Skip to main content

What's the point of lampooning religion? To upset the religious?

Here is my latest blog post over at CFI: link.
 
In the wake of the horrific massacre at Charlie Hebdo, debate has focused on the issue of causing of offence to religious people. Is that the point of lampooning religion? Is causing offence to Muslims the aim of someone who draws a cartoon of Mohammad? No, usually it's not (though this point is usually lost on the offended).

Comments

martine said…
Thanks for that, not the first time you have managed to articulate so succinctly for me something that I felt intuitively.
L.Long said…
No the point is to wake up the others..which is worse!!

Sacranie said he ‘would not dare’ to insult a member of your close family with the intention of hurting your feelings. He added that if he did, ‘I would perhaps get a punch on my nose’.
What a load of BS!! His comment proves that the reactions of people are ignorant BS violence. There by saying isLame men are thin skinned Aholes!!!

I had this argument with an idiot a while back as he got all heated after I said that jesus was a bastard by his own rules, and he finally said, "and how would you like it is I called your mother a lying whore bitch!!!!"
NO I did not hit him in the nose--how utterly stupid!!!
I smiled and pointed out that you then have demonstrated to every intelligent person listening what an idiot you are. For one she is as truthful as any human, she has to work for her money, and she does not have a long tail and does not walk on all four limbs, so your intelligence is not very high!!!
The others listening laughed and he walked off.
Yes ridicule is how you handle the stupid and ignorant, but remember they are not smart enough to use words in combat so be prepared for violence.
But the isLame violence is not for the reason I show above as they recognize the ridicule for what it is (truth they cannot fight) and to keep their people from listening and to quiet others that threaten their political power (cuz they care about Mo just about as much as preachers care about jesus-meaning not at all) the 'insult to Mo/allah/karan' must be put down hard!!!
Faith is what one has about the belief of some invisible imaginary friend, religion is the gathering of like minded bigots for the exercise of power usually over others not like you.
= MJA said…
Western Philosophy: Never tease a rattlesnake unless you are trying to get bit. =

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Why I won't be voting Labour at the next General Election, not even to 'keep the Tories out'.

I have always voted Labour, and have often been a member of the Party, campaigning and canvassing for them. For what it’s worth, here’s my feeling about voting Labour next General Election:   1. When the left vote Labour after they move rightwards, they are encouraged to just move further right, to the point where they are now probably right of where e.g. John Major’s Tory party was. And each time the Tories go further right still. At some point we have got to stop fuelling this toxic drift to the right by making the Labour Party realise that it’s going to start costing them votes. I can’t think of anything politically more important than halting this increasingly frightening rightward slide. So I am no longer voting Labour. 2. If a new socialist party starts up, it could easily hoover up many of the 200k former LP members who have left in disgust (I’d join), and perhaps also pick up union affiliations. They could become the second biggest party by membership quite quickly. Our voting

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist