"If bible believing Christians who are generally peace loving people "
runners claim

"Big blokes in balaclava's with dogs.. it's simple.. " http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1690#32866

Fair point runner but plenty of us don't much like a fundies idea of peace - people torn to pieces by big blokes in balaclava's with dogs.

There have been plenty of other instances where that bible believing christain has showed his joy and passion for peace achieved by beating up others. Perhaps you follow the link and point out how unchristain his taste for violence is.

R0bert

Perceived favouritism towards minorities is a significant source of prejudice and resentment, and is easily fuelled – look at the number of credulous bigots who accepted without question the recent hoax e-mail on refugees getting favourable social security entitlements, including some posters to a forums on this site:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1667

Unfortunately, those who complain of dual standards do sometimes have a point, and this article highlights is an important example of a case where inconsistency has the potential to do enormous damage.

The author is spot on in pointing out the risk that dual standards will eventually be resolved by extending the same privileges to Christianity as are currently enjoyed by Islam This would be a terrible development, not only for the principle of free speech, but also for Christianity and Islam, which have more to gain than to lose by exposure to what their critics have to say about them, even if the message is sometimes “highly offensive.”

R0bert raises an interesting point about pieces being produced with the intent to offend, which I’m sure many “art” works are. Offensive sells. Let’s face it, as art “Piss Christ” was less akin to piss than the other stuff, but we’ve all heard of it and seen the pictures, thanks in part to Pell’s predictable and fruitful (for the artist) intervention. Here in WA we recently had an interpretation of the York Crucifixion that earned a mediocre production front-page publicity, because its crucified Christ was portrayed by a bare-breasted woman. Some of the anti-Islamic material that has recently claimed the headlines, including Fitna, seems equally intended to provoke more than enlighten.

The response to these provocations, whether directed at Islam or Christianity, should be the same - ignore them or critique them as they deserves, but don’t ban them, because:

- The principle of freedom of speech is more important than the protection of religious sensitivities

- The courtroom is the last place to discriminate between legitimate artistic or theological expression and unacceptable religious offensiveness; and

- It only encourages the production of more bad art

CJ – The author of this piece is an ex-Muslim and a regular contributor to Islam Watch. Hence the enlightened speak.


Lev – Thank you for the links!

(1) The response to Fitna contains some fascinating stuff:

The “Jesus Camp” (“Kids on Fire School of Ministry” in North Dakota run by Becky Fisher) footage is bizarre. One of the participants claims the film was “manipulated by the directors in their effort to cast evangelical Christianity in an unflattering light” (he was obviously cast in an unflattering light). Apologists abound. I think condemnation is the appropriate response.

The British soldiers beating up Iraqi teens caught throwing rocks at US soldiers at street riots in Bara in 2004: apparently the subject of a Royal Military Police investigation. The US and British Governments expressed shock and outrage at the footage. I wonder if the offending soldiers were disciplined in any way…?

You go Raed Alsaeed! Ah the delicious taste of freedom (of expression). I hope it is addictive.

(2) Again, a gripping read. The page referenced links to:

http://www.article19.org/pdfs/press/petition-hrc.pdf

* A statement from 40 civil rights organizations calling to protect the mandate of Freedom of expression. The 30 March, 2008 must have been a sad day for them.

As the headline from the link states “Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights”

Sad day for us all. With a whimper, not a bang.

Rhian – I did love your reasoning, in regard to encouraging more bad art.

Hussain – from the IHEU:

“Freedom of expression is that right which – uniquely – enables us to expose, communicate and condemn abuse of all our other rights. Without freedom of expression and freedom of the press we give the green light to tyranny and make it impossible to expose corruption, incompetence, injustice and oppression.”

You have known a long time which way the wind is blowing. I am greatly encouraged by the moral fortitude required to question Islam Inc. But for how much longer …?

Jolly good article.

Also, am I the only person in the world who actually thinks Piss Christ is quite beautiful? Have another look. http://grammarpolice.net/archives/images/pisschrist.jpg

Also, we should make up a drinking game that's based around how quickly Boazy can turn a thread into a diatrible against Mozzies. You have to skull whenever he types the terms "doctrinally" or "NOW we are getting somewhere".

R0bert

You obviously were not around when the painters and dockers thought nothing of killing people who threatened their empire. No sane person could delight in seeing someone ravished by dogs even if it is a bunch of crooks.

Getting away with all messed up, that's the living.

All the best.