Religion Of Love...lest we forget.

H

Haiku

Makes the ganglia twitch.
Found this and thought I'd share. Muslim bashers have an agenda and won't be satisfied until we're bombing everyone...

While listening to all the outraged right wing rantings about free speech and how Muslims were a separate, primitive class of religion for their outraged and violent response in Libya to the deliberately provocative work of a California porn director, I kept thinking to myself, "Why does this all seem so familiar?"

And then, last night I watched Martin Scorcese's 1998 film, "The Last Temptation of Christ", and it all came flooding back. From Wikipedia:

On October 22, 1988, a French Christian fundamentalist group launched Molotov cocktails inside the Parisian Saint Michel movie theater while it was showing the film. This attack injured thirteen people, four of whom were severely burned.[8][9] The Saint Michel theater was heavily damaged,[9] and reopened 3 years later after restoration. Following the attack, a representative of the film's distributor, United International Pictures, said, "The opponents of the film have largely won. They have massacred the film's success, and they have scared the public." Jack Lang, France's Minister of Culture, went to the St.-Michel theater after the fire, and said, "Freedom of speech is threatened, and we must not be intimidated by such acts."[9] The Archbishop of Paris, Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger, said "One doesn't have the right to shock the sensibilities of millions of people for whom Jesus is more important than their father or mother."[9] After the fire he condemned the attack, saying, "You don't behave as Christians but as enemies of Christ. From the Christian point of view, one doesn't defend Christ with arms. Christ himself forbade it."[9] The leader of Christian Solidarity, a Roman Catholic group that had promised to stop the film from being shown, said, "We will not hesitate to go to prison if it is necessary."[9]

The attack was subsequently blamed on a Christian fundamentalist group linked to Bernard Antony, a representative of the far-right National Front to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, and the excommunicated followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.[8] Lefebvre had been excommunicated from the Catholic Church on July 2, 1988. Similar attacks against theatres included graffiti, setting off tear-gas canisters and stink bombs, and assaulting filmgoers.[8] At least nine people believed to be members of the Catholic fundamentalist group were arrested.[8] Rene Remond, a historian, said of the Catholic far-right, "It is the toughest component of the National Front and it is motivated more by religion than by politics. It has a coherent political philosophy that has not changed for 200 years: it is the rejection of the revolution, of the republic and of modernism."[8]

[...] Although Last Temptation was released on VHS and Laserdisc, many video rental stores, including the then-dominant Blockbuster Video, declined to carry it for rental as a result of the film's controversial reception.[14] In 1997, the Criterion Collection issued a special edition of Last Temptation on Laserdisc, which Criterion re-issued on DVD in 2000 and on Blu-ray disc in Region A in March 2012.
Click to expand...
Lesson of the day: No religion has a monopoly on irrational violence.
Click to expand...
http://crooksandliars.com/
 
LOL

24 years ago, in 1988, talk about going back in time....For all the crap that has been put on film against the Christian faith, the streets should be running red with blood if they acted like Muslims.
 
RazorX said:
LOL

24 years ago, in 1988, talk about going back in time....For all the crap that has been put on film against the Christian faith, the streets should be running red with blood if they acted like Muslims.
Click to expand...

I think we should. It seems to work for the Muslimes. Maybe then the secularists will stop their bullshit
 
\\((|))// said:
The shared belief that radical Islam threatens the world brought together a convict, an insurance salesman and a Christian charity in production of a crudely crafted film that ridicules Muslims and the Prophet Muhammad and has incited violent protests across the Middle East.


Media for Christ, a nonprofit that raised more than $1 million last year "to glow Jesus' light" to the world, was listed as the production company for the film.





Jesus+is+So+Proud+of+You+2.jpg




http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/religi...et-film/nSCFr/
Click to expand...

The question is why are Mooslums so easily "incited". What about their religion makes them so open to being offended about a silly little movie? Please explain :)
 
FactsRStubborn said:
The question is why are Mooslums so easily "incited". What about their religion makes them so open to being offended about a silly little movie? Please explain
Click to expand...

I'm not a "Mooslum".

Find one and ask.

But you're a Christian, aren't you?
 
FactsRStubborn said:
The question is why are Mooslums so easily "incited". What about their religion makes them so open to being offended about a silly little movie? Please explain :)
Click to expand...

Considering that they are chanting, "Obama, Obama, we are all Osama!" I don't think this was about a movie, no matter how much the WH wants us to believe that.
 
\\((|))// said:
And you can prove that?
Click to expand...

In Egypt they were chanting, "Obama, Obama, we love Osama!"

http://news.yahoo.com/egypt-clears-protesters-us-embassy-area-113806909.html

In Kuwait it was "we are all Osama"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/k...all-osama-demand-respect-and-expulsion-o.html

In Benghazi they also chanted "we are Osama"... (You know that place we must protect from Gaddafi...)

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/we-are-all-osama-the-arab-spring-is-now-the-osama-spring/
 
\\((|))// said:
And your contention is that those chants (were they in English?) prove the White House is lying about the cause of the violence?

Or are you saying Obama shouldn't have killed Osama?
Click to expand...

Did I say that? Are you saying that the chants point to a different reason than the movie?
 
isn't it a bit off to argue that someone who's been excommunicated by the Catholic Church is representative of the religion?......
 
\\((|))// said:
I'm asking you if they do.
Click to expand...

No you weren't. You asked if I thought the White House was lying.

Do you believe that the WH is right and this is only about a movie, or do you believe that while the movie may have been the "last straw" this isn't only about that movie? Do you believe, really believe, that none of these people care about the effects of our policy in the region and they really are protesting just a move? If such is the case why do you think they chant that they are Osama?
 
\\((|))// said:
My, you must be getting in shape from all that backpedaling.
Click to expand...

As I've said before as soon as you bring out the ad homs to avoid questions I know I've won.

I'll try again:

No you weren't. You asked if I thought the White House was lying.

Do you believe that the WH is right and this is only about a movie, or do you believe that while the movie may have been the "last straw" this isn't only about that movie? Do you believe, really believe, that none of these people care about the effects of our policy in the region and they really are protesting just a movie? If such is the case why do you think they chant that they are Osama?
 
Damocles said:
As I've said before as soon as you bring out the ad homs to avoid questions I know I've won.

I'll try again:

No you weren't. You asked if I thought the White House was lying.

Do you believe that the WH is right and this is only about a movie, or do you believe that while the movie may have been the "last straw" this isn't only about that movie? Do you believe, really believe, that none of these people care about the effects of our policy in the region and they really are protesting just a movie? If such is the case why do you think they chant that they are Osama?
Click to expand...

Where's the ad hom? The suggestion that you're backpedaling is ad hom now?
 
Damocles said:
Do you understand what an ad hom is?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's why I asked.


Since the post simply was about me personally rather than an argument, yeah that is an ad hom.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. It was about your argument. He said you were backpedaling. That's why the 'ad hom' charge doesn't apply.

THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY
One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.

Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.
Click to expand...
 
Bijou said:
Yes, it's why I asked.




No it wasn't. It was about your argument. He said you were backpedaling. That's why the 'ad hom' charge doesn't apply.

THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY
Click to expand...

Yes, instead of actually speaking on the topic he simply and directly went after me. That it is lighter, doesn't change that the post made no advancement of argument, it was only me he had something to say about. It is a sign that he has no more to offer.
 
Damocles said:
Yes, instead of actually speaking on the topic he simply and directly went after me. That it is lighter, doesn't change that the post made no advancement of argument, it was only me he had something to say about. It is a sign that he has no more to offer.
Click to expand...

That's a fair description, but it doesn't qualify as ad hom.
 
Bijou said:
That's a fair description, but it doesn't qualify as ad hom.
Click to expand...

Actually it does.

From your link:
Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem.

I demonstrated that he was attacking me rather than advancing his argument. Once again, the level of "insult" isn't what is important, what makes it the fallacy is that he simply did it as the sole argument.

Had he said this then advanced his argument it would not be an ad hom fallacy it would just be an ad hom (not the fallacy), that he did it in lieu of advancing his argument is what makes it an ad hom fallacy.
 
Damocles said:
I demonstrated that he was attacking me rather than advancing his argument.
Click to expand...

No you didn't. He said you were backpedaling. He was commenting on your argument, not you. You can disagree, but his post is clearly about your argument and not about you.

That's why it isn't ad hom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top