Anyway, I can see how the pedophilia thing would matter.
4: To the extent that it's used as a justification for child marriage nowadays, sure it matters. But it's hardly discrediting to the religion as a whole.
I was thinking of how it would effect the Islamic idea of virtue. I'm not Muslim (surprise!), but I'm conjecturing that Muhammad is held as a paragon of virtue, of which he has an especially good idea of, what with having access to the godphone.
If i'm wrong and Islam actually condemns pedophilia, which I could believe, then this doesn't create a problem of Christianity and Islam having opposing moral viewpoints on this issue. It'd be weird to my Western mind, though.
Not following, Michael. Whatever happened didn't seem all that exceptional at the time, right? This suggests that it's in keeping with prevailing practices, and thus isn't some particular piece of perversion on the Prophet's part.
yyeeaaaaahhh alliteration!
What is wrong with the conservative student paper at Tufts? I mean, seriously. Are they liberal plants parodying conservative beliefs?
Also, if I had the time, I'd so do the same thing to Christianity that these folks did to Islam. It's not like it would be hard.
I once encountered a wingnut's wingnut on the Internet. Truly disturbed. A creepy little anti-Muslim bigot who was willing to believe any blood libel about Islam that crossed his path... except for the pedophilia thing. WW didn't disbelieve it, oh no; he thought it was good and healthy.
He also wrote Darkwing Duck fanfic. He lives in Oakland, Ogged.
SEK, I really think that conservative student activists sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that anything opposed by liberals, their administrations, whatever, is good, simply because their enemies don't like it. Not that this is unknown among the grownups.
The raising of the age of consent is something that happened in the last decade or two. Even in the US it was as low as 12 in very recent times. This coincided with sexual liberation. Sex thus came to be classified with alcohol -- bad for kids, wonderful for adults.
Aisha was Muhammed's child bride. Her age at the consummation of the marriage is reported as anywhere from 9 to 18. The fact that the age of 9 is accepted by believing Muslims does say something. Seemingly she was the favorite and most influential of Mohammed's wives.
Whatever happened didn't seem all that exceptional at the time, right? This suggests that it's in keeping with prevailing practices, and thus isn't some particular piece of perversion on the Prophet's part.
You're a disgusting realativist, that's what you are, sir.
5 -- are you thinking of "Puff, the Magic Dragon"?
Also, if I had the time, I'd so do the same thing to Christianity that these folks did to Islam. It's not like it would be hard.
Just search. This stuff is all over.
good spelling and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee, Mr. Smuggypants.
Anyway, I'm out for now so I'll just say what I'm thinking: to my Western, non-religious mind, it'd be weird for a founding religious figure to practice morals that were temporal. Not impossible, but very weird. My perception is that one of the whole points of religion is to set out, atemporally, right from wrong.
A realativist is someone who believes in the reality of moral values.
15: With himself as one of the characters, turned into talking animal form. A were- talking animal form: auk to wolf.
You'd peel back one layer of pathology, and there would be another, even more disturbing pathology underneath. It was as if someone grew an onion around a dog turd.
19: I don't know, man. Abraham kept slaves, Moses killed a guy... I admit I can't think of anything particularly bad that Jesus is said to have done, but I'm sure a society where, say, drinking alcohol is considered extremely immoral he would have to be excused on similar grounds. Religion in general may set out to distinguish right from wrong, but that doesn't mean that all revered religious figures must be irreproachably and atemporally moral.
With regard to Islam specifically, Qur'an 33:50 explicitly states (in a different context) that Muhammad is subject to different rules from those that govern the behavior of other Muslims.
Teo, this probably isn't what Michael meant, but when he wrote it'd be weird for a founding religious figure to practice morals that were temporal. … My perception is that one of the whole points of religion is to set out, atemporally, right from wrong.
, I immediately interpreted that as a sort of antinomianism: it would be weird, that is, for a founding religious figure to be bound by your merely temporal morals; what that figure does sets out right from wrong, regardless of what is held right at the time.
With regard to Islam specifically, Qur'an 33:50 explicitly states (in a different context) that Muhammad is subject to different rules from those that govern the behavior of other Muslims.
Well played Muhammad. When I fake a narration from God, I'm totally going to steal that move.
what that figure does sets out right from wrong
That might make sense from a Christian viewpoint, but it's certainly not universal. Not true in Judaism, for instance.
Actually there were two ideas confused in my comment, which should be ignored.
Doesn't Judaism number among its forefathers a pair of daughters who seduced their dad so they could have kids? Have you read any of the crazy mystical visions of the virgin saints?
Lesson: old religion? Probably has notable screwy bits. This is an excellent post, infidel.
pair of daughters who seduced their dad so they could have kids?
They got him drunk first, which just goes to show you that it's women who invented date rape.
SubhanAllah, but it's off-the-cuff obviousness.
<Wanting to establish a new religion, Punch-and-Judyism>
Given how angry, hateful, whacky, and activisty the Christian fundamentalists are in this country even with their full refrigerators, low unemployment, and total grip on power, how long does anybody think it would take viewers of the 700 club, and the students at Bob Jones University to strap on explosive belts if they lived in the circumstances prevalent in the mideast?
I give it a week for the rank and file. It'll only be a matter of hours for the anti-abortion nuts.
That's about the only answer necessary to things like the Tufts fracas.
I think 33 has it a little backwards. The whackiness of Christian fundamentalists in this country is a product of their comfort.
their comfort
i.e. "their lack of anything more pressing to worry about".
34 gets it right. I thought most of the ones doing the actual blowing themselves up were noteworthy not for whackily-strong religious beliefs but depression, being shamed by society, or otherwise no-hope or leaned upon.
Activism is a luxury good.
34, 36: Wait, how does that follow? Does the craziness of Western Christians come from comfort while the craziness of Middle East Muslims comes from something else?
It seems more parsimonious to think that both come from a perceived sense of powerlessness, entitlement, and oppression.
It's of course utterly silly that Western Christians feel this way, but isn't that exactly what we've been claiming they feel in terms of embracing the role of the oppressed victim?
Yes, the wackiness of Western Christians comes from their comfort. The wackiness of Eastern Muslims comes from the comfort of Western Christians.
No, suicide bombing doesn't come from the craziness of Middle Eastern Muslims. It's much more of a Palestinian nationalist thing.
It's much more of a Palestinian nationalist thing.
Pretty sure it ain't Palestinians doing it in Iraq.
I read a lot about car bombs and IEDs in Iraq, and about lots of sectarian strife which seems to be less motivated by theology than by "those sunni bastards ruled kept us down for far too long, and now they're gonna get what's coming to them" and "oh shit if we don't regain control we're all gonna get shot".
Maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe I should have said that it's not the muslim aspect of the craziness that leads to suicide bombing.
39:
Suicide bombing wasn't originally palestinian, I don't think. Early palestinian terrorists were regular homicide bombers: suicide bombing was a Hizbollah innovation, and Hamas bit their style. Crazy shia, must have something to with what-do-you call it, where ali and everyone got slaughtered at Najaf or karbala or some such.
I'm pretty sure suicide bombing was a Tamil Tiger innovation, but let me see if wikipedia has anything...
seems to be less motivated by theology than by "those sunni bastards ruled kept us down for far too long, and now they're gonna get what's coming to them" and "oh shit if we don't regain control we're all gonna get shot".
I think that's right.
I thought it was a Tamil Tiger innovation, too. But no one outside of India really cares about them; it took the Palestinians to really make it popular.
Hezbollah also brought attention with that attack on the Marines in '83.
Oh, true. Although I don't really class the barracks bombing together with the explosive belt stuff; I don't have a solid argument as to why not. It seems like the scale of the operation and its... effectiveness? make a qualitative difference. I guess it was also targeting a bunch of Marines, rather than some kids at a club.
Which is different than what some hypothetical BJU nutcase would be doing.
45: No one cares about Palestinians either. It took Israelis to make it popular, Palestinians are just the catalyst.
48:
Yeah, I see that. I would have been a lot less upset about 9/11 if they'd restricted themselves to the Pentagon like gentlemen. People look at me funny when I mention it, but its true. I've internalized international law, I suppose.
I don't even know that it's international law; part of being in the military is the risk of being unexpectedly and violently killed. It's sad and you hope it doesn't happen and you try to prevent it, but sometimes that's how it is.
Yeah, you're right. International laws shares a common origin with my sentiments but does not determine them.
Back to the OP, though, reading over the quoted sections I think I disagree w/ FL's original take:
My initial inclination is to say that while publishing this sort of thing is irritating and nasty . . . it's not the sort of thing that should be banned by harassment policies.
Harassment policy is not my chosen field. However, the ad in question denigrates a religious/ethnic group, and the catch-all manner in which it does so, without any stated goal, makes me very uneasy. Imagine an ad reading:
Jews
The Torah says that Jews can charge interest to Gentiles, but not to Jews. Are these the original racists?
Their "book" demands the execution of homosexuals and Wiccans. Can they be trusted in our society?
They say "slavery" can only last for six years...unless you're a Gentile!
And who is responsible for the gencodide of the Amalekites? That's right, Jews!
OK, the above is an exaggeration, but the basic enterprise is the same. Should that sort of thing be printed? I'd argue yes, given the editor and owners do not mind being thought of as anti-semites, or anti-whatevers. But academic institutions have both an interest and a duty to maintain a reputation as non-anti-whatevers and so I find Tufts' action appropriate.
I don't know, man. Abraham kept slaves, Moses killed a guy... I admit I can't think of anything particularly bad that Jesus is said to have done, but I'm sure a society where, say, drinking alcohol is considered extremely immoral he would have to be excused on similar grounds.
Slavery is indeed a tricky issue with respect to Christianity, but, IIRC, Abraham wasn't a lifelong prophet - didn't god only come to him late in life? Still, a thorny issue.
The others though, I don't think present a problem. In Moses's case, his anger was righteous - even though he went overboard. And, significantly, that was before he was introduced, at all, to the Jewish god, and before he got his godphone, so his actions at that time aren't supposed to be exemplary. When he finally does committ a sin after getting the godphone, he's smited because of it.
And in Jesus' case, the wine wasn't a choice but a necessity, or so I'm told. And he didn't get drunk, which is what is really problematic. So I'd think he's safely in the clear. But I want to say I'm trying to not draw a strong analogy b/w jesus and mohammad, as there's a significant difference b/w who they are in their respective religions (god/prophet).
"And he didn't get drunk" s/b "And it isn't documented in the sacred textx that he did get drunk". Well, it wouldn't be, would it? But let's give the guy the benefit of the doubt.
My understanding is that Jesus (Isa) is the second most authoratative prophet in Islam, which I doubt these kids have understood. It does rather alter the picture if you're a serious Xian. One Muslim group around here had a recruitment drive a couple years ago with the slogan: "We believe in Jesus too".
52 is pretty much what I was thinking, the ad really is remarkably shitty.
Eh, how would everyone feel about, rather than disciplining the student organization responsible, a statement from the same arm of the university saying "For prudential reasons, we don't define speech as harassment unless directed at a specific student or students. Nonetheless, we regard the ad in question as a juvenile and hostile distortion of the facts it pretends to raise, in violation of the ideals of civil intellectual discourse Tufts values. Tufts University apologizes to the students offended by the ad, and agrees that it is not reasonable intellectual argument. Further, Tufts apologizes to the students responsible for promulgating the ad for not having successfully taught them how to discuss ideas in a manner calculated to advance anyone's understanding, rather than uselessly inflaming irrational prejudice and hostility."
It's not so much that I think it's productive to censor the speech, but I do think it's productive for the university to make a public statement that, by our standards, this was a stupid, assholish thing to publish.
Also, according to the homemade Mother's Day card I just received, "agil as a cat, and smart as a rabbit."
agil as a cat, and smart as a rabbit."
This certainly is how all of us at SmallLaw who worked with you always thought of you.
smart as a rabbit
Is this a straightforward compliment?
Is this a straightforward compliment?
If you were as smart as a rabbit, apo, you would not have to ask this question.
As comments, go, I'd have to say that 60 is cat-agil.
The rabbit is though of as cunning and sinister by the Burushaski. LB would probably do well as a Burushaski lawyer.
60: Remember that I have devotedly smart-assed children. Last night, Keegan was on the phone with his mother while I was annoying him. Here's the side of the conversation I heard.
"Dad's being a dildo." [pause]
"Uhh, no." [pause]
"Well what does it mean, then?" [pause]
"Why won't you tell me?" [pause]
"Dad, Mom wants to talk to you."
I'm kind of hoping the rabbit she was thinking of was Bugs Bunny, which seems like a fair possibility.
But really, it's how I know I've raised them right -- in every interaction is the lurking possibility of subtle sarcasm. Without that, what fun is anything?
My last was crossed with Apo, who gets it.
And a very happy Mother's Day to all the folks here who qualify.
Abraham didn't only own slaves. He also pimped out his wife (Sarah, the good one, not that bitch Hagar) twice, using the old "she's not my wife, she's my sister" line, in genesis 12 and 20. Both times after he was chosen by God. The second time, Sarah was almost 90. Sarah's whoring to Pharaoh secured for Abraham the capital he needed to establish his own clan, of which I am currently a member.
dude, you're right! Abraham's an old perv.
But, both times teh lord himself intervened to say "this isn't right." So Abraham is morally smudged, but the line between right and wrong is preserved.
Doesn't all religious morality boil down to "you can do whatever you want, as long as you convince yourself and your tribe that it's okay by the deity"?
Also, the Tufts newspaper ad should have been done in the style of Back of the Bible.
LB, I'm pretty happy with that suggested Tufts response. (Better still if sometimes causes nearer the administration's heart got that kind of treatment too.)
63: Hilarious!
Yesterday, my 11YO asked me what a "harlot" was. My answer can't have been very satisfying.
Me, lying on the living room floor, surounded by family, age 11: Mom, what's a dildo?
Mom: ...
Me: Mom, what's a dildo?
Mom: What are you reading?
Me: This. (Holding up a copy of Bored of the Rings, the National Lampoon Tolkien parody.)
Mom: Why don't you just give me the book.
Rabbits are traditionally tricksters.
When my sister and I were around 8 or 10 or so, that National Lampoon thing must have come out, and some kids were telling us about it. We then ran around at the neighborhood pool yelling "Dildo Faggins! Dildo Faggins!" at the top of our lungs. My mom called us over, asked us if we knew what that meant, and explained.
We stopped doing it.