense is against the more distinctly catholic parts of Xtianity. Particularly since Catholicism, and even catholicism, has always been seen as rather an outsider religion in the USA; shouldn't that again trigger the "home team" reaction, or were you raised Roman/Anglo-Catholic? Or, is it just that ideas like transubstantiation are ridiculous and superstitious, and so an affront against them is not problematic? EDIT: just to clarify, this is a serious question, and I am genuinely curious, not trying to be contentious. I'm just not sure how to frame the question in more neutral terms!

Don't know IR's religious background, but as i noted above, that was one cause of uneasiness for me. Salman Rushdie was ex-muslim of course; the makers of 'Dogma' were ex-Catholics, as were artists Chris Olfil ( "Elephant Dung Madonna") and Andre Serrano ( "Piss Christ").

A group of, say, feminist ex-Muslims burning the Koran would be far more acceptable to me.

(Being raised Anglican, I stand by my former church's responding to the issue of transubstantiation with a resounding and resolute "maybe".)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

( he also tossed a Koran, Bible and Book of Mormon in the trash can along with the wafer)

A true pluralist.

(Being raised Anglican, I stand by my former church's responding to the issue of transubstantiation with a resounding and resolute "maybe".)

Thirty Nine Articles, Shmirty Nine Articles. It is the particular gift of Anglicans to manage to wiggle their way into a resolute "maybe" on pretty much any question. (Or at least was; the recent steamrolling of Williamson and Sentamu suggest that things may not be much longer as they were.) The joys of the via media!

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But do you recognize, that the "frackin cracker," as I believe Myers so elegantly called it, holds a great deal of religious significance in some major branches of Christianity, and that for an outsider to intend to destroy it is an intentional affront to them?

Just curious.

I know what it is supposed to represent, it just doesn't seem as grave an offense (y'know, since I think people are crackers for thinking crackers matter).

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

I know what it is supposed to represent, it just doesn't seem as grave an offense (y'know, since I think people are crackers for thinking crackers matter).

Then it does boil down to the "ridiculous superstition" line. Is it not crackers to think dead trees mashed up and splashed with ink matter, then?

[Comic Book Guy]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Well, that answers that question!

I take it then that you consider his deliberate affront to aforementioned insane superstition altogether unobjectionable?

Do you feel the same way about the Terry Jones Koran-burning issue?

Answers what question?

Of course I find it altogether unobjectionable, why would I not? There is absolutely no significance in desecrating a petty wafer. Sure, it's pointless and small waste of time and energy, but so are most things, including most people's lives, particularly those who get upset over their insane superstition.

I feel similarly about this madcap Pastor and his books. I'm generally opposed to the burning of books on general aesthetic principle, as it's such an uncultured philistine thing to do, but there is absolutely no special reason why he shouldn't be allowed to do whatever he wants with his own property. As I understand it, Americans are quite privileged in the history of the humanity in that they have these kind of freedoms, so I don't understand why incidents such as these are so controversial.

[The Gaffer]

Everybody needs to chill the feck out on the "insults to their religion" front. It seems a very popular sport amongst all sorts of denominations to spot offense and complain about it.

IRex make a good point about the "home team". These people may be seen to represent us, so we should be more concerned about their behaviour.

For me, it's my lack of familiarity with transubstantiation and familiarity with the historical cultural significance of book-burning that would make it seem like a particularly offensive act.

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Everybody needs to chill the feck out on the "insults to their religion" front. It seems a very popular sport amongst all sorts of denominations to spot offense and complain about it.

I agree that there are people who will deliberately go looking for things to gripe about, but in this case it's more significant that the two men we've been discussing are deliberately doing something with the intent of being offensive.

It's one thing for someone to accidentally drop a book in a fire, or accidentally end up with a "cracker" and then toss it in the trash because they don't know what it is.

But it's quite different to take something that you know is significant to someone else, and intentionally destroy it simply to get a reaction out of the other person. If you approve of that, then you are no better than a willful vandal. It's the same thing as taking a beloved photo from your grandmother and ripping it up in front of her. Even if she has other copies of the photo, the fact that you intentionally ripped it up to hurt her feelings is the point of contention, not whether she has other copies of it.

For example, what is the point of taking the host and dropping it into the trash purposefully? What is the point of burning the books in this case? It is vandalism for no other reason than to get an angry reaction.

Americans are quite privileged in the history of the humanity in that they have these kind of freedoms, so I don't understand why incidents such as these are so controversial.

He was absolutely capable of doing it. Being free to do what you want does not make you free of the consequences of those actions. Just as he was free to burn the books, other Americans were perfectly free to be outraged or supportive of him. Freedom of speech and action goes both ways.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Tessar

Being free to do what you want does not make you free of the consequences of those actions.

I agree, although granny's photo is a bit more direct and uniquely personal.

However I would like to see people on all sides being a bit more calm about this sort of thing. And the media not pouring petrol on the flames would be a help too.

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I agree, although granny's photo is a bit more direct and uniquely personal.

Emotionally speaking (in a purely secular sense), objects essentially have the value that you place on them. You can take it to a more global sense (i.e. losing a $50 dollar bill is meaningful in America, but if you live in the middle of the rainforest and make everything you need by hand you don't really need a $50 bill), or look at it on a more personal level, such as the photo.

People place very serious meaning on the Koran/Bible/etc. and Catholics place an enormous, almost untoppable, amount of meaning on those crackers. The fact that the crackers mean nothing to you does not make them mean any less to the people that value them.

Take the $50 example. If you rip up a $50 bill in front of a starving man on the streets it's going to mean a lot to him. If you rip up $50 in front of a starving man in the middle of a jungle with nowhere to spend that money it means nothing to him.

Carry that example onwards and I think most people would agree that ripping up the $50 in front of the starving man in America is incredibly cruel to him, while ripping it up in front of jungle-boy is not cruel to him.

Desecrating a host is incredibly cruel to Catholics because they place such meaning in it, and thus if you put any merit in the feelings of others that makes it a cruel act for you to (intentionally) perform.


I suspect that the real reason people see burning a Koran as bad is actually out of fear. Destroy a host and you have a flurry of media attention, maybe a few death threats (directed towards one person) from some crazies, and that's about it. People are afraid that burning a Koran could mean suicide bombers, or other things, killing many people for the actions of one man (or a very small group of people). I know I'd be more cautious (i.e. "respectful") of the guy holding a knife with a crazy look in his eye saying, "I will stab you if you do that," than I might be of a man saying, "Oh, please don't do that!"

However I would like to see people on all sides being a bit more calm about this sort of thing. And the media not pouring petrol on the flames would be a help too.

Agreed.

[Comic Book Guy]

Originally Posted by Tessar

I agree that there are people who will deliberately go looking for things to gripe about, but in this case it's more significant that the two men we've been discussing are deliberately doing something with the intent of being offensive.

It's one thing for someone to accidentally drop a book in a fire, or accidentally end up with a "cracker" and then toss it in the trash because they don't know what it is.

But it's quite different to take something that you know is significant to someone else, and intentionally destroy it simply to get a reaction out of the other person. If you approve of that, then you are no better than a willful vandal. It's the same thing as taking a beloved photo from your grandmother and ripping it up in front of her. Even if she has other copies of the photo, the fact that you intentionally ripped it up to hurt her feelings is the point of contention, not whether she has other copies of it.

For example, what is the point of taking the host and dropping it into the trash purposefully? What is the point of burning the books in this case? It is vandalism for no other reason than to get an angry reaction.




He was absolutely capable of doing it. Being free to do what you want does not make you free of the consequences of those actions. Just as he was free to burn the books, other Americans were perfectly free to be outraged or supportive of him. Freedom of speech and action goes both ways.

Why did you put the word cracker in inverted commas? That's all it is after all.

He had the freedom to do whatever he wanted with with his own property. He committed no crime whatsoever. If other individuals got upset about it that's just tough. They have to grow up and learn that freedom of expression sometimes mean other individuals sometimes do or say things you happen to find personal distastefully or offensive. Nobody - Nobody, has any special right not to be offended by another persons freedom of expression. The only supposed consequences Myers and this pastor were the reactions and actions of other people, something they have absolutely no control or responsibility for. Some people find their actions funny and satirical, even righteous; others find it (although I find it unfathomable myself) horrifying and inflammatory. All of them have their rights to their opinions, and their modes of expressing it.

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by Comic Book Guy

Why did you put the word cracker in inverted commas? That's all it is after all.

Clearly you disagree with what I wrote about the meaning of objects. That's all it is to you. To a Catholic it is more than a cracker.

He had the freedom to do whatever he wanted with with his own property. He committed no crime whatsoever. If other individuals got upset about it that's just tough.

Nobody - Nobody, has any special right not to be offended by another persons freedom of expression.

So you're saying you have no right to be offended at the offence that others are expressing, which is an expression of their personal freedom to express their approval or disapproval.

The only supposed consequences Myers and this pastor were the reactions and actions of other people, something they have absolutely no control or responsibility for.

This is true to a point, but for every action there is a reaction. They are responsible in the sense that they created a situation to be reacted to. A situation they intended to gain a reaction from. That makes them responsible for any reactions they get.

That's like holding up a cardboard gun in a market place and then being shocked if someone disapproves, or if a police officer tackles you to the ground. How dare they intrude on your right to wave a piece of cardboard around....

Some people find their actions funny and satirical, even righteous; others find it (although I find it unfathomable myself) horrifying and inflammatory. All of them have their rights to their opinions, and their modes of expressing it.

That's what I said, but then you said that no one had the right to express their disapproval of seomeone else's right to express their opinion. It sounds as though you are contradicting yourself.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Everybody needs to chill the feck out on the "insults to their religion" front.

Not sure if you are referring to me. Even if I've had to use charged language, I am perfectly calm about the issue; I'm just interested in why burning the Koran is newsworthy, but the Myers incident wasn't.

An intriguing picture of an answer seems to be emerging; it's looking like it is precisely because the Koran is a book, and as such burning it violates an "iconography" and a "sense of the sacred" which is shared throughout Western culture, by all but the most backwards conservatives. The reason people are reacting is not not in fact because it is a Koran and its destruction is offensive to Muslims, but because it is a book and its destruction is on some level offensive to them. Nobody cares about crackers, so the Myers incident does not cause a similar personal offense.

So much for religious pluralism; it is actually the "sanctity" of an Idea, of the written word that motivates people to respond like this.

Of course, cultural realities and concerns are extremely complicated and nuanced matters, and this can only be one piece of the puzzle. Still, it's an interesting one, at least to me.

Originally Posted by CBG

I feel similarly about this madcap Pastor and his books.

I applaud your consistency.

The only supposed consequences Myers and this pastor were the reactions and actions of other people, something they have absolutely no control or responsibility for.

Control, I grant. Of course, responsibility never rests on one sole head. Since Myers and Jones were both intending to provoke these reactions with their actions, they do have a degree of responsibility.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Briefly, yes. And from a Catholic PoV, this is far worse than burning a Bible.

You see thats hard for me to comprehend. Like gaffer, Im not as aware of just how catholics view such things but Im quite familiar with the meaning placed on the bible. I mean the bible claims to be THE word of god. All right. Even if Im not on board with the concept of this christian god I can certainly understand the significance of what that means and can respect how significant it is for them. Its a pretty straight forward concept. But its hard for me to wrap my brain around the idea that this cracker cooked in earth ovens by humans is NOT actually a symbol but is in fact THE actual body of christ. So I plead ignorance to some extent. If I see a bible being abused or even a christian cross, I cant help but wince. It seems wrong to me. I dont have that reaction with communion offerings simply because I dont appreciate the significance.

So let me ask you this, if a non catholic (or a non christian) accepts a communion wafer (and consumes it) is it a damnable sin? Is it wrong? What are the rules? I know Ive had my fair share of communion wine. I happen to love the chalices... Although I must say this whole communion things reminds me of a Family Guy episode somehow...

I'm intrigued that your diminished sense of offense falls short as soon as the offense is against the more distinctly catholic parts of Xtianity. Particularly since Catholicism, and even catholicism, has always been seen as rather an outsider religion in the USA; shouldn't that again trigger the "home team" reaction, or were you raised Roman/Anglo-Catholic? Or, is it just that ideas like transubstantiation are ridiculous and superstitious, and so an affront against them is not problematic?

I was raised milk-toast presbyterian. I had never even witnessed a Eucharist until I was 13 or 14. I guess I saw myself as "christian" but never once took it to heart. Just seemed like something that went along with being a kid in suburban america for me. You go to church. You go to sunday school. its just what you do. belief is irrelevant. So I was largely oblivious to the distinctions WITHIN christianity until well into my adulthood (I remember being horribly confused in high school history when I was taught about the wide spread visceral reaction to John Kennedy being elected president as a catholic). So I was never able to synthesize the concept of different "teams" of christians let alone that I was on any one of them. My mental christian identity development stopped at "Christian". I had catholic friends who seemed just like me. So the idea of defending those "outsider" catholics against the non-catholic christian "home team" never computed with me.

I guess you could call it ironic that as an agnostic today, I DO feel like the home team when a muslim sees a christian american doing something stupid. Call it the cultural home team if not the literal home team. Perhaps it has more to do with being an american then a christian.

[Comic Book Guy]

Originally Posted by Tessar

Clearly you disagree with what I wrote about the meaning of objects. That's all it is to you. To a Catholic it is more than a cracker.





So you're saying you have no right to be offended at the offence that others are expressing, which is an expression of their personal freedom to express their approval or disapproval.



This is true to a point, but for every action there is a reaction. They are responsible in the sense that they created a situation to be reacted to. A situation they intended to gain a reaction from. That makes them responsible for any reactions they get.

That's like holding up a cardboard gun in a market place and then being shocked if someone disapproves, or if a police officer tackles you to the ground. How dare they intrude on your right to wave a piece of cardboard around....

That's what I said, but then you said that no one had the right to express their disapproval of seomeone else's right to express their opinion. It sounds as though you are contradicting yourself.

I never said that people have no right to be offended, I think the opposite; what I do think that people don't have a special right not to be offended. Quite how any government or legislative body would be able to legislate for something like this is beyond me anyway, considering the literally infinite number of peculiar things an individual could take offence at.

They're not responsible for the actions of other individuals at all. This is an elementary fact. They're only responsible for what they do, not what other people do, as they can only control and affect what they do. They have no moral responsibility whatsoever for the actions of individuals they can't control. No more than they can influence the actions of the Pope or the Queen or their Postman. If there is ever a principle that underpins any moral or legal theory that's it.

Your situation with with toy gun is not analogous at all. The Koran Burning and Cracker desecration incidents were about freedom of expression. Wielding an imitation weapon in public is something different altogether. No one could ever construe that as being anything but inherently threatening and dangerous.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Then it does boil down to the "ridiculous superstition" line. Is it not crackers to think dead trees mashed up and splashed with ink matter, then?

I don't really know what to say. I think I've been clear. The cracker doesn't mean anything [to me]. It's just a goddamned cracker. A book? It's a more powerful symbol. It can symbolise knowledge, fiction, incredibly persistent memes. A cracker is just... a cracker. You eat, you crap. What would baby jesus think about you crapping him out, anyway?