Someone remind me again...what planet are we on?

Jason the Magnificent - 4-21-2010 at 05:28 PM

http://www.wwtdd.com/2010/04/matt-and-trey-might-be-murdered...

Mark Lind - 4-21-2010 at 05:42 PM

Well I agree that what they're doing is stupid but not for the same reasons that the website implied. All religion is nonsense in my opinion. But to use the Mohammed character in their show when they know it's a hot-button, controversial issue is stupid. The truth is that they could end up dead because of it. It's just not worth that kind of publicity to me. Again, I really think religion is dumb. But we gotta realize that not everyone lives in America where nothing is taboo and everything is fair game. I hope nothing happens to them.

BDx13 - 4-21-2010 at 08:42 PM

i love when people say "this isn't a threat" and then proceed to make a, you know... threat.

DaveMoral - 4-21-2010 at 10:00 PM

We live on a planet of 6 billion people and there are plenty of people that take serious offense to others insulting what and who they consider sacred. For many people there are "fighting words" and those words are for many insults to religion. Matt and Trey went into making this knowing full well what they are doing and getting themselves into.

It's fucked up, and I disagree with threatening violence and death in particular over this kind of ignorance. I disagree with Mark on the religion topic, obviously, but I agree with him that people need to be more conscious and take the notion of "freedom of expression" with the responsibilities that come with it. I think we have a responsibility to exercise our freedoms in such a way that doesn't cause harm to individuals or society... and frankly, desecration of people's sacred things and personages is a form of hate speech. In this case, it encourages a particular perception of Muslims and our sacred personages and furthermore, Matt and Trey did this particular stunt specifically to stir some shit. They are actively encouraging the worst representatives of the worldwide Muslim community to come out and use their hate speech, thereby continuing the particular image that Islamophobes want to be THE image of Islam and Muslims.

Jason the Magnificent - 4-21-2010 at 10:13 PM

It's a cycle of nonsense on everyone's part.

I in no way posted this to get another long winded religious debate going here. More so just to say what the fuck is wrong with ALL of us.

This whole thing seems like we're at the tail end of a failed experiment.

gavin - 4-21-2010 at 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveMoral
I agree with him that people need to be more conscious and take the notion of "freedom of expression" with the responsibilities that come with it. I think we have a responsibility to exercise our freedoms in such a way that doesn't cause harm to individuals or society... and frankly, desecration of people's sacred things and personages is a form of hate speech.

are you for real?
seriously
you seem like an ok guy
but some of the shit you say is just.....
if this was the case, there would be no art whatsoever
someone, somewhere is going to be offended by everything or anything
if everyone " exercise our freedoms in such a way that doesn't cause harm to individuals or society" there would be nothing!

no movies
no books
no music
no art
no nothing

think about it man

Jason the Magnificent - 4-21-2010 at 10:43 PM

Somebody hacked the hell out of that website apparently. I'll save D the headache of linking it here (my tin foil hat keeps me warm) but I'm sure everyone knows how to work the internet. Just saw it on the 9er on a thread on the same subject.

The cycle continues.

Mark Lind - 4-21-2010 at 11:48 PM

I watched the episode of South Park tonight (or at least Part 1). Did you guys watch it yet? The entire premise is that, while it is out-of-bounds for some people to offend the masses, it's perfectly acceptable for South Park. Some times I think we're too self centered as a nation. To echo what I said earlier, just because we think it's ok in the US doesn't mean EVERYONE agrees with that. A good portion of the world sees us as a cesspool of immoral waste. The episode is clearly trying to pick a fight with these people and they just might get one. They can do what they want - they're obviously free to do so - but I don't think anyone should be shocked if some militant really did put one of them in a body bag.

barc0debaby - 4-22-2010 at 12:55 AM

I love South Park and completely approve of what they are doing. I don't think it is stupid at all, they are using their platform as a beacon of social commentary. They would be completely irresponsible if they felt that a situation i.e. the archaic beliefs surrounding the profit Muhammad. The fact that people are so upset about them not even showing Muhammad goes to reinforce my beliefs that evolution has sadly left these people in the stone age.

[img]A good portion of the world sees us as a cesspool of immoral waste[/img]

A good portion of the world is uncivilized fuckin cavemen so their point is moot. I was just reading a story the other day about a 13 Yemini girl who spent four days bleeding to death when her arranged husband busted her hymn. The fact is just like there are a lot of stupid people in America, a good portion of the world is still just a bunch of ignorant savages.

The only thing that hurts the perception of Muslims is Muslims. You don't want me looking at you funny the airport, don't hijack planes. You don't want me laughing at Joe Rogan jihad jokes stop bastardizing the word. While I certainly don't think that every single Muslim is a terrorist enough of them are that somebody needs to say something. Just like not every priest gets sucked off by little boys, but enough of them do to make it a serious issue.

I'm sure Trey and Matt can afford quality security and hopefully if any attempts are made on them, their retarded Jihadist assailants will get two in the chest and one in the head.

newbreedbrian - 4-22-2010 at 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gavin

Quote:

+1

South Park has never been the master of subtlety, no doubt. But they are making a point, and a valid one. Believing something is one thing, wanting to kill someone for a cartoon/not believing what you do is a whole different matter. That deserves no respect from anyone.

Mark Lind - 4-22-2010 at 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by barc0debaby
I love South Park and completely approve of what they are doing. I don't think it is stupid at all, they are using their platform as a beacon of social commentary. They would be completely irresponsible if they felt that a situation i.e. the archaic beliefs surrounding the profit Muhammad. The fact that people are so upset about them not even showing Muhammad goes to reinforce my beliefs that evolution has sadly left these people in the stone age.

[img]A good portion of the world sees us as a cesspool of immoral waste[/img]

A good portion of the world is uncivilized fuckin cavemen so their point is moot. I was just reading a story the other day about a 13 Yemini girl who spent four days bleeding to death when her arranged husband busted her hymn. The fact is just like there are a lot of stupid people in America, a good portion of the world is still just a bunch of ignorant savages.

The only thing that hurts the perception of Muslims is Muslims. You don't want me looking at you funny the airport, don't hijack planes. You don't want me laughing at Joe Rogan jihad jokes stop bastardizing the word. While I certainly don't think that every single Muslim is a terrorist enough of them are that somebody needs to say something. Just like not every priest gets sucked off by little boys, but enough of them do to make it a serious issue.

I'm sure Trey and Matt can afford quality security and hopefully if any attempts are made on them, their retarded Jihadist assailants will get two in the chest and one in the head.

I'm not really sure that I support international relations being weakened (or affected in any way) by a cartoon. I generally like South Park and I even laughed at that episode. It was funny. But look, Trey Parker and Matt Stone aren't going to change the world with their cartoon. The people that believe in that religion take it seriously. This isn't just Tom Cruise they're making fun of. It's not just a lawsuit they're risking. And let's not fool ourselves into thinking it's about artistic or social statement; it's about ratings. The majority of the people that watch that show are stoners and losers sitting on their couch and eating Cheetos. It's not like they're having some sort of social impact; that's all in their minds.

All of this is worst case scenario of course. The likely outcome is that it will blow over and that's it. But if one of them ends up dead is the other gonna get up at his funeral and say that his buddy died in the name of the first ammendment of the United States constitution? That's just crazy and stupid. But it's their risk.....

BKT - 4-22-2010 at 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gavin

Quote:

Could not agree more. You want to believe and carry on with such nonsense I have the right to tell you to shut up and fuck off. Just like you can turn around and tell me the same. No harm no foul. Don't be so fucking sensitive, has it ever occurred to you how offensive I find it when some assholes knocks on my door, or when I am bombarded with religious jargon day in and day out? Then again what the hell is the point in arguing with anyone who as a grown man or woman still talks to an imaginary friend.

Fucking absurd all this is.

BKT.

DaveMoral - 4-22-2010 at 11:26 AM

Quote:

What's left the Middle East in the stone age is European imperialism and American neo-colonialism. Plain and simple. And, quite frankly, the strain of Islamic fundamentalism that is the problem here is, in fact, a very MODERN take on Islam much the same way that Christian fundamentalism and Jewish fundamentalism are modern phenomena.

I'm sad to see that you're buying into the bullshit "profile" everyone mentality. You're also painting the entire Muslim world population with a rather large brush. Because some random asshole hijacked an airplane I have to be subjected to your scruntiny just because of my religious affiliation? That's bullshit.

Secondly, South Park is pretty low on the social relevance meter. There are more effective means of criticizing a particular mentality, and it doesn't have to include offending and alienating the very people that you(as a society) need to have on your side to effectively combat the brand of extremism represented by those that threaten death on the likes of Trey Parker and Matt Stone. They are being socially irresponsible with this particular idea of specifically defaming Muhammad... especially when they know full well there's a good chance that anyone that would attempt to kill them would likely do so as a suicide bomber. They are not likely to sneak into their homes and knife them in their sleep like a ninja. They are likely to keep tabs on when and where Parker and Stone come and go and drive up and BOOM. They aren't taking their own lives into danger here, but likely others as well. That's socially irresponsible.

gavin, I so strongly disagree with your sentiment I don't have much to say to you other than to wonder if you think hate speech is valid means of free expression in a society that values peace and social order. We don't accept that it's valid to advertize products with black face charicatures of black people anymore because that's racist and uncivilized. Why do we accept that it's okay to desecrate the sacred objects of religious people? It's no less uncivilized and hateful. Trey Parker and Matt Stone have next to nothing to say that I find remotely relevant, shit South Park barely exists to me anymore or really anyone else except the afformentioned stoners and losers that are the primary audience now, I can easily ignore what they are doing here. The last time they depicted Muhammad(in the episode with the religious Super Friends) I thought it was hilarious. This time, if done with the intent to defame and offend... I'll find it offensive no doubt. Offensive art is one thing, but hatefully offensive art is another IMO. Everyone has freedom of expression, but it comes with responsibilities and acceptance of the consequences of that expression. In a civil society one could be censured from public discourse by the public, lose your standing in your community, etc. No one is restricting the freedom of expression of Parker and Stone, but they've gotten a definite reaction and possible worst case scenario consequence of their exercising their right. Someone is offended and that someone is violent. Sure, it's uncivil and stupid... but so is needlessly insulting 1.6 billion people for the sake of taking a dig at less than 10% of that population.

I find these guys to be just as ignorant and stupid as those that threaten them. I dare say the primary difference between the two is that Parker and Stone essentially have a safety net of knowledge that they have a government with the largest military in the world to do violence to those they are hating on... while the extremist group take matters into their own hands.

*edit* I'm amending my entire post with this: no one has actually threatened Parker and Stone. It's not a threat when some guys running a website make the observation that it is indeed stupid to do these sorts of things when you know full well that others have done similar and been subject to violence. The cartoonist in the Netherlands had a guy break into his home while his granddaughter was there trying to kill him. Van Gogh was killed because of his film that depicted verses from the Qur'an projected on women's bodies. The fact that they cited Van Gogh's murder as proof that walking down the path of offending specifically a religious figure revered by 1.6 billion people some of whom are known to be violent extremists is stupid and could indeed get you killed. Never the less, they were not actually threatened by any group unless you consider the general observation that "if you insist on doing this, there's a good chance someone might try to kill you" is a threat. BD, it'd be a threat if they said "this isn't a threat, but I'm going to kill you." That's not what was said. It was more like "dude, this guy that did a similar thing was killed over it... you might not want to do that, it would be stupid."

JawnDiablo - 4-22-2010 at 01:07 PM

Happy Earth Day everyone!

gavin - 4-22-2010 at 01:13 PM

hate speak is indeed a valid form of some peoples expression.
the klan and other such things have every right to say what they want.
and i have every right to say they are full of shit.

on a much smaller level, im offended by some of the things earth crisis for example have said.
but they have every right to sing about whatever they want
and i have the freedom to dismiss it as not for me.

commentary and criticism of religion and government and other social issues are what alot of great art, music, movies and books are based on.
if everyone who made such things had to be concerned what some backwards thinking people(not a shot at you or yr religion, but extremists of any kind) then maybe many of the things that alot of people enjoy would never have been made.

my father, who is one of the closest people to me is gay.
if some rap song is made bashing gays, im not getting all up in arms about the "responsibility" that the person who made the song holds.
it's what they choose to do, for whatever reason
who am i to say that they shouldn't express a certain mood or thought because i personally find it offensive?
that's a self important attitude that i dont have and i feel like too many others do.

bottom line is this......
people in general need to grow up and realize that not everything revolves around them and their belief systems

gavin - 4-22-2010 at 01:16 PM

and how can you know it's "needlessly insulting"?
you dont know what was in their heads when making this
just as you or i dont know what is involved with the making of any artform that is not our own.

art is this......
you like it and get something out of it....or you dont...period
its really that simple

Murk - 4-22-2010 at 03:07 PM

the whole point of the 200th episode is that Tom Cruise was previously referred to as being "in the closet" and had his religion ridiculed. he is seen by the kids in the new episode working at a chocolate factory putting fudge into boxes and they call him a "fudge-packer".

Tom teams up with everyone South Park has made fun of and they threaten to ruin South Park if they won't give them Moohawmed. their demand isn't that he be made fun of, only that they make him show up and give him to Tom. this is simply a nod to the Cartoon Wars 2-part episode where Family Guy is going to air an image of Moohawmed and the whole town freaks out.

last night, the 201st episode was part two. they completely bleeped Moohawmed's name the entire episode and the last 2 minutes was completely bleeped, but Buddha does cocaine in both episodes and this one ends with Tom Cruise accused of having semen on his back. the whole point in them wanting Moohawmed was so they can extract the "goo" that makes him impervious to ridicule and that way South Park can't make fun of Tom Cruise and others any more.

maybe the world is safer simply bleeping out any reference to Moohawmed or Izlawm to make sure that lines aren't crossed and everyone stays safe. the message seems to be clear. if you don't want to be the subject of humor, criticism or ridicule; threaten, intimidate, strike fear, hurt and kill any one who is different than you.

apparently, it works. :thumbdown:

p.s. i have used the phonetic spelling of certain entities to avoid extremists stumbling on this board through search engines. i like the people here and want everyone to be safe.

newbreedbrian - 4-22-2010 at 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gavin
bottom line is this......
people in general need to grow up and realize that not everything revolves around them and their belief systems

Yup.

Jason the Magnificent - 4-22-2010 at 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveMoral
*edit* I'm amending my entire post with this: no one has actually threatened Parker and Stone. It's not a threat when some guys running a website make the observation that it is indeed stupid to do these sorts of things when you know full well that others have done similar and been subject to violence. The cartoonist in the Netherlands had a guy break into his home while his granddaughter was there trying to kill him. Van Gogh was killed because of his film that depicted verses from the Qur'an projected on women's bodies. The fact that they cited Van Gogh's murder as proof that walking down the path of offending specifically a religious figure revered by 1.6 billion people some of whom are known to be violent extremists is stupid and could indeed get you killed. Never the less, they were not actually threatened by any group unless you consider the general observation that "if you insist on doing this, there's a good chance someone might try to kill you" is a threat. BD, it'd be a threat if they said "this isn't a threat, but I'm going to kill you." That's not what was said. It was more like "dude, this guy that did a similar thing was killed over it... you might not want to do that, it would be stupid."

Sorry Dave, but this is some rose colored glasses shit right here.

I don't believe for a minute that the websites intention was not a threat, directly or not.

Are you seriously trying to say that no one cares about South Park in one breath and that it's low on the relevance meter...yet in the next pretending to be naive enough to believe that website x telling these guys they could get murdered for this and listing their address publicly (multiplying the public exposure of something "irrelevant" tenfold compared to them not saying anything at all) isn't a thinly veiled threat?

I am curious how you feel about Comedy Central being so scared they actually bleeped a good portion of an episode though. I wonder if they'll bleep any mention of Jesus now out of fear of their safety. I'd think radical Christians loathe that depiction of their god...

This isn't an attack on anyone beliefs...but shit is out of hand.

DaveMoral - 4-22-2010 at 09:05 PM

No doubt it's out of hand. I think it's out of hand on both ends of the spectrum.

Hell, frankly, I'm more offended by the Jesus porn thing and the Buddha coke thing than the deal with Muhammad.

The fact remains though, there's responsibility in freedom of speech and mostly that responsibility is realizing that there will be consequences for your words. Sometimes it's censorship on television, loss of standing in the community you're a part of, in this case they are knowingly istigating violent people against them moreover... specifically because they could get violence.

Muslim extremists didn't pick up on the last time South Park had something to do with Muhammad on it, they wouldn't have this time is some twit Stateside who watches the show didn't put it on his website. Hell, the media, by blowing up a story that wouldn't have made the news at all because South Park's viewship isn't what it used to be and a post on a website that no one would have seen most likely, have probably contributed to increasing the danger to these guys. Hell, there's no real reason to believe right now that anyone in al-Qa'ida or whatever group even knows about this or cares. It took like 6 months for the Danish cartoons to become news in the Middle East and provoke a negative, over the top, reaction.

Murk - 4-22-2010 at 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveMoral
The fact remains though, there's responsibility in freedom of speech and mostly that responsibility is realizing that there will be consequences for your words.

no there is not.

the very essence of freedom is the absence of consequence.

there is no freedom involved in having to "watch what you say".

DaveMoral - 4-22-2010 at 11:41 PM

That's bullshit, and quite frankly you know that. There is never any such thing as complete freedom, and there are consequences for your speech. The point of the Constintutional freedom of speech is that the GOVERNMENT does not constrict your speech, except in cases of incitement to violence and speech that encourages or could result in bodily harm to individuals(such as shouting "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater when there is no such fire). The people, not the government, however can impose some form of penalty upon person who chooses to engage in a given form of speech. Hence why in most places the KKK, neo-Nazis and other assorted white power groups tend to get shouted down, run out of towns and protested with equal or greater amounts of people in opposition to them and their speech. THe people have the right to do so.

People have often been ignored, denied distribution of their opinions, or disallowed to speak at certain venues(often times in response to community petitions) because of the form of speech they choose to express. That is not a violation of their first amendment rights in any way, it's a case of the public or venue or institutions taking advantage of their same right to free speech to counter the offending party. This idea that freedom doesn't come with responsibility is absolutely insane and thoroughly contradictory to a well functioning society and democracy. You surely recognize this every single day in some way or another, as do I, and everyone else you know or will ever know. That's just common sense.

Murk - 4-23-2010 at 01:16 AM

replays have been pulled.

episode not available on:

http://www.southparkstudios.com

Here is a healthy torrent link.

Here is a MU link.

DaveMoral - 4-24-2010 at 10:22 AM

For the record, I think it sucks that Comedy Central censored the episode. I can't see the logic in that unless they had some kind of specific knowledge of an imminent attack if they did air it as is. As it is, it was just an obscure website that said something construed(rightly or wrongly) as a thinly veiled threat... but it's not as if there was a video issued by a terrorist cell or whatever. Furthermore, while I haven't seen the episode I'm well aware of the content and I don't personally find it that offensive in the first place. At least not as regards Muhammad, most that seems rather harmless versus the Jesus watching porn thing and Buddha snorting coke. Both of which I find rather more offensive, as Jesus is the second most revered Prophet in Islam after Muhammad and the Prophet whose name is mentioned the most in the Qur'an and I personally(along with many other broad minded Muslims) consider Buddha to also be a Prophet.

random - 4-24-2010 at 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveMoral
At least not as regards Muhammad, most that seems rather harmless versus the Jesus watching porn thing and Buddha snorting coke. Both of which I find rather more offensive

I think that's part of their point. It's offensive, but nobody is making murder threats - implicit or explicit - based on South Park depicting Buddha as a raging coke addict or Jesus as a raging internet porn addict. They are, however, receiving those threats based on a storyline which centers on the fact that violence is (at least) threatened by some Muslims (a very small number of Muslims, at that) in response to the potential depiction of Muhammad.

random - 4-24-2010 at 12:30 PM

Not his greatest performance, but I agree with Jon Stewart's take on this.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

South Park Death Threats

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Tea Party

Murk - 4-24-2010 at 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveMoral
As it is, it was just an obscure website that said something construed(rightly or wrongly) as a thinly veiled threat...

the website posted the address of La Casa Bonita, the studio where South Park does their work.

DaveMoral - 4-24-2010 at 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by random

Quote:

The whole notion of these guys getting worked up specifically about Muhammad being a bear suit or in an ice cream truck and never seen, but not about Jesus watching internet porn is outrageous to me. The Qur'an says that Muslims are supposed to believe in all the prophets of the Bible, including Jesus, and Muhammad and that we don't make any difference between them. If you're going to get worked up enough to suggest a guy or guys should or could be killed because of something offensive towards one of the Prophets I think it should be the Jesus and porn thing rather than the thing with Muhammad.

Which just goes to show, in a weird sort of way, the corrupt nature of these guys' take on Islam. They single out the less offensive material regarding Muhammad as that which they get worked up enough to post an address and say "you could die for this and end up like that Van Gogh dude," but they let the Jesus watching porn "joke" slide by as if it's not actually more offensive to Muslim sensibilities much less Christian sensibilities. It's indicative of the bankruptcy of their entire "ideology" or whatever, it's one that ultimately isn't authentically Islamic, IMO. Let alone the death threats themselves, which are ludicrous.

Muhammad didn't raise a sword, or even a hand, to those opposed to him in Mecca when he first began preaching while they maligned his Message, beat him, threw various kinds of filth on him(entrails etc)... all of which he bore in a very Gandhian manner(of course, Gandhi himself said he found a great deal of inspiration from Muhammad). Muhammad only took to the sword when his followers were being oppressed for their beliefs, thrown out of their homes and their belongings seized and sold. Furthermore, there is a centuries long tradition of depicted Muhammad in Islamic art. Especially Islamic Persian art.

What the Qur'an tells me to do when I am in the presence of those who insult and malign Islam and the Prophet is to leave that gathering. Not to beat or kill or yell at those people, but to simply leave. So in this case, ignore the whole thing and don't watch it.

*Edit* Just to point out the further hypocrisy of alleging to defend the honor of Muhammad by threatening death on anyone that is percieved to be slighting him: the guys are RevolutionMuslim.org, judging by the cached version of their website since it has apparently been taken down, subscribe to the same corrupt theological and ideological strain of thought as not only the al-Qa'ida and Taliban but the Saudi Wahhabi authorities(who are not so much violent towards Americans because they, like their rulers, need American money to maintain their own wealth and spread their insidious influence in Muslim communties around the world). Al-Qa'ida and the Taliban are "Salafis" and they are essentially the same ideology as the Wahhabis. The Wahhabis have long attempted to rid the Muslim community of its devotion to Muhammad specifically. They discourage the ritual blessing recited by most Muslims throughout history upon the Prophet and his family after the 5 daily prayers. The Wahhabi religious authorities in Saudi Arabia had the beautiful Arabic calligraphic inscription of an Egyptian Sufi's poem of praise for Muhammad destroyed off the interior walls of the Prophet's mosque in Medina, Saudi Arabia. In the early part of the 20th century they wanted to tear down the Prophet's mosque itself and the only thing that prevented them was that numerous people who climbed the dome of the mosque to attempt the beginning of deconstruction fell to their deaths. They've done similar things with the tombs and graveyards containing the family of Muhammad. So these very people, who have worked so hard to "cleanse" the Muslims of the world of their devotion to Muhammad are now claiming to "defend" Muhammad by threatening death upon Western artists for their own ignorance regarding Muhammad. These guys, in their "defense," only further defame Muhammad. But then, when haven't they done so? Even amongst Muslims.

random - 4-24-2010 at 04:38 PM

Dave,

I gotta say it's nice having you around for these discussions, even though I think you often get pushed into defending - or at least explaining - certain things more than you actually agree with them. I usually agree with a lot of things you say and, even though I strongly disagree with you on this one, it's really cool that you present the opposing argument without resorting to... well, for lack of a simpler term, acting like a douchebag, even when others who disagree with you are acting like that (not so much here, but definitely in lots of previous discussions/debates).

Oh, and don't worry about my new avatar pic... it's actually Santa inside the costume.

DaveMoral - 4-24-2010 at 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by random
Dave,

I gotta say it's nice having you around for these discussions, even though I think you often get pushed into defending - or at least explaining - certain things more than you actually agree with them. I usually agree with a lot of things you say and, even though I strongly disagree with you on this one, it's really cool that you present the opposing argument without resorting to... well, for lack of a simpler term, acting like a douchebag, even when others who disagree with you are acting like that (not so much here, but definitely in lots of previous discussions/debates).

Oh, and don't worry about my new avatar pic... it's actually Santa inside the costume.

I had a whole response that I wrote earlier, but the computer just shut off on me and I lost it all.

Anyways, thanks for your kind words. It's not easy being in a position to have to defend my religion while at the same time having to condemn my so-called "brothers" since true Islam has been so distorted by these fools and the prevailing Western/Christian polemics regarding Islam and Muslims. I struggle with falling into douchebaggery on these things though sometimes, because it's easy to give as good as you get. It's a whole hell of alot harder to side step that whole track and come out with level headed responses.

Especially when I take my faith and that which is Sacred to me very very seriously, it's as much a part of me as my DNA. It is, in fact, much more me than my DNA I would say. So it's hard not to take a diss at my specific religion, or religion as an umbrella term, somewhat personally. It's very personal to me, so it's a bit hard when a person just straight up disrespects who I am not to take that personally.

I value this community, but honestly I don't necessarily want to hang around when some of you guys(not you specifically random) talk shit on religion and religious people. Especially the whole "imaginary friend" dig really bothers me. I don't want to hang around this forum when those comments are made, and it seems to me that it's always me having to choose my words carefully so as not to have some kind of flame war. While I don't expect anyone on here to believe in what I believe in, nor accord themselves to my sensibilities at all, I wouldn't mind a bit more thoughtfulness in posts.

Let's face it, we'd all like to keep this place civil and we see how close shit can get to incivility when people get to going on religion. My current motto is: have your opinion, but try not to be an asshole about it. Frankly, when dudes talk about religious people in terms like "imaginary friend" or talk like it's "childish" to believe in a Higher Power... that's being an asshole. I personally don't feel that's good for this online community.

That's not say I'd like to see some kind of rule set that limits the shit we can say on here, so far we've managed to never have flame wars like most other forums on the interweb. I dunno, I'd guess I'd like a little more consciousness once in a while. If you've got respect for everyone that posts here, why not act like it? There are less... prickish ways to express athiest views. Ones that don't provoke or insult people who believe. When you talk about "imaginary friends" it doesn't exactly tell me that I could have much of an intellectual discussion with you(again, not you particularly random just vocal athiests in general) on the subject. And not one to even convince you, but one with thoughtfulness instead of stupid anti-religious reactionary bullshit. I'm not that prick Christian preacher that pissed you off when you were a kid, so don't talk to me as if I was trying to condescend to you about what you should believe and what's going to happen to you if you don't. That's not my trip. The only way to legitimately agree to disagree is to have mutual respect for each others' opinions, belief and/or lack of belief.

Peace.

Murk - 4-27-2010 at 07:43 PM