Generally agree with you Pommy. I would make a further point:
One can think that certain types of behaviour are good or bad without wishing to legislate on the matter.
I personally think that it is not very nice to go out and deliberately mock religious beliefs that are held deeply and sincerely by people. This is particularly the case where people aren't trying to make me believe whatever it is they believe. Of course, if they put themselves in teh public arena and start lecturing us on how to behave, that is a slightly different matter.
Pommy, you never cease to surprise me!
I realize that the connections back to Christianity and Islam are inevitable and frankly, I think that this 'artist' and others like him are being deliberately provocative, rather than simply attention-seeking. Others may argue (ingenuously in my opinion) that he is just exercising his sense of humour, but I think it's a thinly disguised Christophobia being played out in the nudity and the chocolate (which he knew that Christians would find deeply offensive...I certainly do)...That said, yes, our blood-won freedom gives him the right to stoop to the level of a crawling worm and technically speaking, he has check-mated those who deign to show their outrage by these violent threats...Of course they are clearly wrong to threaten him with death though their passion is understandable.
Personally, I have never condoned the Islam-mocking cartoons either. Although I think the Islam religion is fundamentally flawed, I do not ridicule but rather would try to point out to any sincere individual where I think they're going wrong (and I have)
Interesting comments though, Pommy and you've revealed yourself to be more complex than I have, at times, given you credit for!
...er...that should read 'argue disingenuously'...LOL...I always do that!
Dee
I don't think any religion should be immune from ridicule. It is one of the most powerful weapons of attack.
Weapons of attack
Now you've got to the crux of it. The only way that ridicule attacks is by tearing something down. There is no constructive element to it at all; no debate, nothing to learn, nothing to gain. In actuality, it's a favourite weapon of the Left as they are, by nature, nihilist and their impulse is always to destroy. Evan Sayet has a brilliant expose on this right now.
The Christian tears down just one thing and it's the realm of darkness. When we tear down, we seek not to destroy the person (as ridicule does) but the darkness in their minds.
How do you react when you find out that someone you love, in particular a child, has been ridiculed? That will expose to you this aptly named 'weapon of attack' for what it truly is; a cruel and evil, poison-tipped barb. To condone it is beneath you, Pommy.
It is cruel, Dee. And it is highly effective. Mark Steyn has made a living out of it.
When faced with pure, unmitigated evil (for instance jihadists), it just doesn't pay to get mad - that is what they want. Much better to laugh at them, even if inside you're burning with anger.
I've heard Mark Steyne. There's a difference between a sense of humour and the kind of spiteful ridicule displayed by the maker of this 'sculpture'. If nothing else, he's made a mockery out of someone who died a gruesome death. I personally don't think that crucifixion by a Roman cross is anything to laugh at, but that's just me. I'm odd like that when it comes to what's funny and what isn't..I stand by what I said. But we may have to agree to disagree.
Always a tricky philosophical point this one.
Firstly I'm with you on the notion of insulting people or their beliefs simply because you can, it shows a certain paucity of character.
On the other hand I'm in agreement that one, in a secular democracy, should be able to ridicule religion.
I guess the point is how you are using this foil. If you are using humour to highlight some hypocrisy or lack of tolerance in the religious belief then it seems valid, or if you are genuinely trying to amuse it seems harmless enough (I really enjoyed "The Life of Brian").
However, if someone is just being insulting without merit or point then it somehow doesn't seem right. I wouldn't want legislation on this but somehow it would be good if there was more gentle outrage, I mean if its considered so bad to use the "N" word - shouldn't it be equally out-of-order to have a go at people's religious beliefs without purpose?
Wolfie - I think you've hit the nail on the head.
Dee - take a look at Wolfie's comment. It's the point i was (less eloquently) trying to make.
Commenting by HaloScan
