Newshoggers Comments
Yep...
There are a few important differences, but one of the big ones is that the radical Muslims already have a string of successful kills to back up their threats.
Floyd, so do the radical Christians.
Regards, C
When we see the riots flaring up around the globe and preachers demanding that their congregation kill the editors, then you'll have a point. Until then, I think you're stretching things beyond credulity.
That said, I wonder how you can blame these people for using the lesson learned from Islam and the West over the past couple years. If you see something you don't like, a threat of violence will not only get the offending material censored but will also likely get you lots of sympathy and support. It's hard to say that isn't exactly the message we've been sending.
Jimmie, there's been a heck of a lot of such violence from Islamic nutters this last few years, I agree, and I don't condone or excuse any of it. I'm simply arguing that it is not the exclusive preserve, in kind if not in degree, of Islamic nutters. I think Ed misunderstood my point on that and I think you are too.
I personally think any form of censorship based on religion is contemptible. I well recall the massive protests worldwide over the movie The Life of Brian, for example, which led to it being banned in several countries and led U.S. Catholics to call for watching it to be declared a sin. [Conservapedia) Admitted, no-one was killed and no embassies burned - which are far worse events and I condemn them. But the religious underpinnings of such happenings are just as present in Christianity as they are in Islam
Regards, C
Isn't the difference that Christians don't have organized riots in response to people attacking them? I'm no fan of the Christians (whose moronic turn the other cheek theology is responsible for Muslim violence in Western countries) but isn't it disingenuous to act as if the threat to an artist from Chrisians is the same as from Saudi influenced Muslims?
I've said plenty of outrageous things about Christianity and I've only gotten the stern lecture or finger waging from some god-botherer. But Muslims send me death threats for mild criticim of some Muslims. And certainly in Africa, Europe and Asia it is common for Christians to be attacked over some slight, When was the last time a mob of Christians burned a Mosque down and murdered a family because thet heard a rumor that someone desecrated a Bible?
I happen to desecrate bibles regularly, during the annual Hellfireblogs Halloween party. I wrote about it and got little more than a raised eyebrow or two. As of today after a satirical post I wrote about spraying pigs' blood on suicide bombers I've recievied six death threats.
Sorry kids, but there just ain't no comparing the two. Christians are too soft and full of Jesusness to nowadays to be a real threat to your life, Muslims are death cultists who think killing someone is the answer to every problem.
Why not spend some time in a Muslim country and then tell me how bad American "Christianists" are.
"Underpinnings?" "Happily Threaten?" "I have *interpreted* several of them as death threats"?
Please. Call me when some blood has been spilled, preferably in the gallons, before you start making comparisons.
"I half expect hordes of rightwing trolls in comments telling me why this is any different from religious nuts of an Islamic persuasion sending death-threats to cartoonists who depict Muhammed in unflattering style."
Well, expect it, but you're right.
This is exactly like a death threat from Muslims over the Muhammed cartoons.
However, it isn't like the riots and deaths from the Muhammed Cartoons. Or the burned embassies, or the people executed or assassinated.
But the threats, yes exactly the same. Unfortunately one of these cases didn't stop with threats, and one will.
I wonder which one of those is the "Religion of Peace" again.
I'm not a Christian, but given my propensity to mouth off, I'd rather live next to a Christian than a Muslim. Should they happen to be radical, I've at least got a chance of living long enough to move away.
Best comment of the day, Gekkobear.
Regards, C
"I'm simply arguing that it is not the exclusive preserve, in kind if not in degree, of Islamic nutters."
Why are you arguing against a strawman? Who said it was exclusive to Muslims? I love how, in the same sentence, you admit Muslims are worse.
How hard is it for you to do some experiments to test your moral equivalency argument? Like, you know, successfully taking a Bible or cross into Saudi Arabia, opening a church in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Jordan, converting from Islam without dying in those countries, etc etc etc ad nauseum ad infinitum.
Another attempt at moral equivalency. Yawn. Next?
Gosh, Cernig, you really called that one. It does not take a seer to predict religious outrage when you compare two defferent religions, no matter how close they actually are to each other.
You just need to look at the bias and hate for homosexuals, and unwed mothers, and condemnation of those who use abortion, and preventative birth control, support sexual education, the use of guilt and fear to control their children, fear of sciences,and on and on, all hate and all for things that religions as a whole will view as sins or as evils. True, few of the Christians will go as far as to actually rebel and seek a death, but even the religious leaders have called for assassinations and civil unrest, and the death of sinners. There have also been instances of killings being carried out also under the name of Christianity, by neglect bought on by religious belief(http://www.deism.com/harrison.htm)
It matters little if they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, religions themselves have little or no tolerance for those who do not believe as they do. This is seen in the condemnation of those who would believe in other Gods, and in the later beliefs of Hell and the punishments of nonbelievers; of the Rapture and the belief that Christians will be able to watch the wicked being punished from a secure Heaven.
That said, I find the posted description to personally be as morally offensive as the Muslim cartoons were, and seriously wonder if this really had to be published to empathise freedom of the press or of free speech. While it is certainly the right of the paper to print it, I do question the sense of doing so through material that would be personally objectionable even without religious overtones. (I would find it as objectionable if the Devil was defecating on Tony Blair).
Commenting by HaloScan
