Multi-culturalism boon or bane?

[BeardofPants]

For what it is worth, I don't give a rat's arse about the koran being burnt either. I think the guy doing it is being a needlessly racist moron, but he is free to do or not do as he wishes.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

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?

And while we are on the subject... Whats the deal with holy water? Is it in the same ball park as the communion stuff or is it just water thats been blessed? Is it considered offensive to waste it? Drink it? Swim in it in a non baptismal way? If you throw communion wine at a vampire does it burn it? eh... sorry...

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Then it does boil down to the "ridiculous superstition" line.

I suppose it rather may have something to do with the idea that the Church as a whole is enlightened enough by now not to repay insults with threats or acts of death or destruction. At least, that would the way I think.

Originally Posted by Tessar

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.

I can't agree. I know that a short skirt or not wearing a head-scarf will offend people of certain religions and/or cultures. But I am in no way responsible if someone is offended enough by my bare head or legs to throw acid in my face. There is a difference in being aware of possible consequences and being responsible of those consequences. Everyone is still responsible for their own actions. Always. There are cases, naturally, in which one can ethically and juridically argue there was provocation but the bottom line is that how you choose to react, is still your own decision.

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....

Hm, bad comparison, I think. If your cardboard gun was real, you could have killed people. If you yell 'Fire!' or 'Bomb!' in a crowded hall, you can cause injury and death if people panic and stampede. But how exactly can you cause such damage by abusing a single food item?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Oof, lots of questions!

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I mean the bible claims to be THE word of god.

Just as an aside, only some of the books were clearly written with an understanding of being "the word of God." Mostly, it's because the church called it such later.

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.

Fair enough. It's still hard for me to wrap my mind around this human being traipsing around two thousand years ago and telling everyone to chill out being God.

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?

If they do so at a Catholic eucharist, it is wrong, from a Catholic perspective. The church does not try to legislate what non-Catholics do at non-Catholic services.

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.

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.

You fail to distinguish between controlling directly the actions of others, and influencing them indirectly.

Certainly, people cannot directly control the actions of others, but nor can they fail to indirectly influence them. When a person deliberately seeks to provoke others to this sort of reaction, they do bear some responsibility for the reaction, though obviously not the bulk of it.

If I intentionally aggravate someone on the street, it's partly my fault if he punches me.

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.

And no one could ever construe burning a Koran as being anything but intentionally cruel. Talk of freedom of expression is nothing more than saying "I have the right to be cruel." Which is true. But just because we have a right to something, does not mean we should do it. I certainly don't question his legal right to burn the Koran, I merely say he ought not do it.

Originally Posted by IR

And while we are on the subject... Whats the deal with holy water? Is it in the same ball park as the communion stuff or is it just water thats been blessed? Is it considered offensive to waste it? Drink it? Swim in it in a non baptismal way?

Holy water is just blessed; it's not nearly as big a deal. Wasting (by which I imagine you mean pouring it down the sink, or something) and swimming in it are not ideal, but not wrong. Some people drink it piously, which seems weird to me, but there you go.

If you throw communion wine at a vampire does it burn it?

If I find out, I'll let you know.

Originally Posted by Earniel

I suppose it rather may have something to do with the idea that the Church as a whole is enlightened enough by now not to repay insults with threats or acts of death or destruction.

With the implication being that Muslims are not, so that it does boil down to Islamophobia?

I know that a short skirt or not wearing a head-scarf will offend people of certain religions and/or cultures. But I am in no way responsible if someone is offended enough by my bare head or legs to throw acid in my face. There is a difference in being aware of possible consequences and being responsible of those consequences. Everyone is still responsible for their own actions. Always. There are cases, naturally, in which one can ethically and juridically argue there was provocation but the bottom line is that how you choose to react, is still your own decision.

The key here is intent. If a person's action is intended to provoke a negative reaction from another person, they have some (though, as I said before, not the bulk) of the responsibility for it. If the person performs the same action without an intent to provoke, they are not in any way responsible for the reaction to that.

Of course, how you choose to react is your decision, but all of our decisions are influenced by context, situation, past experience, relation to those involved, etc., etc.

[Rían]

News people like news, and they know that burning a Koran has a greater chance of bringing some news than stepping on a communion wafer. That's why it's a bigger deal.

And GreyMouser's "Heckler's Veto" is spot on.

[Tessar]

Hmm, you're right the toy gun analogy is poor. I have some thoughts, but I will be away from the 'moot for at least a few days due to some school/work/etc. projects.... so I'll see if I can't come up with a better way of expressing what I mean in that time. I feel like I didn't say what I was intending to get across.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

With the implication being that Muslims are not, so that it does boil down to Islamophobia?

Must it? Is thinking that some religions didn't evolve in the same way over centuries the same as being irrationally afraid of one of them?

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Not sure if you are referring to me.

No, just the sorts of people who get upset with having their religions insulted.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Must it? Is thinking that some religions didn't evolve in the same way over centuries the same as being irrationally afraid of one of them?

I think Gwai was using the term here -ironically ?- in the way it has become accepted to mean, as just an intense dislike of something, not the original psychiatric meaning. Though a lot of the anti- Islam crowd do seem to be hysterical.

And it certainly seems true that a lot of Muslims do react with threats and acts of violence, much more so than Christians nowadays.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

I think Gwai was using the term here -ironically ?- in the way it has become accepted to mean, as just an intense dislike of something, not the original psychiatric meaning. Though a lot of the anti- Islam crowd do seem to be hysterical.

Not quite. I meant it in the purely etymological sense, simply as "fear." Still, close-enough to your interpretation.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

much more so than Christians nowadays.

That depends where you draw the line. Maybe Christians don't issue fatwas for religious insults, preferring instead to start wars for political gain.

[Comic Book Guy]

You fail to distinguish between controlling directly the actions of others, and influencing them indirectly.

Certainly, people cannot directly control the actions of others, but nor can they fail to indirectly influence them. When a person deliberately seeks to provoke others to this sort of reaction, they do bear some responsibility for the reaction, though obviously not the bulk of it.

If I intentionally aggravate someone on the street, it's partly my fault if he punches me.

And you fail to distinguish between acts of individual free expression, and acts of violence purposely inflicted against other people. It's totally your fault if someone reacts by punching you, as they have a right to commit violence in direct self offence. A person expressing themself is not at all the same thing.

Someone says or does something you don't like? Tough, there will always be people in the world who do things you don't like, it's not all mature to wallow in self pity because someone else said something you thought was mean. If someone else interprets something in their own way, that's nothing anybody can ever influence. It's entirely down to them how they see things.

Also, this demand of any censorship is a surefire betrayal of the lack of self-confidence these people have in their absurd views or beliefs, as they know as much as anybody that they can't withstand absolutely any public criticism, inquiry or ridicule, and the only tactics they can respond with are those of noisy indignation, violence, intimidation, vilification and the age old censorship.

[Comic Book Guy]

And no one could ever construe burning a Koran as being anything but intentionally cruel. Talk of freedom of expression is nothing more than saying "I have the right to be cruel." Which is true. But just because we have a right to something, does not mean we should do it. I certainly don't question his legal right to burn the Koran, I merely say he ought not do it.

I don't see it as being cruel; it's just a book. I'm sure this opinion is shared by billions of people who don't subscribe to the Islamic religion. I don't think it's a particularly tasteful thing to do, but I'd feel the exact same way if someone decided to burn in a stentatious fashion War and Peace or the Bible or Ullysses or Atlas Shrugged or the Lord of the Rings or Das Kapital. All those tomes may and indeed do have large numbers of fanatic adherents and greater numbers of people who indifferent or even hate them. It really isn't consistent in modern, pluralistic societies to say a person can't express in a harmless manner, their personal views about certain books.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

That depends where you draw the line. Maybe Christians don't issue fatwas for religious insults, preferring instead to start wars for political gain.

But it was for political gain,not religious reasons. George W. made it very clear he wasn't launching a war against Islam, and the only person I remember arguing that was Ann Coulter, with her "kill the leaders and convert the rest" comments, which got her fired from the National Review.

Oh, and General Boykin for his "I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol," but he was also reprimanded for it.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Comic Book Guy

And you fail to distinguish between acts of individual free expression, and acts of violence purposely inflicted against other people. It's totally your fault if someone reacts by punching you, as they have a right to commit violence in direct self offence. A person expressing themself is not at all the same thing.

I'm not talking about physical violence; not sure if you are. The thing is, saying "I think Muslims are silly for thinking there's anything to this book" is self-expression. When you make the next step, though, and say, "Because Muslims find this book to be sacred, I will burn it to show my contempt for it and for their belief in it," that moves into the realm of purposely inflicting a sort of emotional violence against someone else, just like (for instance) aggressively talking trash about someone's recently deceased mother.

Also, this demand of any censorship is a surefire betrayal of the lack of self-confidence these people have in their absurd views or beliefs, as they know as much as anybody that they can't withstand absolutely any public criticism, inquiry or ridicule, and the only tactics they can respond with are those of noisy indignation, violence, intimidation, vilification and the age old censorship.

The issue is not censorship. Drop that straw man already. As I said before, it's not a matter of what you can do, but what you ought to do.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

But it was for political gain,not religious reasons. George W. made it very clear he wasn't launching a war against Islam, and the only person I remember arguing that was Ann Coulter, with her "kill the leaders and convert the rest" comments, which got her fired from the National Review.

Oh, and General Boykin for his "I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol," but he was also reprimanded for it.

Yes, those were telling moments.

I agree, although two things on this:

1) Just because your reasons are well known to you doesn't mean that they are well known (or indeed believed) by anyone else.

2) Would those political reasons (whatever the hell they were at the time; depends when you are asking) still have been considered sufficient had Iraq been a Christian country?

[Comic Book Guy]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I'm not talking about physical violence; not sure if you are. The thing is, saying "I think Muslims are silly for thinking there's anything to this book" is self-expression. When you make the next step, though, and say, "Because Muslims find this book to be sacred, I will burn it to show my contempt for it and for their belief in it," that moves into the realm of purposely inflicting a sort of emotional violence against someone else, just like (for instance) aggressively talking trash about someone's recently deceased mother.



The issue is not censorship. Drop that straw man already. As I said before, it's not a matter of what you can do, but what you ought to do.

You're talking about self-censorship, which is probably the worst form of censorship in my opinion.

Even if something is purposely and gratuitously offensive, so what? There are still no good reason to limit the exercise freedom of expression to that which a person might find personally offensive. Particularly in burning of a Koran, which isn't at all a personal attack on anyone.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Comic Book Guy

Particularly in burning of a Koran, which isn't at all a personal attack on anyone.

It's clear that you have absolutely no conception of what religion can mean to someone, and so I see no point in continuing.

[Rían]

Clearly the reactions of the people that react to the burning of the Koran are the reactions of people who don't consider it a personal attack of any sort ...

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Yes, those were telling moments.

I agree, although two things on this:

1) Just because your reasons are well known to you doesn't mean that they are well known (or indeed believed) by anyone else.

2) Would those political reasons (whatever the hell they were at the time; depends when you are asking) still have been considered sufficient had Iraq been a Christian country?

Well, NATO bombed Christian Serbia in defense of Moslem Kosovo- not that they got a lot of credit from the rest of the Muslim world- and the Serbians had proclaimed themselves the defenders of Christendom against Islam.