Organized Religion Discussion Thread

[Grim]

The difference is people who wear provocative clothing and then end up getting raped don't wear provocative clothing knowing they're probably going to get raped. Molly Norris probably knew she were going to stir up controversy knowing that it's illegal for Muslims to depict Mohammed, but it's probably not for non-Muslims. That's why I'm averse to what she did. It was stirring up the hornet's nest under the guise of furthering the ideals of free speech.

Just because one does not agree with something does not necessarily make it wrong.

It doesn't make it automatically right, either.

Like Nix has already said, if the artists truly believe in what they did, then they should stand by what they did. It's all anyone could ask for, and like all the others before them, history will be the judge.

I would say the same of the ones making the death threats. They should be held responsible for their act of stupidity, and charged to the fullest extent of the law.

No arguments from me here. But I'll go on to say that

We think it grave, they think it just. And ultimately, that's where this situation starts to break down.

and where it gets, for lack of a better word, ugly.

The problem is that depicting Mohammed is that it's a gray area to begin with. Therefore "blasphemy" will immediately be subjective to whoever's looking at the situation.

That's the problem, it's a gray area. Blasphemy is subjective to every religion, and I find it utterly ridiculous that we have to respect every bloody one just because it's a proverbial sacred cow.

Under the laws of free speech, there is no such thing.

How would you feel if Hindus suddenly said that anybody eating burgers was blasphemous to their religion, and actively sent death threats to anybody who as much as draws a quarter-pounder?

Under the laws of free speech, there is no blasphemy? It's all black and white? There are no consequences? Or, we can say/write anything we want about anyone without thinking about libel, or slander? I refuse to believe in that. Free speech comes with responsibilities for wise usage, not a free reign to anything and everything.

The situation you are positing is different. Mohammed belongs only to the Muslim religion. Burgers and cows on the other hand encompass something outside Hinduism. Why attack something that doesn't concern you?