It is painfully obvious that you grasp almost nothing except reciting something about the civil liberty to protest which is right but which you keep trying to apply to a situation where it is not the issue. You keep reciting this apparently because it makes you feel like some little civil rights activist or something when all that does is make you look very stupid. You "slow person", nobody said they shouldn't be allowed to protest. But just as they are allowed to protest, it should be allowed to call them intolerant idiots for protesting. Can you even read? How many times do I have to repeat that it is not about limiting their freedom to protest, but simply about stating my opinion that their protest is an idiotic display of intolerance. Again, you pulled that out of your ass. Maybe if you could read instead of only confirming to yourself what you dreamt up in your head you would make a little bit more sense.
We might actually be in agreement. I don't agree with the merits of their protest either, and I have said as much. But they do have the right to protest. The fact that they are angry and waving their fists and burning effigies doesn't make it violent though. So your over-eagerness to label them as violent is off base. But from your words that I quoted above it seemed as though you supported the idea that they shouldn't be allowed to protest. I am sorry if I misunderstood you on that. Actually I pulled it from your absurd ideas of what turns a protest violent. I was overstating to make the point that just because a protest isn't quite and in straight lines doesn't make it violent. I support freedom everywhere not just the U.S. I think they should be able to protest in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. I never made statements supporting any of those govts. so spare listing them and inserting the rolley eyes as if I was holding those regimes up to be models of freedom. But if you are fine with them protesting, then on that issue we are in agreement. If you are fine with them protesting I am not sure why you posted the pictures and culturally intolerant 'jokes' along with them that you made earlier.
more personal insults? You paint with a huge broad brush lumping those who commit crimes and those who protest without violence as being the same, yet I look stupid, and I am slow? Keep on talking, SJC. I addressed your clarification or my understanding of your clarification that you weren't against them protesting. Your silly little restrictions such as protests can't have angry shouting in them, and the fact that when I was asking about the protestors you answered by posting stories of violent church burnings which are something altogether different. Why don't you read through the thread one more time and see that it isn't hard for someone to be confused by your posts, especially when they are coupled with personal insults, and degrading humor about a foreign culture, based on physical appearence and cultural differences alone rather than issues.
I do see your point and it's a fair one. However, typically, the media go out of their way to qualify the term muslim with words such as 'radical' or 'extremist.' It would seem that's the same type of activity they engage in when talking about the fanatical a-holes protesting funerals.
I am not fine with them protesting because I disagree on the merits - I think their protest is idiotic and reveals their stunning intolerance!!! But that does not mean I think they should somehow be stripped from the right to protest, so I am not disputing their right to protest, but I still think that the fact they start a menacing protest over this makes them intolerant idiots. Oh, and about the "culturally intolerant jokes" - if it makes you feel better to carry your PCness in front of you like a banner, fine. I thought the guy was ugly and I don't like the way he looked, probably because of the facial expression first and foremost. My personal taste is also that I don't like the appearance with that beard, because I probably sub-consciously associate it with the appearance of the Mullahs in Iran as well as the Taliban, both of which strike me as two of the most intolerant and cruel (current or former) regimes in the world. But just so that you don't misunderstand me again and so that you don't think you have to be a little civil rights activist again, I am neither advocating mandatory shaves for everyone nor would I treat someone I would get to know in a worse way than everyone else just because he had a beard like that.
It isn't about PCness, because I am staunch enemy of PCness, it is about making facial hair comments on muslim protestors when there are legitimate issues to tackle. I am glad that you are not against their right to protest. We are in agreement that it is a vast over-reaction to protest to the extreme they did over the Pope's ill-chosen comment.
That's illogical and (in an unintentional gaffe) quite restrictive on your part. If I think someone is being idiotic for getting upset about something I cannot express it? This is a distortion - as I said before the issue is not "freedom to protest". Calling the motivation for a protest assinine and ignorant does not equal "they don't have the right". They certainly have a right to be ignorant, and it's obvious if you watch any news at all that the vast majority of people around the world are exercising that right. But I certianly won't stand up and defend the protest merely because it's expression... My tolerance does not extend to intolerance, and I sure as hell don't have to be quiet about it. "Shouldn't they be allowed to protest?" - Yes they should. And I should too - even in Iran and Syria. But that's not possible - which betrays your "rights" argument. I agree - one can have angry protests and that is a perfectly rational civil right. But it's ignoring the greater issue: we're talking about a culture that promotes ignorance to the point that people cannot recognize a citation from a decleration of war, and spout violence as retribution for refusing to acknowledge their twisted theocratic ideology. There is a greater struggle here than just "can somebody protest" - it's what should you protest. I choose to protest ignorance and religious bigotry. These idiots protesting the pope and calling for violence have no right to protest, not because of their nationality or creed, but because they are ignorant and vigorously anti-enlightenment.
Brilliant post, rhdamanthus. I don't remember what previous disagreement you were referring to, but I certainly don't disagree with your last post.
So there's very little difference in our opinions. I think these protests are non-sensical as well. However, your posts that seem to jab at the facial expressions or physical features of certain people really seem counter-productive. A lot of people like me were a little combative because you continue to defend the practice of mocking other people for completely irrelevant things and as a result it creates a little confusion as to where you stand on an issue. Look, there's no need for this. You can criticize their protests and what they are saying, but it makes little sense to criticize facial expressions and physical features. These seem just as unnecessary as the protests we have been discussing.
Actually, the bible isn't ambiguous about homosexuality at all (I could dare you to prove otherwise). It's easy to think that is the case given the recent spate of soap opera-ish debate playing out among some of the largest orthodox denominations, specifically the Anglican/Episcopal Church and the Methodist Church. It's one of those things about the bible that is so politically incorrect that many would rather pretend it wasn't there. The fact is that regardless of how clearly defined a topic may be, it will always be up for debate by religious scholars who would rather embrace a more comfortable populist/humanistic version of the faith.
This is the beginning to a dangerous trend in inaccurate internet reporting. Normally, the reaction to these kinds of statements would be local and minor. Like the outrage generated with the Danish cartoons, someone with heavily vested interests is focusing this news to a targeted and worldwide audience. I don't suppose all the protesters have internet access to provide context or accuracy. I also think there's a high degree someone can get upset to protest and what the Pope has said alone isn't enough. This is much like a sports jerk columnist spinning an entire article over a player or coach's comments and the 5 pages of replies on a bbs that result afterwards. It's to a lesser extent because reading a bbs means internet access. It's depressing that in an age of free and instant communication that miscommunication would still exist. Unless you want to believe that these Muslims are ape**** angry over the "facts and the facts alone"....
I'm sure you know this because you are so much more intelligent than I am, but that is a texbook example of stereo-typing and over generalizing right there. That was I brought it up in the first place. I guess I am not "smart" enough to realize that stereo-typing, and over-generalizing aren't really intolerant of a culture it is just fine. Dang! If only I wasn't so slow. Good luck, sir Mensa.
We do agree, then on most of it. I was making the post when I believed SJC was thinking they shouldn't be allowed to protest. Although if that was the case, I would rank them being allowed to protest at least as high as the twisting of an ideology that they would encourage protest over something so meaningless as clumsy, and ignorant words by a pope.
Well, I don't necessarily feel that's an unfair statement. If we can agree that a secular, democratic government, founded upon principles basic to the inherent rights of all men is preferable to a theocracy inspired fascism, then one might argue that those who advocate the violent removal of the former in favor of the latter forfeit their rights. You can be damn sure that if the KKK advocated the violent removal of our current government in favor of an authoritarian regime they would be swiftly scattered into nothing. Is that fair? Maybe not in a literal sense. Is it justified? I think it might be. That's a tough one.
I think then the purpose of the protest should be looked at. If it is a gathering seriously intended to start a riot or rebellion then I would expect a govt. to step in. If it is an overreaction, and angry protest about something that isn't reasonable to be angry about, then let them waste their breath, with no real harm done. But certainly advocating rebellion or intending to start a rebellion is another situation.
I am not a governmental entity. I have my opinion, and I am honest enough to say that this particular bearded look, coupled with an aggressive, menacing facial expression, makes me feel uneasy. Prejudice? Maybe. Am I alone with that feeling? Probably not. Does it mean I am a racist? I don't think so.
I have no idea if you are a racist or not. I guess it is good that you are honest enough to admit their might be some prejudice. For the record one doesn't have to be a govt. entity in order to engage in stereotyping. I am sure that you aren't alone in your feelings. I think many have more extreme versions of the same feelings. Again this doesn't make it more or less right, though.
WE AS AMeRICANS are pitiful for notm protesting with vigor. Lazy despondent people our population has become. A ton of people who wanted this war with IRAQ have since regressed on their bandwagoning and instead of making a point to bring our troops home thay have slipped back into their shells with a foot in their mouths. These people who felt threatened by IRAQ should have gone to war themselves-COWARDS!- instead they sent a bunch of uneducated poor kids to do their work for them....thats what happens when 9% of songress has served and the commander in chief exploited nepotism to avoid the last unwinnable conflict this country entered. Don't fear bearded protestors fear the notion that this country has been exposed for its lack of compassion and only helps countries with something to offer and the REST OF THE WORLD KNOWS THIS! Our foreign policy only complicates the fact that our country exploits the rest of the world in order to maintain our accumalating lifestyle. Instead of giving to exemplify our so-called "MORALITY" we continue as a nation to dominate. WHEN YOU CLAIM TO BE A CHRISTIAN NATION YOU HAD BETTER BACK IT UP WITH ACTIONS BECAUSE THE REST OF THE WORLD THAT IS NOT CHRISTIAN ARE WATCHING. THE fact that this "freedom of religion" country could subject others of no faith and those of a different religion other than Christanity to situations that endanger these citizens is proof that the HOLY than thou approach that this country projects is its own worse enemy and that image threatens the way of life that non-christians are entitled to. The rest of the world see thats Christianity is dominating domestic policy in a country of freedom of religion and that this dominating is suspicious when it comes to foreign policy as well. Perhaps this is the reason the Middle East doubts democracy when the model country builds laws (gay marriage, stem cell, opposition to abortion) based on religious values and when the majority of people vote for one candidate and the other candidate, whose from a family with a long history of power and has a narrow view of foreign policy as well of the UN, is put in to office. EVEN THOUGH THESE RELIGIONS WOULD AGREE WITH LAWS ON A MORALITY BASIS, IT STILL MAKES A COUNTRY AND CIVILIZATION BASED ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION LOOK HYPOCRITICAL AND THIRSTY TO SPREAD ITS BELIEFS ON OTHERS, which may be paranoid, but now we are paranoid as wll because many believe the Islamic world has the same agenda. NEWSFLASH....Both of these religions preach PEACE and continue to be misinterpreted to condone acts of agression, whether its violent or social or economically political, and these hypocrites are damaging the positive values of faith and are disrepecting the non believers who are left to be judged by a GOD and not a MAN.
i've re-read this rant about 5 times and i still don't understand your point. are you just saying we are coming off as lazy hypocrites? we are.
Sir Jackie Chiles, just drink the Kool-Aid already... The Pope practically called for the rape and murder of all Muslims. Islam is a religion of peace...only a fraction of a fraction of a millionth of a percent are extremist. The murdered nun was probably caught up in some unrelated drug trafficking gone wrong. The Christian churches were probably burned in some insurance scam...again, unrelated. Christian abortion bombers kill just as many people as Islamic extremist, if not more. Fire, bombs, and murder often fall under the umbrella of "peaceful protests"...oh yeah, and crashing planes into buildings (although this was probably just an aviation miscalculation) Don't worry, your fatwa should be arriving in the mail soon. I got mine today! Sinead is lucky she only ripped a picture of the Pope, imagine if it had been...you know who.
