Ian McKellen's bible vandalism catches on

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

This is exactly what happens.
Gay rights advocates have, through their actions, convinced a lot of people that their agenda is fundamentally anti-religion, and so must be opposed.

no they haven't
they are opposed to groups and things that are opposed to their free will, which is guaranteed under law
not all religions call homosexuals "abominations unto the lord"
those that do they are naturally opposed to, what do you think they should do, agree ?

this started off with you as a rage against property damage, now that you've realised thats not accurate youve changed your game to being opposed to equality

homophobe much ?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Marduk

those that do they are naturally opposed to, what do you think they should do, agree ?

No. I think they should disagree, strongly, with better arguments if they have them, and work within the law to change what they think is wrong.
A lot of people seem to think that certain groups get a free pass to do whatever vile nonsense they want to do in response to injustices or other attacks against them.
Bad acts are bad acts; you don't get a bye because you don't like what another group says or believes.
I, personally, expect groups to express themselves civilly, and to respect the rights of other groups to do the same -- and I will condemn anyone who chooses lawlessness, violence, and oppression instead, whatever their views.

Originally Posted by Marduk

homophobe much ?

The ad hom is acknowledged and not appreciated. Please stop.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Simon39759

The Religious right has called for the boycott of corporation for using 'Holiday' rather than 'Christmas'.
I seem to recall O'Reilly supporting that but y check at Faux News has him refuting that, so I might have been wrong on mentioning him personally.

But, no, it seems to me like a very, very likely outcome if any chain was to refuse to distribute Bible.

This always pisses me off. Why have we lost our puritian ways? Legalizing christmass was the worst decision ever.

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

No. I think they should disagree, strongly, with better arguments if they have them, and work within the law to change what they think is wrong.
A lot of people seem to think that certain groups get a free pass to do whatever vile nonsense they want to do in response to injustices or other attacks against them.
Bad acts are bad acts; you don't get a bye because you don't like what another group says or believes.
I, personally, expect groups to express themselves civilly, and to respect the rights of other groups to do the same -- and I will condemn anyone who chooses lawlessness, violence, and oppression instead, whatever their views.

[Yoink]

Originally Posted by Marduk

so the fact that hes a founding member of Stonewall which has had huge success fighting for equal rights for LGBT and that he is a constant personal campaigner for same isn't relevant in this case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_McK...ts_campaigning

No, of course it isn't. Why would it be? Just because he has done some things that were good and effective forms of campaigning doesn't mean that this is a good and effective form of campaigning. Does that really need to be spelled out to you?

Originally Posted by Marduk

tearing up bibles makes him happy as a form of expression
that he does it makes me happy that he can express himself that way
does he need any more motivation ?

I have no doubt that it makes him feel good and, vicariously, makes some people whose support for gay rights will never, ever, be in question feel good. That does not mean that it is an effective way to bring people who are not already devoted to the cause on board, or that it doesn't alienate people who might not otherwise actively oppose the cause.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Yoink

No, of course it isn't. Why would it be? Just because he has done some things that were good and effective forms of campaigning doesn't mean that this is a good and effective form of campaigning. Does that really need to be spelled out to you?

Sure, go ahead and tell me how he is not effectively campaigning when hes not actually campaigning. Did you see him on TV standing on a podium and telling the audience to rip out leviticus ?

Originally Posted by Yoink

I have no doubt that it makes him feel good and, vicariously, makes some people whose support for gay rights will never, ever, be in question feel good. That does not mean that it is an effective way to bring people who are not already devoted to the cause on board, or that it doesn't alienate people who might not otherwise actively oppose the cause.

like people who believe that Leviticus is righteous you mean and dont want it defaced because they believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God. Theres a name for people like that
in fact theres lots of names
none of them are pleasant, but for you to have a go at Ian Mckellen for expressing himself on something that is legally his is just bizzarre. Would you stop him cutting small ads out of his local newspaper too ?
whats the difference here.?

[six7s]

Originally Posted by Yoink

I can't see a single "anti gay rights" person being swayed to a "pro gay rights" position by this act.

Have you even tried to look?

Note that one of the prime functions of 'extremist action' is to provoke thinking in the otherwise blissfully-ignorant middle-ground

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

No. I think they should disagree, strongly, with better arguments if they have them, and work within the law to change what they think is wrong.
A lot of people seem to think that certain groups get a free pass to do whatever vile nonsense they want to do in response to injustices or other attacks against them.

your aim is way off, the only bad here is what Leviticus says about homosexuals, in case youre not aware of that here it is

Originally Posted by Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

if youre not sure what the word "Abomination" means its a word that expresses "extreme disgust"
Leviticus is calling Sir Ian extremely disgusting, and you are claiming his personal protest is bad. Missed the real target there didn't you

Originally Posted by Leviticus 20:13

KJV: (King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

Leviticus is saying that Sir Ian should be murdered for something that hes not responsible for, again, you took a shot but you missed the real bad here. Its not his reaction thats at fault, its leviticus as its clearly homophobic, and that if expressed by an individual towards another is illegal, its a hate crime, and has been used to support hate crimes in the past. so why are you supporting it ?

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Bad acts are bad acts; you don't get a bye because you don't like what another group says or believes.
I, personally, expect groups to express themselves civilly, and to respect the rights of other groups to do the same -- and I will condemn anyone who chooses lawlessness, violence, and oppression instead, whatever their views.

hes not a group, straw man alert, he is an individual making a personal protest, nothing he's done is illegal, who the hell are you to judge.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

The ad hom is acknowledged and not appreciated. Please stop.

I will when you see reason, til then, your behaviour is homophobic, defending a piece of paper written by some ignorant homophobes 2000 years ago over the rights of an individual living today. Do you often support the words of dead people over the rights of the living. Thats what you call intellect is it
I despair for some people I really do

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by six7s

Note that one of the prime functions of 'extremist action' is to provoke thinking in the otherwise blissfully-ignorant middle-ground

One of the most successful arguments currently used against gay activism is the idea that it seeks to forcibly silence the opposition, making it illegal to speak out against homosexuality and making it mandatory for school-aged children to accept it. It is this argument, and not any argument about the morality or immorality of homosexuality itself, that has brought the "otherwise blissfully-ignorant middle-ground" to vote against reforms, and emboldened a lot of "live-and-let-live" people to take a position.
Actions like this feed the argument.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Marduk

I will when you see reason, til then, your behaviour is homophobic

And you've chosen to attack rather than discuss. Fair enough.

[Yoink]

Originally Posted by Marduk

Sure, go ahead and tell me how he is not effectively campaigning when hes not actually campaigning. Did you see him on TV standing on a podium and telling the audience to rip out leviticus ?

Ah, I see we've reached the "being deliberately obtuse" portion of the entertainment.

How do we know about what Ian McKellan does to bibles, may I ask? Did one of us observe it? Did one of us check into a hotel room immediately after him for a few weeks and notice that the bibles had all been similarly defaced? No, McKellan brags about doing this in interviews. He makes it into a public statement (if he simply did it and never told anyone about it there's no possible way in the world that any of us would be aware of it). The act of publicizing this action is what makes it part of a "campaign"--o.k.?

Originally Posted by Marduk

like people who believe that Leviticus is righteous you mean and dont want it defaced because they believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God.

No, not at all. Those people are pretty much unreachable. But there are lots of people who revere the Bible without regarding it as "the inerrant word of God." There are plenty of self-described Christians out there who would be profoundly shocked by the idea of someone deliberately defacing the bible who are either pro gay rights or fairly neutral on gay rights. It is those people, in particular, that I think McKellan risks alienating.

As for me, an atheist who has always been entirely pro gay rights, I find the act of selective defacement of any works of literature abhorrent. I, personally, think McKellan is behaving like a childish ass when he does this. It won't stop me voting in favor of gay rights whenever I get the chance and it won't stop me admiring him enormously as an actor--but I can tell from my own reaction to the act how damaging it must be to gay rights cause among people who are less committed to the cause than I am and who have special reason to care about the particular book that he's defacing.

Originally Posted by Marduk

Theres a name for people like that
in fact theres lots of names
none of them are pleasant, but for you to have a go at Ian Mckellen for expressing himself on something that is legally his is just bizzarre. Would you stop him cutting small ads out of his local newspaper too ?
whats the difference here.?

Oh, you are indeed a world champion at deliberate obtuseness.

Yes, what possible difference could there be between cutting coupons out of your local newspaper and bragging in multiple interviews about how you rip pages out of bibles in every hotel room you stay in? Oh my. I'm racking my brains and I can't see any difference at all!

I guess you would also agree that there was no difference whatsoever between the Nazi book burnings and the fact that I recycle my newspapers after I've read them, too. I mean--they're both a matter of destroying printed matter. There's clearly no difference at all!!!

Look, if you think it's a smart move for McKellan to publicize these acts of selective vandalism, explain why. Give me a "for instance" of some person who might be swayed from voting, say, yes on Prop 8 to no on Prop 8 because he reads about this action. I've given you some entirely plausible instances of people who might be swayed the other way and it's easy to see that such people constitute an important section of the electorate. O.K., now show me that there's an even larger section who are going to be won over by McKellan's boasting about ripping pages out of bibles. That would be a far more convincing argument than pretending that this is simply a matter of what McKellan does with his private property.

[Yoink]

Originally Posted by six7s

Have you even tried to look?

Note that one of the prime functions of 'extremist action' is to provoke thinking in the otherwise blissfully-ignorant middle-ground

Oh, so this is an "extremist action" now? Hang on, though, wasn't it equivalent of clipping newspaper coupons just a moment ago? It's all so confusing.

O.K., great, this is an "extremist action" that will "provoke thought." So, explain the next step. Describe some likely "yes on Prop 8" voter who will be 'provoked' by this action and as a result of being "made to think" will become a "no on Prop 8" voter.

[six7s]

Originally Posted by Marduk

I will when you see reason, til then, your behaviour is homophobic, defending a piece of paper written by some ignorant homophobes 2000 years ago over the rights of an individual living today.

Make that 3,000+ years ago

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Leviticus

Quote:

According to tradition, Moses authored Leviticus[1] as well as the other four books of the Torah [2]. Modern biblical scholars believe Leviticus to be almost entirely from the priestly source (P), marked by emphasis on priestly concerns, composed c 550-400 BC, and incorporated into the Torah c 400 BC.[3]

Moses died allegedly at the age of 120 in the year 1271 BCE

[six7s]

Originally Posted by Yoink

Describe some likely "yes on Prop 8" voter who will be 'provoked' by this action and as a result of being "made to think" will become a "no on Prop 8" voter.

Me, straight and - until around the age of 20 - narrow, raised in a culture that made being gay illegal

When people I admired began campaigning for change, I stopped and thought... it didn't hurt a bit

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

And you've chosen to attack rather than discuss. Fair enough.

that was stating a fact, your behaviour in supporting leviticus over the living is homophobic.

couldn't deal with the rest of my post eh
why am I not surprised

[AvalonXQ]

Relevant point. McKellen is quoted as saying:

Quote:

I'm not proudly defacing the book, but it's a choice between removing that page and throwing away the whole Bible.

In terms of what message people might take away (good or bad) from this, I think McKellen's clarifying statement may make a difference to some people. The act is symbolic, not of an affront to the Bible, but of a rejection of a specific part of it.
Some people, like me, still won't be able to see past the idea of tearing up a book. I freely admit it's more visceral than logical.
But I think, for others, this act, portrayed in this context, might provoke them to thought on some of these issues.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Marduk

that was stating a fact, your behaviour in supporting leviticus over the living is homophobic.

It was an attack. I asked you to stop; you refused.
Engaging with you doesn't make sense. You'll keep up your shouting, your attacks, your vitriole, and keep pushing people to the other side on this issue.
I'll keep discussing it with more civil forumites.

[Ladewig]

I didn't get an answer from AvalonXQ, so I'll ask again.

Originally Posted by Ladewig

The only question I have left is whether or not you consider a blanket condemnation of homosexuals to be an example of faulty reasoning that should be corrected by spreading the truth.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

The only question I have left is whether or not you consider a blanket condemnation of homosexuals to be an example of faulty reasoning that should be corrected by spreading the truth.

Without a doubt, yes.
The blanket condemnation of any group of people is wrong; condemning someone for something they cannot choose or control is wrong. Whenever either occurs, we need to work against it.
(Leviticus does neither, but that's not what you asked.)

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Yoink

Look, if you think it's a smart move for McKellan to publicize these acts of selective vandalism, explain why. Give me a "for instance" of some person who might be swayed from voting, say, yes on Prop 8 to no on Prop 8 because he reads about this action. I've given you some entirely plausible instances of people who might be swayed the other way and it's easy to see that such people constitute an important section of the electorate. O.K., now show me that there's an even larger section who are going to be won over by McKellan's boasting about ripping pages out of bibles. That would be a far more convincing argument than pretending that this is simply a matter of what McKellan does with his private property.

perhaps you should read what he actually said, its quite apparent you have built this argument from straw in ignorance

Originally Posted by Ian McKellen

"I'm not proudly defacing the book, but it's a choice between removing that page and throwing away the whole Bible.

personally I would throw away the whole thing, that wouldn't be bad or illegal either as its mine to do what I want with........

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

It was an attack. I asked you to stop; you refused.
Engaging with you doesn't make sense. You'll keep up your shouting, your attacks, your vitriole, and keep pushing people to the other side on this issue.
I'll keep discussing it with more civil forumites.

you admitted that your position wasn't logical in your previous post, I agree, its not logical, its homophobic

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Without a doubt, yes.
The blanket condemnation of any group of people is wrong; condemning someone for something they cannot choose or control is wrong. Whenever either occurs, we need to work against it.
(Leviticus does neither, but that's not what you asked.)

Now I am back to being confused. Can you explain why the statements "homosexuality is an abomination" and "homosexuals should be executed" are not a blanket condemnation of homosexuality?

[Magyar]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Neither does the Bible. .

WOW, yet another stupendously ignorant statement of the facts brought to you by the society of buy bull thumpers.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Now I am back to being confused. Can you explain why the statements "homosexuality is an abomination" and "homosexuals should be executed" are not a blanket condemnation of homosexuality?

Leviticus makes neither of those statements.
God instructs the Israelites to refrain from certain acts. The orientation or other uncontrollable aspects of the individuals in question is never discussed.
But do certain things (wear two-fabric cloth, talk back to your parents, worship Baal, have gay sex, have incestuous sex, have an affair), and you would be put to death. For your ACTIONS. A very different standard.

[Yoink]

Originally Posted by Marduk

perhaps you should read what he actually said, its quite apparent you have built this argument from straw in ignorance

Care to explain what you see in the quote you provide that contradicts anything I've said? He publicized his act of selective vandalism in multiple interviews.

Originally Posted by Marduk

personally I would throw away the whole thing, that wouldn't be bad or illegal either as its mine to do what I want with........

And neither I nor anyone else would care what you did. Nor would I or anyone else care what McKellan did if he didn't TRUMPET IT IN PUBLIC INTERVIEWS. I'm saying that McKellan's decision to publicize his actions is one that can only hurt, not help, a cause he (and I) hold dear. For that reason I wish he would cease and desist.

[Yoink]

Originally Posted by six7s

Me, straight and - until around the age of 20 - narrow, raised in a culture that made being gay illegal

When people I admired began campaigning for change, I stopped and thought... it didn't hurt a bit

This doesn't address McKellan's action at all. Finding out that "someone you admire" (McKellan) is campaigning for change could happen in any number of ways (including the 'leaving a pamphlet' way I suggested above). Explain why this specific action (ripping pages out of Bibles) would be the one that would tip you from being "anti gay rights" to "pro gay rights." What's the thought process that takes you from

A) "I don't think gay people deserve to be treated with the same respect as straight people."
B) "I just heard that Ian McKellan selectively defaces bibles in every hotel he stays at."
C)???

to

D) "Gay people clearly deserve the same rights and respect as straight people!"

Care to spell out how C works?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Marduk

that was stating a fact, your behaviour in supporting leviticus over the living is homophobic.

I support KKK's right to hold rallies and pass out racist literature.

Does this make me a racist, or a liberal who defends the 1st amendment?

[six7s]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Now I am back to being confused. Can you explain why the statements "homosexuality is an abomination" and "homosexuals should be executed" are not a blanket condemnation of homosexuality?

Leviticus makes neither of those statements.

Maybe not in the Looney Tunes version...

Meanwhile... in the King James version
Leviticus 18:22

Quote:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13

Quote:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

That's all, folks

[six7s]

Originally Posted by Yoink

Explain why this specific action (ripping pages out of Bibles) would be the one that would tip you from being "anti gay rights" to "pro gay rights."

OK... I'll try... Its not easy to be objective...

Anyhoo...

I have a hunch (hope?) that such actions work on me because I am prepared to think AND admit that I don't know everything AND I acknowledge that some (much?) of my 'assumptions' are based on bollocks

[AvalonXQ]

You should have quoted the rest of my post.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Leviticus makes neither of those statements.
God instructs the Israelites to refrain from certain acts. The orientation or other uncontrollable aspects of the individuals in question is never discussed.
But do certain things (wear two-fabric cloth, talk back to your parents, worship Baal, have gay sex, have incestuous sex, have an affair), and you would be put to death. For your ACTIONS. A very different standard.

I'll also note: no person is called an "abomination" in those passages. An act is.

[cyborg]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

But do certain things (wear two-fabric cloth, talk back to your parents, worship Baal, have gay sex, have incestuous sex, have an affair), and you would be put to death. For your ACTIONS. A very different standard.

You can't get much more homosexual than gay sex.

[six7s]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'll also note: no person is called an "abomination" in those passages. An act is.

So freakin' what?

You can play semantic games until the cows come home

No acts are murdered/persecuted at the behest of some mythical sky daddy

Face it AvalonXQ, Leviticus is one of the biggest piles of vile, nasty, vengeful crap in our literary history and no amount of weasely dodging can make it into the benign treasure it seems you want/need to pretend it is

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by six7s

Face it AvalonXQ, Leviticus is one of the biggest piles of vile, nasty, vengeful crap in our literary history and no amount of weasely dodging can make it into the benign treasure it seems you want/need to pretend it is

If Leviticus is what you say it is, then you should be able to make your points while correctly portraying it, rather than trying to mischaracterize it as saying things that it doesn't say.
Leviticus doesn't say a word against homosexual attraction or homosexual people; it condemns a variety of sex practices including homosexual sex, and orders the Israelites to kill those who violate the law and perform these sex acts.
If you think that's terrible, then fine -- condemn it for what it says, not what it doesn't say.

[six7s]

Originally Posted by cyborg

You can't get much more homosexual than gay sex.

I'm a lesbian trapped inside a man's body... does that count?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by six7s

I'm a lesbian trapped inside a man's body... does that count?

I don't know, but it's hot.

[six7s]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

If Leviticus is what you say it is, then you should be able to make your points while correctly portraying it, rather than trying to mischaracterize it as saying things that it doesn't say.
Leviticus doesn't say a word against homosexual attraction or homosexual people; it condemns a variety of sex practices including homosexual sex, and orders the Israelites to kill those who violate the law and perform these sex acts.
If you think that's terrible, then fine -- condemn it for what it says, not what it doesn't say.

You do know that Moses didn't have an electron microscope with which he could - otherwise - have split such fine hairs, right?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by six7s

You do know that Moses didn't have an electron microscope with which he could - otherwise - have split such fine hairs, right?

You don't think there's any meaningful difference between condemning sexual attraction and condemning sexual behavior?
I'm glad you're not my wife; I'd be in serious trouble!

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by joobz

I support KKK's right to hold rallies and pass out racist literature.

Does this make me a racist, or a liberal who defends the 1st amendment?

hmmm difficult question, does supporting racism make you a racist, I'm gonna have to refrain from answering that until I can get hold of a five year old for a decision

[six7s]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

You don't think there's any meaningful difference between condemning sexual attraction and condemning sexual behavior?

Correct... although that's not quite how I'd word it

Instead, I'd say that I think condemning either is equally stupid, ignorant, hateful, and a whole nother bunch of negative terms

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Leviticus makes neither of those statements.
God instructs the Israelites to refrain from certain acts. The orientation or other uncontrollable aspects of the individuals in question is never discussed.
But do certain things (wear two-fabric cloth, talk back to your parents, worship Baal, have gay sex, have incestuous sex, have an affair), and you would be put to death. For your ACTIONS. A very different standard.

Let's cut to the chase. If two consenting, twenty-first century, adult men have sex, have they committed an immoral act? If so, why?

Follow up question: Is wearing clothing of mixed fibers immoral? If not, why not?