[Big Mac]

So, the Arab/Islamic terrorist website revolutionmuslim.com has issued a thinly veiled death threat against South Park creators Parker and Stone over the 200th episode of the show. The site apparently warns that something violent will likely happen to them and have reportedly referenced the murder of Danish director Theo Van Gogh, warning that the penalty for offenses against Mohammed is death.

Ironically, these fearless Muslim warriors hide behind a private domain name registration. . .

Thoughts?

[OldManMac]

All religious fanatics have been known to kill in the name of their god; nothing new here. I suspect it's just "news" because it's in vogue to hate Muslims at this point in time.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Thoughts?

If they do manage to kill Matt and Trey, I'd probably start watching South Park again to see what the hubbub is about. It got really tiresome after season 1.

[Big Mac]

Wow, you've missed a lot, Uncle.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

All religious fanatics have been known to kill in the name of their god; nothing new here. I suspect it's just "news" because it's in vogue to hate Muslims at this point in time.

Great flame bait, Old Man. Try to stay on topic.

[The Final Dakar]

I have to think this is what they were hoping for.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Great flame bait, Old Man. Try to stay on topic.

Seems on topic to me. What discussion were you hoping to have by bringing this up?

[Big Mac]

Not very on topic. Old Man tries to divert the topic to an indictment of religions in general. There's only one religion involved in this story, Islam.

[SpaceMonkey]

I see. So you were hoping to have a retread of "Islam is inherently violent!" vs. "No it's not!" Seems like whenever we have that discussion someone invariably tries to claim that other religions often condone or incite violence.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

All religious fanatics have been known to kill in the name of their god; nothing new here.

O"Rly ?

When was the last time that Christians, Buddhists or Jews made death threats regarding South Park ?

-t

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

O"Rly ?

When was the last time that Christians, Buddhists or Jews made death threats regarding South Park ?

Scientology has made lots of legal threats and in the end, it even cost them one of their cast members. Now, legal threats ≠ death threats, but Scientology has managed to influence Comedy Central so that a rebroadcast of `Trapped in the Closet' was pulled and there were to my knowledge also hesitations to air the episode in other countries. Here, on the other hand, I think the death threats end up being just hot air.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Scientology has made lots of legal threats and in the end, it even cost them one of their cast members.

Scientology is not a religion, it's a for-profit company.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Now, legal threats ≠ death threats, but Scientology has managed to influence Comedy.

Well, that's a completely different matter. If there was merely a legal threat, I would not expect to see a thread about it.

-t

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Scientology is not a religion, it's a for-profit company.

I absolutely agree with you here.
However, Scientology likes to pretend it's a religion (rather than something between a cult and a company) and they were made fun of in South Park just like every other major religion (although I don't count them as a religion).

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, that's a completely different matter. If there was merely a legal threat, I would not expect to see a thread about it.

Scientology has a history of quenching opposition with legal suits and threats of legal suits. They've destroyed people's lives and managed to actually get an episode pulled in other countries. I find that more worrying than some nut jobs issuing threats.

I find threats of any kind (death threats in particular) despicable for something someone says -- especially if it's comedy. In both cases, the immune system of modern Democracies is working: radical muslims and Scientology get exposed by the press for what they are (nuts).

The only thing I don't like about this kind of threat is the implicit insinuation that this is a peculiarity of a certain religion rather than the problem of religious extremists of any kind.

[Big Mac]

But it is a particular peculiarity of radical Islamists to react in this fashion. No other religion that I can think of inspires its adherents to threaten death and carry out murders against others for simple free speech that may poke fun at it. None. Zero.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But it is a particular peculiarity of radical Islamists to react in this fashion. No other religion that I can think of inspires its adherents to threaten death and carry out murders against others for simple free speech that may poke fun at it. None. Zero.

Death Threats, Vulgarity and Hatred Destroy Pro-life and Christian Credibility � Social Justice Begins in the Womb – Daily Pro-life Updates from Bryan Kemper

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Great flame bait, Old Man. Try to stay on topic.

He is staying on topic. He is simply pointing out that the specific incidence of religious fanaticism you cite is in no way special and is merely typical of religious fanaticism in general.


Of course, his statement doesn't comport with your tired arguments about the evils of Islam. Hence, your attempt to belittle him. Guess what? We all know you are anti-Islam. We all know you think you are part of the "chosen people" and thus are somehow "specialer" than all the rest of us. The point you fail to get, even though it is repeated on here endlessly, is that many, maybe most (?), of us JUST DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK.

Heck, the only reason I bother replying to most of your posts is to point out your religious intolerance. I do it because I take great pleasure in calling out you and others like you for the hypocrisy of using your religious beliefs as the basis for belittling others. It is very satisfying for me to see people who claim special virtue by dint of their religious belief act in quite un-virtuous ways.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Death Threats, Vulgarity and Hatred Destroy Pro-life and Christian Credibility � Social Justice Begins in the Womb – Daily Pro-life Updates from Bryan Kemper

Not that I'm condoning those supposed death threats, but one could argue that a vulgar publication of the killing of an unborn child is a more substantial act than anything that can be done on South Park. And aside from that, it's not direct analogy. A direct analogy would be citing death threats from Christians over the Virgin Mary period blood episode of South Park, or Mormon death threats over "All About Mormons."

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But it is a particular peculiarity of radical Islamists to react in this fashion. No other religion that I can think of inspires its adherents to threaten death and carry out murders against others for simple free speech that may poke fun at it. None. Zero.

Still with the generalities, eh?

Ever see radical Christian fundamentalists call for the death of doctors who provide abortions?
Ever see radical Jewish fundamentalists (ultra-orthodox Haredi) commit violence against those who don't observe the Sabbath in the appropriate (to the Haredi) manner?


Religious fundamentalism is a problem. Period. The differences between fundamentalist Muslims, Jews, and Christians is a matter of degree, not kind. The differences are in the degree to which fundamentalist adherents of these religions are willing to use violence to achieve their religious goals. And right now, at this point in time, fundamentalist Muslims are more willing to use violence to advance their agenda than are fundamentalist Christians or fundamentalist Jews. But that in no way should suggest that fundamentalist Islam is in any way worse than fundamentalist Christian or Judaism. They are all equally evil for seeking to promote their religious beliefs to the exclusion of any other belief system.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Ever see radical Jewish fundamentalists (ultra-orthodox Haredi) commit violence against those who don't observe the Sabbath in the appropriate (to the Haredi) manner?

I've never seen them murder or threaten to murder anyone, no. You may get your car pelted if you drive in their communities during Shabbat, which isn't right, but they're definitely never going to murder anyone over it.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I've never seen them murder or threaten to murder anyone, no. You may get your car pelted if you drive in their communities during Shabbat, which isn't right, but they're definitely never going to murder anyone over it.

It's only a matter of time before some Haredi are going to commit murder.
Ultra-Orthodox vigilantes spread fear in Jerusalem

[Big Mac]

You can say it's only a matter of time, but that just proves my point. You can't bring forward an analogous example from Judaism or Christianity for that matter, no murders in the modern era to be found over speech or blaspheme.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

It's only a matter of time before some Haredi are going to commit murder.
Ultra-Orthodox vigilantes spread fear in Jerusalem

Dude, seriously, so *you* say it's only a matter of time, and this should weigh as much as an ACTUAL death threat by radical Islamists ?

Apples to Oranges !

-t

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Not that I'm condoning those supposed death threats, but one could argue that a vulgar publication of the killing of an unborn child is a more substantial act than anything that can be done on South Park. And aside from that, it's not direct analogy. A direct analogy would be citing death threats from Christians over the Virgin Mary period blood episode of South Park, or Mormon death threats over "All About Mormons."

I am just pointing out that there is a fringe with just about anything.

For the record, I don't agree with her posting it on Twitter and whatnot, but that is her choice under free speech.

[SpaceMonkey]

The point is not whether the only religiously-inspired extremists who advocate killing are Muslims, but whether violence is an inherent feature of their religiosity any more than it would be for another religion. In that sense, whether some Haredi are or aren't issuing death threats now is just as irrelevant as whether Muslim extremists are issuing death threats now.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Dude, seriously, so *you* say it's only a matter of time, and this should weigh as much as an ACTUAL death threat by radical Islamists ?

Apples to Oranges !

-t

Did you miss this part of the article?

"The gang allegedly gagged her, hit her, kicked her and said she would be killed if she did not move out of the ultra-Orthodox Maalot Dafna neighbourhood." (emphasis added)

[Big Mac]

That's a strange parallel dimension you hail from, SpaceMonkey. Muslims issue death threats and kill people over cartoons. Until you can cite a truly analogous case from another religion, I'll discount your view as shallow moral relativism.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's a strange parallel dimension you hail from, SpaceMonkey. Muslims issue death threats and kill people over cartoons. Until you can cite a truly analogous case from another religion, I'll discount your view as shallow moral relativism.

What are you responding to? The part of the article I quoted or my post above? It's hard for me to understand what you think would be a "truly" analogous case if you are discounting the article.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Did you miss this part of the article?

"The gang allegedly gagged her, hit her, kicked her and said she would be killed if she did not move out of the ultra-Orthodox Maalot Dafna neighbourhood." (emphasis added)

Shhh!

You wouldn't want him to know that anything conflicts with his pre-conceived notions, would you.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Did you miss this part of the article?

"The gang allegedly gagged her, hit her, kicked her and said she would be killed if she did not move out of the ultra-Orthodox Maalot Dafna neighbourhood." (emphasis added)

Cartoons vs. living in someone's territory ?

Again, all you Apples and Oranges guys need to rethink your arguments.

-t

[sek929]

I'm going to have to agree with Big Mac here. Sure fundamentalism is a dangerous brew no matter what it pertains to, the fact remains a cartoonist was killed by Radical Muslims, I really can't think of a single parallel with any other religion. Family Guy depicts God and Jesus as sly bar guys trying to pick up chicks, now I'm sure there were some Christians that got their collective panties in a bunch, but they didn't kill anybody for it.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

What are you responding to? The part of the article I quoted or my post above? It's hard for me to understand what you think would be a "truly" analogous case if you are discounting the article.

The only thing I'll accept as analogous is a case of a religious non-Muslim threatening to kill others over cartoons or other forms of free speech. The example you gave is heinous if true, but isn't about free speech.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's a strange parallel dimension you hail from, SpaceMonkey. Muslims issue death threats and kill people over cartoons. Until you can cite a truly analogous case from another religion, I'll discount your view as shallow moral relativism.

Umm, Big Mac, why did you emphasize cartoons? Isn't issuing death threats and committing killings in the name of religion a bad thing regardless of the reason?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Umm, Big Mac, why did you emphasize cartoons? Isn't issuing death threats and committing killings in the name of religion a bad thing regardless of the reason?

He didn't.

Originally Posted by BigMac

... cartoons or other forms of free speech.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Cartoons vs. living in someone's territory ?

Again, all you Apples and Oranges guys need to rethink your arguments.

-t

"Territory"? No, I think you need to rethink your argument. You are arguing here that one group's irrational grievance against free speech based on religious grounds is more "wrong" than another group's irrational grievance against free speech (clothes and conduct) based on religious grounds. They don't get any special authority over "territory" any more than the people upset over the cartoons get authority over a Danish newspaper's editorial policy.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The only thing I'll accept as analogous is a case of a religious non-Muslim threatening to kill others over cartoons or other forms of free speech. The example you gave is heinous if true, but isn't about free speech.

From the article: "Neighbours had complained of what they called the divorcee's "indecent" lifestyle, which in such neighbourhoods can mean anything from wearing trousers to meeting men in private."

At least as it would be argued under American law, clothes would be considered an aspect of personal speech.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But it is a particular peculiarity of radical Islamists to react in this fashion. No other religion that I can think of inspires its adherents to threaten death and carry out murders against others for simple free speech that may poke fun at it. None. Zero.

Today, religious nuts of all stripes abuse religion (including Christianity, Hindiusm and Judaism) as a justification for murder (killings of abortion doctors, religiously motivated conflicts in India, the assassination of Rabin). Islamic societies are just on a different evolutionary step than others.

However, what needs to be chastised is unacceptable behavior, not religion.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The only thing I'll accept as analogous is a case of a religious non-Muslim threatening to kill others over cartoons or other forms of free speech. The example you gave is heinous if true, but isn't about free speech.

You don't get it, do you? The reason why the threat was made is irrelevant. Threatening violence and committing violence in the name of religion is the problem. And it doesn't matter if the motivation for the threat/action is a cartoon or someone not dressing appropriately, the act of threatening/committing violence in the name of one's religious beliefs is WRONG and has no place in a modern secular democracy.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

"Territory"? No, I think you need to rethink your argument. You are arguing here that one group's irrational grievance against free speech based on religious grounds is more "wrong" than another group's irrational grievance against free speech (clothes and conduct) based on religious grounds. They don't get any special authority over "territory" any more than the people upset over the cartoons get authority over a Danish newspaper's editorial policy.

I'm not making (moral) judgment here.

I'm saying: it HAS happened in MANY religions that people got into death threats pertaining to someone living in a territory that's claimed by someone of a different religion. I'm not saying this is great, and I'm also not denying that Christians did do that.

When it comes to death threats (and actual killings) for freedom of speech regarding other religions, radical muslims stand alone.

-t

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

From the article: "Neighbours had complained of what they called the divorcee's "indecent" lifestyle, which in such neighbourhoods can mean anything from wearing trousers to meeting men in private."

At least as it would be argued under American law, clothes would be considered an aspect of personal speech.

You're desperately grasping at straws to make the incidents analogous when they're not. Apples and oranges. OreoCookie's stance is similar to yours, but he too recognizes that there's a distinction between Islam and other religions that you're apparently unwilling to see.

Originally Posted by turtle

When it comes to death threats (and actual killings) for freedom of speech regarding other religions, radical muslims stand alone.

Correct. They also stand alone when it comes to suicide terrorism (even against their own), honor killings, their desire to foist their sectarian laws on non-Muslim countries, the fact that Muslims are involved in most of the world's armed conflicts, and other ignominious distinctions.

You may not like hearing those things, and you may vilify me for saying them, but you simply look foolish if you deny such facts.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

However, what needs to be chastised is unacceptable behavior, not religion.

This is the only correct answer. The behavior is what is unacceptable not the motivation/religious beliefs underlying the behavior.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I'm not making (moral) judgment here.

I'm saying: it HAS happened in MANY religions that people got into death threats pertaining to someone living in a territory that's claimed by someone of a different religion. I'm not saying this is great, and I'm also not denying that Christians did do that.

When it comes to death threats (and actual killings) for freedom of speech regarding other religions, radical muslims stand alone.

-t

If someone has "claimed" territory and issues death threats to others because of displays that conflict with their religious sensibility, that is a freedom of speech issue too.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Scientology is not a religion, it's a for-profit company.

I don't understand the difference. How is Catholicism a religion and not Scientology? Is it because radical christians murdered abortion doctors? Do you have to murder people for it to be considered a religion?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You're desperately grasping at straws to make the incidents analogous when they're not. Apples and oranges.

The incidents ARE analogous because they involve individuals willing to commit violence on behalf of their religious beliefs. The nature of the violence is irrelevant to the fact that individuals are willing to commit violence because of their religious beliefs. ALL individuals willing to commit violence on behalf of their religious beliefs are bad, no exceptions. It is the violence (or willing to commit violence) that is unacceptable, not the religious motivation for the violence or the type of violence committed.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You're desperately grasping at straws to make the incidents analogous when they're not. Apples and oranges.

No, I'm really not. You are just stubborn. If the issue is the clothes this person was wearing and some kind of morally reprehensible value they supposedly embody, then that is fundamentally a freedom of expression issue. Just as if a school in the United States decided to ban a certain color of clothing (let's say they are gang colors or something), the policy would be challenged in court on freedom of speech grounds. As dcmacdaddy said, if the issue is that someone is willing to kill in the name of a religious idea, that is the problem, regardless of whether the idea is embodied in a cartoon or something else.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You may not like hearing those things, and you may vilify me for saying them, but you simply look foolish if you deny such facts.

And you look foolish for seeming to suggest that some forms of religious violence are more acceptable than others. You look foolish for seeming to suggest that their is a gradient upon which acts of religious-based violence are/should be judged.

Guess what? Acts of violence, especially religiously-inspired violence, are NOT acceptable regardless of the type of violent act committed, the person/group who commits the act, and their reasons for committing the violent act. It is NOT acceptable. Period.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

And you look foolish for seeming to suggest that some forms of religious violence are more acceptable than others.

Again, you don't have a valid analogy to draw. Everything else is just leftist grandstanding. You'll never fear for your personal safety by defaming Judaism, and probably the same can be said for defaming Christianity. Not so with Islam. I welcome you to prove me wrong if you can, but I know you can't.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Again, you don't have a valid analogy to draw. Everything else is just leftist grandstanding. You'll never fear for your personal safety by defaming Judaism, and probably the same can be said for defaming Christianity. Not so with Islam. I welcome you to prove me wrong if you can, but I know you can't.

Good thing I am not trying to draw an analogy then, isn't it.

For me, there is no analogy to be drawn as I see religious-inspired violence to be a Bad Thing™ regardless of the nature of the violent act and regardless of who commits the violent act. Just to emphasize this point, I will reiterate what I said in my post to which you replied above. (You know, the part of my post you failed to quote.)

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Guess what? Acts of violence, especially religiously-inspired violence, are NOT acceptable regardless of the type of violent act committed, the person/group who commits the act, and their reasons for committing the violent act. It is NOT acceptable. Period.

[dcmacdaddy]

So, Big Mac. Do you think religious-inspired violence is ever acceptable?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

If someone has "claimed" territory and issues death threats to others because of displays that conflict with their religious sensibility, that is a freedom of speech issue too.

Well, if you look at it like that, then there's no point in further discussions.

Welcome to the intarwebs, where two completely different things get made equal.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, if you look at it like that, then there's no point in further discussions.

Welcome to the intarwebs, where two completely different things get made equal.

-t

I'm not saying they (the actions) are equal (which is an evaluation of worth). I'm saying the dispute is over a similar issue (freedom of expression), and hence Big Mac's earlier assertion is incorrect. What about that do you disagree with?