Super Best Friends No More

Last night South Park broadcast part two of an epic episode that took on the Mohammed cartoons controversy (the Inkifada, as John Tabin and I and no one else has called it) in the inimitable Parker-Stone fashion. I thought the first half was remarkably preachy and dull, and missed the conclusion. Apparently, it was a big deal.

Part one of "Cartoon Wars" ended with a jokey, super-dramatic "stay tuned!" montage that promised next week would showcase an image of Mohammed if "Comedy Central doesn't puss out." In part two, when Mohammed was supposed to appear, a disclaimer blacked out the screen. It wasn't immediately clear if this was an extremely meta joke or whether the network really pussed out. National Review's Stephen Spruill called Comedy Central and they confirmed, yes, they requested that the image be taken out of the episode.

And here we have one of the dumbest milestones in the Mohammed controversy so far. Mohammed has actually appeared on the show before, as part of a Superfriends-style team of religious figures. He had the power of fire; Joseph Smith had the power of ice.

Comments

lunchstealer | April 13, 2006, 4:55pm | #

And here we have one of the dumbest milestones in the Mohammed controversy so far. Mohammed has actually appeared on the show before, as part of a Superfriends-style team of religious figures. He had the power of fire; Joseph Smith had the power of ice.

Holy crap. I'd forgotten about that. Dammit!

I guess that makes Comedy Central even more retarded than ever. I wonder if Matt & Trey had even thought of that.

John | April 13, 2006, 5:01pm | #

They made a biopic about Mohammad in Egypt back in the 1970s. No one compained. No we here that you can't even portray Mohammad without offending Muslims. Times have changed and not for the better. I know these are small things, but the fact is Comedy Central will broadcast South Park episodes where Jesus deficates on things but won't so much as show Mohammad. Why? Because Christians don't burn stuff down and kill people. My guess is that Muslims will continue to push the envelope about what offends them. Any guess on what the next form of expression we are going to loose will be?

dead_elvis | April 13, 2006, 5:05pm | #

I wonder just what the rules are about depicting M. Like, how accurate does it have to be? If I draw a dot, and label it Mohammed, does that count as a depiction, though it is wildly inaccurate? If not, then how does drawing a generically arab looking person as Moahammed count? They are both equally not-Mohammed.

And if depictions are forbidden, how does anyone know what he looked like? If no one knows what he looks like, how is it possible to know when he is being depicted?


@8 )~~~

Dan T. | April 13, 2006, 5:05pm | #

I think it's great that in American a private organization like Comedy Central can choose what it does or does not want to show on its network.

If you don't like it, feel free to turn the channel.

Rhampton | April 13, 2006, 5:06pm | #

I thought it was a "meta joke" as well. What is Comedy Central thinking? Still, it was a great episode, especially the retaliatory strike by Al Qaeda -- a video of President Bush and various Americans pooping on the American flag.

S.R. Chamberlain | April 13, 2006, 5:08pm | #

I think it's great that in American a private organization like Comedy Central can choose what it does or does not want to show on its network.

Yes; and we can choose to laugh heartily at both its willingness to self-censor and its apparent inconsistency.

dead_elvis | April 13, 2006, 5:10pm | #

Hey, consarnit, the software screwed up the label for the ascii-toon, I had written an arrow and "Mohammed"

Apparently "Hey, consarnit, the software screwed up the label for the ascii-toon, I had written an arrow and "Mohammed"

Apparently a less-than sign is verboten.

dead_elvis | April 13, 2006, 5:11pm | #

AArgh!

Dan T. | April 13, 2006, 5:12pm | #

Yes; and we can choose to laugh heartily at both its willingness to self-censor and its apparent inconsistency.

Sure, but it's really not that hard to figure out why running Mohammad images is a much bigger deal now that it was before the whole cartoon flap.

biologist | April 13, 2006, 5:13pm | #

probably because the less-than sign bracket is used in html coding, the server misunderstood what you wanted

test: <

ethelred | April 13, 2006, 5:15pm | #

Is anyone else somewhat skeptical that they actually really did make such a request? Is it so unreasonable to be suspicious that Cartoon Network -- the network that brings us Adult Swim and South Park -- might be in on the joke?

S.R. Chamberlain | April 13, 2006, 5:16pm | #

Sure, but it's really not that hard to figure out why running Mohammad images is a much bigger deal now that it was before the whole cartoon flap.

Sure, but it's really not that hard to figure out why it still constitutes a ridiculous instance of self-censorship and inconsistency.

biologist | April 13, 2006, 5:17pm | #

South Park is from Comedy Central, not the Cartoon Network

<-O-> | April 13, 2006, 5:24pm | #

Use &lt; to get a <. Double-check with preview.

The Prophet Mohammed | April 13, 2006, 5:25pm | #

Family Guy is way better than South Park. That Stewie is soo funny!

Suck it Comedy Central.

Dan T. | April 13, 2006, 5:25pm | #

Sure, but it's really not that hard to figure out why it still constitutes a ridiculous instance of self-censorship and inconsistency.

I don't think there is such thing as "self-censorship" and it's not really inconsistent because of the change in situations.

Assuming it's not part of the joke, it simply means that CC didn't think the benefits of showing the image were worth the risks.

The more I think about it, though, I think it probably is all a joke.

John | April 13, 2006, 5:33pm | #

I would like to think it was a joke Dan, but I don't think so. I think we live in a world now where people censor what they say about Islam because of the fear of violence. Clearly, this is just one small instance, there are others, like Borders. The U.S. is not as far down this road as Europe where people like Theo Van Gogh have been killed, but this is one step closer.

SR | April 13, 2006, 5:34pm | #

"Apparently a less-than sign is verboten."

The software tries to read it as html code, so it vanishes.

emme | April 13, 2006, 5:40pm | #

Does anyone know if those Mohammed t-shirts are still for sale? The ones with the turban in the shape of a bomb? Does anyone have a link to it?

Jason Ligon | April 13, 2006, 5:41pm | #

They said everything that needed to be said about Family Guy, and the prophet Mohammad stuff was entirely secondary.

Except for the sticking your head in the sand, which was great, too.

dead_elvis | April 13, 2006, 5:42pm | #

I would think posting as Mohammed would be worse than drawing him.

dead_elvis | April 13, 2006, 5:43pm | #

They said everything that needed to be said about Family Guy

I thought the manatee writing staff bit was pretty brilliant.

Rhampton | April 13, 2006, 5:45pm | #

Less than <
use either &lt; or &#60;

Greater than >
use either &gt; or &#62;

S.R. Chamberlain | April 13, 2006, 5:46pm | #

and it's not really inconsistent because of the change in situations.

So the "Muslim world" (whatever that means) suddenly decides that depictions of Mohammed aren't a-okay, notwithstanding SP's previous airing of a cartoon of Mohammed, and CC's compliance with these petulant demands doesn't constitute inconsistency?

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, Dan.

Assuming it's not part of the joke, it simply means that CC didn't think the benefits of showing the image were worth the risks.

The more I think about it, though, I think it probably is all a joke.

Well, I hope you're right and that this apparent cowardice doesn't signal a media trend of networks giving into the demands of people who don't actually watch the networks in question. Because frankly, I'd rather my television programming not comply perfectly with Shari'a.

mediageek | April 13, 2006, 5:51pm | #

"They made a biopic about Mohammad in Egypt back in the 1970s. No one compained. No we here that you can't even portray Mohammad without offending Muslims."

If this is the movie I'm thinking of, they never actually showed Muhammad in frame.

Mo | April 13, 2006, 5:58pm | #

dead_elvis,
Look at it this way. Christians pray to an image of Jesus that looks nothing like the original (most depictions have him as a white dude, when he was a bronze-colored Jew).

While I think the whole thing is silly. I find it ironic that fundamentalist Christians think the no depictions of Mohammed rule is dumb when it's simply a strict following of the "No Graven Images" rule that the vast majority of Christians ignore.

mediageek,
You are correct about the Egyptian biopic of Mohammed. Do some research John.

biologist | April 13, 2006, 6:07pm | #

it's not just not wanting to offend muslims, comedy central refused to rerun the "Tom Cruise is in the closet" episode also.

Timothy | April 13, 2006, 6:08pm | #

I saw the Tom Cruise episode like five times. They must've cut it off after the first few weeks of the controversy.

SR | April 13, 2006, 6:19pm | #

"I find it ironic that fundamentalist Christians think the no depictions of Mohammed rule is dumb when it's simply a strict following of the 'No Graven Images' rule that the vast majority of Christians ignore."

Mo, you just don't understand. When Jesus came, he repealed all those silly Old Testament rules -- except for the ones about hating gays. Those are still 100% good.

science | April 13, 2006, 6:48pm | #

As a long time SP fan, I must say the episode sucked enough that maybe they should just cancel the series.
The head in the sand schtick was sooo lame.

Not airing mohammed, while showing Jesus shitting on the flag? Hmmmm... I guess at least they know that the Christian Right won't like them no matter what... but they are holding out hopes of getting an ad deal from the Muslim friendly cola companies.

biologist | April 13, 2006, 7:01pm | #

south park story

maybe park of Parker and Stone's point is that Comedy Central doesn't mind offending Christians, but won't risk offending Muslims, while Parker and Stone are willing to offend all comers

Phil | April 13, 2006, 7:05pm | #

Because Christians don't burn stuff down and kill people.

Just when I think you can't get any dumber, you do a triple fucking axel like this. Does the name Eric Rudolph mean anything to you? The Nuremberg Files? Bernard Slepian? David Gunn? The Lebanese goddamned Phalangists?

Scott | April 13, 2006, 7:05pm | #

Christians conveniently ignore the vast majority of their sacred text unless it fits the right wing political agenda. They now believe in a kinder, gentler God that no longer supports killing people for adultery or eternal punishment for eating lobster. In exchange, Jesus has been forced to give up his radical liberal agenda of loving your neighbor, clothing the poor and turning the other cheek. However, both God and Jesus remain steadfast in their hatred of gay people, an Old Testament classic. God has not yet rendered a final decision on the morality of owning slaves, his previous approval may have simply been a youthful indiscretion.

Petunia Picklehead | April 13, 2006, 7:27pm | #

Phil,

Those individuals you mention were basically lone nutcases and had nothing to do with mainstream Christianity.

On the other hand, the Islamic violence of late has been a fairly mainstream muslim concern and endorsed by both local and state muslim leaders. Very different.

Brian | April 13, 2006, 7:48pm | #

Wow, Scott.

You just summed up 2000 years of Christian theology in 7 lines. Nicely done!

Shem | April 13, 2006, 8:14pm | #

They made a biopic about Mohammad in Egypt back in the 1970s.

That film was shot from Mohammad's point of view, so you never actually see any sort of representation. But, just the same, way to go off half-cocked.

biologist | April 13, 2006, 8:15pm | #

is the Westboro Baptist Church mainstream Christian enough for you, Petunia?

SixSigma | April 13, 2006, 8:31pm | #

biologist -

When's the last time the westboro baptist chu... racist society forced foriegn embassies to close due to thousands rioting in the streets? When did westboro have leaders of their "CChristian religion" offer rewards for people's heads due to pervceived insults? Etc, etc, etc.

No, westboro is not mainstream, much less Christian mainstream.

crimethink | April 13, 2006, 8:45pm | #

Phil,

If those people's actions had any significant support among Christians, then the same newspapers that avoided printing the Mohammed pictures for fear of retaliation, would likewise shit their pants every time they ran a pro-choice editorial.

The Real Bill | April 13, 2006, 8:52pm | #

Reading the regular comments on HnR about Christianity, I've come to the conclusion that my fellow libertarian non-believers are a bunch of ignorant fools (at least when it comes to religion and religious history). I have no use for religion and I still think you people are idiots. I actually hate many of you because you make me want to defend religion! Fucktards.

Ammonium | April 13, 2006, 9:00pm | #

Comedy Central would never really censor anything.

Muslim extremism is no different than Christian extremism.

Right.

Get your friggin heads out of the sand, people!

b-psycho | April 13, 2006, 9:51pm | #

Comedy Central has to be in on the joke. I can't imagine Trey & Matt actually knuckling under on this, if the yank of the Mohammed image were for real then they'd be doing the Comedy-Central-is-a-bunch-of-dicks tour with Dave Chappelle right now.

John | April 13, 2006, 10:07pm | #

Phil,

You are just an ass. There is no other way to describe it. People in the media are so afraid of being terrorized by angry Christians, I guess that is why all the South Park episodes that make fun of Jesus have been censored.

"I find it ironic that fundamentalist Christians think the no depictions of Mohammed rule is dumb when it's simply a strict following of the 'No Graven Images' rule that the vast majority of Christians ignore."


I don't think Christians have a problem with Muslims objecting to and not depicting Muhammad. The problem is that they threaten death to those who do.

John | April 13, 2006, 10:09pm | #

"Muslim extremism is no different than Christian extremism...Right"

Yeah, Christians are becoming suicide bombers every day. They are also highjacking planes and there are fundementalist Christian nations where it is illegal to own a Koran or be a Jew and who are building nuclear weapons and promising to use them to wipe Isreal off the face of the earth. What the hell is the matter with you?

John | April 13, 2006, 10:11pm | #

I almost forgot. There is also that long list of Christian nations where the penalty is death for converting to another religion and also all of those fundementalist Christian sects who routinely issue prolicmation ordering the death of anyone who blasphemes the Bible.

Randolph Carter | April 13, 2006, 10:36pm | #

a little off topic, but does anyone here know why Aleister Crowley seemed to respect Joseph Smith as a great man? I figure this as good a place as any to ask.

smacky | April 13, 2006, 10:50pm | #

@8 )~~~

Would this qualify for jihad?

dead elvis,

Lol! Best comment of the thread. You cheeky monkey.

smartassed sob | April 13, 2006, 10:53pm | #

"Christians conveniently ignore the vast majority of their sacred text unless it fits the right wing political agenda. They now believe in a kinder, gentler God that no longer supports killing people for adultery or eternal punishment for eating lobster. In exchange, Jesus has been forced to give up his radical liberal agenda of loving your neighbor, clothing the poor and turning the other cheek. However, both God and Jesus remain steadfast in their hatred of gay people,"

Comment by: Scott at April 13, 2006 07:05 PM


Which Christians would those be, Scott? The gay priests or the child-molesting priests? :-)

Akira MacKenzie | April 14, 2006, 12:34am | #

Those individuals you mention were basically lone nutcases and had nothing to do with mainstream Christianity.

Semantics. The people Rudolph killed are still dead along with the millions upon millions that who have been killed in the name of "God."

Besides, when it comes to religion, there is no such thing as "extreme" versus "mainstream." The "mainstream" Christian's goals are the same as the "extremist" whether it's banning abortion or discriminating against gays, or generally trying to make their nonsensical notions of "faith" the law of the land. One accomplishes their goals at the voting booth, the other with pipe bombs.

When freedom is lost, why is democratic coercion any better than the terrorist variety? Therefore, I don't see a fucking difference.

linguist | April 14, 2006, 12:53am | #

Reading the regular comments on HnR about Christianity, I've come to the conclusion that my fellow libertarian non-believers are a bunch of ignorant fools (at least when it comes to religion and religious history). I have no use for religion and I still think you people are idiots. I actually hate many of you because you make me want to defend religion! Fucktards.

Comment by: The Real Bill at April 13, 2006 08:52 PM

Bill, I couldn't agree more.

Ok, I'll just say it for once and for all. You Christian haters are guilty of the same hypocrisy you accuse them of. Choose your poison. You either believe that others can have their own beliefs, or you believe that they are wrong or you are right.

If you are so certain you are right, at least have the decency to call yourself an abolutist, elitist, fascist. Because, that's what you really are.

Sad state of affairs if this is what philosophical objectivism got us.

bruce | April 14, 2006, 1:20am | #

As of 3 episodes ago, Mohammad has been in the opening/intro to each south park episode. At the end, by the "south Park" sign ("... and meet some friends of mine... *squerk*") mohammed is standing in the back on the right of the screen. So, they actually DID show a pic of mohammad in that very episode. CS probably didn't catch it. And that's Aside from the fact that Mo' was a character in the "super best friends" episode from a few years ago.

Jake Boone | April 14, 2006, 1:24am | #

a little off topic, but does anyone here know why Aleister Crowley seemed to respect Joseph Smith as a great man? I figure this as good a place as any to ask.

I figure Crowley should have been grateful to Smith. After all, Smith demonstrated that it's possible, with a serious-enough demeanor and a wacky-enough set of claims, to start a religion that'll get you enough sex and money to last for the rest of your life. Crowley learned Smith's scam, and put it to work for himself (though with a little more faux-yoga and a little less magical underpants).

Maybe that's why Crowley would have been well-disposed toward Smith.

jw | April 14, 2006, 1:28am | #

You either believe that others can have their own beliefs, or you believe that they are wrong or you are right.

If you are so certain you are right, at least have the decency to call yourself an abolutist, elitist, fascist. Because, that's what you really are.

Comment by: linguist at April 14, 2006 12:53 AM


I don't know that it is an either/or proposition; one can allow others their beliefs and still think that they wrong and one is right.

Elitist? maybe. Fascist? doubtful. Absolutist? Absolutely! Are you going to tell me there are no absolutes? You'll only contradict yourself, if you try.

I'll agree with you that the Christian haters here do get vitriolic at times, but no more so than Christians do on other boards. I don't have any use much for organized religion,...not so much because I am an unbeliever - I'd feel the same if I were a believer - but because of the inverted morality system that the major religions advocate. On the other hand, I am not so ignorant as to think all religion is and has been all bad - I've read too much history. But I do think that organized religion has been a double-edged sword for mankind all through the history of civilization.

dhex | April 14, 2006, 1:29am | #

what else is religion supposed to do?

ass and cash, baby, ass and cash.

linguist | April 14, 2006, 1:39am | #

jw, that was supposed to be an "and", not an "or", I apologize.

But I agree with you. I, like many others who stay here long enough, are not likely to be terribly religious. But I will say that the same vitriole directed at other groups (including other religious groups outside of Christianity!) would never be tolerated here. Yet it's tolerated and encouraged. It does give the impression that to be libertarian you must be vehemently atheist. I simply don't think that's at the heart of the liberalism we're really aiming at. Is it ok if I'm not vehement about enforcing my beliefs on anyone else?

!

Brendan Perez | April 14, 2006, 1:41am | #

I think it's great that in American a private organization like Comedy Central can choose what it does or does not want to show on its network.

If you don't like it, feel free to turn the channel.

I did.

I hope it was a joke. If not, I imagine we may actually see the show descend into a whiny more PC show, like Cartman predicted. That's when I stop watching. If they start pulling punches, I'm gone-that they don't now is the one thing that makes me watch every new episode and most re-ruuns.

Akira MacKenzie | April 14, 2006, 1:45am | #

Real Bill, Linguist:

I've come to the conclusion that my fellow libertarian non-believers are a bunch of ignorant fools (at least when it comes to religion and religious history).

Ok, I'll just say it for once and for all. You Christian haters are guilty of the same hypocrisy you accuse them of. Choose your poison. You either believe that others can have their own beliefs, or you believe that they are wrong or you are right.

Oh really? And where is this shining happy history of Christianity? Did the Crusades never happen? How about the Inquisitions, the Witch Hunts, Holy Wars, the burning of heretics and the millions up millions who died or lost their freedom in the name of Jesus over the centuries?

As for being ignorant of religion, I am well versed In Christianity; I was one for 25 years. I did everything I was told made for a good Catholic; I hated gays, called girls "sluts" in high school health class for arguing that there was nothing wrong with premarital sex, waved around pictures of allegedly abort "babies" to argue against abortion, called atheists "commies," and wasted Sunday morning after Sunday morning with rest of the dupes praying to a being who the priests said loved us while dealing out death and judgement to the slightest infraction.

Meanwhile, on my redneck Mother's side of the family, my fundie relations told me that blacks and whites had to be segregated because Hamm accidentally saw Noah's dick after the latter got falling down drunk, that modern Jews were inhuman because they "killed our Savior," that evolution and dinosaurs were a Satanic conspiracy, that playing Dungeons & Dragons would turn me into a pot-using warlock, and that Jesus was going to return sometime real soon and reign death and destruction on everyone who didn't the tow the Christian line.

These are stupid beliefs, built on willful ignorance and hate, why should we not call the believers what they are: Stupid? Neither my Catholic nor my Protestant relations have any respect for anyone's freedom, especially for anyone who is different than they are. Tell me, even as a libertarian, why am I supposed to "tolerate" any of their intolerance? Given American Christianity's stated desire to have religion be made law in one way or another, why shouldn't I be afraid of the America that they have in store for us?

Now, that said, I wouldn't have any trouble with anyone's religion if they JUST KEPT IT TO THEIR FUCKING SELVES. If they kept their faith in their homes, their churches, or wherever I didn't have to listen to or pay for it, then they could believe whatever the fuck they want. However, that is not the case. They are manipulating the political process, controlling school boards, drafting laws, stacking the high courts with sympathetic judges...hell, they've even got the U.S. Air Force Academy under their sway.

What am I supposed to think, guys? What am I supposed to say or do? I'm kind of worried for the last few years about the power the Christians have been obtaining, and I don't see it getting better anytime soon.

After all the evil they've done for the past two thousand years, why shouldn't I hate them?

(These aren't rhetorical questions, by the way. I want an answer.)

linguist | April 14, 2006, 2:06am | #

OK, Akira, I'll try to give you a straight answer, but understand this an answer from just one person.

Here's the nutshell: just because you had a bad experience (or many, from the sound of it) with certain people who were Christian, doesn't mean that everyone who calls themselves by that is that way.

I won't elaborate on my own sob stories in this public forum (be happy to tell you privately if it will make you feel better) but let me say to you I have very good personal reasons to hate all Christians, African-Armericans, and men. If I chose to think that way.

And yet, I don't.

So, seriously, get over it. You're painting with too broad a stroke.

matt | April 14, 2006, 2:07am | #

"is the Westboro Baptist Church mainstream Christian enough for you, Petunia?"

The Westboro "Baptists" are a bizzare cult of a few hundred people at most who have almost nothing in common with mainstream or conservative Baptists.

The Real Bill/linguist,

Speaking as a non-believer, I also tire of the religious bashing as well.


And dammit, I'm the last person who wants it to even look like I'm defending Christian extremism, but even the most extreme "Christians" (like the Westboro Baptists) don't normally resort murdering their enemies. The dopes just stand around and hold up signs while yelling bullshit at those they are picketing.

linguist | April 14, 2006, 2:11am | #

matt and others,

In case you were wondering...I am not a believer. But, like The Real Bill, I find myself in the strange position of "god's advocate" (heh) here.

Jake Boone | April 14, 2006, 2:18am | #

[This post may be sort of disjointed, as I'm too tired to do any more editing.]

After all the evil they've done for the past two thousand years, why shouldn't I hate them?

Because most of 'em aren't evil. They're really trying to be good people, and do good things. Most Germans weren't evil in 1944. Most Muslims weren't evil in 2001. Most of everyone isn't evil.

And therein lies the problem. I'm an ex-Christian (now atheist) and an ex-Republican (now libertarian), so I've lived on the other side of all this. It's something of a catch-22: hating them reinforces their belief system ("see how persecuted we are for being Christian?") but failing to work against them results in the thrill of living in a hostile theocracy.

But there's no Christian alive today on whom you can pin the Crusades or the Inquisition or the Witch Trials, any more than you can pin American slavery on a living white guy. Keep your hatred for individuals who earn it through their actions, not for the rank-and-file who really don't see what they're doing. After all, individual responsibility is a big libertarian thing, right?

Let me clarify that I'm right there in the same boat with you, Akira. Christianity is causing problems, and the world will be better when it's gone. But people are free to choose to believe stupid crap, and we need to respect that freedom (even if we don't respect the particular choice they make). That's the terrible, beautiful thing about freedom.

But you are free to ridicule their choices, and point out any flaws you see, and they need to respect your freedom to do that, too. When they try to take away your freedom or mine, however, it's our job to try and stop them if we want to keep that freedom.

Just keep in mind that all Christians aren't trying to take away your freedom, any more than all Muslims are trying to blow up Americans, or all clowns love the taste of human flesh. Well, actually, that last one may be true, but the point remains: save your wrath for the ones who are doing harm, not the ones who are merely offensive and stupid. For the offensive and stupid, pity mixed with either education or ridicule (depending on your temperament) should suffice.

I don't hate Christians, but I do fear them. Much like I would not hate, but would fear a toddler who happened to be blithely driving a bulldozer toward my home.

linguist | April 14, 2006, 2:27am | #

Well said, Jake!

(< what he said, much more eloquently than I!)

jw | April 14, 2006, 2:52am | #

Akira,

You sound as though you are much more pissed off at yourself than anyone else. So you spent a bunch of years believing the wrong stuff - what? you're going to waste even more time and heart hating people who couldn't care less that you hate them? Hate their ideas and beliefs, if you wish, but don't waste time and emotion hating the holders of those beliefs, because you can not directly control how they believe. And hating them and calling them stupid is not likely to make them more sympathetic to your point of view.

There are good people and bad - there always has been - in ALL religions and belief systems. Christians are not the only people who have done evil things, nor are the members of other religions. And what about the Communists? My point is this: there are going to be people who are evil no matter what the prevailing belief system is.

You express dismay that Christians are gaining political power, but hell, they have always had it in this country. Check your fifth paragraph, the one where you say you wish that they would keep their beliefs to themselves. Do you know that one could just as easily substitute the terms liberal or multiculturlist for the subjects in those sentences and they would still be true?

I certainly can not answer all the questions that you ask here - not tonight,anyway. But I'll leave you with this: tolerance and acceptance are not the same thing. One can tolerate any number of beliefs without accepting them as valid. It is only actions that sometimes can not be tolerated.
Lastly, read more history. You were raised Catholic, so I know that you have heard of Thomas Aquinas. Read about his influence on the Renaissance and the Enlightenmnt by his "rediscovery" of the works of Aristotle. Read more. Think more. And then think even still more.

Hakluyt | April 14, 2006, 3:21am | #

Jack Boone,

Most Germans weren't evil in 1944.

You're wrong about that. German support for the war was widespread and the Nazi government's use of camps was also well known. This in large measure wasn't based on fear, but true and heartfelt support for much of the Nazi regime's program by a large cross-section of the German population. These are well documented things and something which the past twenty to thirty years of scholarship has proven beyond a doubt.

Just keep in mind that all Christians aren't trying to take away your freedom...

All Christians in one fashion or another, in one policy area or another, are indeed interested in such.

jw,

Aquinas discovered what others wrote about Aristotle, not what Aristotle actually wrote. Now, Ibn Sina did reintroduce Aristotle to the West. BTW, Aquinas knew no Greek save a few words.

Hakluyt | April 14, 2006, 3:24am | #

jw,

Crap, I meant to write Ibn Rushd.

<M><'><T><u><k><l><a><v><i><e><r> | April 14, 2006, 3:25am | #

Muhammed's twig and berries:

<-
   ..

©2006 Me

M' | April 14, 2006, 3:43am | #

 ¡¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª«¬­®¯°±²³´µ¶·¸¹º»¼½¾¿ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆÇÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏÐÑÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÙÚÛÜÝÞßàáâãäåæçèéêëìíîïðñòóôõö÷øùúûüýþÿΑΒΓΔΕΖΗΘΙΚΛΜΝΞΟΠΡΣΤΥΦΧΨΩαβγδεζηθικλμνξοπρςστυφχψωϑϒϖ•…′″‾⁄℘ℑℜ™ℵ←↑→↓↔↵⇐⇑⇒⇓⇔∀∂∃∅∇∈∉∋∏∑−∗√∝∞∠∧∨∩∪∫there4;∼≅≈≠≡≤≥⊂⊃⊄⊆⊇⊕⊗⊥⋅⌈⌉⌊⌋⟨⟩◊♠♣♥♦"&<>ŒœŠšŸˆ˜   ‌‍‎‏–—‘’‚“”„†‡‰‹›

jw | April 14, 2006, 3:47am | #

Hakluyt,

So noted, but without Aquinas would Aristotle's ideas ever have gained much currency in western Europe?

BTW...where the heck you been lately?

<M><><'><T><u><k><l><a><v><i><e>&l | April 14, 2006, 3:49am | #

Whatever happened to having to answer to the Coca Cola® company?

jw | April 14, 2006, 4:39am | #

M',

Showoff!

Jennifer | April 14, 2006, 9:52am | #

Great. First we'll get some folks insisting that every individual Christian alive today is responsible for the collective sins of Christianity over the millenia.

Then somebody else can chime in that all atheists are responsible for the sins of people like Stalin.

And then Al Sharpton can post under an assumed name to explain why all whites are responsible for the slave trade of a few centuries back.

Followed by Andrea Dworkin clones blaming today's American men for the fact that women couldn't vote a hundred years ago.

Damn. Libertarians may like individualism when it comes to taking care of your own selves, but some of y'all love to embrace collectivism when it comes to responsibility for evil, don't you?

jc | April 14, 2006, 9:55am | #

Hak,

How was "true and heartfelt support" actually measured?

Russ 2000 | April 14, 2006, 10:11am | #

Libertarians may like individualism when it comes to taking care of your own selves, but some of y'all love to embrace collectivism when it comes to responsibility for evil, don't you?

Yes, because it's true.

Didn't Milgram's experiments pretty much demonstrate that to be the case? That all of us have the capacity for evil, but that we almost never behave that way without a hierarchy in place?

Jennifer | April 14, 2006, 10:32am | #

Didn't Milgram's experiments pretty much demonstrate that to be the case? That all of us have the capacity for evil, but that we almost never behave that way without a hierarchy in place?

What did Milgram's experiments suggest about the amount of responsibility a person born in 1980, for example, has in regards to evil things that happened a few decades or centuries before he was born?

mitch | April 14, 2006, 10:39am | #

I wish "Crusades" hadn't become some sort of shorthand for "Christians are bad." The medieval period is one episode after another of people fighting and killing; Christians killing Christians, Muslims killing Muslims, Christians killing pagans, pagans killing Christians, Muslims killing Christians, etc. But people only seem to care when its Christians killing Muslims.

The other thing is, almost all this fighting and killing is about politics, not religion. One group wants another's territory or right to tax or whatever, so they attack them. In fact, the First Crusade is largely the Catholic West's effort to aid the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire, which is losing territory to Muslims. During the era of the Crusades there are many instances of Muslim leaders going to war with other Muslim leaders, and of Christian leaders going to war with other Christian leaders. Sometimes Christians and Muslims would ally to fight other Christians and/or Muslims.

The Crusaders acted in a way that we today find atrocious and reprehensible. But so did almost everybody else who lived in the past. (I sometimes wonder why the Crusaders have such a negative reputation, while other groups, like pirates, for example, are romanticized.)

Osama | April 14, 2006, 12:15pm | #

I wish "Crusades" hadn't become some sort of shorthand for "Christians are bad."

Oh, I dunno, I find it pretty handy.

Ellie | April 14, 2006, 12:30pm | #

"Just keep in mind that all Christians aren't trying to take away your freedom...

All Christians in one fashion or another, in one policy area or another, are indeed interested in such." - Hakluyt

I'm not.

science | April 14, 2006, 12:38pm | #

Hak,

"Just keep in mind that all Christians aren't trying to take away your freedom...

All Christians in one fashion or another, in one policy area or another, are indeed interested in such."

That is such utter BS, I am surprised even Hak can state it with a straight face.

What is missing from this discussion of religion is the fact that there is a difference between the people who label themselves as part of a group and the ideals of that group. Just as many of the libertarians that post here behave and talk in ways that are inconsistent with libertarianism, many christians act in ways that are incompatible with christianity, and many muslims act in ways that are incompatible with Islam. If you are following the doctrine of christianity, you will not be in the business of limiting others freedom, since FREEWILL is a major underlying requirement for salvation. The particular brand of freedom that libertarians base their philosophy on is a historical outgrowth of Christian thinking.

Akira's willingness in earlier years to call others sluts etc...when they disagreed with him is a trait which allows him to continue the same practice now that he claims to be a libertarian. The thing is, when he did it as a christian he was being an ass, not a christian, when he (or Hak, or________) does it on these boards as a libertarian he is being an ass, not a libertarian.

Bigotry is ugly in all its forms.

Jennifer | April 14, 2006, 12:56pm | #

I agree that religious fanaticism is dangerous, but sceaming at blameless religious moderates is not the way to avoid it. It's as asinine as a zero-tolerance school administrator insisting that there is no difference whatsoever between a teenaged heroin addict who steals to support her habit and a teenaged honor student who takes Midol to make her cramps go away--ALL drugs and ALL drug users are exactly alike!

Sulla | April 14, 2006, 1:31pm | #

Hak,

"Just keep in mind that all Christians aren't trying to take away your freedom...

All Christians in one fashion or another, in one policy area or another, are indeed interested in such."

Science:

That is such utter BS, I am surprised even Hak can state it with a straight face.

Me:

I agree completely. Normally, I really respect Hakluyt's opinions, but that argument makes no sense. Even being charitable and inferring he meant most Christians rather than all, it does really add anything to the conversation. Is there any group that believes in total and complete freedom? I mean, I guess anarchasts, but everybody else wants to limit your freedom somehow. I mean, even libertarians believe is ome limitations on freedom - how many people want me to be free to interefere with you private property.

And for what it's worth, I'm a Christian (Kierkegaard) existentialist libertarian, so while I don't believe in total and complete freedom, I doubt that there is really any freedoms that you want that I would be in favor of limiting.

coyote1284 | April 14, 2006, 4:03pm | #

Life of Brian II
[Officer] "This man has been found guilty of the crime of uttering The Prophet's name!"
[women voices]
"Stone him! Stone [deep voices] him! Stone him!"
[Prisoner] "All I said is this lamb was fit for Mohammed"
[Officer] "See he said it again!"
[Prisoner] "Mohammed, Mohammed, Mohammed"

...you get the idea.

The movie runs a little shorter than the original, because as soon a Brian is mistaken as The Prophet the entire cast "riots" because The Prophet is now being represented on screen, "kills" the crew and director, and "blows
up" the movie studio to the tune of "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life". The End.

Hakluyt | April 15, 2006, 12:08am | #

science,

...and the ideals of that group.

God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. - Matthew 15:4

And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. / I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: / Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. - Matthew 3:10-12

If you are following the doctrine of christianity, you will not be in the business of limiting others freedom, since FREEWILL is a major underlying requirement for salvation.

Given the theme of predestination that is often seen in the NT that is a problematic claim at best. Also, nothing in the NT remotely resembles a modern concept of freedom, tolerance, etc. You've never read the NT apparently.