Ian McKellen's bible vandalism catches on - Page 6

Darat · 4th November 2009, 05:07 AM

Originally Posted by gtc

OK. But do you have any evidence that the people who attacked him were religious?

...snip...

Given the attack was in city centre Liverpool I would suspect the people involved are nominally Christian, but I would be very surprised if they were practising Christians.

Originally Posted by gtc

Attacks by Christians?

Happening in the UK so some are very likely to be carried out by Christians.

Originally Posted by gtc

You appear to be putting words in my mouth. I have never said that I think people should be quiet about that and I have never said that they shouldn't object to the presence of a Gideon Bible in their room.
...snip...

Glad to hear that.

Originally Posted by gtc

His actions will needlessly annoy those Christians who do not have problems with gay people

As I've asked the others who have made these claim - any evidence to support these claims?

Originally Posted by gtc

and does not appear to actually work to improve anyone's opinions of gay people.

And who has decided that is the goal of his actions? From what I've read he's never claimed his action is meant to result in that.

Originally Posted by gtc

Being needlessly confrontational is counterproductive.

And who decides if someone is being "needlessly confrontational"? Apparently you hold that wanting to take an action that removes text that promotes your killing is "needlessly confrontational" even when it does not involve censorship or damaging of anyone else's property.

I do not think such actions are "needlessly confrontational".

Hux · 4th November 2009, 05:13 AM

I doubt even the most rabid christian would attack a Gay person in this country - solely because they are christian. They are christian in the sense that I am christened but thats it. They are actually just mindless thugs who 'hate' gays without necessarily knowing why. Possibly in the blanket way they would beat up Gypsies, the mentally ill, Jews yadda yadda.

Liverpool has a very high Catholic population. But these Scousers will beat you up just because of the colour of the shirt you wear so I dont think they have worked out the nuances of human sexuality. Its just 'them' or 'us'. Put a scouser in an enmpty room and he'll end up arguing. That's just the way it is.

fuelair · 4th November 2009, 05:27 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Neither does the Bible. Now, back on topic...

Defacing someone else's property is unacceptable.
I also find book burnings to be repugnant, even when you own the books you're burning.
Needless to say, defacing someone else's books is unacceptable, uncivilized, and repugnant.

And, whose books are these - the hotel, motel did not buy them, the gidiots put them there with no intention of reclaiming them, therefore, no one owns them they are, at most, discarded property. I will grant the gidiots may have put them where they did intending they be read for the gidiot's purposes but they are still discarded property. You may argue the effects regardless of it's not being a case of destroying/damaging someone else's property, but it is not destruction of of someone else's property.

NOTE: Absent evidence, the only bibbles, that I know of, placed in hotel rooms are placed by the gidiots.

gtc · 4th November 2009, 05:28 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Given the attack was in city centre Liverpool I would suspect the people involved are nominally Christian, but I would be very surprised if they were practising Christians.

Happening in the UK so some are very likely to be carried out by Christians.

What proportion of teenagers in Liverpool are even nominally Christian? I would be surprised if any of them had read Leviticus, let alone been motivated by it.

Originally Posted by Darat

As I've asked the others who have made these claim - any evidence to support these claims?

Yes. This is from a Glasgow art exhibition.

Daily Mail, The Times, A blog about the incident.

Many Christians are offended by the desecration of the Bible. I have asked a few.

Originally Posted by Darat

And who has decided that is the goal of his actions? From what I've read he's never claimed his action is meant to result in that.

So? It doesn't mean that the statement is not true.

Originally Posted by Darat

And who decides if someone is being "needlessly confrontational"?

That is my opinion. I have the right to that opinion just as you have the right to the opinion that it is not needlessly confrontational.

Originally Posted by Darat

Apparently you hold that wanting to take an action that removes text that promotes your killing is "needlessly confrontational" even when it does not involve censorship or damaging of anyone else's property.

Yes I do. For the reasons I wrote - needlessly annoy without swaying anyone's opinion.

Originally Posted by Darat

I do not think such actions are "needlessly confrontational".

I gathered.

fuelair · 4th November 2009, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Neither does the Bible. Now, back on topic...

.

You are correct - it actually lists a lot of groups that way - though, of course, you are using semantics to make your statement technically accurate (the bibble doesn't specifically use the phrases "less than human"/sub-human).

Darat · 4th November 2009, 05:45 AM

Originally Posted by gtc

What proportion of teenagers in Liverpool are even nominally Christian? I would be surprised if any of them had read Leviticus, let alone been motivated by it.

...snip...

At the last census over half the UK population self-identified as Christian. (ETA: That is across the country, Liverpool is in one of the areas of the UK that has the highest proportion of people who self-identify as Christian.)

ETA: "The Christian Research Association of the UK estimates that at the present time just over half the children born in the UK are baptised in a church."

Originally Posted by gtc

Yes. This is from a Glasgow art exhibition.

Daily Mail, The Times, A blog about the incident.

Many Christians are offended by the desecration of the Bible. I have asked a few.

You stated "His actions will needlessly annoy those Christians who do not have problems with gay people" - that is what I am asking for evidence to support.

Originally Posted by gtc

So? It doesn't mean that the statement is not true.

So you have no evidence that his goal is to ".. work to improve anyone's opinions of gay people...."?

Belz... · 4th November 2009, 05:57 AM

Originally Posted by gtc

tyr_13,

They are donated. I doubt it costs them anything other than to drop them into the rooms.

Free property is still property.

gtc · 4th November 2009, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

At the last census over half the UK population self-identified as Christian.
ETA: "The Christian Research Association of the UK estimates that at the present time just over half the children born in the UK are baptised in a church."

So there is more than a fifty per cent change that that they would self-identify as Christian but that is not evidence that this attack was religiously motivated.

Originally Posted by Darat

You stated "His actions will needlessly annoy those Christians who do not have problems with gay people" - that is what I am asking for evidence to support.

And you have been provided with that if you follow the link. Desecration of the Bible does annoy Christians. Have you asked any Christians what they think about tearing pages out of a Bible? I can assure you that I have.

Originally Posted by Darat

So you have no evidence that his goal is to ".. work to improve anyone's opinions of gay people...."?

Of course not. But I never claimed that it was his goal and whether it is his goal or not is irrelevant to what I wrote.

Darat · 4th November 2009, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by gtc

Do you have those statistics by age group? The odds suggest that they would self-identify as Christian but that is not evidence that this attack was religiously motivated.

...snip...

Sorry no - I don't think that census data is available, and note I'm not and have not claimed that the attack was directly religiously motivated.

Originally Posted by gtc

And you have been provided with that if you follow the link. Desecration of the Bible does annoy Christians. Have you asked any Christians what they think about tearing pages out of a Bible? I can assure you that I have.

...snip...

Again that is not quite what I am asking you to support which was "His actions will needlessly annoy those Christians who do not have problems with gay people".

Is this claim actually just your opinion?

gtc · 4th November 2009, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Sorry no - I don't think that census data is available, and note I'm not and have not claimed that the attack was directly religiously motivated.

Right. There is also the problem that the Church of England, in England, is one of the most tolerant churches. I would also be surprised if that many of them see Leviticus as being particularly relevant.

Originally Posted by Darat

Again that is not quite what I am asking you to support which was "His actions will needlessly annoy those Christians who do not have problems with gay people".

Those links show Christians being angered by the desecration of the Bible. I can't provide evidence of the attitudes of those annoyed Christians were to homosexuality but the fact that they were angered by the desecration seems relevant to me.

Is this claim actually just your opinion?[/quote]

It is my opinion based on those articles I linked to and discussions with a Christian about this topic.

blobru · 4th November 2009, 08:13 AM

The tub-thumping irony in all this meshugenah:

Isn't Moses, the author (they say) of the same Leviticus that Sir Ian is desecrating (by ripping out the page calling for his death), celebrated for one of the most dramatic acts of literary vandalism and desecration in all mythology: the shattering of the 10 commandments?

Okay, technically Moses is miffed at those who don't follow His law, while Sir Ian is ticked at those who do (or might); still, given the parallels and precedent:

Shouldn't Christians be celebrating the righteous ire of Sir Ian? After all, he's only imitating, albeit in very small measure -- hard to square the worth of the original decalogue with a free hotel bible -- one of their very own superheroes.

six7s · 4th November 2009, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

A Gideon bible is - they want you to have "God's word".

Not a god sword

six7s · 4th November 2009, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by blobru

Nominated

Marduk · 4th November 2009, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by Hux

I doubt even the most rabid christian would attack a Gay person in this country

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/9853

Quote:

A conservative pressure group within the Church of England has attacked a Christian arts and music festival for allowing gay groups and their supporters to appear and speak alongside others, calling its speaker programme "deeply discriminatory".

seems the organisations do though, are they trying to lead by example ?

applecorped · 4th November 2009, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

A Gideon bible is - they want you to have "God's word".

I wonder if Rocky Raccoon ripped the pages out as well?

Darat · 4th November 2009, 10:43 AM

??

six7s · 4th November 2009, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Marduk

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/9853

Quote:

A conservative pressure group within the Church of England has attacked a Christian arts and music festival for allowing gay groups and their supporters to appear and speak alongside others, calling its speaker programme "deeply discriminatory".

seems the organisations do though, are they trying to lead by example ?

Unlike an islamic jihad, an attack from within the ranks of the C of E will rarely if ever amount to anything more traumatic than lashings of cake

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Eddie Izzard - Cake or Death

six7s · 4th November 2009, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by applecorped

I wonder if Rocky Raccoon ripped the pages out as well?

Originally Posted by Darat

??

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

applecorped · 4th November 2009, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by six7s

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Beetles?

six7s · 4th November 2009, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by applecorped

Beetles?

Ya pay peanuts... ya get monkees...

MattusMaximus · 4th November 2009, 06:41 PM

I don't know whether or not anyone considers this "vandalism", but every chance I get when staying in a hotel, I stick one of these into the front of the Bible in the room...

gtc · 4th November 2009, 09:12 PM

No. That is quite different to vandalism.

MikeSun5 · 4th November 2009, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by gtc

His actions will needlessly annoy those Christians who do not have problems with gay people and does not appear to actually work to improve anyone's opinions of gay people. Being needlessly confrontational is counterproductive.

I'm sure if you were openly gay and subject to discrimination, you'd have a way different opinion.

Originally Posted by gtc

No. That is quite different to vandalism.

Except there wasn't any vandalism. The guy paid for a room, ripped out some pages of his free Bible, and left it in the room. If there is supposed to be a fresh Bible for each customer, then it'd be the responsibility of Gideons in conjunction with the hotel to check for missing pages after each customer, right? I mean, they make sure you have enough of the regular toilet paper, don't they?

Would it have been an issue if Sir Ian had taken out passages of the Bible to say, put in his wallet? What if he didn't throw them out, but kept them to read? Would there still be an uproar?

It seems to me that the issue here is not the actual missing pages, but that Sir Ian wanted to rustle a few (what he perceives as) anti-gay feathers. It's a clever strawman when you think about it: make a statement about defacing a holy book knowing it'll piss off Christians, and then when they're mad, accuse them of hating gays because the pages you ripped out are predjudiced.

gtc · 4th November 2009, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

I'm sure if you were openly gay and subject to discrimination, you'd have a way different opinion.

And I'm sure you are wrong. Would you say it was productive and not too confrontational if he had been talking about the Koran (assuming you are not Muslim).

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

Except there wasn't any vandalism. The guy paid for a room, ripped out some pages of his free Bible, and left it in the room. If there is supposed to be a fresh Bible for each customer, then it'd be the responsibility of Gideons in conjunction with the hotel to check for missing pages after each customer, right? I mean, they make sure you have enough of the regular toilet paper, don't they?

As I said, it was needlessly confrontational and counterproductive.

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

Would it have been an issue if Sir Ian had taken out passages of the Bible to say, put in his wallet? What if he didn't throw them out, but kept them to read? Would there still be an uproar?

I don't think that would be seen as confrontational or counterproductive.

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

It seems to me that the issue here is not the actual missing pages, but that Sir Ian wanted to rustle a few (what he perceives as) anti-gay feathers. It's a clever strawman when you think about it: make a statement about defacing a holy book knowing it'll piss off Christians, and then when they're mad, accuse them of hating gays because the pages you ripped out are predjudiced.

I think you are right. From the article in the OP:

Quote:

"I got delivered a package of 40 of those pages... that had been torn out by a married couple I know. They put them on a bit of string so that I could hang it up in the bathroom."

He doesn't appear to have been phased by this issue enough to reject the millions he made from appearing in the LOTR saga (written by somebody who was staunchly against homosexuality based on his Christian beliefs) and he doesn't appear to want to desecrate the Koran either (which might get him killed).

MikeSun5 · 4th November 2009, 10:34 PM

Originally Posted by gtc

Would you say it was productive and not too confrontational if he had been talking about the Koran (assuming you are not Muslim).

I never said it was productive, but if someone left a Koran in his hotel room and he ripped it up and left it there, I don't see the problem with that either. If I'm in a hotel room and I see a pamphlet adorned with Rebel flags and swastikas, I'd throw it out and/or rip it up. Would I get on the news and pick a fight with the Klan members of the town afterward? Probably not, but confrontation being "needless" is in the eye of the confronter, isn't it?

Quote:

As I said, it was needlessly confrontational and counterproductive.

Yep, I read that. And I said if you were gay, you'd probably think otherwise.

Quote:

...he doesn't appear to want to desecrate the Koran either (which might get him killed).

Last I checked, being gay can get you killed as well...

gtc · 4th November 2009, 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

I never said it was productive,

I wasn't sure which part of my statement you thought I would disagree with, were I gay.

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

but if someone left a Koran in his hotel room and he ripped it up and left it there, I don't see the problem with that either. If I'm in a hotel room and I see a pamphlet adorned with Rebel flags and swastikas, I'd throw it out and/or rip it up.

OK. I don't think you are being inconsistent.

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

Would I get on the news and pick a fight with the Klan members of the town afterward? Probably not,

Out of interest, why not? Is it because you don't want to rustle feathers as you put it?

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

but confrontation being "needless" is in the eye of the confronter, isn't it?

I don't disagree with this.

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

Yep, I read that. And I said if you were gay, you'd probably think otherwise.

Believe it or not, I do know some gay Christians and some conservative Christians.

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

Last I checked, being gay can get you killed as well...

Yep. One of the reasons I raised it.

I think we are in agreement about why he did it.

Robin · 4th November 2009, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I wouldn't say that, no.
But certainly no such circumstance has arisen thus far in this thread.
Tearing out pages from someone else's book because you dislike the message, is not appropriate behavior for an adult.

So instead of a blanket its wrong to damage other people's property the question is in what circumstances might it be justified to damage other people's property.

We can probably agree that neither tearing pages of somebody's book, nor incitement to bigotry and hatred are appropriate behaviour for adults in the normal circumstances.

Is the latter acceptable because the book in question is old and well regarded? Maybe.

Could the former be acceptable as a protest against the incitement of hatred? I think maybe too. Not that I have ever done it or would do so.

Whiplash · 5th November 2009, 02:14 AM

Originally Posted by blobru

The tub-thumping irony in all this meshugenah:

Isn't Moses, the author (they say) of the same Leviticus that Sir Ian is desecrating (by ripping out the page calling for his death), celebrated for one of the most dramatic acts of literary vandalism and desecration in all mythology: the shattering of the 10 commandments?

Okay, technically Moses is miffed at those who don't follow His law, while Sir Ian is ticked at those who do (or might); still, given the parallels and precedent:

Shouldn't Christians be celebrating the righteous ire of Sir Ian? After all, he's only imitating, albeit in very small measure -- hard to square the worth of the original decalogue with a free hotel bible -- one of their very own superheroes.

Wow, that's quite a stretch, to equate one man being angry with people for not following the laws, and breaking the commandments in an act of anger, and another who is vandalizing books because he doesn't agree with the laws that are listed in it.

No, he's not imitating anything, evenin "small measure". Apples and oranges. I like that you tried to address that they were different, but very weakly, and then proceed to move forward like it was all fairly covered. Ya, "technically".... These things are not even remotely comparable. One is an act of vandalism caused by disagreement with content.. the other is a man who angrily responded, and wrongly, to the actions of people, and it had nothing to do with the content of the commandments themselves, or him protesting them, or anything like it.

I may be making too much of what you said, I thought you were probably joking, but when people start nominating things I find to be silly or nonsensical, I have a tendency to want to comment on how wrong I thought they were. It really confuses me.. to wonder if the bar is just too low, or if people just don't think. This is one of those "someone nominated that?" moments that I find myself having all too often.

MikeSun5 · 5th November 2009, 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by gtc

I wasn't sure which part of my statement you thought I would disagree with, were I gay.

I was really only pointing out that just because you think it's counterproductive or needlessly confrontational, that doesn't mean it is. What if this controversy somehow resulted in Gideons not putting Bibles in hotels any more? The JREF would throw a damn ticker-tape parade.

Quote:

Out of interest, why not? Is it because you don't want to rustle feathers as you put it?

Me personally, yes. But then again, I've never been the victim of hatred at the hands of that group. Of course, that doesn't mean I disagree with the sentiment of calling them out. Anything anti-hate is pro-good. And I'm pro-pro-good.

Quote:

I think we are in agreement about why he did it.

Oh, most definitely. If he had ripped the pages out as some sort of personal vendetta to make himself feel better, that'd be one thing - but he intentionally made it public to try and start something. While bragging about ripping out Bible pages is not the best way to get attention or help his cause, I still think it's ridiculous that the act itself keeps being referred to as vandalism.

Removing passages or writing in the "Notes" section of a hotel Gideon's Bible is no more vandalism than filling out the hotel's "Tell Us How We Did" questionnaire or drinking their coffee. The Bible is there for you to use like the little plastic-wrapped cups by the sink.

The only problem here is Sir Ian bragged to the religious about defacing a holy book. He's an instigator, not a vandal.

gtc · 5th November 2009, 04:06 AM

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

I was really only pointing out that just because you think it's counterproductive or needlessly confrontational, that doesn't mean it is. What if this controversy somehow resulted in Gideons not putting Bibles in hotels any more? The JREF would throw a damn ticker-tape parade.

I know that it is my opinion and I accept I may be wrong. That said, I don't think the Gideons are going to stop putting Bibles in hotels.

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

Me personally, yes. But then again, I've never been the victim of hatred at the hands of that group. Of course, that doesn't mean I disagree with the sentiment of calling them out. Anything anti-hate is pro-good. And I'm pro-pro-good.

I appreciate that. I think the problem is that while Christians don't generally support that passage of the Bible; they also value the Bible itself. His actions seem antagonistic towards these Christians and his statements appear to be attacking Christians in general.

Here are some statistics.

We have seen that over half of Brits identify as Christian. 80% [this is an interesting document] of Christians in Britain see the Bible as being divinely inspired but only a third see it as being free from error. Attitudes towards the Bible are not as uniform as some people assume and we can't assume that Christians actually support the sentiment in that passage.

This is borne out by the fact that less than half of Brits support the death penalty at all and less than 10% support the death penalty for serious sexual abuse of an adult (I think that gives us the absolute upper limit on the proportion of the population who support the death penalty for homosexual sex as those who want to kill gays would presumably class homosexual sex as serious sexual abuse). Only 15% of Brits seem to think that Britain should be less accepting of homosexuality and, when the survey was done, a bare majority of Brits supported gay marriage.

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

Oh, most definitely. If he had ripped the pages out as some sort of personal vendetta to make himself feel better, that'd be one thing - but he intentionally made it public to try and start something. While bragging about ripping out Bible pages is not the best way to get attention or help his cause, I still think it's ridiculous that the act itself keeps being referred to as vandalism.

It seems like bragging about defacing a political sign or some such. I can see why you don't see it as vandalim. I see it as defacing a Christian symbol to annoy people.

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

Removing passages or writing in the "Notes" section of a hotel Gideon's Bible is no more vandalism than filling out the hotel's "Tell Us How We Did" questionnaire or drinking their coffee. The Bible is there for you to use like the little plastic-wrapped cups by the sink.

Writing dirty messages and putting it back so that a Christian might see it and be offended by it seems morally equivalent to vandalism to me. But that is a different story.

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

The only problem here is Sir Ian bragged to the religious about defacing a holy book. He's an instigator, not a vandal.

I agree.

blobru · 6th November 2009, 12:45 AM

Originally Posted by Whiplash

Originally Posted by blobru

The tub-thumping irony in all this meshugenah:

Isn't Moses, the author (they say) of the same Leviticus that Sir Ian is desecrating (by ripping out the page calling for his death), celebrated for one of the most dramatic acts of literary vandalism and desecration in all mythology: the shattering of the 10 commandments?

Okay, technically Moses is miffed at those who don't follow His law, while Sir Ian is ticked at those who do (or might); still, given the parallels and precedent:

Shouldn't Christians be celebrating the righteous ire of Sir Ian? After all, he's only imitating, albeit in very small measure -- hard to square the worth of the original decalogue with a free hotel bible -- one of their very own superheroes.

Wow, that's quite a stretch, to equate one man being angry with people for not following the laws, and breaking the commandments in an act of anger, and another who is vandalizing books because he doesn't agree with the laws that are listed in it.

Always a stretch, for me at least, to derive any sort of cogent morality from the words and actions of people who may or may not have lived thousands of years ago; however, that's the method of literalist Christians, many of whom are angered by Sir Ian's actions, so I must adopt it for the purposes of the reductio ad absurdum.

Quote:

No, he's not imitating anything, evenin "small measure". Apples and oranges.

Both fruit let's note, which gets to the core of the controversy.

Quote:

I like that you tried to address that they were different, but very weakly, and then proceed to move forward like it was all fairly covered.

Thanks. You do what you can, you know...

Quote:

Ya, "technically".... These things are not even remotely comparable.

D-oh!

Quote:

One is an act of vandalism caused by disagreement with content..

Yes, very serious disagreement: he's angry enough with those who would follow it to tear out the disagreeable content.

Quote:

the other is a man who angrily responded, and wrongly, to the actions of people, and it had nothing to do with the content of the commandments themselves, or him protesting them, or anything like it.

He was certainly angry with the actions of people, angry because they were dancing around a statue of a golden calf and calling it god. This has quite a lot to do with the content of commandments themselves, to wit: #1 ...You shall have no other gods before me; #2 You shall not make for yourself an idol [Protestant tradition, in others these are numbered differently]. His display of anger protests those who are not following those two commandments, quite a serious protest, it turns out: he has three thousand of the revellers put to the sword.

As to Moses' action being 'wrong', I see no evidence for that in Exodus. God, whom he speaks with the next day, does not sanction him for it; He merely replaces the tablets (as the Gideons will replace the bibles, if requested). I'd say it's best characterized as a display of "righteous anger".

Quote:

I may be making too much of what you said, I thought you were probably joking, but when people start nominating things I find to be silly or nonsensical, I have a tendency to want to comment on how wrong I thought they were.

Hey -- that's what a skeptic does, right?

Quote:

It really confuses me.. to wonder if the bar is just too low, or if people just don't think. This is one of those "someone nominated that?" moments that I find myself having all too often.

six7s only nominated the bubble comment, I think. I didn't think the rest -- a straightforward reductio on the pitfalls of morality from authority (and/or a bad joke) -- deserved a nomination, either.

4th November 2009, 05:07 AM	#201
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 45,901	Originally Posted by gtc OK. But do you have any evidence that the people who attacked him were religious? ...snip... Given the attack was in city centre Liverpool I would suspect the people involved are nominally Christian, but I would be very surprised if they were practising Christians. Originally Posted by gtc Attacks by Christians? Happening in the UK so some are very likely to be carried out by Christians. Originally Posted by gtc You appear to be putting words in my mouth. I have never said that I think people should be quiet about that and I have never said that they shouldn't object to the presence of a Gideon Bible in their room. ...snip... Glad to hear that. Originally Posted by gtc His actions will needlessly annoy those Christians who do not have problems with gay people As I've asked the others who have made these claim - any evidence to support these claims? Originally Posted by gtc and does not appear to actually work to improve anyone's opinions of gay people. And who has decided that is the goal of his actions? From what I've read he's never claimed his action is meant to result in that. Originally Posted by gtc Being needlessly confrontational is counterproductive. And who decides if someone is being "needlessly confrontational"? Apparently you hold that wanting to take an action that removes text that promotes your killing is "needlessly confrontational" even when it does not involve censorship or damaging of anyone else's property. I do not think such actions are "needlessly confrontational".
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

4th November 2009, 05:13 AM	#202
Hux Muse Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 749	I doubt even the most rabid christian would attack a Gay person in this country - solely because they are christian. They are christian in the sense that I am christened but thats it. They are actually just mindless thugs who 'hate' gays without necessarily knowing why. Possibly in the blanket way they would beat up Gypsies, the mentally ill, Jews yadda yadda. Liverpool has a very high Catholic population. But these Scousers will beat you up just because of the colour of the shirt you wear so I dont think they have worked out the nuances of human sexuality. Its just 'them' or 'us'. Put a scouser in an enmpty room and he'll end up arguing. That's just the way it is.
Hux Muse Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 749

4th November 2009, 05:27 AM	#203
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 15,911	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Neither does the Bible. Now, back on topic... Defacing someone else's property is unacceptable. I also find book burnings to be repugnant, even when you own the books you're burning. Needless to say, defacing someone else's books is unacceptable, uncivilized, and repugnant. And, whose books are these - the hotel, motel did not buy them, the gidiots put them there with no intention of reclaiming them, therefore, no one owns them they are, at most, discarded property. I will grant the gidiots may have put them where they did intending they be read for the gidiot's purposes but they are still discarded property. You may argue the effects regardless of it's not being a case of destroying/damaging someone else's property, but it is not destruction of of someone else's property. NOTE: Absent evidence, the only bibbles, that I know of, placed in hotel rooms are placed by the gidiots.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 15,911	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space!

4th November 2009, 05:28 AM	#204
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 6,801	Originally Posted by Darat Given the attack was in city centre Liverpool I would suspect the people involved are nominally Christian, but I would be very surprised if they were practising Christians. Happening in the UK so some are very likely to be carried out by Christians. What proportion of teenagers in Liverpool are even nominally Christian? I would be surprised if any of them had read Leviticus, let alone been motivated by it. Originally Posted by Darat As I've asked the others who have made these claim - any evidence to support these claims? Yes. This is from a Glasgow art exhibition. Daily Mail, The Times, A blog about the incident. Many Christians are offended by the desecration of the Bible. I have asked a few. Originally Posted by Darat And who has decided that is the goal of his actions? From what I've read he's never claimed his action is meant to result in that. So? It doesn't mean that the statement is not true. Originally Posted by Darat And who decides if someone is being "needlessly confrontational"? That is my opinion. I have the right to that opinion just as you have the right to the opinion that it is not needlessly confrontational. Originally Posted by Darat Apparently you hold that wanting to take an action that removes text that promotes your killing is "needlessly confrontational" even when it does not involve censorship or damaging of anyone else's property. Yes I do. For the reasons I wrote - needlessly annoy without swaying anyone's opinion. Originally Posted by Darat I do not think such actions are "needlessly confrontational". I gathered.
	__________________ Last edited by gtc; 4th November 2009 at 05:30 AM.

4th November 2009, 05:32 AM	#205
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 15,911	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Neither does the Bible. Now, back on topic... . You are correct - it actually lists a lot of groups that way - though, of course, you are using semantics to make your statement technically accurate (the bibble doesn't specifically use the phrases "less than human"/sub-human).
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 15,911	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space!

4th November 2009, 05:45 AM	#206
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 45,901	Originally Posted by gtc What proportion of teenagers in Liverpool are even nominally Christian? I would be surprised if any of them had read Leviticus, let alone been motivated by it. ...snip... At the last census over half the UK population self-identified as Christian. (ETA: That is across the country, Liverpool is in one of the areas of the UK that has the highest proportion of people who self-identify as Christian.) ETA: "The Christian Research Association of the UK estimates that at the present time just over half the children born in the UK are baptised in a church." Originally Posted by gtc Yes. This is from a Glasgow art exhibition. Daily Mail, The Times, A blog about the incident. Many Christians are offended by the desecration of the Bible. I have asked a few. You stated "His actions will needlessly annoy those Christians who do not have problems with gay people" - that is what I am asking for evidence to support. Originally Posted by gtc So? It doesn't mean that the statement is not true. So you have no evidence that his goal is to ".. work to improve anyone's opinions of gay people...."?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008 Last edited by Darat; 4th November 2009 at 05:53 AM.

4th November 2009, 05:57 AM	#207
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a multiverse of my own creation Posts: 15,537	Originally Posted by gtc tyr_13, They are donated. I doubt it costs them anything other than to drop them into the rooms. Free property is still property.
	__________________ - "To kill and be king, is that all?" - "Perhaps not even that." -- Uther and Merlin, Excalibur Current avatar from Jaestudio.com

4th November 2009, 05:59 AM	#208
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 6,801	Originally Posted by Darat At the last census over half the UK population self-identified as Christian. ETA: "The Christian Research Association of the UK estimates that at the present time just over half the children born in the UK are baptised in a church." So there is more than a fifty per cent change that that they would self-identify as Christian but that is not evidence that this attack was religiously motivated. Originally Posted by Darat You stated "His actions will needlessly annoy those Christians who do not have problems with gay people" - that is what I am asking for evidence to support. And you have been provided with that if you follow the link. Desecration of the Bible does annoy Christians. Have you asked any Christians what they think about tearing pages out of a Bible? I can assure you that I have. Originally Posted by Darat So you have no evidence that his goal is to ".. work to improve anyone's opinions of gay people...."? Of course not. But I never claimed that it was his goal and whether it is his goal or not is irrelevant to what I wrote.
	__________________ Last edited by gtc; 4th November 2009 at 06:00 AM.

4th November 2009, 06:06 AM	#209
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 45,901	Originally Posted by gtc Do you have those statistics by age group? The odds suggest that they would self-identify as Christian but that is not evidence that this attack was religiously motivated. ...snip... Sorry no - I don't think that census data is available, and note I'm not and have not claimed that the attack was directly religiously motivated. Originally Posted by gtc And you have been provided with that if you follow the link. Desecration of the Bible does annoy Christians. Have you asked any Christians what they think about tearing pages out of a Bible? I can assure you that I have. ...snip... Again that is not quite what I am asking you to support which was "His actions will needlessly annoy those Christians who do not have problems with gay people". Is this claim actually just your opinion?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

4th November 2009, 06:17 AM	#210
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 6,801	Originally Posted by Darat Sorry no - I don't think that census data is available, and note I'm not and have not claimed that the attack was directly religiously motivated. Right. There is also the problem that the Church of England, in England, is one of the most tolerant churches. I would also be surprised if that many of them see Leviticus as being particularly relevant. Originally Posted by Darat Again that is not quite what I am asking you to support which was "His actions will needlessly annoy those Christians who do not have problems with gay people". Those links show Christians being angered by the desecration of the Bible. I can't provide evidence of the attitudes of those annoyed Christians were to homosexuality but the fact that they were angered by the desecration seems relevant to me. Is this claim actually just your opinion?[/quote] It is my opinion based on those articles I linked to and discussions with a Christian about this topic.
	__________________ Last edited by gtc; 4th November 2009 at 06:19 AM.

4th November 2009, 08:13 AM	#211
blobru Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2,882	The tub-thumping irony in all this meshugenah: Isn't Moses, the author (they say) of the same Leviticus that Sir Ian is desecrating (by ripping out the page calling for his death), celebrated for one of the most dramatic acts of literary vandalism and desecration in all mythology: the shattering of the 10 commandments? Okay, technically Moses is miffed at those who don't follow His law, while Sir Ian is ticked at those who do (or might); still, given the parallels and precedent: Shouldn't Christians be celebrating the righteous ire of Sir Ian? After all, he's only imitating, albeit in very small measure -- hard to square the worth of the original decalogue with a free hotel bible -- one of their very own superheroes.
blobru Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2,882	__________________ "Say to them, 'I am Nobody!'" -- Ulysses to the Cyclops "Never mind. I can't read." -- Hokulele to the Easter Bunny

4th November 2009, 08:29 AM	#212
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 7,768	Originally Posted by Darat A Gideon bible is - they want you to have "God's word". Not a god sword
	__________________ This post is copyleft and may include tyops and/or fallacies and/or grammatical errors like ending a sentence with a preposition - something up with which some will not put Copyright today is a system inflicted on the public, not a system that benefits the public. Richard Stallman - Founder of the GNU Project

4th November 2009, 08:33 AM	#213
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 7,768	Originally Posted by blobru Nominated
	__________________ This post is copyleft and may include tyops and/or fallacies and/or grammatical errors like ending a sentence with a preposition - something up with which some will not put Copyright today is a system inflicted on the public, not a system that benefits the public. Richard Stallman - Founder of the GNU Project

4th November 2009, 08:41 AM	#214
Marduk Dragon Killer Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 2,007	Originally Posted by Hux I doubt even the most rabid christian would attack a Gay person in this country http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/9853 Quote: A conservative pressure group within the Church of England has attacked a Christian arts and music festival for allowing gay groups and their supporters to appear and speak alongside others, calling its speaker programme "deeply discriminatory". seems the organisations do though, are they trying to lead by example ?
	__________________ Senno Ecto Gama ĝae haš dug zae ama kibid "Stupid humans" (Wollery) "Kill all humans" (Bender) "for while heaven may be closed I am always open, even on Christmas." (Lucifer)

4th November 2009, 10:35 AM	#215
applecorped Rotten to the core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 5,487	Originally Posted by Darat A Gideon bible is - they want you to have "God's word". I wonder if Rocky Raccoon ripped the pages out as well?
	__________________ It's all in the mind.

4th November 2009, 10:43 AM	#216
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 45,901	??
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

4th November 2009, 03:47 PM	#220
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 7,768	Originally Posted by applecorped Beetles? Ya pay peanuts... ya get monkees...
	__________________ This post is copyleft and may include tyops and/or fallacies and/or grammatical errors like ending a sentence with a preposition - something up with which some will not put Copyright today is a system inflicted on the public, not a system that benefits the public. Richard Stallman - Founder of the GNU Project

4th November 2009, 06:41 PM	#221
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 6,479	I don't know whether or not anyone considers this "vandalism", but every chance I get when staying in a hotel, I stick one of these into the front of the Bible in the room...
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher Critical Thinking Education Group (CTEG) "Are you good without God? Millions are." - Chicago Coalition of Reason

4th November 2009, 09:12 PM	#222
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 6,801	No. That is quite different to vandalism.
	__________________

4th November 2009, 10:07 PM	#223
MikeSun5 Trigger Happy Pacifist, Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Florida, USA Posts: 827	Originally Posted by gtc His actions will needlessly annoy those Christians who do not have problems with gay people and does not appear to actually work to improve anyone's opinions of gay people. Being needlessly confrontational is counterproductive. I'm sure if you were openly gay and subject to discrimination, you'd have a way different opinion. Originally Posted by gtc No. That is quite different to vandalism. Except there wasn't any vandalism. The guy paid for a room, ripped out some pages of his free Bible, and left it in the room. If there is supposed to be a fresh Bible for each customer, then it'd be the responsibility of Gideons in conjunction with the hotel to check for missing pages after each customer, right? I mean, they make sure you have enough of the regular toilet paper, don't they? Would it have been an issue if Sir Ian had taken out passages of the Bible to say, put in his wallet? What if he didn't throw them out, but kept them to read? Would there still be an uproar? It seems to me that the issue here is not the actual missing pages, but that Sir Ian wanted to rustle a few (what he perceives as) anti-gay feathers. It's a clever strawman when you think about it: make a statement about defacing a holy book knowing it'll piss off Christians, and then when they're mad, accuse them of hating gays because the pages you ripped out are predjudiced.
	__________________ I always wondered if those WWJD bracelets worked, so I bought one. Well later, I was on a plane and this little kid was kicking my seat repeatedly, while his sister sang along with her walkman and their mother just sat there. I almost turned around and went off, and then I caught sight of my bracelet. What would Jesus do? So I lit them on fire and sent them all to Hell. --Daniel Tosh

4th November 2009, 10:20 PM	#224
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 6,801	Originally Posted by MikeSun5 I'm sure if you were openly gay and subject to discrimination, you'd have a way different opinion. And I'm sure you are wrong. Would you say it was productive and not too confrontational if he had been talking about the Koran (assuming you are not Muslim). Originally Posted by MikeSun5 Except there wasn't any vandalism. The guy paid for a room, ripped out some pages of his free Bible, and left it in the room. If there is supposed to be a fresh Bible for each customer, then it'd be the responsibility of Gideons in conjunction with the hotel to check for missing pages after each customer, right? I mean, they make sure you have enough of the regular toilet paper, don't they? As I said, it was needlessly confrontational and counterproductive. Originally Posted by MikeSun5 Would it have been an issue if Sir Ian had taken out passages of the Bible to say, put in his wallet? What if he didn't throw them out, but kept them to read? Would there still be an uproar? I don't think that would be seen as confrontational or counterproductive. Originally Posted by MikeSun5 It seems to me that the issue here is not the actual missing pages, but that Sir Ian wanted to rustle a few (what he perceives as) anti-gay feathers. It's a clever strawman when you think about it: make a statement about defacing a holy book knowing it'll piss off Christians, and then when they're mad, accuse them of hating gays because the pages you ripped out are predjudiced. I think you are right. From the article in the OP: Quote: "I got delivered a package of 40 of those pages... that had been torn out by a married couple I know. They put them on a bit of string so that I could hang it up in the bathroom." He doesn't appear to have been phased by this issue enough to reject the millions he made from appearing in the LOTR saga (written by somebody who was staunchly against homosexuality based on his Christian beliefs) and he doesn't appear to want to desecrate the Koran either (which might get him killed).
	__________________

4th November 2009, 10:34 PM	#225
MikeSun5 Trigger Happy Pacifist, Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Florida, USA Posts: 827	Originally Posted by gtc Would you say it was productive and not too confrontational if he had been talking about the Koran (assuming you are not Muslim). I never said it was productive, but if someone left a Koran in his hotel room and he ripped it up and left it there, I don't see the problem with that either. If I'm in a hotel room and I see a pamphlet adorned with Rebel flags and swastikas, I'd throw it out and/or rip it up. Would I get on the news and pick a fight with the Klan members of the town afterward? Probably not, but confrontation being "needless" is in the eye of the confronter, isn't it? Quote: As I said, it was needlessly confrontational and counterproductive. Yep, I read that. And I said if you were gay, you'd probably think otherwise. Quote: ...he doesn't appear to want to desecrate the Koran either (which might get him killed). Last I checked, being gay can get you killed as well...
	__________________ I always wondered if those WWJD bracelets worked, so I bought one. Well later, I was on a plane and this little kid was kicking my seat repeatedly, while his sister sang along with her walkman and their mother just sat there. I almost turned around and went off, and then I caught sight of my bracelet. What would Jesus do? So I lit them on fire and sent them all to Hell. --Daniel Tosh

4th November 2009, 10:51 PM	#226
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 6,801	Originally Posted by MikeSun5 I never said it was productive, I wasn't sure which part of my statement you thought I would disagree with, were I gay. Originally Posted by MikeSun5 but if someone left a Koran in his hotel room and he ripped it up and left it there, I don't see the problem with that either. If I'm in a hotel room and I see a pamphlet adorned with Rebel flags and swastikas, I'd throw it out and/or rip it up. OK. I don't think you are being inconsistent. Originally Posted by MikeSun5 Would I get on the news and pick a fight with the Klan members of the town afterward? Probably not, Out of interest, why not? Is it because you don't want to rustle feathers as you put it? Originally Posted by MikeSun5 but confrontation being "needless" is in the eye of the confronter, isn't it? I don't disagree with this. Originally Posted by MikeSun5 Yep, I read that. And I said if you were gay, you'd probably think otherwise. Believe it or not, I do know some gay Christians and some conservative Christians. Originally Posted by MikeSun5 Last I checked, being gay can get you killed as well... Yep. One of the reasons I raised it. I think we are in agreement about why he did it.
	__________________

4th November 2009, 11:34 PM	#227
Robin Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,918	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ I wouldn't say that, no. But certainly no such circumstance has arisen thus far in this thread. Tearing out pages from someone else's book because you dislike the message, is not appropriate behavior for an adult. So instead of a blanket its wrong to damage other people's property the question is in what circumstances might it be justified to damage other people's property. We can probably agree that neither tearing pages of somebody's book, nor incitement to bigotry and hatred are appropriate behaviour for adults in the normal circumstances. Is the latter acceptable because the book in question is old and well regarded? Maybe. Could the former be acceptable as a protest against the incitement of hatred? I think maybe too. Not that I have ever done it or would do so.
Robin Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,918	__________________ If any one alters the definitions, I cannot pretend to argue with him, until I know the meaning he assigns to these terms. - David Hume 1711-1776

5th November 2009, 02:14 AM	#228
Whiplash Acting like a maniac Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Shipwrecked and Comatose Posts: 3,014	Originally Posted by blobru The tub-thumping irony in all this meshugenah: Isn't Moses, the author (they say) of the same Leviticus that Sir Ian is desecrating (by ripping out the page calling for his death), celebrated for one of the most dramatic acts of literary vandalism and desecration in all mythology: the shattering of the 10 commandments? Okay, technically Moses is miffed at those who don't follow His law, while Sir Ian is ticked at those who do (or might); still, given the parallels and precedent: Shouldn't Christians be celebrating the righteous ire of Sir Ian? After all, he's only imitating, albeit in very small measure -- hard to square the worth of the original decalogue with a free hotel bible -- one of their very own superheroes. Wow, that's quite a stretch, to equate one man being angry with people for not following the laws, and breaking the commandments in an act of anger, and another who is vandalizing books because he doesn't agree with the laws that are listed in it. No, he's not imitating anything, evenin "small measure". Apples and oranges. I like that you tried to address that they were different, but very weakly, and then proceed to move forward like it was all fairly covered. Ya, "technically".... These things are not even remotely comparable. One is an act of vandalism caused by disagreement with content.. the other is a man who angrily responded, and wrongly, to the actions of people, and it had nothing to do with the content of the commandments themselves, or him protesting them, or anything like it. I may be making too much of what you said, I thought you were probably joking, but when people start nominating things I find to be silly or nonsensical, I have a tendency to want to comment on how wrong I thought they were. It really confuses me.. to wonder if the bar is just too low, or if people just don't think. This is one of those "someone nominated that?" moments that I find myself having all too often.
	__________________ "Look, I'm a tenth generation A.I. hologramic computer.. I'm not your Mum" "Ken Buddah... a smile, two bangs, and a religion" "A little hard work never killed anyone... but I'm not taking any chances" -Jim Last edited by Whiplash; 5th November 2009 at 02:21 AM.

5th November 2009, 02:49 AM	#229
MikeSun5 Trigger Happy Pacifist, Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Florida, USA Posts: 827	Originally Posted by gtc I wasn't sure which part of my statement you thought I would disagree with, were I gay. I was really only pointing out that just because you think it's counterproductive or needlessly confrontational, that doesn't mean it is. What if this controversy somehow resulted in Gideons not putting Bibles in hotels any more? The JREF would throw a damn ticker-tape parade. Quote: Out of interest, why not? Is it because you don't want to rustle feathers as you put it? Me personally, yes. But then again, I've never been the victim of hatred at the hands of that group. Of course, that doesn't mean I disagree with the sentiment of calling them out. Anything anti-hate is pro-good. And I'm pro-pro-good. Quote: I think we are in agreement about why he did it. Oh, most definitely. If he had ripped the pages out as some sort of personal vendetta to make himself feel better, that'd be one thing - but he intentionally made it public to try and start something. While bragging about ripping out Bible pages is not the best way to get attention or help his cause, I still think it's ridiculous that the act itself keeps being referred to as vandalism. Removing passages or writing in the "Notes" section of a hotel Gideon's Bible is no more vandalism than filling out the hotel's "Tell Us How We Did" questionnaire or drinking their coffee. The Bible is there for you to use like the little plastic-wrapped cups by the sink. The only problem here is Sir Ian bragged to the religious about defacing a holy book. He's an instigator, not a vandal.
	__________________ I always wondered if those WWJD bracelets worked, so I bought one. Well later, I was on a plane and this little kid was kicking my seat repeatedly, while his sister sang along with her walkman and their mother just sat there. I almost turned around and went off, and then I caught sight of my bracelet. What would Jesus do? So I lit them on fire and sent them all to Hell. --Daniel Tosh

5th November 2009, 04:06 AM	#230
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 6,801	Originally Posted by MikeSun5 I was really only pointing out that just because you think it's counterproductive or needlessly confrontational, that doesn't mean it is. What if this controversy somehow resulted in Gideons not putting Bibles in hotels any more? The JREF would throw a damn ticker-tape parade. I know that it is my opinion and I accept I may be wrong. That said, I don't think the Gideons are going to stop putting Bibles in hotels. Originally Posted by MikeSun5 Me personally, yes. But then again, I've never been the victim of hatred at the hands of that group. Of course, that doesn't mean I disagree with the sentiment of calling them out. Anything anti-hate is pro-good. And I'm pro-pro-good. I appreciate that. I think the problem is that while Christians don't generally support that passage of the Bible; they also value the Bible itself. His actions seem antagonistic towards these Christians and his statements appear to be attacking Christians in general. Here are some statistics. We have seen that over half of Brits identify as Christian. 80% [this is an interesting document] of Christians in Britain see the Bible as being divinely inspired but only a third see it as being free from error. Attitudes towards the Bible are not as uniform as some people assume and we can't assume that Christians actually support the sentiment in that passage. This is borne out by the fact that less than half of Brits support the death penalty at all and less than 10% support the death penalty for serious sexual abuse of an adult (I think that gives us the absolute upper limit on the proportion of the population who support the death penalty for homosexual sex as those who want to kill gays would presumably class homosexual sex as serious sexual abuse). Only 15% of Brits seem to think that Britain should be less accepting of homosexuality and, when the survey was done, a bare majority of Brits supported gay marriage. Originally Posted by MikeSun5 Oh, most definitely. If he had ripped the pages out as some sort of personal vendetta to make himself feel better, that'd be one thing - but he intentionally made it public to try and start something. While bragging about ripping out Bible pages is not the best way to get attention or help his cause, I still think it's ridiculous that the act itself keeps being referred to as vandalism. It seems like bragging about defacing a political sign or some such. I can see why you don't see it as vandalim. I see it as defacing a Christian symbol to annoy people. Originally Posted by MikeSun5 Removing passages or writing in the "Notes" section of a hotel Gideon's Bible is no more vandalism than filling out the hotel's "Tell Us How We Did" questionnaire or drinking their coffee. The Bible is there for you to use like the little plastic-wrapped cups by the sink. Writing dirty messages and putting it back so that a Christian might see it and be offended by it seems morally equivalent to vandalism to me. But that is a different story. Originally Posted by MikeSun5 The only problem here is Sir Ian bragged to the religious about defacing a holy book. He's an instigator, not a vandal. I agree.
	__________________

6th November 2009, 12:45 AM	#231
blobru Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2,882	Originally Posted by Whiplash Originally Posted by blobru The tub-thumping irony in all this meshugenah: Isn't Moses, the author (they say) of the same Leviticus that Sir Ian is desecrating (by ripping out the page calling for his death), celebrated for one of the most dramatic acts of literary vandalism and desecration in all mythology: the shattering of the 10 commandments? Okay, technically Moses is miffed at those who don't follow His law, while Sir Ian is ticked at those who do (or might); still, given the parallels and precedent: Shouldn't Christians be celebrating the righteous ire of Sir Ian? After all, he's only imitating, albeit in very small measure -- hard to square the worth of the original decalogue with a free hotel bible -- one of their very own superheroes. Wow, that's quite a stretch, to equate one man being angry with people for not following the laws, and breaking the commandments in an act of anger, and another who is vandalizing books because he doesn't agree with the laws that are listed in it. Always a stretch, for me at least, to derive any sort of cogent morality from the words and actions of people who may or may not have lived thousands of years ago; however, that's the method of literalist Christians, many of whom are angered by Sir Ian's actions, so I must adopt it for the purposes of the reductio ad absurdum. Quote: No, he's not imitating anything, evenin "small measure". Apples and oranges. Both fruit let's note, which gets to the core of the controversy. Quote: I like that you tried to address that they were different, but very weakly, and then proceed to move forward like it was all fairly covered. Thanks. You do what you can, you know... Quote: Ya, "technically".... These things are not even remotely comparable. D-oh! Quote: One is an act of vandalism caused by disagreement with content.. Yes, very serious disagreement: he's angry enough with those who would follow it to tear out the disagreeable content. Quote: the other is a man who angrily responded, and wrongly, to the actions of people, and it had nothing to do with the content of the commandments themselves, or him protesting them, or anything like it. He was certainly angry with the actions of people, angry because they were dancing around a statue of a golden calf and calling it god. This has quite a lot to do with the content of commandments themselves, to wit: #1 ...You shall have no other gods before me; #2 You shall not make for yourself an idol [Protestant tradition, in others these are numbered differently]. His display of anger protests those who are not following those two commandments, quite a serious protest, it turns out: he has three thousand of the revellers put to the sword. As to Moses' action being 'wrong', I see no evidence for that in Exodus. God, whom he speaks with the next day, does not sanction him for it; He merely replaces the tablets (as the Gideons will replace the bibles, if requested). I'd say it's best characterized as a display of "righteous anger". Quote: I may be making too much of what you said, I thought you were probably joking, but when people start nominating things I find to be silly or nonsensical, I have a tendency to want to comment on how wrong I thought they were. Hey -- that's what a skeptic does, right? Quote: It really confuses me.. to wonder if the bar is just too low, or if people just don't think. This is one of those "someone nominated that?" moments that I find myself having all too often. six7s only nominated the bubble comment, I think. I didn't think the rest -- a straightforward reductio on the pitfalls of morality from authority (and/or a bad joke) -- deserved a nomination, either.
blobru Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2,882	__________________ "Say to them, 'I am Nobody!'" -- Ulysses to the Cyclops "Never mind. I can't read." -- Hokulele to the Easter Bunny