From the National Catholic Reporter:
Dozens injured, thousands confused by riots over "Gospel of Jesus' Wife"
President Obama:
The future must not belong to those who slander the Bachelor of Christianity!
Dozens injured, thousands confused by riots over "Gospel of Jesus' Wife"
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised. You've linked to something that is even more witless and stupid than your 'Dissociated Press' threads, which is saying something.
Comparing a deliberately inflammatory video dubbed into Arabic and the discovery of a scrap from a centuries old Coptic Christian text is a long stretch even for you.
When I read that the early Coptic Church might possibly have believed that Jesus might possibly have married, I thought 'so what?'. The early Coptic Church wasn't 'orthodox' ie didn't have the same creed as today. There were plenty of different creeds within early Christianity, and all had their own gospels.
I think that Islam started out as a Christian sect, with Jesus as a prophet, but not divine ('There is but one God, and Mohammed {meaning - he who is to be praised ie Jesus} is his messenger').
I thought it hilarious that the author of the spoof put Galileo in the 13th century. And even better, referring to Dan Brown as a serious authority on Christianity (although, to be fair, he did do a considerable amount of research, to the extent that he thought that da Vinci is a surname).
Trish,
DeleteA 13 minute video dubbed into Arabic isn't the same as a brief newspaper report on a scrap from a very early Coptic text possibly suggesting that Jesus might have had a wife, which then casts doubt on it. No one, not even the most fundamentalist of Christians, could get excited by it.
The comparison is laughable.
Agreed; the Islamic reaction was crazy, similar to that produced by 'Satanic Verses'. This week's 'New Stateman' has an article by a Western Muslim noting how crazy the reaction was.
But the video wasn't an expression of free speech. It was a deliberate attempt to inflame Muslims.
Deliberate attempts to inflame Muslims are free speech. So are deliberate attempts to poke Christians in the eye, which are far more common.
DeleteYou're right that the comparison is not particularly adept. A better comparison would be the ubiquitous "Jesus was gay" meme that ceased to be shocking about ten years ago due to overuse. Go ahead and make a play about gay Mohammad and wait for your playhouse to be firebombed.
TRISH
I remember when liberals were staunch defenders of free speech. Sad, really.
DeleteBen
Bachfiend, are you trying to tell me that deliberate attempts to anger a particular group do not constitute free speech? What the hell is our free speech worth?
DeleteLittle John
@Ben:
DeleteYou must be older than I am. I don't remember a time when liberals were staunch defenders of free speech. As long as I have known them, they have always been censors.
Joey
Religion makes people violent. Not any particular religion, of course, just religion. Non-religion makes pacifists of us all--Pol Pot, Mao, Kim Il Sung and Stalin excluded.
ReplyDeleteJoey
Joey,
DeleteSteven Weinberg's comment is appropriate here; with or without religion, good people do good things and evil people do evil things. But for good people to do evil things, you need religion.
Pol Pot, Kim il Sung, Mao and Stalin were evil, full stop.
Bach
DeleteSo since state atheism is evil, and you need religion to make good people do evil things, you admit that athiests are evil.
@Bachfiend, does religion ever motivate people to do good things? Does it ever inspire great works of art, acts of charity, acts of mercy, or campaigns against things that are truly evil?
DeleteJoey
LMAO!
ReplyDeleteCrusadeRex,
Delete'Laugh it up fuzzball' (Hans Solo).