The power we wield...

Freedom of speech is of utmost importance but its responsible and respectful use must be even more so

I disagree.
If we were to follow your rule, we would be obliterating satire.
In some countries, satirizing political or religious figures and institutions will get you thrown in jail. In the middle ages, satirizing Christianity would get you put to death. That's not stupid? That's not evil?

How many times do we have to clarify this, Kdiddy?
No one on this thread is claiming that religion is the lone cause of the world's problems, and there is absolutely no evidence on this thread to support that suspicion. I'm simply saying that religious dogma is often a significant cause of social disfunction, as it certainly is in the examples I listed above. Clearly, without the influence of religion, this country would be much less anti-gay, anti-science, anti-stem cell, and anti-condom use. That's not to say that those problems would be completely eliminated. Obviously, individuals can be insane without the influence of religion, but religion has the power to unite lunatics and idiots as few other institutions do.

When the governments of the Western world were completely controlled by religion, it was a nightmare for any independent thinker to live in those countries. Most religions are based in superstition and mythology, so their natural antithesis is based in reason and fact.
Gradually, the Western countries are becoming less religious, and much more liveable.

Sorry but when you said "stemmed from" it implies that it is the cause of not part of. And you're only clarifying what I've been saying. Of course religion isn't absolved of these problems, I never said it was, but you keep implying that I did.

And just a side note, but when governments have sought to completely expunge relgion from the public conscious (namely the Soviet Union and China) it also coincided with some of the worst human rights violations in the history of mankind. More people died in Russia due to their beliefs than in the death camps of World War II. Just a thought, but it seems that neither extreme is no good.

You disagree that it's stupid to burn down buildings and kill people because of one's religious beliefs?

I disagree because you are dissing all religions because, not even one religion, but one sect of one religion. I don't see Christians, Hindus or Buddhists, or Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses or Scientologists or even Satan worshippers behaving like this. However, because these wackos are part of a religion, it's okay to piss on all religions?

Calling these fringe wackos stupid is fine. Expanding that to all Muslims is certainly pushing it. Expanding it to cover all religions is moronic.

I'll try to reman civil and tolerate the religion bashing in here just like I do at teamxbox.com and most of the other forums I frequent. But your credibility with me right now is at zero.

In the immortal words of a friend of mine, "You're a sad, strange little man. You have my pity."

I'm sorry, Space. You've said many ridiculous things in your last few posts, but I only have time to respond to your first few sentences. If I responded to each ridiculous thing you've typed today, I'd be at this keyboard all day.

I spend all day at my work selling wireless Internet service, with a computer connected to it and a lot of time to read and post.

But it's one thing to have a rational discussion with someone and another thing entirely to banter with you.

As another friend once said, "Never scold a pig. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

So I'm done with you.

.

.

seems there's something lodged in a certain part of your body, too! ;)

Splatman :D

.

Mine is Homer Simpson!

Splatman :D

Hey, y'know what? Recently, some footage of American soldiers beating Iraqi civilians "Rodney King" style were just released by the media. NOW these Muslims have something more legitimate to protest against instead of a few doodles. :eek:

As I've stated before; my kids are allowed a piercing as long as it's like this:

:D

.

I nor anyone else in the United States owes any religion any respect, period. Whether the fundamentalist Muslims sit on vast oil fileds or not, nobody, and that means NOBODY is ever required to respect their religious beliefs AT ALL, not in America or any country's citizens with the right to freely worship (or not), write and assemble as they please.

I didn't mean to rant on my personal worldview in my last post, that was beyond the scope and purpose of this thread (and board). However, as far as the debate on whether or not there was any accountability on the part of artists or the press to walk on eggshells for religion, I say NO WAY.

well first, this isnt an American issue so i dont think it needs to made out to be one.

secondly no one said anything about eggshells, it is a question of bias and bigotry, which is how it comes across.

i dont think bigotry is acceptable ? or is it ok to be a bigot when it comes to Islam?

There is no such thing as freedom of speech and there never really has been.

I say that because one cannot express onself to an audience in ANY country on Earth without REPERCUSSIONS , thus one is not privileged to speak in a truly free manner.
If one is alone then the "right" exists because there's no audience, and the self-expression becomes essentially impotent.
If someone utters the word "bomb" in a public place, then they can not only be censured but arrested for implied threats.
That is not free speech, that is restricted speech.

Self-expression without responsibility is reckless.

As for the power we wield, I'm inclined to agree to a certain respect.
One can draw a unflattering caricature of anyone and cause them embarrassment and humilty. All humour entails someone or something being victimized to some degree.
Pointed message though do have their value, as criticism via parody or satire.
The weight of the message though needs to be measured based on the degree of upset it will cause.
Like a comedian telling a joke, a cartoonist has to weight in just how MANY people might take offense.
One cannot effectively measure tolerance, so gauging the reaction of people is hit and miss.

This doesn't mean a cartoonist should abstain from expression though.
No guts equals no glory and the path to glory is oft strewn with guts.
Looks like this is one of those cases in Denmark.

well first, this isnt an American issue so i dont think it needs to made out to be one.

secondly no one said anything about eggshells, it is a question of bias and bigotry, which is how it comes across.

i dont think bigotry is acceptable ? or is it ok to be a bigot when it comes to Islam?

One has to be a bigot to go to war. Otherwise, without bogtry, there is no reason to war in the first place.

Since the war on terror is focused on OFFSHOOT followers of Islam, the more radical Muslims have an incredibly easy sell to blackball the West as bigots that directly threaten their culture, religion and everything they value.
Any slight, no matter how minor is enough to ignite things.
The bigotry exists here ( and there too) and always has.
There is a GREAT conceit in the West regarding the perception that such "backwards" people control such valuable resources. The conceit is in a mocking dismissive tone at best--just look at hour popular media here portrays Arabs and Muslims in general. Its pretty shoddy.

Fed with this kind of media diet, its no wonder our perceptions are tainted.
And they know it over there. If I was Muslim, looking over to the West, I would be appalled and disgusted with what I saw coming out of this land.
Its not the news stories that betray the "true" feelings, its everything else.

When a person senses that someone dislikes them, their sensitivities focus on the minutae and the subtle rather than the obvious and overt.
They been looking at the subtle signals we've been communicating for decades now.

And now we have apparently stumbled with a pretty overt message.

Their camel's back has been broken and WE placed the last piece of straw on it that did it.

im not going to participate in this discussion but all ill say is lets stick to animation and picking on DDA

this is getting ugly, we dont need divisions here, were all struggling artists ;)

As an extra on a Twilight Zone box set I have, there's a Mike Wallace interview with Rod Serling. This interview was conducted before TZ aired. Wallace talked to Serling about his career in live television up to that point, then basically asked Serling if he thought he was selling out by doing a sci-fi show. Serling said it just depends on your point of view.

Of course, the Twilight Zone took on a lot of socially and politically charged issues with varying degrees of success. I believe it's still possible to make a point without being topical, or mentioning specific names.

Both politics and religion tend to reside in a particularly primitive compartment in the human brain. It is possible to regard your own views with a sense of irony and an awareness of your fallibility. But for some reason, people tend to place a maximum of emotional weight behind issues they haven't really thought about at all when it comes to these topics.

I'm disgusted enough with this country to leave it, but I would like what I do to be able to make it's point even if someone's completely unfamiliar with the current political situation. Otherwise it's just name calling, and making a cartoon about any real life situation trivialises it, IMO.

.

Self-expression without responsibility is reckless.

If anyone's reckless, it's the viewer who burns down a building because he doesn't like a cartoon.

I should be able to put out a cartoon about a character who doesn't like cheese, without enduring the wrath of the dairy industry.

.

First on your list, I can't speak for the artist or his country, so I wanted to make it clear that I was giving an American opinion. However, it kind of is an American issue not only because of the occupation, but because the American new media won't even show the stupid cartoons. Totally PC.

Secondly, it's not an issue of bias. Where's the bias?

Third, I don't see any bigotry on my part, either. Christians, for example, believe I'm going to hell, which I understand is, alledgedly, not exactly a big colorful ball pen at Chuck E. Cheese's. That's fine, I go about my day just the same, despite their threats. However, the people in the attacked embassy can't go about their day the same, because fundamentalist muslims seem to think the rest of the world owes the religion of Islam respect.

We don't. However, mankind ought to respect what should be their right to their beliefs, whatever they are. There's a difference between allowing someone to exercise their religion (freedom of religion) and buying into politically-correct bullshit that says we can't say anything bad or mock that religion.

Saj, none of my comments were directed at you except the first one. Being American is completely irrelevant to me because an opinion is an opinion and being cloaked in nationality makes little difference.

while you think Islam or any other religion is owed any respect , ok, but it isnt owed any disrespect either. So to go out of your way and insult it is unacceptable.

it is fine to go on say PC this and PC that, lets just all say what is on our minds no matter who gets offended.

it sounds like a great idea in principle, unchecked, irresponsible freedom, but it dosent work, never has and will not begin now.

so instead of fighting dogma, point is to see where this came from and how it could either be salvaged or solved.

Why would he "vainly threaten to kick your ass"? :confused:

Splatman :D

.

.

Hey, y'know what? Recently, some footage of American soldiers beating Iraqi civilians "Rodney King" style were just released by the media. NOW these Muslims have something more legitimate to protest against instead of a few doodles. :eek:

It was footage of British Soliders.

.

If anyone's reckless, it's the viewer who burns down a building because he doesn't like a cartoon.

I should be able to put out a cartoon about a character who doesn't like cheese, without enduring the wrath of the dairy industry.

And I agree.

The question is if the cartoon is HURTFUL.

Most cartoonists are not out to malign anyone to a great degree--and its sad that the crowds that are enraged by these cartoons cannot see past their own objections. It really is a case of something being blown all out of proportion.

I hear you, we're cool. The only reason the American issue came up is because, frankly, I don't know exactly what kind of press rights these countries have, so it was a disclaimer towards whether what happened had legal repercussions beyond my understanding. That's all.

Secondly, it's my (American) right to disrespect Islam and any religion, and it should be so throughout the world. It's my right to nail a Star Wars storm trooper to a crucifix, draw blood all over it and take pictures of it (which I did), because I'm not required to give a two shits about Christianity in any way.

It's not my right to spray paint slurs on churches or reject a muslim from working in my business based on his religion, but I could tell a Mormon or a Shinto that I think his religion is a bunch of bullshit and I think he's a complete idiot, if I were so inclined to do so (of course, in reality, I don't do those things because I just don't care about religion in general and it doesn't really bother me otherwise).

THAT'S how freedom of religion works. You are free to practice your religion, but nowhere does it say you'll be protected from mockery or that people can't draw cartoons of your sacred figures. That's the way I understand democracy is supposed to work, whether it actually plays out in real life or not.

well at what point is it harassment vs your right to free speech?

say i have a person working in my office and he screws up, so i can call him a moron or a dumb hebrew or stupid cow worshipper...

so where does it end?

.

.

Perhaps religion is not unlike the birdshot currently lodged in the organs Harry Whittington, Whittington representing humanity. Whilst engaged in a normally safe operation, it was put there by a cruel, ruthless power-monger, wielding the power of life and death in a completely reckless manner. The birdshot has caused Whittington numerous ills, but to surgically remove the offending matter would cause even more trouble, even death to the patient. If Whittington survives, he will forever carry the scar of that careless act, but may come to terms with the vast ignorance and repugnancy the wound, the act, and the dumbass that perpetrated it.

Perhaps. I get your analogy and it's an interesting argument. I'd say it was the effort to control a population absolutely rather than the act of removing religion from it that was the problem.

And, I'd hardly call religion buckshot, nor that it was or is created by some "dumbass". That's the type of oversimplification and sweeping statement that I was speaking of earlier. Religion is the foundation of our reasoning: "Where did we come from? I can make things, so someone must have made us." These are no longer facts, but to an early people trying to figure out what was going on in the world it was as close to science as they were able to get. Religion in the past served a very specific purpose as it provided a common moral ground and common laws for our society in the past to work from. Some have abused it throughout history to be sure, but many of those rules (like not killing, not stealing, love thy neighbor, etc.) are still in place where more reasonable humans still follow them and use them as their guide. And before you go back to your argument on who's right when picking and choosing these rules, I'll repeat myself by saying, I'm going to agree with you by saying no one is, but as soon as it effects someone adversely outside your sphere of religion then I draw the line. Believe what they want, but if they're about to hurt someone because of what they believe, that's when I'm going to going to get really pissed.

I'd argue that without the common moral ground those in charge wouldn't have anything to keep them in check. People would be nothing more than bags of flesh for them to do with as they pleased (there are still countries that act like this, like China for instance). Societies without the value religion puts on human life have tended to be just as bad as those societies that claim to alone have the ear of god. I'd argue that extremists either for or against religion have been and are bad for everyone.

When the governments of the Western world were completely controlled by religion, it was a nightmare for any independent thinker to live in those countries. Most religions are based in superstition and mythology, so their natural antithesis is based in reason and fact.
Gradually, the Western countries are becoming less religious, and much more liveable.

I agree, and have agreed. Religion with too much involvement in government, or outside their sphere for that matter, is a bad thing. Many people are capable of believing in their religion and living with fact and science. Darwin doesn't disprove god, just as any incompleteness in his theories don't prove god either (I'm very pissed at the creative design issue, I thought we'd answered that question 150 years ago, you want to teach it teach it philosophy and Sunday school, not biology class). Reason and fact are the bane of ignorance, a definite problem in some religious sects to be sure. The things Bush does in the name of religion is horrible. Extremism is bad. It's bad in religion, it's bad in government, it's bad when someone says all animations are for kids, all anime is bad, all anything.

I'm sorry to hear about your experiences in your home town, Saj. I grew up in a similar town hanging out with other art students. I saw and experienced very similar behavior from the more ignorant of the population. There's no excuse for it, whether they're quoting a religious text, or just acting as the common gang known as the varsity football team. Do you still live there? You should make the leap to somplace like San Francisco. I REALLY dug it there. It's not without it's problems but it tended to be a much more enlightened community. Plus, there's a pretty active animation community there.

It's against the law to discriminate against individuals based on race, gender, religion, ethnicity (and in some states) sexual orientation in the work place, and rightfully so. You could get seriously sued for such harrassment.

Now, let's say you hold your temper when your employee screws up, and later on you head out to lunch. Outside the coffee shop is some missionary handing out tracts and he comes up to you with his speil and you say, "get out my face, I don't want to hear your bullshit. Jesus SUX!" That would be your (hopefully) unalienable right to do so, and if that's how you really felt, then that's what you should say.

Personally, I just ignore those people and they move on and I move on. Now, in recent world developments, fundamentalist muslims are forming terrorist organizations and blowing shit up in the name of Islam and people are making comments about it, including in the form of comics. There's nothing they can do about it except riot and blow more shit up. It's lunacy.

Let me put it this way: I've heard more than one Islamic community leader come on the air to say that the hijackers and insurgents aren't really following "true" Islam and that they're not legitimate. BULLSHIT. Religion is religion, and Osama bin Laden's Islam carries the same weight as non-violent, mainstream Islam. Just because you don't agree with fundamentalist Islam because you're the one at the short end of the stick getting suicide bombed doesn't make that religion worth any less than any other. It's total hypocrisy.

why is it hypocrisy? things are always open to interpretation arent they?

we dont see an inquisition or a Salem witch hunty anymore? i think its a bit excessive to say that Osama is the same as my family friends who are well educated, well employed, well to do muslims who have absolutely no desire to bomb hurt or maim christians or anyone else.

it would be hypocrisy if they said Osama dosent speak for us and then go psst, bombs away.

cant be that rigid.

I agree with Harvey Human entirely on the issue of religion.

[i]Genesis 19:8
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.[/i]

It's better to let a village of rapists have their way with your only daughters than turn out two strange men you just met that day? And this comes from the "Sodom Episode" of the Bible that the religious right uses to condemn homosexuals. Really upstanding morals in that book, there, the Bible. Today, we have Muslims blowing themselves (and others) up in Asia over the Koran, rioting in the streets because of political cartoons. Religion IS people. Well put, Harvey. I don't understand how the mainstream acts like fundamentalist Christians and Muslims are blowing religion out of proportion when, as "fundamentalists", they take it more seriously than anything else and follow it strictly. Quit picking and choosing the parts of your religion as you see fit and either follow it or realize it's just mass political mind-control.

Wow. Dr. Laura can quote the bible, too.

I hope you guys quoting the bible to prove your point realise you sound just as crazy and fanatical as the people quoting it to prove their points. It sounds like you're the ones taking a fundamentalist look on things, again, not formally organized, but your views aren't a whole lot different in timber and tone from those you disagree with. About the same black and white view of things the other side has taken.

And why not be reasonable and realise that each portion of the bible was written in a different time, under different circumstances, in a different context. Many Christians are capable of realizing this (many aren't as well). The parts you've quoted were from a different time when the people writing them had different views. Americans thought slavery was a pretty good thing, as did many other nationalities. The railroad leading to California was built largely on the indentured servitude of Chinese labor. California's entire economoy hinges on the ability of manfacturers and farmers to exploit near slave labor in immigrant workers. Is that something you support by choosing to live in California? I doubt it. But it's the argument you're using.

There are reasonable Christians, Muslims and Jews who don't hold the Old Testament as law, have an accepting view of gays (the Episcopal church has a lesbian Bishop), believe in Darwin and evolution, can think for themselves and still believe in the god they've chosen, and believe in doing good. You guys sound just as bad as all the nut jobs calling homosexuality a sin, and just as intolerant.

And as far as the mind control thing, corporate television is a form of political and economical (many times synonimous these days), and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and believing that you can take the parts of television that you enjoy and find fullfilling without being brainwashed into buying everything their trying to sell. Some people can't. Some people believe that it's important if Nick and Jessica have split up, they buy the newest video game, card game, or junk food. Everything comes with it's goods and bads, it's whether you can separate out the two that becomes important in life. Religion is not different. There are many that take it at face value, believing everything shoveled in front of them, there are many who don't. Don't judge it solely on the people who can't think for themselves.

As the lawyer for Larry Flint said to the supreme court, "This is more of a case of taste not libel." What the violent protesters don't quite realize is that the problem does not lie with the cartoons demonizing the Middle East or the Nation of Islam but rather that the toons makes the editors of this paper seem like ignorant bigotted assholes (which I'm sure they are).
Portraying the prophet Mohammed as a terrorist with a bomb in hand is just as insulting as a picture of Jesus Christ dressed head to toe in the stars and stripes shooting an AK-47 at Iraqis. Attacking a religion's way of life and some of the people in it is one thing. But you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Both Jesus and Mohammed based their religions on good solid foundations. To blame them for all the wrong decisions made over the centuries is lazy and ignorant.

Yes, I'm all for free speech and the protesters do seem silly. But, in this case, the editors of the paper who print those cartoons deserve some sort of repremand for what they've done. It's just like on message boards. Someone makes an assinine statement, others have a right to call that user on it.

Don't want to get involved, but please keep Skiz on his good side, please.:)

Of course religion isn't absolved of these problems, I never said it was, but you keep implying that I did.

To blame it on religion is absurd.

...

when governments have sought to completely expunge relgion from the public conscious (namely the Soviet Union and China) it also coincided with some of the worst human rights violations in the history of mankind.

Those particular secular governments silenced anyone who disagreed with them, not just religious people. Those governments behaved the same as many religion-based governments have over the centuries. It is overwhelmingly religion-based governments that have killed, tortured, banished, and suppressed people who practiced religions other than the official one.

[i]"I don't think witchcraft is a religion. I would hope the military officials would take a second look at the decision they made."
"I do not think witchcraft is a religion, and I do not think it is in any way appropriate for the U.S. military to promote it." [/i]
- George W. Bush, pandering to his Christian supporters. He disapproved of Wiccan soldiers being given the same religious rights as others in the military.
Notice how Bush does away with the Wiccan's right to religious liberty by redefining Wicca as not a religion and further denigrating it with the term witchcraft.
[i]
"I don't see how we can allow public dollars to fund programs where spite and hate is the core of the message. Louis Farrakhan preaches hate."[/i]
-- George W. Bush, on being asked by a reporter if the Nation of Islam would be eligible for federal money, but failing to distinguish between the "hate" that he says Farrakhan preaches and the hate (against atheists and other non-Christians) that many Christian churches preach.

sources: http://www.religioustolerance.org http://www.positiveatheism.org

Today a Muslim mob burned down the Danish consulate in Beirut because of some doodles in a newspaper.
I'm sure the mob sees that as a righteous and intelligent act. You're welcome to share their opinion.
I call it stupidity.

I definitely agree that is a stupid and reckless act based on ignorance. But calling religion stupid is stupid and ignorant as well. Most certainly not on par with burning down buildings to be sure. Certainly there are those in religion (as in any group) that are stupid, that take it too far. But there are many who believe in any number of religious belief systems who do good, don't preach to anyone, and are reasonable human beings.

Perhaps I'm reading into your writings (and you've mentioned religion more than once on here) and you only meant that this act was an example of stupidity WITHIN religion but it sounds as if you're painting with a very broad brush, calling all of religion stupid. Aren't your beliefs a form of religion, even if it isn't formally institutionallized, and as such, you're putting of your beliefs on others just as insulting as them putting their beliefs on you?

As far as freedom of speech, there are results to one's actions, and that goes for what has been said. This is by no means an excuse for people to act like animals (they are, after all, only words, relax), but it is something to keep in mind. To blindly say what ever you want, when ever you want and not expect any reaction is foolish.

all this reminds me of one of my fav stories that i heard once again on the Sopranos rerun.

there is a frog and there is a scorpion and they meet at the bank of the flooding river . the scorpion says to the frog can you carry me on your back and take me across. the frog says " you will bite me" and he says "no, i wont, i promise" they banter back and forth for a bit and the frog ultimately agrees. the scorpion on the frogs back is trying his damndest not to sting the frog and its taking all his possible will power not to. Halfway through the river he stings the frog and they both begin to drown, right before they both go down, the frog asks the scorpion "why? we are both dead now" so the scorpion says "i cant help it, its my nature"

so in the end i think it dosent matter, im sure we will find a new way to piss them off or they will find one to piss us off.

after all this is what we do.

i think what was done by the newspaper was appalling. there was no reason to deliberately go and insult a religion like that (I am not religious at all for the record)

However what they did was well within their right to free speech. It was at their discretion and they excercised their right.

The govt has no business interfering in this an im glad they didnt. There is controversy obviously and everyone will have to live with the fallout of this. So there are consequences.

I think the individuals right to free speech is def more important.

...

Like I said, I was replying to your comment that those particular problems "stemmed" from religion, not that religion didn't also take part in them. Stemmed from implies the root of, or cause. I was disagreeing that religion was the cause of those problems, not that they weren't problems. That's all. If you're looking for contradiction in what I've been saying, you might want to start by re-examining your scary movie analogies. I never said all, and to imply I meant it is absurd.

Those particular secular governments silenced anyone who disagreed with them, not just religious people. Those governments behaved the same as many religion-based governments have over the centuries. It is overwhelmingly religion-based governments that have killed, tortured, banished, and suppressed people who practiced religions other than the official one.

[i]"I don't think witchcraft is a religion. I would hope the military officials would take a second look at the decision they made."
"I do not think witchcraft is a religion, and I do not think it is in any way appropriate for the U.S. military to promote it." [/i]
- George W. Bush, pandering to his Christian supporters. He disapproved of Wiccan soldiers being given the same religious rights as others in the military.
Notice how Bush does away with the Wiccan's right to religious liberty by redefining Wicca as not a religion and further denigrating it with the term witchcraft.
[i]
"I don't see how we can allow public dollars to fund programs where spite and hate is the core of the message. Louis Farrakhan preaches hate."[/i]
-- George W. Bush, on being asked by a reporter if the Nation of Islam would be eligible for federal money, but failing to distinguish between the "hate" that he says Farrakhan preaches and the hate (against atheists and other non-Christians) that many Christian churches preach.

sources: http://www.religioustolerance.org http://www.positiveatheism.org

I was just pointing out that the expirements in government devoid of religion were horrible as well. You did ask about a 'mythical time' when religion wasn't involved in government, I was just giving you some examples from recent history where governments based on absolutely no religion have failed as well.

I definitely agree that Bush is an intolerant idiot. And his use of religion for stupid, intolerant laws makes me very upset, too. I've also said repeatedly that governments entirely based on religion are a bad deal.

... sorry about the delay of response to this. At first I thought it was too silly to respond to, but I keep thinking about it so here goes.

You can stretch the definition of religion by saying that it's any enthusiastic belief: "I love cartoons, therefore I'm religious."

However, we're obviously talking about the type of religion that is founded on the belief in the spiritual and supernatural.
It deals with things that are presented as fact although there is no direct physical evidence of their existence. Usually there is a deity involved in the type of religion we're discussing, although sometimes it's flying saucers or environmental spirits/ghosts.

I understand your definition and I'll partially agree on it, but I thought we were talking about people's beliefs in religion. Yours are very strong on religion (you've posted several times on your feelings on god in this board without it actually coming up before hand). You aren't bombing and killing people, and I don't suspect you ever would. My point was that your views on religion and your preaching about how you emphatically dislike religion is as welcome as someone showing up and saying I should be saved or go to hell, or not speak poorly of Mohamed. I don't appreciate being told my belief system is useless or even harmful as much as you don't. And for the record, I haven't told you what my belief system is, only how I feel about views on tolerance (or intolerance in this case) towards other people's beliefs as that's the portion of religion I thought was pertinent towards the conversation.

I'll put forth that your beliefs in religion are just as likely to be unsavory to others as organized religion is to you. And that's the crux of this conversation, not the content of our beliefs but our commitment to them and our feelings towards people who don't believe the same thing. Lack of an organization doesn't make your views on religion any different than someone in an organization. You're disdain and insults towards people who think differently are just as distasteful as someone saying it in the name of their god.

The difference is that I'm not demanding that others conform to my beliefs. I'm not jailing or killing people who don't believe what I do.

Most practicing an organized religion aren't either. No one here is demanding that either. And everyone here has agreed that the fanatics are not good for anyone, and that religious zealots are bad news for everyone involved. No one here has defended the ills done to the world by religion (except Saj who now seems to be defending their actions....?). Many (most depending on the religion) within the given relgions don't agree with this behavior either. Yet, you and others here keep holding up the fanatics as the reason that ALL religion is stupid, useless, and bad for the world, etc. A tact that fanatics for organized religion also hold to, holding the worst of one group up as the representation of the whole.

As much as you might like it to be, the world is not black or white. Not all of religion is bad (most of it actually isn't), not all anime is bad, not all animation is bad, not all government is bad, very rarely is all of anything bad, and yet that's your whole argument. Saj, if all you were doing was calling out bad behavior and not quoting the good, that's fine, but you're using the bad actions as sole proof of religion's value, and that's just a flawed argument. "Some of religion is bad, so it's all bad." It doesn't work for any other topic and I don't see why it would hold water here. I'll hold to my position that you guys may be using different words, but you're saying the same things as the fanatics.

This has all been about tolerance and it sounds like there are several people here that are awfully intolerant. And damn it, now I sound just as intolerant as you guys. Hopefully, being intolerant of intolerance actually makes a difference, and separates me, if only through the virtue of self-awareness from the other fanatics in the world.

I've said the same thing over and over now. So I'll stop with this post. In fairness I'll check back to see if there are responses and take them into consideration as I continue to weigh and revise my personal beliefs in religion. If someone specifically asks me to respond to a question I will, but I don't seem to be getting my point across, so I'll quit and go back to animating. I truly hope that all of us can learn to be more tolerant of each others views on the world, whether they're in the supernatural, or just what type of animation they like to watch.

Move on up here to Seattle!

Less ass-kicking! We have VERY liberal politics here, and more pierced bodies than you could shake a stick at!

Want to really feel out of place? Try being a conservative working in a liberal state, in a liberal county, in a liberal city, in a liberal industry, MARRIED to a liberal!!! *sniff* That's me! *sniff*

(Seriously, if you're into 3D you may actually get a job...lots of Gaming companies located here.)

Splatman:D

Let me get his strait, KDiddy. You're saying that people who claim to believe in Jesus Christ, swear on the bible and call themselves Christians and then pick and choose which parts of their holy book they're going to "take seriously" are somehow BETTER than those that are fanatical about it? It's kind of hard to be objective about Mr. Nice-Guy-in-the-Sky.

So do you want more crazy fundamentalist religous zealots? Or are you playing the 'holier than thou' card? Because that's a bit of a BS argument if you ask me. And I'm not saying better, as much as I don't think that their intolerance and hatred is really what the bible was after. It's fairly obvious what the intent of the book is (be nice to people and don't kill each other) while filtering out the stuff that is obviously politically motivated by whatever leaders were in charge at the time. Many Christians are smart enough to realize that the Bible has been rewritten hundreds of times through history and can look at it as a general picture of things. Reason. It is possible in the context of religion.

What does that have to do with what I'm saying? I'm not using the bible as proof of anything regarding human nature or whatever you seem to have thought I was saying. I was pointing out a passage I find particularly interesting, the one that implies that even the savage raping of one's own daughters is worth saving two complete strangers from the same fate. It's their book, dude, and the whole thing is just as relatively ancient as any other one part of it. Most people that call themselves Christians don't live Christian lives because they're hedonists. I'm not judging them for being hedonists, but they still say I'm going to hell. Wowzers.

So why quote it then, other than to prove your point? Fundamentalists are picking and choosing their quotes from the bible to prove their point, just as you are. And just like they are, you are using it to judge people you obviously don't agree with. Not much different from my perspective.

And so now you want people to be reasonable? Do you think that Christians should treat their daughters this way? Me neither. Reason. And it isn't as relatively ancient as other parts. Much of it was rewritten in the past half millenium and new bibles continue to come out today with different wording. Some parts get rewritten, others don't, some just get deleted.

And I'm not sure why you think you're going to hell. Some Christians might believe it. Hey, I trim my sideburns, but I'm not particularly worried about being forced to play Monopoly for eternity and only rolling 2's. Many Christians believe that everyone eventually goes to heaven. Many don't think others are going to hell due to a difference in views or even beliefs. Hell doesn't play prominently in many Christian churches anymore.

Christians that believe in evolution are fine by me, no problem, but I can't very well say that Christianity is a sin, can I? So, it's not the same thing. Telling somebody that they're going to hell and telling someone that they're a fanatical ignoramus are different things, no?

How so? It's still condeming them for their beliefs. "Fanatical ignoramus" is a condemning insult for you, just as "you're going to hell" is for them. Again, you sound as intolerant of their views and lifestyles as they do, you're just using different words.

See, you made this analogy to religion yourself. I'd be willing to accept that religion is just a grand and all-encompassing form of entertainment. But to say that the folks who just watch Family Guy whenever they feel like it are better than the folks who think it's the best show and buy all the stuffed toys, I don't agree with. That doesn't make any sense to me.

My point is that there's brainwashing everywhere. Everywhere you go someone is trying to get you to think their way. I'm sure you've seen the Raiders fans who've gone to far and it's become all life encompassing. A difference sure. Religion at least has the benefit of encouraging people to do good.

What makes you think I haven't made my conclusions about religion based on religion itself? It's clear to me that believing and having faith in things you cannot prove and don't even make sense is a gigantic waste of time and energy. It wouldn't be so bad if the people doing it would knock it off with the wars and suicide bombings, especially since religion doesn't benefit humanity in any exclusive way that I can imagine, meaning helping the poor, doing good deeds, living a virtuous life, and et cetera. Those things happen with or without religion, despite what religious people would have you believe.

The fact that your only arguments are based on the most unreasonable portions of it that many don't believe in or follow, for one. Watching TV is a gigantic waste of time, and the news blows things out of proportion (to the point of getting a whole nation to go to war), and yet I don't hear any significant complaints here about TV or the newspaper causing problems. And what's wrong with believing in something you can't prove, especially if it gives you comfort and encourages charity.

There aren't many things that are exclusive like that and many wouldn't do those things without religion. And no one is arguing that the wars caused over religion aren't stupid. Wars are always stupid, it doesn't take religion to make it so. Wars and suicide bombings, and hating your neighbors aren't exclusive to religion either, and they aren't a part of it for a majority of religious followers. I've never met a Muslim suicide bomber, but I do know Muslims, just as most of the Christians I know are for gay rights, believe in evolution, and don't think that anyone who disagrees with them is going to hell (and come to think of it, don't mention hell or heaven at all).

Of course, nothing personal, Diddy. That's how I see it, though.

I haven't taken offense. I just hope that you can take a step back and see that quoting the bible, pointing out the Crusades, etc. makes you sound just as crazy and intolerant as the people doing the same thing on the other side. And for the record, I don't agree with them either, and I would be arguing just as strongly against what they were saying for being ignorant and intolerant.

Anyone is free to draw any image they choose (freedom of artistic expression) however, once an image is published and distributed in the national/international press the image may become used as a political tool. These images were published for political reasons and we are now seeing the political backlash of this.

Makes me want to go watch a Clockwork Orange again.

Yea, I guess this is "touchy," but what it comes down to is radicalism. Freedom of speech is important to me, and I would go to just about any length to protect it. I probably wouldn't go so far as to become a brainwashed radical in favor of a pseudo-facistic lifestyle of narrow-mindedness and reactionary violence. [Please notice I didn't mention Islam anywhere in there.]

The answer is none of us would go that far because freedom of speech protects against that very thing. By opening society to public discourse of any kind from any angle, it's impossible for dangerous levels of homogenization to occur.

I think that's actually a paradox, but who's counting?

The muslim world reacting with such outrage does nothing but hurt their own credibility and connection to the rest of the world. Especially the Danish. It's exactly what they don't need to be doing. Radicalism is stupid. This isn't my phrase but, I find it to be as true as any: "Constant shallowness leads to evil."

Politics didn't have anything to do with this at the heart of it. Yes, now they're burning down buildings and telling Danes to flee Lebanon (where the Prime Minister just resigned, btw,) but at the start? It was just some cartoons, man.

The fact that it is on the international table makes it even worse- now religions in other countries can presume to tell cultures thousands of miles away what they can and can't do? Where the hell do these people get off? And it's not Islam, it's radicalism- remember that when I say 'these people.'

Draw a cartoon of Jesus in S+M gear blowing the Pope and get it published in major newspapers in NY and you'll find there are radicals here too. Mostly in or around Texas and the southern states. They just don't seem to be burning buildings over things these days. At least, none in America.

The only thing I can really conclude is that radicalism is bad, humanity is fundamentally stupid, and we are all cosmic schmucks. Which, honestly, is why cartoons are so important.

Yes, I'm all for free speech and the protesters do seem silly. But, in this case, the editors of the paper who print those cartoons deserve some sort of repremand for what they've done. It's just like on message boards. Someone makes an assinine statement, others have a right to call that user on it.

Sorry, Hare, what? Reprimand? For what? What did they do? What about the artists that drew the stuff, should they be punished? Is it this kind of opinion that's bad? What about anti-cheese ads like Harvey's? Where's the line?

As much as I agree with everything you guys are saying about "responsiblity" that comes with free speech, I don't see anyone with the balls to say "free speech is more important than fundamentalist agendas."

Free speech IS more important than radical, free thought stifling agendas.

Peacefull people don't want to cut off peoples heads because they draw or publish stupid cartoons. Organized religion has always and probably always will be a common reason to start wars.

For me this whole deal shows how a few news people can act in bad taste (no surprise there) and how a religious group can seriously over-react(also nothing new).

Relax

It was footage of British Soliders.

Yup. I saw the news this morning and they were indeed British soldiers. My bad. :o I certainly wish they would have 'minded their bullocks' at that time. :rolleyes:

I think the individuals right to free speech is def more important.

Sry skinny, I missed your post. We agree on free speech- tho "insulting a religion," is no cause for violence, and no justification for what's happening.

If a religion that's thousands of years old can't roll a couple cartoons off its back like water off a duck... that's just sad.

I just lost so much respect for Islam it's palpable. Something close to my POV, or just for good reading:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/02/05/we_are_all_danes_now/

Wow. Dr. Laura can quote the bible, too.

I hope you guys quoting the bible to prove your point realise you sound just as crazy and fanatical as the people quoting it to prove their points. It sounds like you're the ones taking a fundamentalist look on things, again, not formally organized, but your views aren't a whole lot different in timber and tone from those you disagree with. About the same black and white view of things the other side has taken.

And why not be reasonable and realise that each portion of the bible was written in a different time, under different circumstances, in a different context. Many Christians are capable of realizing this (many aren't as well). The parts you've quoted were from a different time when the people writing them had different views. Americans thought slavery was a pretty good thing, as did many other nationalities. The railroad leading to California was built largely on the indentured servitude of Chinese labor. California's entire economoy hinges on the ability of manfacturers and farmers to exploit near slave labor in immigrant workers. Is that something you support by choosing to live in California? I doubt it. But it's the argument you're using.

There are reasonable Christians, Muslims and Jews who don't hold the Old Testament as law, have an accepting view of gays (the Episcopal church has a lesbian Bishop), believe in Darwin and evolution, can think for themselves and still believe in the god they've chosen, and believe in doing good. You guys sound just as bad as all the nut jobs calling homosexuality a sin, and just as intolerant.

And as far as the mind control thing, corporate television is a form of political and economical (many times synonimous these days), and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and believing that you can take the parts of television that you enjoy and find fullfilling without being brainwashed into buying everything their trying to sell. Some people can't. Some people believe that it's important if Nick and Jessica have split up, they buy the newest video game, card game, or junk food. Everything comes with it's goods and bads, it's whether you can separate out the two that becomes important in life. Religion is not different. There are many that take it at face value, believing everything shoveled in front of them, there are many who don't. Don't judge it solely on the people who can't think for themselves.

That's the thing though, if the tome is a product of its time, then the Divine Wisdom in it should TRANSCEND time and human cultural evolution.

Its got some good ideas in it, but it betrays its true authorship.

Organized religion has always and probably always will be a common reason to start wars.
...Relax

Organized religion also offers useful tidbits of truth and virtue, moral guidence, self-fulfilling peace and wholeness, knowledge through tradition, family bonds and community, lessons of kindness and compassion...

And I don't follow a single one of them. Yet here I am, perfectly relaxed, defending them from your statement. Why? Because you blanketed thousands of years of human knowledge into an igorant little reality tunnel constructed by you and your brain, and very little else.

Religions don't start wars.

People start wars. Seen the news lately?