The main reason that religion can have a negative effect on cultures is that they encourage blind faith. They discourage people from reasoning things out with their own brains. They encourage people to be stupid. Lest anyone assume that I'm describing the entirety of all the world's religions, indoctrination is not the sole trait of religion.
Sometimes good things come out of religions like charity, but that doesn't mean that religion is entirely good. Plenty of evil organizations throughout history have performed charity. Charity can and does exist without religion.
More importantly, ...
There seems to be this attitude by some in this thread that we can criticize philosophies, movies, various industries, and the weather, but that religion should be completely immune from criticism. We can say that we don't like this or that cartoon or politician, but if we say there's something we don't like about religion, suddenly we're "intolerant" or "fanatics" or "bigots."
That's the thing though, if the tome is a product of its time, then the Divine Wisdom in it should TRANSCEND time and human cultural evolution.
Its got some good ideas in it, but it betrays its true authorship.
Absolutely, and many realize and respect that. Note I did not say all. But many are intelligent enough to realize that it's the product of man's desire to interpret the unknown as well as give people a common set of rules to live by. Much of the Divine Wisdom, whether from a supernatural being or just wisdom from those who've gone before us does survive and show up places like charity and many of the more reasonable laws, like not killing, have remained in place. Unfortunately, there's been a resurgance in people to going back to some of the crazier passages, on both sides of the argument. There really is a difference between rational people worshipping their chosen religion and radical fundamentalists.
Stemmed from implies the root of, or cause. I was disagreeing that religion was the cause of those problems, not that they weren't problems.
A problem can stem for various sources. As I've stated repeatedly, religion is not the cause of all the world's problems, but religion certainly has the global power to contribute in a big way. The problems I listed above stem primarily from religious dogma. One needs only to look at our European counterparts where there is less religious interference in government and where those sorts of problems are greatly reduced.
"organized religion" is behind several wars, if you look you'll notice that there are people involved in all of them. I did not write that religion does not provide a good moral base or support system. The ideology of most of them is peacefull. I think reasonable religious leaders should lean more toward the tolerance and education solution rather than the severed head solution.
People who say "religions don't start wars" forget the Crusades, a major source of Middle East strife to this day. They forget that the WTC was blown up - and the Afghan and Iraq wars subsequently started - supposedly because the U.S. military is stationed on "holy land."
And please don't give me that "religions don't kill people, people kill people" crap. Religion is people. Next you'll be saying that armies don't start wars; people start wars. Give me a friggin' break.
_______________
Satirical shows like The Simpsons, South Park, and Family Guy(ah, finally we bring it around to animation) make fun of religion all the time. Should they be punished? Should they be taken off the air?
Religion needs to be mocked and parodied just like any other powerful social or political institution.
I only wish that the paper had satirized other religions beside Islam, so it didn't appear that they were singling-out one religion.
...the non-muslim world doesn't have to abide by their rules.
I think this is the crux of the matter. Expecting those who don't subscribe to one's belief set to abide by the beliefs in said set invites these types of situations. Yes, Muhammed was depicted unflatteringly, and Muslims have every right to be upset about that (not "burning down buildings" upset, but upset). But the point I keep hearing over and over isn't that the depiction wasn't flattering, but that there was a depiction at all.
People who say "religions don't start wars" forget the Crusades, a major source of Middle East strife to this day.
People have been killing people because they were different since the beginning of time. Most of the time it's more to do with who's sitting on what piece of land and the beliefs in question are just an obvious way to get people riled up. "Hey, he doesn't think like you!" "Yeah! Let's get him!" Sometimes it's because a society has built such a warlike culture, it doesn't know what to do with it's soldiers (one of the main contributing factors to the Crusades) and it's a lot easier to kill people you don't agree with than people you like.
Blaming religions for war is just as bad as religions blaming each other for things. Your beliefs in your religion, and blanket statements on other's views of religion, seem to be just as strong as the traditional religous right, they just aren't part of an organized faction.
Personally, I try to treat my rights with responsibility. I will allow myself to enjoy my freedoms, but try to make sure in doing so I don't infringe on what could be considered the freedom of another.
One needs only to look at our European counterparts where there is less religious interference in government and where those sorts of problems are greatly reduced.
A nice point. You don't always need the direct experience when within your field of vision is a direct observation through which a model of the world can be developed.
The main reason that religion can have a negative effect on cultures is that they encourage blind faith. They discourage people from reasoning things out with their own brains. They encourage people to be stupid. Lest anyone assume that I'm describing the entirety of all the world's religions, indoctrination is not the sole trait of religion.
Sometimes good things come out of religions like charity, but that doesn't mean that religion is entirely good. Plenty of evil organizations throughout history have performed charity. Charity can and does exist without religion.
More importantly, ...
There seems to be this attitude by some in this thread that we can criticize philosophies, movies, various industries, and the weather, but that religion should be completely immune from criticism. We can say that we don't like this or that cartoon or politician, but if we say there's something we don't like about religion, suddenly we're "intolerant" or "fanatics" or "bigots."
I guess I lied. I can't resist when I feel that I'm being misunderstood.
That's the first reasonable quote from you so far. Up until now you're posts have been filled with either a lack of quantifiers (which could easily be read as saying 'all'), or actually saying 'all'. I hope you can see that this could lead someone to the impression that you weren't taking any exceptions to your rules and viewing religion as all bad or all good.
Nearly everyone here has criticized religion and the people involved in the ills done in the name of religion. It's not the criticisms but the idea that you've been lumping ALL of religion into a good or bad scenario. That was my point on intolerance. Your taking a few examples from a small sample size and claiming it as proof positive to the evil of religion as a whole and your sniping at religion in other forums when it hadn't come up before, that was my point on being a fanatic.
We all see what we want to see and from your posts you've given me the impression that you want very badly to hate religion in all of its forms. Not proof positive for me, but just my impression as to how you've been coming across here and that is how fanatics often end up sounding.
But every argument and policy the Repulicans and some democrats broach say it will, and not only that it will reduce medical costs, who are we to believe? And not only savings, if you agree with them the "stock market" will prosper and your retirement fund will double.
Has everyone heard about the 12 political cartoons that have caused riots throughout the Muslim world? The caricatures depict the prophet Mohammed wearing a bomb shaped turban with a lit fuse and such...
There are thousands of people rioting in the streets and burning flags and embassies.
There are many times throughout history when cartoons and animation have swayed public emotions and caused public unrest, and in this case, flag burning riots and death threats. This is a sobering example of the power we wield as artists.
What do you think is more important? Global freedom of speech and artistic freedom? or maintaining a level of respect for religious beliefs, especially those of a part of the world with an escalating temperature of violence?
Yes I saw these tragic riots which swept that nation, apparently they were angry at the fact that some cartoons of THE prophet Mahadd were demeaning to their culture, it is said that no deplorable images of this sacred entity is to ever be used by anyone.
I do hope all goes well and that it doesn't cause unneccessary bloodshed.
He who seeks the truth, must first empty his heart of a false pursuit.
Your comparison doesn't make any sense to me because my mom is a real person and Mohammed is a mythological religious character.
Correction: Mohammed did exist the same way Jesus did. Really, the religious debate around these two is 'were they actual prophets sent by God or just regular guys?'
—
Order my book Jesus Needs Help on Amazon or download on Kindle.
Sometimes cartoonists like animators need to pay rent. sometimes they stay up and work too late. when we stay up till 3am the ideas can get a little whacked out, have 12 or more people been killed just because someone needed to pay the phone bill??
simply drawing the cartoons wasnt the focal point of the rioting. it was drawing M'med in all kinds of poses etc which would be offensive.
it was made to be offensive, that is, it wasnt an expression of thought which later turned out to be offensive like in the case of the Satanic Verses
i think the Muslim words needs to chill out and not go flippy everytime there is something negative happening about their religion or prophet. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.
if they do want to protest they should feel free to picket, sue or use economic backlash (which we all wouldnt like) to pursue their action rather than stone and burn which in the end makes them look stupid
but another thing to consider is that the Islamic or Arab world is under attack by the West (Afghanistan was justified) and they feel they are under threat. Everyday you hear about racial profiling, Guantanamo, prison abuse in Iraq. This makes it look like Islam is being attacked and the depiction of the prophet eating bacon is just one in the line of things.
some people show restraint when they are attacked, some fight back. Islam hasnt been known for its restraint as religion is pretty much a big part of who they are. Also, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. It just depends what side you look at this from.
Islam isnt a religion alone it is a polity and that is how it began right from day one and that is how it has expanded for more than a thousand years. That is the model they chose and went with.
i dont want to get into the Crusades but there are a lot of examples where Islamic side showed a lot more restraint than the Christian crusaders. They were a dark time and i dont think either side would be proud of what went on then.
the way i see it is, the cartoons shouldnt have run, they shouldnt have attacked iraq, 9-11 shouldnt have happened etc etc.
in this case, neither side is correct but freedom is right, freedom is true and freedom is greather than god and religion. Simply because i have never felt god or seen him but i have felt freedom.
Up until now you're posts have been filled with either a lack of quantifiers (which could easily be read as saying 'all'), or actually saying 'all'. I hope you can see that this could lead someone to the impression that you weren't taking any exceptions to your rules and viewing religion as all bad or all good.
If I were to say "I love animation," no sane and intelligent person would think that I mean that I love every second of animation ever produced. They would assume I mean that I either loved the field of animation or that there are some animated movies that I love.
If I were to say "horror movies are scary," nobody is going to assume that I'm frightened by bad horror movies like Attack of the Eye Creatures.
If I were to say "politicians lie," nobody is going to assume that I mean that every sentence that every politician utters is a lie.
... and your sniping at religion in other forums when it hadn't come up before, that was my point on being a fanatic.
You make it sound like I'm on a campaign against religion. I criticize many cultural institutions and practices on these forums. Religion is just one of them, and it's almost always because either someone else brought it up first or because it's related to an animation topic. The previous instance, I believe, was two months ago in the "Happy Holidays" / War Against Christmas thread. I believe it was in that thread that I actually praised the values taught by Jesus (values which only an extreme minority of Christians follow to the letter), which might be a clue that I don't believe that everything about all religions is bad.
If the moderators want to ban all discussion of religion or politics or whatever on this forum, I don't have a huge problem with it; but then then need to lock down these threads immediately and maybe post some rules somewhere.
Y'know, we toss this phrase around like it's a universal concept. It's not. It tends to have it's roots in western politics and democratic governments - not something the Arab world is noted for. Also, saying "freedom of speech is freedom of speech" is akin to saying "there should never be any depictions of Muhammed, ever." It's an absolute statement presented as a universal truth, when in fact it's far from it.
As usual, you misunderstand. No f*cking s*it the crusades, thanks Harvey. I must've forgotten I had an education. ;)
What I'm saying is: religion serves its purpose in life. People are the ones who misinterpret it, people are the ones who dub themselves chosen, people are the ones who perpetrate violence (in a rather hypocritical manner, as it is ususally against their dogma.)
They also create the religions...
Edit: So yes, Harvey, in case you need it spelled out clearly, Religion IS INDEED people, you and I are saying close to the same thing...just to different ends.
Next you'll be saying that armies don't start wars; people start wars. Give me a friggin' break.
Wow harvey, I thought we had so much in common. Just because you've got an opinion about the nature of religion doesn't mean it's true.
Armies fight wars! Neo-conservative politicians and radical fundamentalists start them.
Wars are fought by armies and religious zealots- but that's not where they start.
Edit: These days they start in a board room and in the streets, it seems. Trying to remember the last war where two armies just up and started fighting for absolutely no reason... Can't think of one.
Y'know, we toss this phrase around like it's a universal concept. It's not. It tends to have it's roots in western politics and democratic governments - not something the Arab world is noted for. Also, saying "freedom of speech is freedom of speech" is akin to saying "there should never be any depictions of Muhammed, ever." It's an absolute statement presented as a universal truth, when in fact it's far from it.
its not. freedom is non-negotiable. It isnt free of responsibility. So if you say something stupid or libelous you are free to say it and are open to its consequences.
the problem with having and not having freedom of speech is really about who's POV you look at it from the western or arab world.
If I were to say "I love animation," no sane and intelligent person would think that I mean that I love every second of animation ever produced. They would assume I mean that I either loved the field of animation or that there are some animated movies that I love.
If I were to say "horror movies are scary," nobody is going to assume that I'm frightened by bad horror movies like Attack of the Eye Creatures.
If I were to say "politicians lie," nobody is going to assume that I mean that every sentence that every politician utters is a lie.
You make it sound like I'm on a campaign against religion. I criticize many cultural institutions and practices on these forums. Religion is just one of them, and it's almost always because either someone else brought it up first or because it's related to an animation topic. The previous instance, I believe, was two months ago in the "Happy Holidays" / War Against Christmas thread. I believe it was in that thread that I actually praised the values taught by Jesus (values which only an extreme minority of Christians follow to the letter), which might be a clue that I don't believe that everything about all religions is bad.
If the moderators want to ban all discussion of religion or politics or whatever on this forum, I don't have a huge problem with it; but then then need to lock down these threads immediately and maybe post some rules somewhere.
I apologize if I've read into your posts, it's just the impression that I've gotten. Call it a feeling, a misunderstanding due to the impersonal nature of a web forum, it just sounded like the rhetoric of someone out to prove that religion in all its forms was bad. Again, I want to emphasize that I'm not against the critisizing of any institution, especially one that has the potential to do so much harm. The funny thing is that we all agree that what happened due to some pen and ink was absurd and that part of religion is reprehensible to say the least.
Unfortunately 'god' is too short a search word to work as I'm certain you've brought it up before with a tone of disdain out of context, but since I can't sort through the amount of posts on this board, it's possible it was someone else, and I didn't read the "Christmas thread" (mostly because I didn't feel like discussing it) I'll leave it at taking your word for not hating all of religion with a sincere apology.
If it weren't for religion, people would find something else to band together and kill each other over. Religion isn't the sole cause of mob thought, war, or disagreements, but there being other causes isn't an excuse for it either. It's more of a problem with the human mind and the instinctual need to dislike those who are different than anything else, religious leaders are just a few of the many to capitalize on this.
I've stated that religions can be damaging, but I didn't offer many contemporary examples; so here are some.
[b]
bigotry[/b]
Without religion, this country would not be so anti-gay. In Islamic countries, the state just executes gay people, as the Christian countries did back in the Middle Ages.
In this country (America), gay people are regularly attacked and killed, and are denied the same rights as straight people.
spread of disease and unwanted pregnancy
Because of religion, condoms aren't distributed as widely as they could be, so there is an AIDS epidemic and population explosion in Africa, and a spread of VD and pregnancy in this country which could otherwise be curtailed.
against medical advancement
Stem cell research is prevented in this country because of religious belief, so people who are sick and dying are denied potential cures.
pro-stupidity
Religions have been effective at keeping scientific theories about the origins of the universe and mankind out of the classroom, in preference of creation mythology. They want children to be less intelligent.
I see the recent issue like this: fundamentalist muslims have rioted because some cartoonists have broken the deadly rule of visually depicting Mohammed and now there's some kind of backwards talk that the press needs to be more "responsible". The rest of the world can draw Mohammed cartoons as much as they want, not owing anything to Islam whatsoever. I'm not muslim and depictions of Mohammed mean nothing to me. If the rioters have a problem with that, then get a new religion, because the non-muslim world doesn't have to abide by their rules.
I don't think anyone is arguing that with you. We've all pretty much agreed that you can disagree with people as much as you want, but rioting, killing, burning, etc. over some cartoons is pretty stupid.
Finally, to say that all religions basically boil down to mean "be good and love everybody" is imagination and wishful thinking. There are as many ways to interpret the Bible or Koran as there are interpreters, and not a single one of them is incorrect, whether it calls for love or violence or whatever. Personally, I'm less than impressed with the interpretation of Genesis 19:8 that says, "oh, well, we don't really believe in that, but the rest of the Bible is okay." Lame.
So do you like anime? All of it? No? That sounds kind of lame. Kind of stupid argument isn't it? I'm sorry but the world isn't as black and white, or all right and wrong as you make it out to be. And given the choice between people interpreting their religious texts for peace or violence, I'm going to have to side with the peaceful ones. I'm also going to side with the ones that can look at the bible and sort through and come out with the general gist of it and leave behind the rules and laws that applied to a different time. The majority of the new testament is written with the idea of peace and love, and much of the non-peace and love portions were written as much as several hundred years after Jesus was even alive. Many Christians realize this and take an overall look at things.
I'm still having a hard time following you. On one hand you say the fundamentalists are wrong, on the other you say they should all be fundamentalists. You can believe what ever you want. I believe whatever I want. We all can believe whatever we want. That's the beauty of it all.
I gather that one of your main complaints about organized religion is many of their intolerant views of other people. That's probably my biggest complaint, too. But I find your rhetoric and tone remarkably similar to those on the other side of the fence preaching for more fundamental approach, and I hope some day you can take a step back and realize it.
The major flaw in any group based mainly on ideology and irrational belief, is that those that follow it can be manipulated by it, by those that want more control and power, and need an army to call up to meet their own personal agendas. Think of the crusades, the civil war and today.
Check out the date on this document. And read it's doctrine. Who's controlling the "democratic" world? And they even have tried using the religious card very effectively, just think back to the elections.
A problem can stem for various sources. As I've stated repeatedly, religion is not the cause of all the world's problems, but religion certainly has the global power to contribute in a big way. The problems I listed above stem primarily from religious dogma. One needs only to look at our European counterparts where there is less religious interference in government and where those sorts of problems are greatly reduced.
So what was the point of posting them in the first place then (and why mention me in the title of it)? We've all agreed that evils done in the name of religion are bad news. I find your choice of words like "stem", "primarily," etc. coupled with your constant and obvious examples to imply very heavily that these wouldn't be problems without religion.
I do get what you're trying to say and agree that religion can influence people in a big way (helpfully and harmfully). I never argued against that.
You choose words with heavy implications, and claim to not know why I'm reading you differently. This has been my perspective so far, you don't like religion at all, and hold people who follow relgion in a great deal of disdain for the evils that religion does. And from the tone it doesn't sound like there's much of a middle ground. I'm just saying that's my impression from your rhetoric as a whole from these posts, an overall feeling. Can you see where I'm finding that in your posts? I can try to be more specific if you need me to. I'm really not trying to be insulting, I'm just trying to get you to understand my perspective. And it's beginning to feel like you are going out of your way to not understand what I'm saying.
And you keep bringing up Europe. I've said repeatedly, I agree, our government sucks big time (especially the religious zealot in charge). There's no argument from me that religion taking that large a role, especially one that presumes to push it's beliefs on others beyond "don't kill and don't hurt each other," is bad for everyone involved, even religion itself.
Sorry, Saj. I didn't address one of your points. How can I justify the selective intrepretation of the bible (or any religious text for that matter)? What makes one interpretation better than another? Why not ditch the whole thing? I'll put forth the argument that the interpretation that is most beneficial to the majority of human kind is most likely the best one, if only because it's of a larger benefit. There are a great many contradictions in the bible to be sure. On one hand it says you should kill people for various crimes on the other it says don't kill. But mostly, especially the later parts, emphasize the charity and good will.
Let me go back with a little theory/history (note theory). We would not be where we are if it weren't for organized religion. Religion gave the leaders of the world a common set of rules to get behind just long enough to keep us from killing each other with sticks and rocks. Much of our entire law system is based on the rules set forth in religious texts from as far back as ancient Greece. Anarchy would most likely be the result of no such rules and we'd probably be huddled in piles of sticks, chasing deer with pointy sticks without such rules (I probably would have been abandoned or eaten long ago because of my poor eyesight).
Now in the present, why do we hold on to these beliefs? Well, we don't have to. No one has to. But many of the core beliefs, fables, and stories still hold true. The good Samaritan isn't just about helping a stranger on the side of the road, but helping someone you viscerly hate (the main characters of the parable were frequently at war). Pretty good stuff to live by, even if you don't believe in Jesus. But no one should be forced to read it if they don't want to. It's there, like all philosophies to take from it what you want or don't want. There's bunches of stories that help guide people when given difficult life decisions. It's a philosophy as much as a religion.
At one time, while a people were dieing off in the desert it probably made sense to outlaw gay relationships. Today it doesn't. Women in the past have always been treated poorly. Today, it's getting better (not great yet, but I hope it's heading that way). It's unfortunate that so many still hold to old, outdated rules, obviously put in there for a different time for a different reason.
I hope I explained myself. It's much more nebulous than black or white, right or wrong. Reasonable people are capable of free though even within their religious beliefs. It is possible to have different types and shades of religion, some are beneficial to the greater good, others not so much. It's unfortunate that for many people the bad represents the whole.
Organized thought of any type can be a powerful thing, and misused easily by those with the power to influence it.
Those that choose to enter organizations, are looking to become part of a group persona, and feel protected by it. They aren't individually responsible any longer... the group is. This holds true for any organization be it the SPCA, a church, an army whatever. Group efforts can accomplish great things, but they can also amaze the world with outrageous attrocities. Rarely are the leaders of such organizations ever held fully accountable. They usually get off on technicalities. Both the publishers and the religious leaders that condoned the actions in this whole incident need to be held truly accountable.
The founding fathers of the US were wise to install checks and balances. Too bad they are becoming eroded.
I'm sorry, ignore my last post (I'm leaving it with the intent of being honest, and in case someone is responding while I write this).
Have any of you seen Joe Vs. The Volcano? There's a scene early on where Joe's boss keeps yelling into the phone, "I'm not arguing that with you... I know, but I'm not arguing that with you!" Over and over. It's one of my favorite scenes in a movie. The absurdity of the argument he must have been in always makes me laugh.
Do you guys feel like you keep yelling "I'm not arguing that!" over and over? I do.
Here's the deal as I see it. We all agree that anything done to hurt someone else is bad, and it doesn't matter if it's in the name of Jehovah, because of a passage in a book, or just because you don't like them. We also agree that these people don't represent the whole. Right? So, I guess there isn't much else to say since we all agree on everything.
So what was the point of posting them in the first place then?
I stated in that very post and a number of times afterwards why.
We are having a discussion and a related topic is the damage religion and religiously-motivated people do.
If the discussion that some of us are having makes you uncomfortable, you are not obligated to participate.
This has been my perspective so far, you don't like religion at all, ...
not true
... and hold people who follow relgion in a great deal of disdain for the evils that religion does.
not necessarily true
I'm just trying to get you to understand my perspective.
You seem to see criticism of religion as an attack on the people who practice it.
This is the interpretation of the people perpetuating those cartoon riots.
People always trot out the platitude that we must respect people of different faiths, but I don't believe that's necessarily true; especially when they commit evil.
If people don't see that a specific criticism of Pat Robertson is not a criticism of Jesus and of all Christians throughout history, it is just another manifestation of their narrow-mindedness, and is more their problem than mine (unless they start rioting in front of my house).
I stated in that very post and a number of times afterwards why.
We are having a discussion and a related topic is the damage religion and religiously-motivated people do.
If the discussion that some of us are having makes you uncomfortable, you are not obligated to participate.
Holy crap, Harvey. "I'm not arguing that with you!" I know what the topic is, I've contributed in a number of well thought out posts (for the most part anyway), and have agreed the whole time that religion does some crappy things. I know I don't have to respond, I just would like to express myself as much as you do. Feel free to stop responding to me if I exasperate you so much. But please stop 'reminding' me I don't have to post.
not true
not necessarily true
Thanks for clearing it up.
You seem to see criticism of religion as an attack on the people who practice it.
This is the interpretation of the people perpetuating those cartoon riots.
Not necessarily true. Now you're reading into my posts. I don't mind the criticism on religion, I've done it myself, in virtually every post. I was merely expressing that to me your tone sounded very radical towards being anti-religion from the start. I've gotten in similar arguments over people wearing "Jesus is a cunt" t-shirts, and the arguments you were using sounded alot like theirs in tone as well as content (quoting many of the same old examples, like the crusades, gay bashing etc.), where they would argue that all of religion was bad so deserved criticizing, make a couple of exceptions, and then continue with all of religion is bad. They didn't like hearing that their views were as strong and outrageous as the people they were protesting against either and were as welcome as a guy on the street corner insisting I be saved by his particular relgion. I apologize for bringing previous experience into a new discussion. You have denied that was your intent so I'll leave it at that.
Holy crap, Harvey. ... Feel free to stop responding to me if I exasperate you so much.
It's mildly annoying to have to offer the same explanations over and over, but far from exasperating.
You seem to be having very emotional reactions to this discussion, possibly because it's a very personal topic. To me, it's just another discussion of culture. It's just an interesting diversion. If you want to see me truly exasperated, you might start a thread that is actually animation-related. A thread where you state that you hate some non-conformist, non-American style of animation will do nicely.
It's mildly annoying to have to offer the same explanations over and over, but far from exasperating.
You seem to be having very emotional reactions to this discussion, possibly because it's a very personal topic. To me, it's just another discussion of culture. It's just an interesting diversion. If you want to see me truly exasperated, you might start a thread that is actually animation-related. A thread where you state that you hate some non-conformist, non-American style of animation will do nicely.
It's definitely annoying to be doing the same on my end. Perhaps it's a personal topic (as it sounds to you as well, whether you want to admit it or not), perhaps it isn't, I haven't mentioned my personal faith on purpose, but it's more likely that I'm annoyed at the level of purposeful ignorance towards my posts. But the repetition and content of my posts have differed little from yours. We're two stubborn fools who refuse to let the other have the last word. You seem to go out of your way to disagree, even when I agree. Hey, we both have, I'll admit it. But for each time I've extended an offer of a truce you've repeated yourself and asked me why I wasn't getting it (even though I had just said I agreed). Not a, "I get what you're saying," a "you have a point," or even a "I hear ya", not even coupled with a "but" even when I had just agreed with you. You don't want to agree with me, even when I'm agreeing with you, fine. You win. You're more stuborn than I am. Post your last post, have the last word, and we can let this drift off the end of the page where it will be forgotten.
That's fine Oberyn. I've never been a joiner. I've lost out on some things because I said no, I didn't want that responsibility. I will be responsible for myself, but I will not force others to follow my view points. I will live my life, and hopefully I can face myself in a mirror. I'll never be a big success, but I will wake in the morning and smell the sunrise, and feel surprised that I made it to another day without harming another living essence. I am an old hippy and that's the way I live and hopefully continue to live. I call no one god mine own, or even one government. I live where I do because of fate. No one guides my life and actions but myself at this stage of my life. The world would be better if more folks operated like I do. If I harm someone, it's because I choose to, but that would be a hard call to make. I would rather harm myself.
But for each time I've extended an offer of a truce you've repeated yourself and asked me why I wasn't getting it.
The reason I keep repeating myself is that you keep repeating the same questions, as if you've never read my responses. You then claim to basically agree with me, but read some ulterior motive into my response.
You keep seeing this as some battle between you and I, and projecting your own emotional response to the topic onto me.
I've seen a similar interaction when I've observed scientists debating with religious leaders. The scientist tries to have an objective discussion. The preacher gets all flustered and outraged that a scientist dares to challenge the preacher's beliefs. The scientist is backed up by facts while the preacher has only superstition. Sometimes the preacher will go as far as to equate atheism with Satanism.
I think you limit yourself with "never be a big success-" but then again, being a success usually does require stepping on toes.
Personally, I'm at a strange junction between being the most humble, peaceful person- and having strong opinions that I have to make known. Either way, I will do as I have always done, which is to make stuff in as many media as I can learn.
But as you say- we can all disagree in this forum as much as we like, but we're not the ones who have to step outside and live in the mess these things are making.
And with that, I'm done with political forums for a while.
The main reason that religion can have a negative effect on cultures is that they encourage blind faith. They discourage people from reasoning things out with their own brains. They encourage people to be stupid. Lest anyone assume that I'm describing the entirety of all the world's religions, indoctrination is not the sole trait of religion.
Sometimes good things come out of religions like charity, but that doesn't mean that religion is entirely good. Plenty of evil organizations throughout history have performed charity. Charity can and does exist without religion.
More importantly, ...
There seems to be this attitude by some in this thread that we can criticize philosophies, movies, various industries, and the weather, but that religion should be completely immune from criticism. We can say that we don't like this or that cartoon or politician, but if we say there's something we don't like about religion, suddenly we're "intolerant" or "fanatics" or "bigots."
Absolutely, and many realize and respect that. Note I did not say all. But many are intelligent enough to realize that it's the product of man's desire to interpret the unknown as well as give people a common set of rules to live by. Much of the Divine Wisdom, whether from a supernatural being or just wisdom from those who've gone before us does survive and show up places like charity and many of the more reasonable laws, like not killing, have remained in place. Unfortunately, there's been a resurgance in people to going back to some of the crazier passages, on both sides of the argument. There really is a difference between rational people worshipping their chosen religion and radical fundamentalists.
Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com
Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight
A problem can stem for various sources. As I've stated repeatedly, religion is not the cause of all the world's problems, but religion certainly has the global power to contribute in a big way. The problems I listed above stem primarily from religious dogma. One needs only to look at our European counterparts where there is less religious interference in government and where those sorts of problems are greatly reduced.
"organized religion" is behind several wars, if you look you'll notice that there are people involved in all of them. I did not write that religion does not provide a good moral base or support system. The ideology of most of them is peacefull. I think reasonable religious leaders should lean more toward the tolerance and education solution rather than the severed head solution.
p.s. no need for name calling now..
.
People who say "religions don't start wars" forget the Crusades, a major source of Middle East strife to this day. They forget that the WTC was blown up - and the Afghan and Iraq wars subsequently started - supposedly because the U.S. military is stationed on "holy land."
And please don't give me that "religions don't kill people, people kill people" crap. Religion is people. Next you'll be saying that armies don't start wars; people start wars. Give me a friggin' break.
_______________
Satirical shows like The Simpsons, South Park, and Family Guy (ah, finally we bring it around to animation) make fun of religion all the time. Should they be punished? Should they be taken off the air?
Religion needs to be mocked and parodied just like any other powerful social or political institution.
I only wish that the paper had satirized other religions beside Islam, so it didn't appear that they were singling-out one religion.
I think this is the crux of the matter. Expecting those who don't subscribe to one's belief set to abide by the beliefs in said set invites these types of situations. Yes, Muhammed was depicted unflatteringly, and Muslims have every right to be upset about that (not "burning down buildings" upset, but upset). But the point I keep hearing over and over isn't that the depiction wasn't flattering, but that there was a depiction at all.
.
Reasonable religious leaders DO lean more towards tolerance and education, unfortunately they just don't make good news like radicals do.
Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com
Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight
.
...can't help ya there!;)
Splatman:D
SPLAT digital
People have been killing people because they were different since the beginning of time. Most of the time it's more to do with who's sitting on what piece of land and the beliefs in question are just an obvious way to get people riled up. "Hey, he doesn't think like you!" "Yeah! Let's get him!" Sometimes it's because a society has built such a warlike culture, it doesn't know what to do with it's soldiers (one of the main contributing factors to the Crusades) and it's a lot easier to kill people you don't agree with than people you like.
Blaming religions for war is just as bad as religions blaming each other for things. Your beliefs in your religion, and blanket statements on other's views of religion, seem to be just as strong as the traditional religous right, they just aren't part of an organized faction.
Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com
Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight
Personally, I try to treat my rights with responsibility. I will allow myself to enjoy my freedoms, but try to make sure in doing so I don't infringe on what could be considered the freedom of another.
A nice point. You don't always need the direct experience when within your field of vision is a direct observation through which a model of the world can be developed.
I guess I lied. I can't resist when I feel that I'm being misunderstood.
That's the first reasonable quote from you so far. Up until now you're posts have been filled with either a lack of quantifiers (which could easily be read as saying 'all'), or actually saying 'all'. I hope you can see that this could lead someone to the impression that you weren't taking any exceptions to your rules and viewing religion as all bad or all good.
Nearly everyone here has criticized religion and the people involved in the ills done in the name of religion. It's not the criticisms but the idea that you've been lumping ALL of religion into a good or bad scenario. That was my point on intolerance. Your taking a few examples from a small sample size and claiming it as proof positive to the evil of religion as a whole and your sniping at religion in other forums when it hadn't come up before, that was my point on being a fanatic.
We all see what we want to see and from your posts you've given me the impression that you want very badly to hate religion in all of its forms. Not proof positive for me, but just my impression as to how you've been coming across here and that is how fanatics often end up sounding.
Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com
Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight
But every argument and policy the Repulicans and some democrats broach say it will, and not only that it will reduce medical costs, who are we to believe? And not only savings, if you agree with them the "stock market" will prosper and your retirement fund will double.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
Yes I saw these tragic riots which swept that nation, apparently they were angry at the fact that some cartoons of THE prophet Mahadd were demeaning to their culture, it is said that no deplorable images of this sacred entity is to ever be used by anyone.
I do hope all goes well and that it doesn't cause unneccessary bloodshed.
He who seeks the truth, must first empty his heart of a false pursuit.
Diemeras Dark Angel
.
Correction: Mohammed did exist the same way Jesus did. Really, the religious debate around these two is 'were they actual prophets sent by God or just regular guys?'
Order my book Jesus Needs Help on Amazon or download on Kindle.
You can also read the first 18 pages of my next book for free at this link: The Hap Hap Happy Happenstance of Fanny Punongtiti
Just want to bring something new ito this...
Sometimes cartoonists like animators need to pay rent. sometimes they stay up and work too late. when we stay up till 3am the ideas can get a little whacked out, have 12 or more people been killed just because someone needed to pay the phone bill??
well Saj, here is the thing -
simply drawing the cartoons wasnt the focal point of the rioting. it was drawing M'med in all kinds of poses etc which would be offensive.
it was made to be offensive, that is, it wasnt an expression of thought which later turned out to be offensive like in the case of the Satanic Verses
i think the Muslim words needs to chill out and not go flippy everytime there is something negative happening about their religion or prophet. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.
if they do want to protest they should feel free to picket, sue or use economic backlash (which we all wouldnt like) to pursue their action rather than stone and burn which in the end makes them look stupid
but another thing to consider is that the Islamic or Arab world is under attack by the West (Afghanistan was justified) and they feel they are under threat. Everyday you hear about racial profiling, Guantanamo, prison abuse in Iraq. This makes it look like Islam is being attacked and the depiction of the prophet eating bacon is just one in the line of things.
some people show restraint when they are attacked, some fight back. Islam hasnt been known for its restraint as religion is pretty much a big part of who they are. Also, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. It just depends what side you look at this from.
Islam isnt a religion alone it is a polity and that is how it began right from day one and that is how it has expanded for more than a thousand years. That is the model they chose and went with.
i dont want to get into the Crusades but there are a lot of examples where Islamic side showed a lot more restraint than the Christian crusaders. They were a dark time and i dont think either side would be proud of what went on then.
the way i see it is, the cartoons shouldnt have run, they shouldnt have attacked iraq, 9-11 shouldnt have happened etc etc.
in this case, neither side is correct but freedom is right, freedom is true and freedom is greather than god and religion. Simply because i have never felt god or seen him but i have felt freedom.
If I were to say "I love animation," no sane and intelligent person would think that I mean that I love every second of animation ever produced. They would assume I mean that I either loved the field of animation or that there are some animated movies that I love.
If I were to say "horror movies are scary," nobody is going to assume that I'm frightened by bad horror movies like Attack of the Eye Creatures.
If I were to say "politicians lie," nobody is going to assume that I mean that every sentence that every politician utters is a lie.
You make it sound like I'm on a campaign against religion. I criticize many cultural institutions and practices on these forums. Religion is just one of them, and it's almost always because either someone else brought it up first or because it's related to an animation topic. The previous instance, I believe, was two months ago in the "Happy Holidays" / War Against Christmas thread. I believe it was in that thread that I actually praised the values taught by Jesus (values which only an extreme minority of Christians follow to the letter), which might be a clue that I don't believe that everything about all religions is bad.
If the moderators want to ban all discussion of religion or politics or whatever on this forum, I don't have a huge problem with it; but then then need to lock down these threads immediately and maybe post some rules somewhere.
Y'know, we toss this phrase around like it's a universal concept. It's not. It tends to have it's roots in western politics and democratic governments - not something the Arab world is noted for. Also, saying "freedom of speech is freedom of speech" is akin to saying "there should never be any depictions of Muhammed, ever." It's an absolute statement presented as a universal truth, when in fact it's far from it.
Here's a question...
Have you guys SEEN the cartoons we're talking about?
Its not that hard.... just Google "mohammed cartoon" and check them out.
What do you think? Is all the violence warranted? or are the cartoons overrated?
Follow @chaostoon on Twitter!
Don't recall calling anyone names :confused:
As usual, you misunderstand. No f*cking s*it the crusades, thanks Harvey. I must've forgotten I had an education. ;)
What I'm saying is: religion serves its purpose in life. People are the ones who misinterpret it, people are the ones who dub themselves chosen, people are the ones who perpetrate violence (in a rather hypocritical manner, as it is ususally against their dogma.)
They also create the religions...
Edit: So yes, Harvey, in case you need it spelled out clearly, Religion IS INDEED people, you and I are saying close to the same thing...just to different ends.
when is bloodshed necessary?
Wow harvey, I thought we had so much in common. Just because you've got an opinion about the nature of religion doesn't mean it's true.
Armies fight wars! Neo-conservative politicians and radical fundamentalists start them.
Wars are fought by armies and religious zealots- but that's not where they start.
Edit: These days they start in a board room and in the streets, it seems. Trying to remember the last war where two armies just up and started fighting for absolutely no reason... Can't think of one.
its not. freedom is non-negotiable. It isnt free of responsibility. So if you say something stupid or libelous you are free to say it and are open to its consequences.
the problem with having and not having freedom of speech is really about who's POV you look at it from the western or arab world.
I apologize if I've read into your posts, it's just the impression that I've gotten. Call it a feeling, a misunderstanding due to the impersonal nature of a web forum, it just sounded like the rhetoric of someone out to prove that religion in all its forms was bad. Again, I want to emphasize that I'm not against the critisizing of any institution, especially one that has the potential to do so much harm. The funny thing is that we all agree that what happened due to some pen and ink was absurd and that part of religion is reprehensible to say the least.
Unfortunately 'god' is too short a search word to work as I'm certain you've brought it up before with a tone of disdain out of context, but since I can't sort through the amount of posts on this board, it's possible it was someone else, and I didn't read the "Christmas thread" (mostly because I didn't feel like discussing it) I'll leave it at taking your word for not hating all of religion with a sincere apology.
If it weren't for religion, people would find something else to band together and kill each other over. Religion isn't the sole cause of mob thought, war, or disagreements, but there being other causes isn't an excuse for it either. It's more of a problem with the human mind and the instinctual need to dislike those who are different than anything else, religious leaders are just a few of the many to capitalize on this.
Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com
Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight
At least here we can agree. :)
Sorry for all the compound posts, it's a complicated topic. A kaleidoscope of human rights, religion, free speech...
I can't believe I'm in here defending religion...
well the beauty of this whole thing is there is no good and evil. Who decided what is what?
the fall of man because god might think so, but way i see it is the rise of man.
so its all quite subjective.
anyway. yeah. im through.
.
I've stated that religions can be damaging, but I didn't offer many contemporary examples; so here are some.
[b]
bigotry[/b]
Without religion, this country would not be so anti-gay. In Islamic countries, the state just executes gay people, as the Christian countries did back in the Middle Ages.
In this country (America), gay people are regularly attacked and killed, and are denied the same rights as straight people.
spread of disease and unwanted pregnancy
Because of religion, condoms aren't distributed as widely as they could be, so there is an AIDS epidemic and population explosion in Africa, and a spread of VD and pregnancy in this country which could otherwise be curtailed.
against medical advancement
Stem cell research is prevented in this country because of religious belief, so people who are sick and dying are denied potential cures.
pro-stupidity
Religions have been effective at keeping scientific theories about the origins of the universe and mankind out of the classroom, in preference of creation mythology. They want children to be less intelligent.
It's the truth, though. I read a few months back on another forum a woman who actually used the phrase "dinosaurs and other mythological creatures."
I don't think anyone is arguing that with you. We've all pretty much agreed that you can disagree with people as much as you want, but rioting, killing, burning, etc. over some cartoons is pretty stupid.
So do you like anime? All of it? No? That sounds kind of lame. Kind of stupid argument isn't it? I'm sorry but the world isn't as black and white, or all right and wrong as you make it out to be. And given the choice between people interpreting their religious texts for peace or violence, I'm going to have to side with the peaceful ones. I'm also going to side with the ones that can look at the bible and sort through and come out with the general gist of it and leave behind the rules and laws that applied to a different time. The majority of the new testament is written with the idea of peace and love, and much of the non-peace and love portions were written as much as several hundred years after Jesus was even alive. Many Christians realize this and take an overall look at things.
I'm still having a hard time following you. On one hand you say the fundamentalists are wrong, on the other you say they should all be fundamentalists. You can believe what ever you want. I believe whatever I want. We all can believe whatever we want. That's the beauty of it all.
I gather that one of your main complaints about organized religion is many of their intolerant views of other people. That's probably my biggest complaint, too. But I find your rhetoric and tone remarkably similar to those on the other side of the fence preaching for more fundamental approach, and I hope some day you can take a step back and realize it.
Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com
Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight
The major flaw in any group based mainly on ideology and irrational belief, is that those that follow it can be manipulated by it, by those that want more control and power, and need an army to call up to meet their own personal agendas. Think of the crusades, the civil war and today.
Check out the date on this document. And read it's doctrine. Who's controlling the "democratic" world? And they even have tried using the religious card very effectively, just think back to the elections.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Make sure to check out the signatures at the bottom of it endorsing these goals.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
So what was the point of posting them in the first place then (and why mention me in the title of it)? We've all agreed that evils done in the name of religion are bad news. I find your choice of words like "stem", "primarily," etc. coupled with your constant and obvious examples to imply very heavily that these wouldn't be problems without religion.
I do get what you're trying to say and agree that religion can influence people in a big way (helpfully and harmfully). I never argued against that.
You choose words with heavy implications, and claim to not know why I'm reading you differently. This has been my perspective so far, you don't like religion at all, and hold people who follow relgion in a great deal of disdain for the evils that religion does. And from the tone it doesn't sound like there's much of a middle ground. I'm just saying that's my impression from your rhetoric as a whole from these posts, an overall feeling. Can you see where I'm finding that in your posts? I can try to be more specific if you need me to. I'm really not trying to be insulting, I'm just trying to get you to understand my perspective. And it's beginning to feel like you are going out of your way to not understand what I'm saying.
And you keep bringing up Europe. I've said repeatedly, I agree, our government sucks big time (especially the religious zealot in charge). There's no argument from me that religion taking that large a role, especially one that presumes to push it's beliefs on others beyond "don't kill and don't hurt each other," is bad for everyone involved, even religion itself.
Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com
Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight
Sorry, Saj. I didn't address one of your points. How can I justify the selective intrepretation of the bible (or any religious text for that matter)? What makes one interpretation better than another? Why not ditch the whole thing? I'll put forth the argument that the interpretation that is most beneficial to the majority of human kind is most likely the best one, if only because it's of a larger benefit. There are a great many contradictions in the bible to be sure. On one hand it says you should kill people for various crimes on the other it says don't kill. But mostly, especially the later parts, emphasize the charity and good will.
Let me go back with a little theory/history (note theory). We would not be where we are if it weren't for organized religion. Religion gave the leaders of the world a common set of rules to get behind just long enough to keep us from killing each other with sticks and rocks. Much of our entire law system is based on the rules set forth in religious texts from as far back as ancient Greece. Anarchy would most likely be the result of no such rules and we'd probably be huddled in piles of sticks, chasing deer with pointy sticks without such rules (I probably would have been abandoned or eaten long ago because of my poor eyesight).
Now in the present, why do we hold on to these beliefs? Well, we don't have to. No one has to. But many of the core beliefs, fables, and stories still hold true. The good Samaritan isn't just about helping a stranger on the side of the road, but helping someone you viscerly hate (the main characters of the parable were frequently at war). Pretty good stuff to live by, even if you don't believe in Jesus. But no one should be forced to read it if they don't want to. It's there, like all philosophies to take from it what you want or don't want. There's bunches of stories that help guide people when given difficult life decisions. It's a philosophy as much as a religion.
At one time, while a people were dieing off in the desert it probably made sense to outlaw gay relationships. Today it doesn't. Women in the past have always been treated poorly. Today, it's getting better (not great yet, but I hope it's heading that way). It's unfortunate that so many still hold to old, outdated rules, obviously put in there for a different time for a different reason.
I hope I explained myself. It's much more nebulous than black or white, right or wrong. Reasonable people are capable of free though even within their religious beliefs. It is possible to have different types and shades of religion, some are beneficial to the greater good, others not so much. It's unfortunate that for many people the bad represents the whole.
Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com
Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight
Organized thought of any type can be a powerful thing, and misused easily by those with the power to influence it.
Those that choose to enter organizations, are looking to become part of a group persona, and feel protected by it. They aren't individually responsible any longer... the group is. This holds true for any organization be it the SPCA, a church, an army whatever. Group efforts can accomplish great things, but they can also amaze the world with outrageous attrocities. Rarely are the leaders of such organizations ever held fully accountable. They usually get off on technicalities. Both the publishers and the religious leaders that condoned the actions in this whole incident need to be held truly accountable.
The founding fathers of the US were wise to install checks and balances. Too bad they are becoming eroded.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
I'm sorry, ignore my last post (I'm leaving it with the intent of being honest, and in case someone is responding while I write this).
Have any of you seen Joe Vs. The Volcano? There's a scene early on where Joe's boss keeps yelling into the phone, "I'm not arguing that with you... I know, but I'm not arguing that with you!" Over and over. It's one of my favorite scenes in a movie. The absurdity of the argument he must have been in always makes me laugh.
Do you guys feel like you keep yelling "I'm not arguing that!" over and over? I do.
Here's the deal as I see it. We all agree that anything done to hurt someone else is bad, and it doesn't matter if it's in the name of Jehovah, because of a passage in a book, or just because you don't like them. We also agree that these people don't represent the whole. Right? So, I guess there isn't much else to say since we all agree on everything.
Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com
Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight
I stated in that very post and a number of times afterwards why.
We are having a discussion and a related topic is the damage religion and religiously-motivated people do.
If the discussion that some of us are having makes you uncomfortable, you are not obligated to participate.
not true
not necessarily true
You seem to see criticism of religion as an attack on the people who practice it.
This is the interpretation of the people perpetuating those cartoon riots.
People always trot out the platitude that we must respect people of different faiths, but I don't believe that's necessarily true; especially when they commit evil.
If people don't see that a specific criticism of Pat Robertson is not a criticism of Jesus and of all Christians throughout history, it is just another manifestation of their narrow-mindedness, and is more their problem than mine (unless they start rioting in front of my house).
I think I'm done posting in this thread. I don't like making enemies.
Holy crap, Harvey. "I'm not arguing that with you!" I know what the topic is, I've contributed in a number of well thought out posts (for the most part anyway), and have agreed the whole time that religion does some crappy things. I know I don't have to respond, I just would like to express myself as much as you do. Feel free to stop responding to me if I exasperate you so much. But please stop 'reminding' me I don't have to post.
Thanks for clearing it up.
Not necessarily true. Now you're reading into my posts. I don't mind the criticism on religion, I've done it myself, in virtually every post. I was merely expressing that to me your tone sounded very radical towards being anti-religion from the start. I've gotten in similar arguments over people wearing "Jesus is a cunt" t-shirts, and the arguments you were using sounded alot like theirs in tone as well as content (quoting many of the same old examples, like the crusades, gay bashing etc.), where they would argue that all of religion was bad so deserved criticizing, make a couple of exceptions, and then continue with all of religion is bad. They didn't like hearing that their views were as strong and outrageous as the people they were protesting against either and were as welcome as a guy on the street corner insisting I be saved by his particular relgion. I apologize for bringing previous experience into a new discussion. You have denied that was your intent so I'll leave it at that.
Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com
Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight
It's mildly annoying to have to offer the same explanations over and over, but far from exasperating.
You seem to be having very emotional reactions to this discussion, possibly because it's a very personal topic. To me, it's just another discussion of culture. It's just an interesting diversion. If you want to see me truly exasperated, you might start a thread that is actually animation-related. A thread where you state that you hate some non-conformist, non-American style of animation will do nicely.
It's definitely annoying to be doing the same on my end. Perhaps it's a personal topic (as it sounds to you as well, whether you want to admit it or not), perhaps it isn't, I haven't mentioned my personal faith on purpose, but it's more likely that I'm annoyed at the level of purposeful ignorance towards my posts. But the repetition and content of my posts have differed little from yours. We're two stubborn fools who refuse to let the other have the last word. You seem to go out of your way to disagree, even when I agree. Hey, we both have, I'll admit it. But for each time I've extended an offer of a truce you've repeated yourself and asked me why I wasn't getting it (even though I had just said I agreed). Not a, "I get what you're saying," a "you have a point," or even a "I hear ya", not even coupled with a "but" even when I had just agreed with you. You don't want to agree with me, even when I'm agreeing with you, fine. You win. You're more stuborn than I am. Post your last post, have the last word, and we can let this drift off the end of the page where it will be forgotten.
Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com
Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight
That's fine Oberyn. I've never been a joiner. I've lost out on some things because I said no, I didn't want that responsibility. I will be responsible for myself, but I will not force others to follow my view points. I will live my life, and hopefully I can face myself in a mirror. I'll never be a big success, but I will wake in the morning and smell the sunrise, and feel surprised that I made it to another day without harming another living essence. I am an old hippy and that's the way I live and hopefully continue to live. I call no one god mine own, or even one government. I live where I do because of fate. No one guides my life and actions but myself at this stage of my life. The world would be better if more folks operated like I do. If I harm someone, it's because I choose to, but that would be a hard call to make. I would rather harm myself.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
.
The reason I keep repeating myself is that you keep repeating the same questions, as if you've never read my responses. You then claim to basically agree with me, but read some ulterior motive into my response.
You keep seeing this as some battle between you and I, and projecting your own emotional response to the topic onto me.
I've seen a similar interaction when I've observed scientists debating with religious leaders. The scientist tries to have an objective discussion. The preacher gets all flustered and outraged that a scientist dares to challenge the preacher's beliefs. The scientist is backed up by facts while the preacher has only superstition. Sometimes the preacher will go as far as to equate atheism with Satanism.
Cheers to that pat hacker. Cheers to that.
I think you limit yourself with "never be a big success-" but then again, being a success usually does require stepping on toes.
Personally, I'm at a strange junction between being the most humble, peaceful person- and having strong opinions that I have to make known. Either way, I will do as I have always done, which is to make stuff in as many media as I can learn.
But as you say- we can all disagree in this forum as much as we like, but we're not the ones who have to step outside and live in the mess these things are making.
And with that, I'm done with political forums for a while.
Pages