Topic: Bishops blast Coptic Christians behind anti-Muslim film

[Kerdy]

Islamophonic?  Why is it everyone who holds any semblance of a conservative view or something not embraced by those who are so far put in left field they are in another stadium, is either a bigot, hater or has some sort of phobia?

I have finally watched the 13 min YouTube version of this.  It's stupid, no doubt, but nothing to cause the response it's received, which was preplanned anyway and blamed on this video.

[dzheremi]

Either Muslims are people just like the rest of us and don't actually have extra/more feelings compared to the rest of us (how many times have you heard some variation of "You can't understand; they/we care about our religion, unlike Christians"? I've heard it or read it at least half a dozen times so far in response to this latest idiocy), or they're something other than regular, functional human beings who decide how to react to provocations or insults (planned or not). As an Egyptian acquaintance put it: There were about 300 people at the initial protest in front of the embassy in Egypt. Egypt has a population of 80+ million. You think it's hard to find 300 violent morons out of a pool of 80+ million? And of course that's not the point, though it does put things into perspective a bit. If I were a Muslim, I would like to think I'd be more upset at the world reaction which sees my people essentially as one giant hive-mind with the temperament of a fussy baby than with some film that isn't even well made, and indeed might not even exist.  

And by the way, if Muslims as a group are going to be treated as though they are something other than functional adults who are able to be reasoned with, then I wish we (non-Muslims) could just go the full way and actually treat them differently in the law code, rather than the current situation wherein we're on one hand recognizing that they're crazy, and on the other unable to take the necessary precautions or make the necessary distinctions we need to actually be realistic about what we're facing in this world and how we're going to deal with it. Think about any other situation and ask yourself if this behavior is tolerable. Stupid, filthy hippies at the "Occupy" protests in my own city were subject to more restrictions with less apologies than we give to Muslims who tell us that they're being violent because their religion wants them to be. I mean...do we have to keep living in this fantasy land where we're all pretending that Hilary Clinton knows the first thing about Islam, so as to be able to judge it to be "great"? (Not a partisan comment; Bush Jr. did the whole "great religion hijacked by extremists" dance, too.)

The Muslims know what they want. We don't. So we pay, and they don't. This world is screwed. Saint Anthony was right.

[podkarpatska]

Is not one who knowingly creates an incitement to violence by others morally on an equal footing with one who goes out in response and pulls a trigger? If not one finds oneself on the slippery slope of MORAL RELATIVISM and situational ethics which all of us decry here regularly as the bane of our modern western world. Collateral damage and the ends justify the means? I will side with the Bishops of both our Coptic brothers and our own on this issue.

[Kerdy]

Is not one who knowingly creates an incitement to violence by others morally on an equal footing with one who goes out in response and pulls a trigger? If not one finds oneself on the slippery slope of MORAL RELATIVISM and situational ethics which all of us decry here regularly as the bane of our modern western world. Collateral damage and the ends justify the means? I will side with the Bishops of both our Coptic brothers and our own on this issue.

Do you have the capability to prove intent?  It's easy to show the intent of the ones doing the killing but I think you'll find it more difficult to prove the intent behind the movie unless the one who put it out there makes a statement explaining that intent. 

Let me change the situation within your explanation.  Wife knows if she says something to make husband angry he beats her.  She says it anyway so the beating is just as much her fault as his.  Does it still makes sense?  Not to me either.

[podkarpatska]

Is not one who knowingly creates an incitement to violence by others morally on an equal footing with one who goes out in response and pulls a trigger? If not one finds oneself on the slippery slope of MORAL RELATIVISM and situational ethics which all of us decry here regularly as the bane of our modern western world. Collateral damage and the ends justify the means? I will side with the Bishops of both our Coptic brothers and our own on this issue.

Do you have the capability to prove intent?  It's easy to show the intent of the ones doing the killing but I think you'll find it more difficult to prove the intent behind the movie unless the one who put it out there makes a statement explaining that intent.  

Let me change the situation within your explanation.  Wife knows if she says something to make husband angry he beats her.  She says it anyway so the beating is just as much her fault as his.  Does it still makes sense?  Not to me either.

Without knowing what the woman said and the context of where, how and when she said it I can't answer your hypothetical question. Was she trying to defend her children or was she taunting the man in a heated argument?

In our system of law, and correct me if I am wrong  (but I am not) in systemic moral theology as well -  while intent is generally a required element for proving guilt - one may infer intent when the outcome stemming from one's conscious actions results in an predictable sinful result. The makers of the film must share in the moral culpability of the result of their conscience decisions IF Their intent was to provoke the sinful response. Two wrongs do not make a right. (By the way, if their intent was pure and they didn't anticipate the sinful result of the rioters actions, then I suppose they have mental defect as a defense in the courts of law. In simple terms, they would be 'idiots' in that case and from the words cited by 'rakovsky' they knew darn well what they were doing. AS to the church - that is among them, their Father-confessors and God Himself.)

How does this always come down to a liberal/conservative divide in the minds of some folks? That sort of intellectual construct is as closed minded and simplistic as that of the mob.

[dzheremi]

Is not one who knowingly creates an incitement to violence by others morally on an equal footing with one who goes out in response and pulls a trigger?

I'm sorry for the crude example, but this sort of reasoning really reminds me of my days as a teenage leftist, and being shouted down in "meetings" for not going along with the idea that all men are guilty of rape because of "rape culture". No. There will always be a difference between those who choose violence and those who do not. A movie is not responsible for violence any more than a car is responsible for vehicular homicide, which I choose for this example because it is murder with the vehicle, not by the vehicle. The person is guilty. And in deplorable acts of violence, similarly, the person committing them is guilty. You always have a choice how you may react. That was the whole point of my post: Either Muslims are responsible for their actions because they are rational human beings possessing of the same feelings as the rest of us, or they aren't. And if they aren't, we should start treating them like they aren't and not letting them indulge in those things that trigger their uncontrollable rage and violence -- like life in the west, use of western technology, use of western freedoms like the right to assemble, etc. In the same way we don't let toddlers perform heart surgery, if Muslims are truly incapable of handling life in the modern world, where everyone doesn't necessarily like their religion, they ought not be a part of it. Go away, then. Bye.

[podkarpatska]

Is not one who knowingly creates an incitement to violence by others morally on an equal footing with one who goes out in response and pulls a trigger?

I'm sorry for the crude example, but this sort of reasoning really reminds me of my days as a teenage leftist, and being shouted down in "meetings" for not going along with the idea that all men are guilty of rape because of "rape culture". No. There will always be a difference between those who choose violence and those who do not. A movie is not responsible for violence any more than a car is responsible for vehicular homicide, which I choose for this example because it is murder with the vehicle, not by the vehicle. The person is guilty. And in deplorable acts of violence, similarly, the person committing them is guilty. You always have a choice how you may react. That was the whole point of my post: Either Muslims are responsible for their actions because they are rational human beings possessing of the same feelings as the rest of us, or they aren't. And if they aren't, we should start treating them like they aren't and not letting them indulge in those things that trigger their uncontrollable rage and violence -- like life in the west, use of western technology, use of western freedoms like the right to assemble, etc. In the same way we don't let toddlers perform heart surgery, if Muslims are truly incapable of handling life in the modern world, where everyone doesn't necessarily like their religion, they ought not be a part of it. Go away, then. Bye.

If they didn't have oil under much of their lands, we would have said 'bye' long ago! And history will judge the romanicized vision of western policy makers in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 in a far more dispassionate manner than we can do today. however....

But I am not arguing that the movie 'caused' the violence - just as a gun doesn't murder someone - the shooter does, the car didn't kill my brother many years ago - the drunk driver at the wheel did. We hold the shooter, the drunk driver morally and legally responsible for the consequences of their acts - why are the film makers somehow exempted? Their moral culpability is not equivalent to the rioters but they don't get off the hook either. Free speech is not a pass for incitement.....and it has never been absolute.

[dzheremi]

I hear ya, Podkarpatska, but the trouble is that we have one segment of the world which is incited by things that the rest of the world has learned to live with. Who's responsibility is it, then, when they react in a predictably violent and odious manner? It seems to me that saying "well, they're just LIKE that; everybody knows that, so the filmmaker should have thought better of it" is lessening their responsibility for their own actions. Yes, indeed, they are just like that, but that's no more an excuse or justification for the reaction than the filmmaker's "free speech" shield is for his own. Both 'sides' if you will have a responsibility to both act and react responsibly and neither did, BUT the action required to curb negative reaction, if you believe the likes of the Sunni leaders who are trying to reintroduce worldwide anti-blasphemy laws, is to criminalize all opposition to Islam with anti-defamation laws, which is much more than is necessary for one movie to be remade/not made (one has an effect on everybody's actions/freedom; the other an effect on one person's). I would hope that Christians would know which is the more insidious evil, in light of recent examples like the down's syndrome girl in Pakistan and historical examples whereby criticism of Islam lead to death (the Martyrs of Cordoba in the mythically idyllic 'al-Andalus', anyone?).

I can live in a world where not everybody abides by my religion, and they cannot. That's the reality of the situation, far away from who "caused" what. I should say that the blame should be placed on the feet of Muhammad for having started this terrible community in the first place, but that would likewise ignore the fact that most aren't rioting and killing.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Like on our Civil War thread, the issue is like slavery, and it will take both the West and Islamic powers to concede mutual culpability for us all to finally move forward.  The West has to stop perpetuating the provoking economic, political, and social policies which fuel this violence and these conflicts, and Islamic powers need to begin to move towards balance and away from violence.  Remember, the West for the past 30 years has depended on force of arms, violence, and political corruption to quell and control Islamic violence, and much like during the Vietnam War, this has only further provoked and antagonized the situation. Egypt and Yemen are good examples, and the situations we see of escalating violence and civil destabilizing reveals the the strong-arm policies which those countries had relied upon and which Western powers financially and militarily supported do not work.   We cant FORCE folks who disagree with us to negotiate totally by threat, that can often provoke the war further.  They have to learn its not worth the fight, but we equally have to better learn when and where to pick a fight, and when to just let bullies vent their hot  air.  The Islamic thugs are bullies, simply put the WANT us to fight them. They want their own governments to fight them.  They are radicals, militants, and gangsters.  However decades of fighting them has clearly demonstrated the lack of efficacy in this tit-for-tat and eye-for-an-eye approach.  Its an endless cat and mouse game however its not a game at all, its life and death for many people. 

So often  the analysis is over-simplified to being Islam vs everything else, when in reality it is more than religious sectarianism, it is politics, it is culture, it is economics, and is even logistics and geography!  Every Muslim doesn't want war, in fact Jihad in its initial connotations was a spiritual battle fought through prayer!  A minority of scumbags, war-criminals, and thugs have hijacked the narrative of Islamic relations with the rest of the world, and it is silly for us to empower them by believing and perpetuating their myths.  Islam is not necessarily about violence.  The violence we see occurring isn't really about Islam, just like the violence in Ireland isn't really just about Catholic-Protestants.  Saint Anthony was right, but because the world is what is requires us to be even MORE vigilant and guarding ourselves against spreading prejudice or sowing seeds of antagonism by how we speak and act in our communities.  This is the premise of the Coptic Bishops statements denouncing the film.  We ALL know the film is not the sole cause of the violence, and so as a community we need to work harder together to bridge the gaps, or else the war(s) carry on as ever. ALL wars either end in all out genocide or at the bargaining table.  So one way or the other, we all have to learn to negotiate better 

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Hiwot]

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,46976.msg807906.html#msg807906

because my comment is too much of politics I have moved it to the politics section.

[Kerdy]

Is not one who knowingly creates an incitement to violence by others morally on an equal footing with one who goes out in response and pulls a trigger? If not one finds oneself on the slippery slope of MORAL RELATIVISM and situational ethics which all of us decry here regularly as the bane of our modern western world. Collateral damage and the ends justify the means? I will side with the Bishops of both our Coptic brothers and our own on this issue.

Do you have the capability to prove intent?  It's easy to show the intent of the ones doing the killing but I think you'll find it more difficult to prove the intent behind the movie unless the one who put it out there makes a statement explaining that intent.  

Let me change the situation within your explanation.  Wife knows if she says something to make husband angry he beats her.  She says it anyway so the beating is just as much her fault as his.  Does it still makes sense?  Not to me either.

Without knowing what the woman said and the context of where, how and when she said it I can't answer your hypothetical question.

And here is where we find the rub.  It doesn't matter.  Just because she says something he doesnt like in no way justifies a beating.  Talking, unless a threat of legitimate violence is involved, never justifies a violent response.  According to you, your mother goes to work, disagrees with her boss, gets beaten into the ER and before you react you want to know why she made him angry by talking.  Illogical in every way.

In reference to your legal question, you seem to have forgotten the "beyond a reasonable doubt" portion.

[Kerdy]

If grown men are going to act like spoiled children they should expect to be treated like spoiled children and take their spanking, go stand in the corner and be quiet until they learn how to get along with others.

[Kerdy]

Is not one who knowingly creates an incitement to violence by others morally on an equal footing with one who goes out in response and pulls a trigger?

I'm sorry for the crude example, but this sort of reasoning really reminds me of my days as a teenage leftist, and being shouted down in "meetings" for not going along with the idea that all men are guilty of rape because of "rape culture". No. There will always be a difference between those who choose violence and those who do not. A movie is not responsible for violence any more than a car is responsible for vehicular homicide, which I choose for this example because it is murder with the vehicle, not by the vehicle. The person is guilty. And in deplorable acts of violence, similarly, the person committing them is guilty. You always have a choice how you may react. That was the whole point of my post: Either Muslims are responsible for their actions because they are rational human beings possessing of the same feelings as the rest of us, or they aren't. And if they aren't, we should start treating them like they aren't and not letting them indulge in those things that trigger their uncontrollable rage and violence -- like life in the west, use of western technology, use of western freedoms like the right to assemble, etc. In the same way we don't let toddlers perform heart surgery, if Muslims are truly incapable of handling life in the modern world, where everyone doesn't necessarily like their religion, they ought not be a part of it. Go away, then. Bye.

If they didn't have oil under much of their lands, we would have said 'bye' long ago! And history will judge the romanicized vision of western policy makers in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 in a far more dispassionate manner than we can do today. however....

But I am not arguing that the movie 'caused' the violence - just as a gun doesn't murder someone - the shooter does, the car didn't kill my brother many years ago - the drunk driver at the wheel did. We hold the shooter, the drunk driver morally and legally responsible for the consequences of their acts - why are the film makers somehow exempted? Their moral culpability is not equivalent to the rioters but they don't get off the hook either. Free speech is not a pass for incitement.....and it has never been absolute.

Because they didn't kill anyone, burn down a building or anything similar.  Look at the example you provided to understand the difference.  Movie maker is the same and the gun and car manufacturer.