After the FB Mohammed Portrait Day - I made a realization.

Here's my current FB status after 'debate' about 'mocking' Muslims.

Interesting - some see religion as akin to skin color or body type and, as such, should be protected from satire, while others see it as akin to political ideology or choice of sports team and, thus, totally fair game.

Views: 30

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yes - but I didn't speak of discrimination - just satire. If Dane Cook wants to poke fun at atheists - go for it. I'm not gonna shut him down or threaten his life.
I am always undecided on the question. Being an athiest it is almost a fight with whole of society in my place. As a result or practice of years I am almost in habbit of arguing and mocking now. But sometimes it seems like hurting others and sometimes religion looks like an evil to be fought in every possible way. I would like to read others views on this question.
Here's my point of view:

If you espouse a viewpoint - say: homosexuality is an abomination or all atheists are vile - both in the Bible - as your most sacred view - I can piss on your sacred text in the town square and the only thing I should have to worry about is a sanction for public urination. Since your stated views (that you consider holy) are utterly disrespectful, I have no compunction to respect your views.

If there are those who use the religion you espouse and you fail to denounce them, distance yourselves from them, etc - in fact, you choose solidarity with the extremists making threats over dialog with the 'infidels' drawing pictures - again, I feel no compunction to respect you.

I constantly renounce Joe Stalin, for example, as a non-believer who, in no way, represented anything about my view of the world beyond his disbelief.
Anything should be able to be put under the scrutiny of satire.
I think that, if we were all healthy and self-possessed, that would be true. Among many of my friends - it is. But teasing people in wheelchairs, for example, or kids with disabilities - that's pretty uncool. The key word is 'scrutiny.' Being black isn't a mindset, a philosophy or even a way of being. The pop culture of African Americans is satirized, for sure - as are European Americans. But only to the extent that people are likely to actually relate to it. I can say: "Black men love big butts." Fairly harmless though a major generalization that appears to be how pop culture depicts African American sexuality - so possibly I would be satirizing the generalization. But if I say: "Black people are lazy and stupid" - that's just bullshit.

But if I say: "Hmmm... I wonder if Jesus would have liked to wear the Pope's hat and sit on his golden throne?" - well, the Pope DOES wear that hat and sit on a throne of gold - and it IS ironically incongruous with what Jesus (if he actually existed) appeared to espouse.
While this is an interesting question, I hasten to point out that 'draw Mohammed' was not a project to mock muslims. It was a protest against the murders and death threats by muslims against people who draw their iron aged story teller. The logic is that if those who murder/threaten artists find an increase in the activity they seek to curtail, they may come to understand how pointless (as well as anti-social and illegal) their actions have been. The correct dichotomy is not:

Religiously inspired murderers are not protected by discrimination laws because the law against murder trumps whatever bullshit religion the murderers are trying to hide behind. Consider what would happen if Gormie claimed they had a doctrinal basis for murdering people who wear hats because it is an offense against Bentweed the Gormless, one of their story tellers of the iron ages. They might claim that wearing hats was a religious insult, and people who discriminate by hat wearing should be killed because Bentweed said so. Would a 'wear a hat day' designed to protest the string of death threats by Gormies be considered religious discrimination, or simply a non-violent protest pointing out that psychopathic killers shouldn't be allowed to hide behind some dusty old myths and legends.

Of course, religions are impervious to logic or they wouldn't exist.
well, hrrmm.. wtf? this is the year 2010, religion$ in general have lo$t their mind$ and credit:

The latest prophet I noticed showing all blingn' n' shyte was this one:


all I'm saying is up with secular gov. down with theocracies (of any flavor, corporate, white, black, dumb, ass, bs)

Not sure if people in whatever-land-nation have been paying attention but Texas is looking like future S.Africa, Israel is a theocracy, every other land (except Lebanon; huge secular show on streets there) around there seems to want some über xtian or muslim connection? do they realize computers now span the globe and don't judge the users by faith-format o' dah brain? And why not learn a new language like JAVA or C or... ah, screw it, they'll never learn, especially now that American Idol is to be taught in tandem w/creationism aka those that deny evolution. America first though; still the world example. cya!
It seems to me that bigotry and xenophobia can encompass ethnicity, religion, nationality as well as race.

So I'm pretty wary of this exercise.
Sure. But I'm talking about satire of stated beliefs. I'm not talking about threats, baseless accusations. Let people stand up for themselves by explaining why the rhetoric is wrong. Let them distance themselves from those who truly besmirch and disrespect their beliefs by flying planes into buildings - not those who draw silly pictures.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service