Not Even in South Park?

great editorial:

nytimes.com/2010/04/26/opinion/26douthat.html

thats what my first reaction about the recent threat. where were they when Super Best Friends came out?

I think Muslims need to learn to take a joke :popcorn:

But there’s still a sense in which the “South Park” case is particularly illuminating. Not because it tells us anything new about the lines that writers and entertainers suddenly aren’t allowed to cross. But because it’s a reminder that Islam is just about the only place where we draw any lines at all.

Comedey Central made an empire out of “pushing the limits” except when “fringe” elements not so subtly made implicit death threats. Just like so much of the liberal media, the image they try to present clashed with their politically correct views. On the West coast the episode (#201) simply wasn’t shown at all, replaced with a repat episode.

Except where Islam is concerned. There, the standards are established under threat of violence, and accepted out of a mix of self-preservation and self-loathing.

Amazing that the uber-liberal NYTimes would even admit that islam has issues with violence. Though the writer does go on to repudiate those who like to equate today with a certain European pre WWII country:

Happily, today’s would-be totalitarians are probably too marginal to take full advantage. This isn’t Weimar Germany, and Islam’s radical fringe is still a fringe, rather than an existential enemy.

Sadly for him, he does not realise that much of the middle east governments are totalitarian and are not “fringe”. Revolution muslims own website contradicts the “peaceful muslim” view so much of the liberal left world endorses.

they’re sending the wrong message here

the liberal media has made fun of Christianity for a long time. people will see how “successful” Muslim extremism is in preventing hate speech against them. the scary part is some Extremist Christian somewhere will pick up this idea and run with it

I find it very interesting that when christianity is made fun of on TV I see many people here get fired up about it yet in this thread people are saying the muslims need to lighten up or learn to take a joke.

It’s like Islam is where the Christians were centuries ago, especially in the middle east where sometimes it seems like they’re still in the middle ages. They’ll get used to this kind of stuff, hopefully with little bloodshed, they’ll have to because the world isn’t going back in time for them.

Have you ever heard anyone on this board threaten violence.
That’s the diconnect sorry if you don’t get it.

I did not read the NYT like why waste my time. What I have seen the warning is by some 21 year-old American punk that never had a social life—IMHO he wants attention?

That will happen at the very same time when liberals will be honest.

Careful with that brush.

Only one person said that. (generalization)

Getting fired up is one thing. Nailing an Allahu Akbar note into a dead man’s heart is quite another. (moral equivalency)

While broad brush generalizations are used by everybody, the moral equivalency that sees no difference between getting fired up over blasphemy and beheading an infidel does seem to be the tendency of the left, does it not?

I’m not sure exactly what you mean, “the left” tends to change completely depending on who you talk to, left wing ideals are diverse among themselves. I’m guessing you’re referring to those who are overly politically correct, such as some groups in Europe right now. I agree that those groups give way too much slack to Islam, but Christianity has acted in very similar ways to Islam in the past when the church had the power to. It’s almost impossible to defend one religion over another without running into countless hypocrisies. Islam will slowly adapt to secular society just like Christianity has. we can see this happening already with some Islamic sects who pick and choose teachings that align with their own common sense, rather than bending their moral compass to fit all the teachings.

This is what Bill O’Reilly had to say about the death threats.
youtube.com/watch?v=dGcqkP8jPzM&feature=related
O’Reilly makes the point that while we do not want to give into the intimidating forces of evil, the risk involved in provoking the Islamist extremists is greater than the reward.

This illustrates the point that the Op-Ed columnist Ross Douthat makes. This is what decadence looks like. It looks like cowardice.

so it is your belief then, that an Islam today that nails messages into dead men, is the moral equivalent of Christianity in the middle ages?

Not the exact actions of course. But the mentality of believing that those who blaspheme, or insult their religion deserve to die.

Yeah, not a lot of wide-spread examples of that. True a few individuals did bad things. But then in Islam, a muslim is obligated to imprison, punish and even kill blasphemers. At least that is what the koran says. Funny, that is not in the Bible.

[quote="rpp, post:17, topic:196324"]
Yeah, not a lot of wide-spread examples of that. True a few individuals did bad things. But then in Islam, a muslim is obligated to imprison, punish and even kill blasphemers. At least that is what the koran says. Funny, that is not in the Bible.

[/quote]

A few individuals? A quick look at history debunks that idea.
It is in the bible.

Here's one instance from a quick passage look up. From Leviticus 24.

10 Now the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, and a fight broke out in the camp between him and an Israelite. 11 The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name with a curse; so they brought him to Moses. (His mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri the Danite.) 12 They put him in custody until the will of the LORD should be made clear to them.

13 Then the LORD said to Moses: 14 "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. 15 Say to the Israelites: 'If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.

17 " 'If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death. 18 Anyone who takes the life of someone's animal must make restitution—life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. 21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death. 22 You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.' "

23 Then Moses spoke to the Israelites, and they took the blasphemer outside the camp and stoned him. The Israelites did as the LORD commanded Moses.

There are also parts of the bible that outline the etiquette of owning slaves, outlining such rights of a slave owner as beating them nearly to death, and as long as they live through the night it's okay, if they die within a day or two, it's okay.

Now I doubt you actually follow those teachings, most Christians and Jews these days ignore those teachings. Which falls under my point, many Muslims, much like most modern Christians do already, are beginning to pick and choose scriptural teachings to fit their own common sense of morals, instead of taking their morals from scripture as theists tend to claim. In the west most Muslims already don't follow teachings that teach the killing of blasphemers. It's still a problem in Islam, but it's one that will pass like it did with Christians. The best thing I think we can do, is not to take them seriously at all, intimidation and fear are the most important tools for religious authority.

Do you know that Christians are not supposed to follow Leviticus laws?

it depends on which sect you’re dealing with really. Many still use Leviticus as the basis for opposing same sex marriage also. Besides, the post I was responding to claimed that the Bible as a whole does not teach to kill blasphemers, Leviticus is in the bible, whether you choose to ignore it or not. That just continues to strengthen my point that Christians, like Muslims are beginning to do, do not fully follow their religions scripture, they pick and choose teachings to conform to their own moral senses. If this scripture truly is the infallible eternal word of God, than it’s truth does not change with the times, it’s eternal. It’s contradictions like this that cause theist arguments to fall apart at the slightest analysis. No matter how many loopholes theists try to create, there’s always contradictions that arise.

It makes me happy that many theists have the common sense to realize that the teachings in Leviticus are disgusting. But it just makes me wonder why people choose to have that contradiction in their lives, why claim that your morals come from the bible when you clearly discern morals in the bible to fit your own common sense, not the other way around. Why not just admit that the bible has nothing to do with our morals instead of trying to work around the baggage and contradictions that come with claiming that it’s infallible?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.