Hmmmm....

I sense that you share my deepening sense of frustration with the Wests response to the purveyors of hate.

Why is it that 'artists' can do things like 'Piss Christ' and paint the Madonna in feces without causing riots in all the Christian cities of the Earth...

Why is it that a can demand Christ be spelled with a little 'c', and demand 'may peace be upon him' follow any usage of the word Mohammed...

Why is it we are supposed to take seriously anyone's worry about whether the koran is desecrated if those same people demanding that the koran be treated respectfully would defend the desecration of flags and bibles as free speech...

Why is it that piggy banks can be banned, but presumably the Darwin fishes on the back of car bumpers cannot...

Have we lost our minds? The Jihadist constitute the very sort of violent reactionary theocrats which have long constituted the boogey man of the Left? Why are they busy appeasing this monster?

And then there's these folks. You just can't be a honorable conservative. Look who is on your side.

Klan To Rally In Support Of Gay Marriage Amendment

POSTED: 10:45 am CDT October 25, 2005
UPDATED: 10:58 am CDT October 25, 2005

AUSTIN, Texas -- The Ku Klux Klan plans to rally in Austin to support the gay marriage amendment set for the Nov. 8 ballot.

The rally planned on the steps of city hall the Saturday before the election will urge voters to favor proposition 2.

'Why is it that piggy banks can be banned, but presumably the Darwin fishes on the back of car bumpers cannot...'

Excuse me, but the fishes I see on car bumpers are mostly those representing Christ, as early christians used them to identify themselves - 'fish' was spelled by the first letters of the four words used to identify Christ. I've seen darwin fishes too, with legs, is that what you mean?

"Excuse me, but the fishes I see on car bumpers are mostly those representing Christ, as early christians used them to identify themselves"

Yes, this is correct.

"- 'fish' was spelled by the first letters of the four words used to identify Christ."

Specifically, the fish symbol is an encryption of the declaration, "Iesous Christos Theou Yios Soter".

"I've seen darwin fishes too, with legs, is that what you mean?"

The use of the fish symbol to identify ones household as Christian is ancient, dating to at least the 3rd century. Sometime in the 20th century, it became common to put this symbol on the back of one's automobile. American commercialism being what it is, this prompted a whole sub-industry to personalize the image. In come cases the fish would contain the word 'Christ' or the greek acronym within the name. In responce, atheists began making subtle jabs at the Christians by putting fish symbols with legs on the back of thier car. Some of these contained the words 'Darwin' in them. Lately I've been seeing on the back of cars Darwin fishes eating Christos fishes, and vica versa 'Truth' fishes eating Darwin fishes.

It is all to me rather amusing.

But, there is no reason it has to be amusing. If I were as intolerant as the Moslems who find piggy banks insulting or see ice cream cones as blasphamous because they think the design looks to similar to the arabic for 'Allah', I would probably be enraged at the whole Darwin fish thing. After all, it is a direct attack on an ancient Christian declaration. Humorous though the jibe is intended to be, it literally is an insult to Christians. If unintended insults like the story of the Three Pigs and pig shaped coin banks are sufficiently insulting to warrant public banning, how much more so should deliberate insults (however charming you might find them) be banned?

What I am asking is do you really like were that line of thought takes you? Are we really going to sacrifice 300+ years of the development of a spirit tolerence in the West, to appease the sentiments of the intolerent? Do we really want to reach the point were piggy banks and Darwin fishes are considered 'hate speech'?

Lately I've been seeing on the back of cars Darwin fishes eating Christos fishes, and vica versa 'Truth' fishes eating Darwin fishes.

Funny thing is, both of those scenarios are darwinian.
The answer as to why it's OK to poke fun at one superstitious fantasy but not another...
One is that Christians have evolved. Or been tamed. Take your pick. There was an era when rightous christians would have smote or burned any such mockery. But no longer.
Will Islam evolve similarly?
This blog is full of very frightened warnings about Islam. They could have been aimed at Christians just 500 years ago.

"Funny thing is, both of those scenarios are darwinian."

I didn't say that they weren't.

"They could have been aimed at Christians just 500 years ago."

Ok, I'm about to loose patience with you. Didn't I just say, "Are we really going to sacrifice 300+ years of the development of a spirit tolerence in the West.." So clearly I'm aware of the very thing you act as if I'm oblivious to.

But more importantly, 500 years is a fairly long time. There is no sense in talking about 'just 500 years' unless we are talking about geological or evolutionary time. Are you suggesting that we should wait 500 years for Islam to evolve, and in the mean time we should sacrifice are hard won values? Are you suggesting that we can 'tame' (as you put it) Islam by rewarding intolerant behavior? If I follow your logic correctly, you are saying that its not OK to make fun of Muslims (but it is OK to make fun of Christians) because Muslims are likely to smite you if they mock them. Is that what you mean to suggest?

What exactly are you trying to say?

Thanks for the info, Celebrim, it's been a long time since I saw the origins of 'fish' written out. As to taking offense, I recall reading that the first appearance of a Christmas tree in a church in New York received a great deal of negative reaction because of the paganism of the symbol. (I rather enjoy that the Saxons supposedly began bringing a fir tree into the hut to repel fleas and that developed into the decorated 'tree of life' of early celebrations of winter.)

Muslims as far as I know aren't totally dominated by the uptight mullahs who make a big show of outlawing silly things. And neithe do I think Christianity is represented by those who stand their children outside abortion clinics holding signs with pictures of fetuses on them.

Thanks for the info, Celebrim, it's been a long time since I saw the origins of 'fish' written out. As to taking offense, I recall reading that the first appearance of a Christmas tree in a church in New York received a great deal of negative reaction because of the paganism of the symbol. (I rather enjoy that the Saxons supposedly began bringing a fir tree into the hut to repel fleas and that developed into the decorated 'tree of life' of early celebrations of winter.)

Muslims as far as I know aren't totally dominated by the uptight mullahs who make a big show of outlawing silly things. And neither do I think Christianity is represented by those who stand their children outside abortion clinics holding signs with pictures of fetuses on them.

"As to taking offense, I recall reading that the first appearance of a Christmas tree in a church in New York received a great deal of negative reaction because of the paganism of the symbol."

Did the protesters suggest people should be killed?

Ruth, I think what you said is a great example of totally missing the point. 'Negative reaction' is no big deal. It's part of people's freedom of speach. People should be allowed to have negative reactions. Our society depends on it. But 'negative reaction' is only no big deal because we live in a tolerent society. What is very different between the negative reaction to 'Piss Christ' and say the recent cartoons in Denmark, is after 'Piss Christ' the 'artist' wasn't hiding in fear of violent retribution and gangs of Christian youths weren't rioting in New York or elsewhere.

It's a hard question, how to tame Islam, or help its members evolve. It probably will take centuries.
The French clearly need to state "this is France". If you want Sharia law then head elsewhere.
And then clamp down and restore order. Don't give in to the Mullahs there.
Piggy banks are just as OK as Darwin fishs.

Dr. Kamau Kambon is an affiliated faculty instructor at NC State University. He is calling upon his students and followers "to exterminate white people off the face of the planet". Charming.

I find it interesting that you seem to be less offended by Kambon than by the two white girls.

'Did the protesters suggest people should be killed?'

Excuse me, how many piggy bank owners have bitten the dust to date, may I ask? I don't see that picking out the worst examples of Islamic behavior is a good approach to problem solving - and does reflect the worst of the Islamic view of the west. Intolerance of 'them' never promoted tolerance, in my experience.

Also, you recall, the early Christians only adhered more strongly to Christianity because of the intolerance toward them.

(Those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.)

And as to "We're proud of being white, etc.", Ahriman, on the off chance that you're not just being quarelsome, they didn't choose to be born to white parents, and it certainly isn't something achieved by dint of any effort, so what is the basis for the pride in it?

Ruth has it right, but here is the poem:

Now the Star-Belly Sneetches had bellies with stars.
The Plain-Belly Sneetches had none upon thars.

Those stars weren't so big. They were really so small.
You might think such a thing wouldn't matter at all.

Within the first 10 seconds of the new show of the same name, viewers will be offered the following Molotov cocktail of social criticism: "Jesus is black, Ronald Reagan is the devil and the government is lying about 9/11."

This is not only funny, points to the huge gap between what "Christian conservatives" claim and how they act.
Think about it, when Christ returns she's returning as a handicapped black lesbian. And watch how thick, like rain, will the Roman darts fall upon her from all the "Christians" in America.

"I don't see that picking out the worst examples of Islamic behavior is a good approach to problem solving - and does reflect the worst of the Islamic view of the west. Intolerance of 'them' never promoted tolerance, in my experience."

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that we should ban Piggy Banks? Are you suggesting that by saying we shouldn't ban Piggy Banks that I'm being tolerant? Are you saying that pressuring governments to ban 'The Three Little Pigs' from public libraries is one of the worst examples of Islamic behavior? Are you saying that by even talking about this I'm being intolerant?

"This is not only funny, points to the huge gap between what "Christian conservatives" claim and how they act. Think about it, when Christ returns she's returning as a handicapped black lesbian. And watch how thick, like rain, will the Roman darts fall upon her from all the "Christians" in America."

Why should this fantasy you have created about hypothetical events be seen as illustrative of anything other than what you yourself think? Afterall, no actual Christians were involved in the creation of your fantasy narrative, so why should it be a deep insight into anyone's character but your own?

Weird piece about the Dutch spelling reform.

First it has absolutely nothing to do with the EU. One of the Dutch language union members (Surinam) isn´t even in the EU.
Secondly i don´t understand the reason why they changed the rule as you always write names of (fictional) persons with a capital letter and this would mean that they would make an exception in this case.

ps. After some googling i got the real change. If you talk about the person than it is with a capital letter but if you talk about a christ statue than you write it with a small letter.

"...ps. After some googling i got the real change. If you talk about the person than it is with a capital letter but if you talk about a christ statue than you write it with a small letter."

Hmmm... that is interesting. Perhaps it really is a quirk of the language. Still...

I don't know about Dutch, but in English the phrase 'Christ statue' means exactly the same as 'statue of Christ'. For example, 'Lincoln memorial' means exactly the same as 'memorial of Lincoln'. From what little Dutch I've heard, its very similar to English.

How does Dutch makes these constructs? Does Dutch use 'Christ' as a general adjective, so that 'christ ' can mean anything other than 'a of Christ'. For example, does Dutch have the adjective, 'Napoleonic', meaning 'of or pertaining to the period of Napoleonic'. Would a phrase like 'Napoleon statue' in Dutch be more properly translated into English as 'Napoleonic statue', and hense be written in Dutch under the new rule as 'napoleon statue'?

Googling the phrase 'Napoleonic' in just Dutch sites gets me places like this:

http://www.nanweb.org/index2.html

celebrim, your characterization of Muslims' reaction being different from 'our' reaction: 'the 'artist' wasn't hiding in fear of violent retribution and gangs of Christian youths weren't rioting in New York or elsewhere.'

My piggy bank is serenely confident, I confess, not in hiding. But as noted, if we see violence as the nature of everyone Islamic, then we are carrying out the radicals' view of us as prejudiced against all Islam.

"celebrim, your characterization of Muslims' reaction being different from 'our' reaction: 'the 'artist' wasn't hiding in fear of violent retribution and gangs of Christian youths weren't rioting in New York or elsewhere.'

The pronoun 'our' has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's only easier for me to pick out as examples things people have done to make Christians uncomfortable. I would be just as happy considering comparing Buddists and Muslims, or Sihks and Mulsims, or whomever if I could only think of an example of popular culture doing something intentionally offensive to Sihks or Buddists. In fact, I'd be more happy to do that, because you wouldn't get distracted by assumptions about 'our'.

"My piggy bank is serenely confident, I confess, not in hiding."

That is not an answer to the question.

"But as noted, if we see violence as the nature of everyone Islamic..."

Stop there. You have just made a huge and unwarranted leap, and anything further you say will be based on a strawman. Until not so long ago, when he moved out of state, one of my best friends was Egyptian. I do not recall ever thinking of him as violent, or thinking that of anyone in his (rather pious) family.

It is a huge leap from noting that at present, violent intolerent behavior seems unusually common in Moslim society and suggesting that all Moslims are violent and intolerent.

You would seem to be suggesting one of several things, and again I'm not sure exactly what you are suggesting. Which of the following (if any) do you actually agree with?

a) There are no problems with violence or intolerance in present Islamic culture, and any time I see these problems then I'm only revealing my prejugdices.
b) Even if there are problems with a culture of violence or intolerance in present Islamic culture, these problems are no worse than those of any other present cultures.
c) Even if there are problems with a culture of violence or intolerance in present Islamic culture, these are excusible based on the fact that there is violence or intolerance in our own culture past or present.
d) Even if a culture of violence or intolerance exists in present Islamic culture, it is inherently racist to pass any judgement on that culture.

In essense, all I have so far suggested is that there there is a quanitative difference in Islamic culture and every other widespread culture currently on the planet, and you have suggested that I'm therefore proposing an absolute qualitative difference. In fact, to be completely accurate, I'm only proposing this quantitative difference exists in the Arab derived Wahhabist Salafist culture, and I'm making no such judgment about Islam or even Arabs as a whole. I probably should use the phrase Wahhabist where I mean it, but most people don't understand it, and unfortunately, in my defense, the Wahhabists have been so successful at evangelizing and prostlytizing in the past few decades (using the proceeds from oil wealth) that its increasingly easy to mean 'the majority of Islam' when you use the term.

celebrim: You certainly have a promising future as a poll question writer, but None Of The Above. Glad you reassure me that you do not have the tendency to blanket a whole segment of the world's population as violent, it was the impression I had gotten from your posts on this topic. Which I am glad concerns you as much as it does me. And yes, Wahhabists probably would better define a particular element - to the extent any particular element can be characterized en masse.

I recall you had a bad time during the floods/Katrina, and hope your babies are doing well?

You can call a statue of Christ a christ in Dutch so you get: Don´t forget to dust the christ. Same is i assume true of buddha when your talking about a statue. Don´t have "Het groene boekje" so i can´t check it but i think i´m correct.

ps. Buddha and i believe christ are also titles (but rarely used as such) but in the case you use it as a title than you also write it with a small letter.

As of a little bit before 1800 PST, I'm not finding Kambon's name on the specified page. FWIW.

Nort

#15 Andreas:

I'm not seeing the connection between your post and the thread. Is there one?

Nort

"#15 Andreas:

I'm not seeing the connection between your post and the thread. Is there one?

Nort"

It's on topic. As best as I can tell he's trying to say that one of the items on the list under "Race and Culture" is not in fact hate but comedy.