The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 610

scaeagles · 09-08-2010, 06:14 AM

Why is it wrong? I don't mean that rhetorically. I think it is being done to get the exact reaction it is getting. Is it wrong because it is offensive or because in general book burnings are wrong?

Do you think flag burning protests are wrong? Again, I am curious and am not trying to provoke a reaction.

I don't agree with what they are doing. I think it is in poor taste. They are doing it solely for the purpose of being offensive to a particular group of people. But all things that are offensive are not wrong.

Alex · 09-08-2010, 07:07 AM

I suspect it is wrong in this particular case because the people engaging in the activity likely would not consider it a two-way street. I somehow doubt that if I burned a big stack of Bibles to show how evil I think Evangelical Christianity is that they'd say "well, that's his right and we're ok with him expressing it in this way."

I think it is wrong because their public display of hate of Islam is uncouth (that is, it isn't necessarily a moral wrong, just a social wrong; in other words it is wrong in the way that being needlessly impolite is wrong).

It is not, however, deeply wrong simply because Muslims will be offended (as well as various people who will be offended on behalf of Muslims) so long as none of the Qurans being torched have artifactual value. The ideal response from those who would be offended is not offense but rather going on TV, collectively shrugging their shoulders and saying "well, stupid is as stupid does."

scaeagles · 09-08-2010, 07:13 AM

I think it would be interesting for a group to plan a counter protest and burn a Bible to see what it is that this pastor and his congregation would say.

Alex · 09-08-2010, 07:19 AM

Presumably if it was being done as a counter protest they'd be smart enough from a PR perspective to shrug. I doubt that if a bunch of Muslims last year had decided to do so they'd do the same (and it could be they'd not be smart enough to shrug now either).

scaeagles · 09-08-2010, 08:46 AM

I am curious....was Mapplethorpe and his "art" of a crucifix in a jar of urine wrong? That was clearly done to be offensive to Christians. If being deemed art makes it acceptable, would it be OK - or at least not wrong - to take the ashes of a burned Quran and display that as art, with a name comparable to the "Piss Christ" name of Mapplethorphe's work? Maybe call it "Burn Islam" or something like that?

mousepod · 09-08-2010, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I am curious....was Mapplethorpe and his "art" of a crucifix in a jar of urine wrong? That was clearly done to be offensive to Christians. If being deemed art makes it acceptable, would it be OK - or at least not wrong - to take the ashes of a burned Quran and display that as art, with a name comparable to the "Piss Christ" name of Mapplethorphe's work? Maybe call it "Burn Islam" or something like that?

Sorry for the knee-jerk reaction to your post, but when someone uses the word "clearly", it's usually anything but.

And Piss Christ was a work of art by Andres Serrano, not Mapplethorpe.

And I'm sick of "what ifs" posited to make a point.

The truth is, you don't know.

flippyshark · 09-08-2010, 09:09 AM

Actually, even when I was a Christian, I found Serrano's Piss Christ not only not offensive, but quite striking and even strangely beautiful.

scaeagles · 09-08-2010, 09:47 AM

My apologies about the misnamed artist.

And I'll even agree that you are right in that I do not know that Serrano had a goal of being offensive. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it would be taken that way by a lot of people, especially naming it as he did.

So that aside, my question still stands....if ashes of a burned Quran were displayed as "art", would that be acceptable? We could even name it something like "The Ashes of 9/11", signifying the damage that the Islamic radicals had brought to Islam. You might be sick of "what ifs", but I am wondering where the line is about what is right and wrong here.

innerSpaceman · 09-08-2010, 09:56 AM

Well, I'm not going to be of any help, since I don't see anything "wrong" about mass burning of books to make a protest point - let alone art.

I may not agree with that point, and I may foresee many undesirable potential reactions - but it's within this particular asshat's constitutional rights to make such a boneheaded protest.

As a matter of fact, I would think him more of an idiot if he were doing this as performance art rather than protest - but either way, he's within his rights to be a retard.

Gn2Dlnd · 09-08-2010, 09:58 AM

So, Glenn Beck announces he may be going blind form macular dystrophy, and now Rick Warren blinds himself while pruning a toxic plant? Sounds biblical! And what happened to Rush Limbaugh going deaf? HEY RUSH, ARE YOU DEAF YET?

09-08-2010, 06:14 AM	#6091
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Why is it wrong? I don't mean that rhetorically. I think it is being done to get the exact reaction it is getting. Is it wrong because it is offensive or because in general book burnings are wrong? Do you think flag burning protests are wrong? Again, I am curious and am not trying to provoke a reaction. I don't agree with what they are doing. I think it is in poor taste. They are doing it solely for the purpose of being offensive to a particular group of people. But all things that are offensive are not wrong.
	Submit to Quotes

09-08-2010, 07:07 AM	#6092
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I suspect it is wrong in this particular case because the people engaging in the activity likely would not consider it a two-way street. I somehow doubt that if I burned a big stack of Bibles to show how evil I think Evangelical Christianity is that they'd say "well, that's his right and we're ok with him expressing it in this way." I think it is wrong because their public display of hate of Islam is uncouth (that is, it isn't necessarily a moral wrong, just a social wrong; in other words it is wrong in the way that being needlessly impolite is wrong). It is not, however, deeply wrong simply because Muslims will be offended (as well as various people who will be offended on behalf of Muslims) so long as none of the Qurans being torched have artifactual value. The ideal response from those who would be offended is not offense but rather going on TV, collectively shrugging their shoulders and saying "well, stupid is as stupid does."
	Submit to Quotes

09-08-2010, 07:13 AM	#6093
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I think it would be interesting for a group to plan a counter protest and burn a Bible to see what it is that this pastor and his congregation would say.
	Submit to Quotes

09-08-2010, 07:19 AM	#6094
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Presumably if it was being done as a counter protest they'd be smart enough from a PR perspective to shrug. I doubt that if a bunch of Muslims last year had decided to do so they'd do the same (and it could be they'd not be smart enough to shrug now either).
	Submit to Quotes

09-08-2010, 08:46 AM	#6095
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I am curious....was Mapplethorpe and his "art" of a crucifix in a jar of urine wrong? That was clearly done to be offensive to Christians. If being deemed art makes it acceptable, would it be OK - or at least not wrong - to take the ashes of a burned Quran and display that as art, with a name comparable to the "Piss Christ" name of Mapplethorphe's work? Maybe call it "Burn Islam" or something like that?
	Submit to Quotes

09-08-2010, 09:09 AM	#6097
flippyshark Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 2,852	Actually, even when I was a Christian, I found Serrano's Piss Christ not only not offensive, but quite striking and even strangely beautiful.
	Submit to Quotes

09-08-2010, 09:47 AM	#6098
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	My apologies about the misnamed artist. And I'll even agree that you are right in that I do not know that Serrano had a goal of being offensive. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it would be taken that way by a lot of people, especially naming it as he did. So that aside, my question still stands....if ashes of a burned Quran were displayed as "art", would that be acceptable? We could even name it something like "The Ashes of 9/11", signifying the damage that the Islamic radicals had brought to Islam. You might be sick of "what ifs", but I am wondering where the line is about what is right and wrong here.
	Submit to Quotes

09-08-2010, 09:56 AM	#6099
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Well, I'm not going to be of any help, since I don't see anything "wrong" about mass burning of books to make a protest point - let alone art. I may not agree with that point, and I may foresee many undesirable potential reactions - but it's within this particular asshat's constitutional rights to make such a boneheaded protest. As a matter of fact, I would think him more of an idiot if he were doing this as performance art rather than protest - but either way, he's within his rights to be a retard.
	Submit to Quotes

09-08-2010, 09:58 AM	#6100
Gn2Dlnd Parmmadore Jim Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Casita del Queso Posts: 3,810	So, Glenn Beck announces he may be going blind form macular dystrophy, and now Rick Warren blinds himself while pruning a toxic plant? Sounds biblical! And what happened to Rush Limbaugh going deaf? HEY RUSH, ARE YOU DEAF YET? __________________ Does anyone still wear a hat?
	Submit to Quotes