Christians Don't Get Their Way, So Threaten Violence
Now, since these Christians aren't able to get their way through the use of government force, they are implicitly threatening to use private violence to get their way. If official bullying against people who offend them won't work, unofficial and illegal bullying is apparently an acceptable Christian tactic. According to these Christians, the very fact that a work of art upsets them should be more than enough reason for the police to step in and ban it.
Ms Mapfuwa's supporters warned it could lead some people to destroy similar art works. Her solicitor Michael Phillips said: "Although it is right to say that there was no actual disorder, there was potentially such disorder, which was evidenced to the CPS in the witness statements provided. In particular one witness felt like smashing the object. The decision is simply not in accordance with the facts and is unsustainable."
Source: Northumberland Gazette
This is the same argument which is made by some Muslims: images, videos, art, and writings which offend religious believers enough to make them want to commit violence must be treated as incitements to commit violence and therefore banned. If accepted as a legitimate legal principle, this would be nothing less than giving an official censorial status to any group willing to threaten or actually use violence against people who disagree with them.
Such a principle is incompatible with liberal democracy, secularism, or even just common sense. Could this be why no modern legal system actually uses it?
Christian Voice national director Stephen Green said: "This decision urges Christians to create public disorder if we want a similar case to proceed in future. We are naturally reluctant to do that and it puts us in new territory. On the other hand, there were those at the Baltic Centre who wanted to take matters into their own hands and I have warned Anita Zabludowicz that her statue will not survive being put on public display again.
"If the CPS wanted to give the green light to blasphemous art their decision may paradoxically have the opposite effect. With the threat of destruction hanging over it, the Zabludowicz statue is now locked away by its wealthy owners and is unlikely to see the light of day again. The same will go for any other blasphemous works of so-called art. Put simply, Christians won't tolerate insults to Jesus Christ.
[emphasis added]
In other words, the decision of the government not to use force to ban images which some Christians find offensive means that these Christians are practically compelled to engage in illegal, destructive violence. It's a sign of just how removed from reality Stephen Green is that he imagines Christian violence will lead to the government supporting violent Christians' censorial agenda. If he's right, it would only be because his government is also detached from reality.
Any government committed to liberal, secular democracy would toss such Christians in jail and throw away the key while protecting the "blasphemers" being targeted by Christians for violence.
"However, I do hope that the art world will discover some respect for Christian religious beliefs and for the person of Jesus Christ."
In fact, cases like this cause me to have less respect for Christian religious beliefs generally and the "person of Jesus Christ" in particular. Before, I had no urge, desire, or thought about creating images or statues of Jesus Christ or other Christian figures that might be considered blasphemous — either through the presence of erections or otherwise. Now, however, I have a very strong desire to do so — and it only grows as the number of these incidents increases:
Poet Patrick Jones, brother of Manic Street Preachers bassist Nicky Wire, was due to give a reading from his new book, Darkness is Where The Stars Are, at Waterstones in Cardiff at 7pm yesterday.
But shortly before he was due to speak, he received an e-mail from the firm which read: Please be advised that to avoid potential disruption to our store, tonights planned event at Waterstones in Cardiff is cancelled.
Mr Jones, 43, from Blackwood, said he was later told over the phone that Waterstones had received hundreds of complaints from people opposed to the poems subject matter.
Source: Western Mail
As you might expect, it was Stephen Green and Christian Voice behind this — thugs and bullies who use threats, violence, and intimidation to force their standards, rules, and expectations on everyone around them. Ironically, Stephen Green claims that they are the ones who are "harassed," where "harassment" appears to be limited to simply knowing that, somewhere, someone is expressing an idea he doesn't like. Threats, violence, and intimidation apparently don't count.
If I were a better artist, I'd invest some real time and effort into doing just that; because I'm not very good at drawing any more, though, I think my efforts would come off as more amateurish than challenging or provocative. We need much, much more blasphemy in the world today. We need blasphemy that targets Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and every religion that presumes to tell others what they may and may not draw or write about.
People like Emily Mapfuwa and Stephen Green can't be countered through logical, rational arguments because they don't hold a logical, rational position which was originally arrived at through any use of reason. This means that all the logical, rational arguments against anti-blasphemy laws, against anti-blasphemy violence, and on behalf of free speech won't work. They don't believe in free speech, they only believe in protecting their own beliefs.
Perhaps they need to be given too many blasphemous targets to effectively complain about. The more blasphemy there is out there, the more desensitized most people will become to it and the less supportive they may be of complaints about it — and the few remaining complainers will simply have too much to complain about to effectively stop anything.
Comments
Whenever we change things due to threat of violence, we’re responding to terrorism. However, since “terrorism” is such a loaded accusation these days, I’ll restate it in a more common way. It’s like giving into a child having a tantrum.
We have laws against vandalism. However, we don’t have laws against offending other people by doing things that don’t actually harm them–like being gay, or making art, or giving our opinions.
When someone pitches a fit over something that isn’t actually damaging them in anyway (except that they resent the fact that they can’t forcibly control others to conform to their worldview or shut them the hell up), we need to ignore those people.
If they then smash a piece of legally displayed art, that is vandalism. Such a person should be expected to suffer the consequences of illegal vandalism via trial and sentencing.
People who are not harming others should not be expected to live out their lives in fear of the threats and intimidation tactics of control freaks and busybodies.
I could easily be offended by the crap that passes for “art” on display in many public venues. It’s often an affront to anyone with any aesthetic sensibility–and my tax dollars pay for it. But, hey, doesn’t it just brighten up the park?
I don’t have to appreciate it, like it, enjoy it–or even pay any attention to it whatsoever.
But if I do upset myself over an inanimate object sitting around–I don’t see why the law should be called in to help me cope with my own lack of mental control.
“They don’t believe in free speech, they only believe in protecting their own beliefs.”
Exactly.
Austin, as usual you misrepresented the facts and let your blind hatred color the story. A person sued to have the art removed, and one person said they felt like smashing the object.
Could it be that statues of charachters, real or imagined, with erect penises is simply offensive? It’s not exactly a Jackson Pollock that we are discussing here. It’s offensive art for the sake of being offensive. Much like the oft lauded “Piss Christ” which is, honestly… just dumb and is only famous because it’s offensive.
And right in the middle of your bold statements you mentioned Stephen Green, who said: “We are naturally reluctant to do that, and it puts us in new territory here.” Being prudent, he let Zabludowicz know that rational people will tolerate it, but irrational ones won’t. I consider that good PR to prevent someone from causing problems.
One final comment. You said just a few articles ago, that Christians should be required to speak out against bigotry and hatred against atheists. How is it wrong for them to speak out here? Is this not bigotry and hatret against Christians? Or is it simply acceptable to you because it’s a secular source producing the art?
One addendum, I would like to point out that Mr. Green has a poor track record of causing problems. I don’t agree with most of what he says. In fact I would go so far as to call him radical in many situations.
But I also don’t believe that you presented the whole story, or presented it properly.
“Freedom is wonderful, but only for me.”
>Could it be that statues of charachters, real or imagined, with erect penises is simply offensive?
In fact, no, it cannot be. “Offense” requires a subject. An object cannot be “offensive.” The subject viewing it must react in offense to the object–and only then does the subject consider the object “offensive.” But no object, without a subject, can be “offensive.”
To blame objects for our subjective offense is co-dependent.
>offensive art for the sake of being offensive.
And yet, if nobody decided to be offended by it–it would not be “offensive.” So, the viewers in this situation have the power to render the symbol powerless–and yet they choose to empower it. The object cannot be blamed for whatever power the subjects choose to assign to it.
This is the point of much “art.” It evokes public reaction. The fact that it _does_ evoke reaction–the more the better–shows it is a relevant public statement; otherwise, it would merit little or no public reaction/response.
“And yet, if nobody decided to be offended by it–it would not be “offensive.” So, the viewers in this situation have the power to render the symbol powerless–and yet they choose to empower it. The object cannot be blamed for whatever power the subjects choose to assign to it.”
While I agree with this on a certain level, I do disagree with the belief that you can choose whether or not to be offended at something. If it’s offensive, it - in some way - goes against a core belief that the person carries. It’s like me saying that an atheist can “choose” their faith, when clearly they are only following it to a logical conclusion. One could no more choose to believe or not, than others could choose not to be offended by this.
I understand the point of “art” to evoke public reaction, and in this case, personally I would have dropped it because honestly… it’s dumb, and the artist seems a little sick to me. However, simply because it evoked a reaction does not make it relavant, as it makes no statement. It’s simply there to offend people, like a shock jock on the radio.
Feel free to:
Yes, that’s true. What was it again that I “misrepresented”?
I don’t think that I’ve ever denied that some people might find such images offensive. That may be why there were warning signs in the art gallery.
Really? I didn’t know you had so much insight into the mind of the artist. Your information conflicts with what I’ve read, so please explain to us what you know about the artist’s intentions and how you can by this information.
I’ll be interested to learn what you know about this artist’s motivations and how you came by the information as well.
I don’t think I’ve ever suggested that Christians shouldn’t speak out if they dislike something (i.e., say that they don’t like it).
Implicit and explicit threats are another thing, though. When a church says something I don’t like, I’ve never issues implied threats of disorder and destruction.
Now, where was it that I said that Christians generally should be “required” to speak out against “bigotry and hatred against atheists”? I’d like to see a direct quote because I don’t remember ever writing such a thing. Since you are so concerned with facts being misrepresented, though, I can’t believe that you’d be misrepresenting me here.
Yet, you’re unwilling or unable to show how.
I’ll be happy to take your criticism seriously when you have a constructive and substantive criticism to make.
Yet, you’re unwilling or unable to show how.
I’ll be happy to take your criticism seriously when you have a constructive and substantive criticism to make.
~ You want me to start a thread in the forum, or just do it here? As for me being unwilling and unable, don’t count your chickens just yet, you should at least give me time to respond before you declare your victory.
>I do disagree with the belief that you can choose whether or not to be offended at something. If it’s offensive, it - in some way - goes against a core belief that the person carries.
Many things are bound to go against my core beliefs in life–please explain how that negates my capacity to be offended or not be offended by such things? Can’t I acknowledge something is not what I would do or think or say, and NOT allow myself to be upset by it? Why not?
>It’s like me saying that an atheist can “choose” their faith, when clearly they are only following it to a logical conclusion.
It’s not like that at all. “Offense” is not logical. It is not derived from anything rational. It’s an emotional response that absolutely can be adjusted at any time the offended person so chooses.
If someone tells me my mother is a whore–do I have to be offended by that? Can I simply acknowledge that such a person is simply trying to evoke a negative reaction from me–and NOT accommodate them if I choose? I can’t imagine why I should empower that person by handing over power I have the choice to maintain for myself.
That is very different than trying to deny what I know is in front of me. I can’t “convince myself” X exists where there is no X to examine. But I very well can grasp that I am not some machine that has no choice but to hand over control of my reactions to any Yahoo who would like to see me become upset.
In the case of the art and the reaction. The bigger the reaction, the more validation the statement has behind it. Even if a piece of art is stupid to me–if enough people react to it, I can’t deny it has a social impact. And that is significant. And that represents the goal of “art” to many people who care about art. You are correct it’s like shock jock radio–which is also good at eliciting social reaction, and therefore demonstates social relevance. YOU may not find it relevant–but it appears many people in society (those who are upset by it) disagree with you on that point.
Something specific to this topic can be here; something more general should be posted in the forum. A combination should be probably be in the forum, since it will sooner or later be off-topic (and remaining on-topic is the goal).
I’m not “counting” anything or declaring “victory.” I’m simply pointing out that you’re making accusations without offering any support and inviting you to do so. You shouldn’t need to be invited to support accusations, but doing so is almost by definition not “declaring victory.”
“Many things are bound to go against my core beliefs in life–please explain how that negates my capacity to be offended or not be offended by such things? Can’t I acknowledge something is not what I would do or think or say, and NOT allow myself to be upset by it? Why not?”
~ I would say that simply because something does not offend you, does not mean it’s not offensive either. I personally am rarely offended by anything like this. However, my being offended is based on the structure and opinions that I have set up for myself. My mother, who is deeply religious would be offended by something like this, because her capacity for offense is lower based on her personal situation. COULD it be different? Sure. MUST it be different? No.
“It’s not like that at all. “Offense” is not logical. It is not derived from anything rational. It’s an emotional response that absolutely can be adjusted at any time the offended person so chooses.”
~ I would disagree on the rationality of offense. I believe that offense can be a very rational thing.
“If someone tells me my mother is a whore–do I have to be offended by that? ”
~ No, but many would wonder why you wouldn’t be. You can still be offended and not respond in a retalitory way, so yes you can control the response, but not the offense, unless as I said before, you prepare yourself for these sorts of attacks.
Let’s take it to the irrational extreme, suppose someone gave you a snuff film of them butchering your mother a joint at a time. Would you not be offended by such a thing? You can choose not to respond to such a thing, but I would wonder about you if you weren’t offended.
“That is very different than trying to deny what I know is in front of me. I can’t “convince myself” X exists where there is no X to examine. But I very well can grasp that I am not some machine that has no choice but to hand over control of my reactions to any Yahoo who would like to see me become upset.”
~ You have a control over the response, not the offense, since your views are the measuring factor by which you value the input. If it matches your worldview, or doesn’t clash, then so be it. If it clashes, then you take offense. At that point the control becomes yours as to how to respond to it.
“In the case of the art and the reaction. The bigger the reaction, the more validation the statement has behind it.”
~ Social impact has nothing to do with value other than noteriety. The appeal to majority does not constitute validity, especially in art, but in any case. Take the very popular DaVinci Code, national bestseller in the US. Total crap. Poor scholarship, a rip off of the “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” precursor, and second even to Dan Brown’s superior prequil Angels and Demons. It’s popularity was not because it was a quality work, but because of the underlying message.
By the way, this has been a real pleasure. I enjoyed this conversation.
I’m not “counting” anything or declaring “victory.” I’m simply pointing out that you’re making accusations without offering any support and inviting you to do so. You shouldn’t need to be invited to support accusations, but doing so is almost by definition not “declaring victory.”
~ I agree I should have been more cautious with that statement. I will respond to your earlier comments later this evening or tomorrow morning.
Being offended by something is certainly not grounds for litigation.
Plus, as we’re seeing here, what ‘offends’ one may be beautiful to another. Would Ms. Mapfuwa have been just as offended by a statue of Frey? (Statues and images of Frey from the Viking age can be seen to have over-sized erect penises…strengthening the link with fertility) http://www.irminsul-hearth.com/godsandgoddesses.htm
How about an Egyptian? http://www.matrifocus.com/LAM07/images/ithyphallic.gif
While fertility probably wasn’t the artist’s intention to convey, it could interpreted that way. More likely it was created just to get this sort of reaction, and the artist’s name in the papers.
But Ms. Mapfuwa has no grounds for legal action. The Gallery chose to display said art, and frankly, she didn’t have to look at it. As I think about it, nearly every art museum/gallery I’ve ever visited has displayed some sort of nude that could considered offensive by someone.
If removing any object from public (or private, as may be the case here) view simply because it offends someone is acceptable, we’re in for an awfully boring world.
My grandmother thought Madonna videos were offensive. My mother thought my Iron Maiden posters of yesteryear were offensive. My father finds TV baseball commentators to be annoying and (in his own words) offensive. I’m a bit offended by the big red neon Jesus Saves sign that resides atop the homeless shelter in my city.
Stephen Green serves as a a most disturbing reminder that it is not just you Yankees who have to deal with fanatical, right-wing nut, fundamentalist Christian theocrats. We do have them on this side of the Atlantic as well, albeit in far less abundance.
I for one am glad that neither this homophobic, hatemongering, racist Zionist, crackpot, extremist scumbag nutcase of a religious zealot nor any of the other brainwashed fundy f**ks stand a significant chance of gaining a foothold in power or even real influence here in the United Kingdom any time in the foreseeable future. (I feel compelled at this point to retract the charge of ‘brainwashed’, as that implies that they even had brains in the first place, which I find doubtful.) If they did, our country would probably end up being a greater hotbed for religious authoritarianism than yours is (and that’s saying something).
I really long for the privilege of meeting Green in person so that I could bash his head in! On second thoughts, maybe that’s not such a good a idea; after all, the s**t that’s located inside his skull in the place of a brain is better off there than all over the pavement!
Maybe I should just punch him repeatedly in the stomach as hard as I can and bust his guts!
Christians Don’t Get Their Way, So Threaten Violence
~ Let’s start with the title, shall we? No where in this incident was violence threatened, or insinuated. Grated there is a very outspoken Christian representative threatening vandalism. But not violence.
Mapfuwa and other Christians insisted that it should be a criminal offense…
Our second point of order, is that Ms. Mapfuwa was suing to have the statue removed from the exhibit, or the exhibit entirely. It’s not really clear on the situation, so it’s a long stretch to assume that they “insisted it should be a criminal offense”. In fact, I couldn’t find a direct reference to this phrase anywhere.
…religious believers shouldn’t expect the state to protect them from being offended on the basis of religion.
I believe that the basis of her argument seems to be the European pandering to the Islamic populous and their fear of representations of Mohammed while not holding the same standards for a Christian view.
Now, since these Christians aren’t able to get their way through the use of government force, they are implicitly threatening to use private violence to get their way.
~ False. Mr. Green has taken his direction with these statements, but Ms. Mapfuwa seems to be responding via the legal system. You made multiple errors here by grouping them all together, although it’s not determined how large said group of “these Christians” are, nor did you take the time to mention Mr. Green’s Zionistic tendencies.
If official bullying against people who offend them won’t work, unofficial and illegal bullying is apparently an acceptable Christian tactic.
~ This is definitely where you do your best job of rousing my ire. Only a fool, wrapped in blind hatred (
I really long for the privilege of meeting Green in person so that I could bash his head in! On second thoughts, maybe that’s not such a good a idea; after all, the s**t that’s located inside his skull in the place of a brain is better off there than all over the pavement! Maybe I should just punch him repeatedly in the stomach as hard as I can and bust his guts!
~ Thank you for proving my points exactly born-again atheist. You are indeed a paragon of human compassion. It’s almost like … you would destroy that statue if it offended you as well… hmmm.
Vandalism is a form of violence. Violence: “behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.” By admitting a threat to vandalism — specifically, the destruction of an object — you admit that my title was correct rather than a misrepresentation.
You should have followed the first link. The “private prosecution” was only initiated when the police refused to take action against the art gallery. The only basis for the police acting would have been if the art in question somehow violated criminal statutes.
I’m not sure how you think you’re even disagreeing with me here, much less providing an example of me misrepresenting anyone or anything. The quoted text is my restatement of the position of the Crown Prosecution Service. If you’re going to offer this up as an example of my misrepresenting anyone, it can only be a misrepresentation of the CPS. So, please do show how it’s a misrepresentation of the CPS to say that they can’t be expected to protect religious believers from being offended (by works of art) on the basis of religion.
What’s false is you trying to create a distinction here. Mr. Green and his Christian Legal Centre are the ones paying Ms. Mapfuwa’s legal costs. They have grouped themselves together so it’s not an error for me to treat them as a group. The absence of any figures of how many Christians feel the same way is in no way a reason not to use the plural “Christians” and the modifier “these” actually makes it clear that I’m not trying to portray all Christians as agreeing.
Any “Zionistic tendencies” of Green are irrelevant to anything I’ve written, so I don’t know why you’d bring it up.
Unless you are going to argue that it doesn’t qualify as “official bullying” to try to use the police and courts to censor artwork you don’t like, or that threats of violence don’t qualify as “unofficial and illegal bullying,” then the upshot here is that telling the truth about Christian bullying rouses your ire. Well, I can’t claim to really be concerned if telling the truth rouses your ire. It’s certainly not hatred to accurate label the above behavior as bullying, unless perhaps one is an apologist for extremist, violent, bullying religion.
Not only have you failed to provide a single example of me misrepresenting anything, but in most cases it was easy to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts are precisely how I described and so precisely the opposite of what you tried to claim. Since it’s probably reasonable to think that you would offer your best examples first — the examples you yourself find most convincing and credible — I think it’s also probably reasonable to conclude that you simply have no case to make now.
Ex Nihilo: I don’t think statues with erections are offensive (are erections offensive? I may sufficient experience with male genitalia, but I thought erections helped in procreation - yes, I’m being facetious.) Perhaps the artist was saying, “even though Jesus was shown as a god, he still was in a male body.” who knows if Jesus had erections? do i know? nope. do Christians no? nope. But this probably goes back to the Christian irrational (to me anyway) obsession with sex being this scary thing that must be monitored.
But that’s the point of art, that’s the reason we shouldn’t censor things. because while several people immediately think of how offensive something is (i presume in most cases, without thinking deeply on the piece of art) some actual use art to ponder and help shape the world around them.
Also, the quoted text attributed to Stephen Green shows something is wrong if he believes that Christians will destroy and vandalize the art.
Reading Stephen Greens words could lead to my feeling offense. But instead, I just view it as his opinion. Why let it boil my blood? Of 6 billion + people, I highly doubt every one of them will agree with my thoughts. Get used to it. And realize that if you want to censor what others do (that does not affect you), you are then allowing the precedent for you to be silenced as well.
And no, you can’t necessarily stop your initial reaction of offense. But you can make an effort to control it, make an effort to use your logic and reason instead of blindly being offended.
Toleration is good for everyone. I tolerate any work of art in a gallery and I can choose to view it or to not view it. If you move the art outside, onto the public street, it becomes a different story.
Finally, it isn’t wrong for Christians to speak out, or perhaps they wish to craft their own art. But speaking out and destroying are two very different things.
Vandalism is a form of violence. Violence: “behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.” By admitting a threat to vandalism — specifically, the destruction of an object — you admit that my title was correct rather than a misrepresentation.
Actually, using Merriam-Webster, vandalism is defined as – Willfull or malicious destruction of defacement of public or private property. I admit nothing of the sort; I admitted that an art piece was threatened (implicitly). You title was incorrect and extrapolated to argue your point.
You should have followed the first link. The “private prosecution” was only initiated when the police refused to take action against the art gallery. The only basis for the police acting would have been if the art in question somehow violated criminal statutes.
~ Or violations of public decency, which a Wikipedia search will easily show you is the prime reasoning behind private prosecution.
I’m not sure how you think you’re even disagreeing with me here, much less providing an example of me misrepresenting anyone or anything. The quoted text is my restatement of the position of the Crown Prosecution Service. If you’re going to offer this up as an example of my misrepresenting anyone, it can only be a misrepresentation of the CPS. So, please do show how it’s a misrepresentation of the CPS to say that they can’t be expected to protect religious believers from being offended (by works of art) on the basis of religion.
~ Once again, it’s an inference of the message to reflect what you want it to say. The CPS determined that there was no legal action in part because there was no threat of violence. The prosecution in this case
What’s false is you trying to create a distinction here. Mr. Green and his Christian Legal Centre are the ones paying Ms. Mapfuwa’s legal costs. They have grouped themselves together so it’s not an error for me to treat them as a group. The absence of any figures of how many Christians feel the same way is in no way a reason not to use the plural “Christians” and the modifier “these” actually makes it clear that I’m not trying to portray all Christians as agreeing.
~ I would have seriously disagreed with that in your original statement, but since you have clarified your position, I will drop this point.
Any “Zionistic tendencies” of Green are irrelevant to anything I’ve written, so I don’t know why you’d bring it up.
~ Hold on, you are saying that Mr. Green’s known tendencies to be threatening by nature have nothing to do with this? Can I safely say that Osama’s radical methods are also outside of the scope of consideration of his actions?
Unless you are going to argue that it doesn’t qualify as “official bullying” to try to use the police and courts to censor artwork you don’t like, or that threats of violence don’t qualify as “unofficial and illegal bullying,” then the upshot here is that telling the truth about Christian bullying rouses your ire. Well, I can’t claim to really be concerned if telling the truth rouses your ire. It’s certainly not hatred to accurate label the above behavior as bullying, unless perhaps one is an apologist for extremist, violent, bullying religion.
~ Nothing of the sort. I would say that I am definitely against calling it bullying. Unless you feel for some reason that the opponents of the now past Prop 8 are bullying as well. Again, it’s not that you repeating a story rouses my ire, it’s your usage of the fact to express something as a universal trait among Christians.
Not only have you failed to provide a single example of me misrepresenting anything, but in most cases it was easy to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts are precisely how I described and so precisely the opposite of what you tried to claim. Since it’s probably reasonable to think that you would offer your best examples first — the examples you yourself find most convincing and credible — I think it’s also probably reasonable to conclude that you simply have no case to make now.
~ I expected that you would say something like this. I would like to point out that about half of my arguments were apparently cut off to what I assume is space, so you didn’t get to see it all. But being honest, I seriously doubt that you would be convinced against your own will by anything I said. So I hope you would understand that you claiming I have no case is generally a wasted argument.
But that’s the point of art, that’s the reason we shouldn’t censor things. because while several people immediately think of how offensive something is (i presume in most cases, without thinking deeply on the piece of art) some actual use art to ponder and help shape the world around them.
~ As a huge fan of The Family Guy, I agree. I believe offense has a place as well, and personally I saw the art under discussion and really have no issue. It’s bad art in my opinion, and I have no interest in it. However, what about the poet in the article who sent his poetry to right wingers like CV and expected a “debate”. I say bunk to that.
Stephen Green is clearly a little off. I’m not sure how far he goes, and am not a fan of that level of activism.
Reading Stephen Greens words could lead to my feeling offense.
~ I agree, and feel that people are speaking out against him for his actions as well. I personally am pretty anti-censorship, but I find it hypocritical that people are allowed to protest with nary a comment about prop 8, or the Dallas church incident, but one semi-radical makes a veiled threat and all the sudden Christians are violent? You didn’t say that, but that is what I feel the article portrays, and the reason I responded.
And no, you can’t necessarily stop your initial reaction of offense. But you can make an effort to control it, make an effort to use your logic and reason instead of blindly being offended.
~ Agreed.
Toleration is good for everyone. I tolerate any work of art in a gallery and I can choose to view it or to not view it. If you move the art outside, onto the public street, it becomes a different story.
Finally, it isn’t wrong for Christians to speak out, or perhaps they wish to craft their own art. But speaking out and destroying are two very different things.
~ Also agreed on both points. I personally think it’s silly that the woman in question sued over this. I also think it’s out of like to threaten, even implicitly artwork. So in one case we have a woman speaking out, and in the same case we have someone threatening vandalism. I say they should be weighed seperately, and that Mr. Green’s past actions should be taken into consideration and not transferred to the whole of Christianity.
This isn’t a counter-argument. I never said that it wasn’t vandalism that was threatened; I said that vandalism is also a form of violence. Your only possible counter-argument is to argue that threatened destruction of private property does not fall under the definition of “violence.” Showing that it can also fall under other definitions not only isn’t sufficient, it strikes me as an almost deliberate attempt to avoid the real question.
You’re saying that “public decency” isn’t a criminal matter?
Are you saying that the art gallery was alleged to be threatening violence?
No. You seem to be saying that “Zionistic tendencies” has the same meaning as “tendencies to be threatening by nature.”
Perhaps you can explain how they fail to qualify.
Ah, finally a specific allegation. Do point out where I say anything is a “universal trait among Christians.” Given the fact that I just had to explain to you how I carefully chose my words to avoid doing exactly that, this should be quite interesting.
Your first argument alone is sufficient to discount any further arguments you make. It should be obvious that if you’re going to accuse me of misrepresentation with the title “so threaten violence,” your only options are to argue that no genuine threats were made or that the threats weren’t really of violence. You don’t even try to do either and you can’t expect anyone to believe that “vandalism” and “violence” are mutually exclusive, such that proving the former implicitly excludes the latter.
This isn’t a counter-argument. I never said that it wasn’t vandalism that was threatened; I said that vandalism is also a form of violence. Your only possible counter-argument is to argue that threatened destruction of private property does not fall under the definition of “violence.” Showing that it can also fall under other definitions not only isn’t sufficient, it strikes me as an almost deliberate attempt to avoid the real question.
~ I personally would disagree. There was no physical harm threatened to artist or to persons presenting the art in the museum. I would have to say that it’s exactly what I am saying, that no violence was supposed or implied in this case. Especially no violence of the type you defined previously.
You’re saying that “public decency” isn’t a criminal matter?
~ Once again, not in the manner with which you define it. You leave the definition of “criminal” open to interpretation. It’s a weasel word, and you substantiate this argument through additional arguments in an attempt to solidify that Christians are out to make all forms of blasphemy on par with higher level.
Are you saying that the art gallery was alleged to be threatening violence?
~ Negative. The CPS denied the claim based on the lack of violence in this case. So they saw no need to continue with the case. I wasn’t saying anything about the gallery.
No. You seem to be saying that “Zionistic tendencies” has the same meaning as “tendencies to be threatening by nature.”
~ No, but the term Zionist does have connotations to radicalism, and so far Mr. Green has shown that he is capable of it. So why should we credit him with normalcy?
Perhaps you can explain how they fail to qualify.
~ They fail to qualify for simple reasons. NO violence has occurred being the first. The second is that, no matter who paid for it, whatever her name is has been using the legal system. Bullying is traditionally a system of force, specifically physical.
Ah, finally a specific allegation. Do point out where I say anything is a “universal trait among Christians.” Given the fact that I just had to explain to you how I carefully chose my words to avoid doing exactly that, this should be quite interesting.
~ Come now. You, who take certain care to choose his words carefully, would know the difference between implied claims and direct claims. Don’t insult my argument with such a weak deflection.
Your first argument alone is sufficient to discount any further arguments you make.
~ Even though you only saw half of it? Good call.
It should be obvious that if you’re going to accuse me of misrepresentation with the title “so threaten violence,” your only options are to argue that no genuine threats were made or that the threats weren’t really of violence.
~ Which I did by differentiating between violence and vandalism. And while proving the former does NOT ALWAYS implicitly exclude the latter, the inverse is no truer because of it. All violence is not vandalism and all vandalism is not violence. Can a situation be both? Possibly. Is it in this case? I do not believe so. Nor do I accept your inference of illegality, bullying, or the general argument that Christians are violent when they don’t get their way.
Except “personal harm” isn’t part of the definition of violence, and you know that. You are therefore “personally disagreeing” that the dictionary definition should be used. Even worse, You are “personally disagreeing” that the validity of the title should be evaluated based on whether I have accurately used the words as they are defined in the dictionary. Instead, I can apparently be accused of misrepresentation if I fail to use your personal definitions.
So, how available are you for me to consult you on my use of every word, just so I can avoid “misrepresentations”? Or do you conduct classes in your own personal language?
It is my intention to use the term in the manner of the police and laws of Great Britain.
The offense of “public decency” in this case can be found in Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. This is part of English criminal law. Ergo, regardless of your own personal definitions, it’s accurate to discuss this as a criminal matter.
It must also be noted that violation of Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 does not require violence; ergo, it’s false to claim that the CPS refused to take action simply because of a lack of violence. Their decision was based on the fact that the display of the work of art failed to violate the law against public decency by displaying anything that qualified as threatening, abusive, or insulting (or, if they determined that it did, the justified defenses applied).
Sorry, I don’t see the connection. I stand by my statement that any “Zionist tendencies” are irrelevant (and therefore a red herring on your part) and also that he does indeed have a history of threats, bullying, and extremism.
I guess it’s your personal definition that bullying has to include violence. The dictionary disagrees. I guess it’s also your personal definition that bullying cannot occur in the context of the legal system. Once again, there is nothing in the definition of the term which stipulates this. In fact, the ability of people to use the legal system to intimidate people — and intimidation actually does appear in the definition of bullying — is officially recognized by the law.
Yes, I do know the difference. I also know the difference between a supported accusation and an unsupported accusation. You’ve made a specific accusation here and you can’t pretend that it’s OK not to support it by saying that my claim is only “implied” somehow, somewhere, buy some unspecified words. The burden is entirely yours to show that your accusation is a reasonable interpretation of words I have used rather than a misinterpretation based on something about you and your attitudes.
The fact that vandalism and violence are different concepts does not entail that vandalism is necessarily not violence. The threatened action fits the dictionary definition of violence; since I rely on the dictionary for my definitions, I used the word correctly. Ergo, I didn’t mislead anyone — or at least I didn’t mislead anyone who uses the dictionary.
But now we have more information: your accusation that I misrepresent things appears to be based almost entirely on your use of personal definitions which don’t quite match how the dictionary defines words. You use your own definition of “violence” to claim that my title is inaccurate, even though it’s accurate according to the dictionary. You use your own definition of “bullying” to dispute my statements, even though my usage if appropriate under the dictionary definition. You use your own definition of “criminal matter” to dispute what is a criminal matter in Britain whereas I go by British law. You use your own definition of what does and does not violate “public decency” under British law whereas I go by what the law actually says.
Are you just making all this up as you go along? Do you ever stop to check references, laws, dictionaries, or anything like that?
Except “personal harm” isn’t part of the definition of violence, and you know that. You are therefore “personally disagreeing” that the dictionary definition should be used. Even worse, You are “personally disagreeing” that the validity of the title should be evaluated based on whether I have accurately used the words as they are defined in the dictionary. Instead, I can apparently be accused of misrepresentation if I fail to use your personal definitions.
~ Partially correct. I do disagree with you, and it is personal, but my understanding of the words are not incorrect. The issue lies in the fact that your title presents an open consideration “Christians don’t get their way, threaten violence” implies that there is more to this than a veiled threat against a statue. You can argue with me on the definition of vandalism and violence until we bore of this conversation (happening quickly for both of us I wager). However, any good artist knows that your title is supposed to be eye catching (and they usually are) but it also is supposed to set the tone of the article. I know you know this already, so you have set the tone that “Christians” are threatening “violence”. Both of these vague terms insinuate that general Christians are threatening general violence.
You’re saying that “public decency” isn’t a criminal matter?
~ Given where you are going with this, I can’t deny that public decency is a criminal matter. So I am not going to argue with you any more on this, and will chalk it up to my misunderstanding. I assume you will find that acceptable?
Sorry, I don’t see the connection. I stand by my statement that any “Zionist tendencies” are irrelevant (and therefore a red herring on your part) and also that he does indeed have a history of threats, bullying, and extremism.
~ Maybe I am not doing a proper job of explaining myself here. But it appears that you will give no slack in considering whether a person is extremist(as Zionists are) or not? Am I incorrect in this assumption?
I guess it’s your personal definition that bullying has to include violence. The dictionary disagrees. I guess it’s also your personal definition that bullying cannot occur in the context of the legal system. Once again, there is nothing in the definition of the term which stipulates this. In fact, the ability of people to use the legal system to intimidate people — and intimidation actually does appear in the definition of bullying — is officially recognized by the law.
~ Mmm. OK, I’ll go with that one too then. Bullying argument dropped.
Yes, I do know the difference. I also know the difference between a supported accusation and an unsupported accusation. You’ve made a specific accusation here and you can’t pretend that it’s OK not to support it by saying that my claim is only “implied” somehow, somewhere, buy some unspecified words. The burden is entirely yours to show that your accusation is a reasonable interpretation of words I have used rather than a misinterpretation based on something about you and your attitudes.
~ OK, but I will have to do this later this evening, it will take me a little longer to put your phrase together to explain my point here.
The fact that vandalism and violence are different concepts does not entail that vandalism is necessarily not violence.
~ Nor does it entail that vandalism IS violence either. You said that “vandalism is violence” earlier in this series. That is incorrect. But again, I am not saying it CAN’T be violence, I am saying that it’s not acceptable to use it as a direct equivalent to the word violence, as you have done in this article.
But now we have more information: your accusation that I misrepresent things appears to be based almost entirely on your use of personal definitions which don’t quite match how the dictionary defines words.
~ Don’t quite match? Hmmm. They don’t quite match what the dictionary defines because of things like … implied meaning, weasel words, and the like. Now then, if you would like to argue with a dictionary, I am sure that you could have an interesting conversation with it. However, the dictionary will also tell you the same thing. That vandalism does not always equal violence and that the two words are not synonymous, which is the whole point of this.
You use your own definition of what does and does not violate “public decency” under British law whereas I go by what the law actually says.
~ My error as admitted above.
Are you just making all this up as you go along?
~ Only on Tuesdays. Wednesdays are a different matter entirely.
When you use a definition that is more limited than how the word is actually defined by everyone else, you are incorrect (at least, when you expect others to abide by the same limitations). The fact that when you read the word you take away the more restricted interpretation based on your more restricted definition is entirely your problem and your mistake, not mine. I’m not going to write either titles or text so that you, based on your personal and idiosyncratic definitions, won’t misunderstand anything.
Yes.
I haven’t the foggiest idea what you are asking or where you are trying to go with it. I don’t know what the guy’s Zionist beliefs are, don’t care what they are, and didn’t take them into account in anything I wrote. I do know that the guy has a history of threats, extremism, and bullying, and took this into account in what I wrote. Whether his extremism also includes some sort of extremist Zionism is, at this time, unimportant to me.
Your insistence on trying to treat “Zionism” and “extremism” as the same is not only unimportant to me, but strikes me as a deliberate red herring. There is nothing in my article, in the original newspaper articles, or in the original incidents relating to Jews, Israel, Zionism, or anything remotely related. So I can think of absolutely no good reason to ever bring it up.
Not according to your personal, idiosyncratic definition of the word, no. I cheerfully stipulate that. However, I don’t use your definitions and don’t intend to ever do so, either. I use the standard dictionary definitions and according to standard definitions of “violence,” the sort of “vandalism” at issue here would indeed qualify as “violence.”
Maybe it’s incorrect according to your personal, idiosyncratic definitions, but the dictionary definition of “vandalism” you cited qualifies as “violence” according to the dictionary definition I cited.
In fact, i haven’t done so. I’ve referred to threat as a threat of violence because the act being threatened qualifies as “violence” under standard definitions of the term. The fact that it might not qualify as “violence” under your personal, idiosyncratic definition of the term never caused me a moment’s concern.
OK, I don’t see us really getting any further with this. Would it be safe to say that we are done and that this conversation probably isn’t going to go much further? If you feel it is then we can continue, I just don’t see us getting anywhere.
However, I would like to say that I honestly appreciate you taking the time and effort to defend your article. Your time is important as well, and I took a fair amount of it these two days.
I can’t think of where it might go.
Thank you. I’m not sure I can remember the last time anyone demonstrated any recognition that this sort of conversation takes time which would otherwise be invested in other needs of the site.
Two things emerge from this.
Firstly, it’s important to criticise religion often in order to make such criticism commonplace.
Secondly, it’s important to point out the similarity of rationalisations and reasoning used by both Christian and Muslims as they defend violence in the name of their faiths.
In response to: Christians Don’t Get Their Way, So Threaten Violence - Austin Cline Monday November 17, 2008.
Austin Cline cool name… This may help your blog popularity out: The anti religious rights blogs carry the same old self centered anchor and chain.
While rarely considering rationale the arguments insult and attack their neighbor’s sensibilities.
I thought atheists where big on “One World”, “Let’s All Get Along”, “We’re all in this short little trip over the water fall together“ type of thing. Your words shout your own bigotry and intolerance. You are the one that holds the violent agenda, freely ride over anyone that disagrees with your immediate impulses, wants or needs.
There is no place in law of this land, constitution or any of its amendments that even alludes to indiscriminant odious behavior as a freedom. You are defending confrontation with the character and qualities that promote tolerance and civility. Such actions are established as vulgar across all religions, including your own.
Yes atheism is a religion. Your creed is the Humanist Manifesto, the core religious statement of the atheist movement. All people, atheist included, are repulsed by the deliberately offensive behavior, especially in public places. What about making a little room for the people who are you neighbors and you call friend?
If published, text must be published intact as: BroadBarrell copyrighted © 2009
Why?
And what is that, exactly?
If neighbors feel attacked when their ideas are criticized, isn’t that ultimately their responsibility?
Is that a reason not to criticize bad or dangerous ideas?
Feel free to show how. Quote my words, and explains where the bigotry and intolerance is expressed.
That’s an even more serious accusation than the last. I expect you can show where I have advocated a “violent agenda” and where I have promoting riding “freely” over those who disagree with me.
So, are you saying that criticism of religion qualifies “indiscriminate odious behavior” that shouldn’t be legal? Are you saying that “free speech” doesn’t cover speech that is “odious”?
So, you object to confrontation?
No, it’s not. Atheism is just the absence of belief in gods and as such is compatible with a variety of ideologies, secular and religious. It’s not an ideology or belief system all on it’s own, though.
I hate to break the news to you, but not all atheists are humanists. Atheists who aren’t humanists can hardly regard the Humanist Manifesto as a “core religious statement,” can they?
Yet Christians engage in offensive, confrontational behavior all the time. You, here, for example.
Christians who are my neighbors already have plenty of room; atheists are the ones trying to make room for themselves by inssisting on fully equal treatment. For some reason, though, many Christians regard such demands for equality and for a public voice as equivalent to efforts to deny Christians their place, as attempts to “freely ride over anyone who disagrees,” and as a desire for violence.
You wouldn’t be one of those people, would you?
I hate to break the news to you, but the User Agreement gives About.com the right to republish your comment in an edited form whenever and wherever it wants.