大象传媒

That's quite a rag bag of whingers, lapsed Catholics, heretics and just the plain looney (Warnock) you've assembled in one post. God help us if we're reliant on her for ethical direction.

Nice photo of the Pope though in the Guardian article on dredged up opposition to the Pope from so called "Old Catholics". Misleading headline, of course, since they're not Catholics anymore by definition since they're not in communion with the Pope and don't accept Catholic doctrine.

Baroness Warnock is of course absolutely right - not only is a deity unnecessary (in every sense) to explain the universe, it is unnecessary to explain, implement, or ground morality. We get morality from each other. The old girl has still got it.

That said, I have to agree with Chris: that's a lovely picture of the pope, and his bright red shoes are well natty. I think I'm warming to him already.

God help us if we're reliant on her for ethical direction.

She's covered that. Try again.

Warnock: "We know, without faith, that love is better than war."

Perhaps, but she doesn't seem to know that not murdering an unborn human child is better than murdering it. Not much of an ethical system, really.

And of course if you should get Alzheimers she had this to say "If you're demented, you're wasting people's lives - your family's lives - and you're wasting the resources of the National Health Service."

Think I'll stick with God.

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] A man in Spain taking the communion wafer from his mouth and breaking it (in Spanish). Followed by slapping and kicking.

Thanks to Pharyngula's PZ Meyer for showing me that one.

Quite a lot of synthetic outrage from Cardinal Keith O'Brien on the subject of the 大象传媒's "anti- Christian" bias. Didn't the Director General of the 大象传媒, Mark Thompson, visit the Vatican in February to sort matters out concerning coverage of the Pope's visit to the UK?

With the number of Christians who regularly attend church falling should not the media reflect this trend? He joins the call for the 大象传媒 to appoint a religion editor, but I am concerned that the influence of such an appointee might result in even less reporting of the Catholic Church's paedophile priests' scandals.

The story about the fundamentalist xian church in Florida planning to burn korans seems to be picking up pace.

As an atheist and skeptic, to me, it's just a book. A collection of pressed wood pulp and pigments, all arranged into some form of legibility. In that regard, burn it all you want.

However, the motives of the church paster are highly misguided, Islamaphobic to an intense degree and completely ignorant of what is actually happening in the world.

One of his statements is quite telling of his ignorance when he says "We must send a clear message to the radical element of Islam". If he really wanted to make a statement to the radical aspects of Islam, then burning the book that all Muslims hold dear is a bit extreme. It's the equivalent of burning the bible just to protest about WestBoro Baptist church and their rabid homophobia.

He's being highly stereotypical of Muslims, and then the Americans wonder why the Islamic world hates them so much. It's a similar vein to the misguided and ignorant protests about the Islamic center in New York and the continued baseless insinuations that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim, just because he's not white, his father was born to an Islamic family and his middle name is 'Hussein'.

It seems America still hasn't shaken off that unlying racism that exists in certain aspects of its society.

I have to agree, Natman - the Qur'an is not even a good read; it makes the book of Jeremiah look like P.G. Wodehouse, and Revelation look like "The Book of British Birds". But the actions of this pastor, and the stupid motivations behind it, do indeed send a clear message to radical islam - it is that "Christians are just as crazy and theocratic and intolerant and vicious as you guys, and we don't care about making the world a better place, we don't care about people being killed in the ignorant rabble-riots in the Middle East that we know this will produce, and we don't care about NATO forces in Afghanistan being in greater danger because of this."

And of course the reaction in the Islamic world is entirely predictable, with effigies and flags being burnt, and lots of daft people jumping around and yelling Allahu akbar. Get a LIFE, people! Allah/God does not even *exist*! Sheesh!

As far as I am concerned there are no attributes just, at most, attributions. Nothing is holy but we make it so. I would have no concerns at all about burning the odd Koran, just as I have no concerns about nailing the odd cracker. I'd be interested nonethess to know if any of our other contributors see a parallel or think rather that there are significant differences.

Should fear of any potential reaction moderate behaviour? What are the potential consequences if we permit intimidation to have even the slightest impact on our decisions?

I agree there Helio- the only point proved by burning the koran is christians can be as mad as muslims. Or that humans, in big groups getting each other all worked up are just mad full stop.It's tribalism masquerading under the banner of religion.Totally unnecessary and whoever dies as a consqeuence of this guys actions ,he should be accountable.
I do feel , however the groundzero site and the word mosque suddenly being married in peoples minds is going to cause problems. It's as tasteless as placing a German consulate building at Auschwitz. Whatever madness was behind the 911 attacks, its seen as an attack by militants in the name of the Islamic faith. Putting a mosque at the point of attack isn't bringing anyone any closer together, so its defeating the point of creating a harmonious culture. It's also potentially making the Mosque and innocent people who will go there a target from extremists on the Christian/ American side

Parrhasios

What strikes me about events such as these is the lack of respect at the heart of them; not necessarily because some see books or communion wafers as sacred, but simply because we are human.

Such events, I suggest, are about the demonstration of 鈥榩ower鈥�; some might say freedom, but I fail to see why we must defend freedom with disrespect. Perhaps, in the name of freedom, we must tolerate disrespect, perhaps we must allow for disrespect, but we need not demonstrate our freedom by disrespect.

And perhaps there is a different way, perhaps we might learn to love our enemies (enemies great and small); perhaps, if this is a freedom we can stand.

I see the Papal vist has really caught everyones imagination.

2MP - well said! Although I would contend that ideally we should not tolerate disrespect - even though we do. Perhaps if we didn't tolerate it as much as we do but started calling it out for what it is and saying that is not acceptable, that might make a difference, so long as we are actually saying it in a respectful, non-angry way that can be heard. (talking generally here not specific to this)

Parrhasios: fact is people do moderate behaviour for fear of outcomes irrespective of what they 'should' do. People do get intimidated and bullied in workplaces and families and all over the place and there are significant untold consequences - as many are too fearful to speak up about it. It is a big problem - could even occur on a blog! :-)

As for burning the Quran - pointless exercise. Intolerance vs intolerance. Ignorance vs ignorance.

Live and let live.

Burning the Quran, intolerance, bullying, intimidation - all on a path to nowhere fast ......Don't take it from me - take it from Yoda .......Yoda's ageless wisdom: ' once you start down the dark path, forever it will dominate your destiny, consume you it will'.... :-)

Think I prefer idea of Yoda visiting, rather than the Pope :p

Peter - I am going to disagree. A free society needs those who do not respect. Disrespect not only exposes intolerance, it also challenges tolerance. Why should we respect nonsense, why should we respect evil and those who propagate it? I can not make what is holy to someone unholy but I can deny it hegemony, I can assert contrariness. I admire those who push the boundaries, just as I admire those whose response is understanding and forbearance.

To require respect for anything is wrong, to give respect to that which is unworthy of it is wrong. Respect is not, of itself, a virtue: misplaced, it is a grievous error. Respect can be craven - love, on the other hand, often will be challenging.

Eunice - our honeymoon appears to have been mercifully brief ;-)

I believe moral debate does look occasionally at the area of "should". I have just finished Hans Fallada's Alone in Berlin. It is, in this context, an interesting read.

I raised the issue primarily, however, in an attempt to discover whether those who expressed reservations about this Koran-burning would apply any of those criticisms to PZ's activities with a consecrated host. I fully accept, and credit where credit is due, PZ has also desecrated a page of the Koran.

The greatest sadness in man is to be begotten by the god he created.
Or is it the other way round?

Oh I don't know Parrhasios - there's life in the old dog yet as they say!! You wouldn't let a little disagreement here and there destroy a beautiful relationship now would you???!! :-)

And it'll contribute to global warming.

Of course it would be good if there was the same level of interest when Christians get burned in India.

I didn't watch the last couple of Star Wars movies but at least Yoda survived...thanks Eunice.

Parrhasios

Ah, the limitations of the written word!

I shall not rehearse the differing premises in our worldviews, but let me try and push or explain my thinking a little further.

I have no particular quarrel with you using the word respect/disrespect in the way that you do. I鈥檓 taking it to mean (I hope I read you correctly) that 鈥榙isrespect鈥� is needed if we are, among other things, to flag up injustice, if we are to do justice. This is a tension to which I鈥檒l return later. You will note though that I linked the idea of disrespect to 鈥榩ower鈥� and I was thinking in terms of someone deliberately disrespecting other *people* in order that they might further their own power base or further affirm their own worldview.

For example PZ Myers (from his own website), 鈥減eople are so goddamned stupid. Petty and stupid. Hateful and stupid. Just plain stupid鈥�. Now, if people are being 鈥榟ateful鈥�, let us by all means 鈥榙isrespect鈥� their hatred but let us also continue to see the person. It鈥檚 the 鈥榮tupid鈥� bit of that kind of comment which bothers me, for what it seems to say is that those in power will continue to perpetuate and determine who is the social pariah; it is a way of holding power and it is as old as the Pharisee who was not like the 鈥榮inner鈥�. Please don鈥檛 misunderstand, I am not making an atheism v鈥檚 religion point I am suggesting that power has been and is still maintained by ridicule and exclusion. This is what was on my mind.

Perhaps my choice of the word 鈥榙isrespect鈥� was a poor one, but what I鈥檓 trying to get at is to discuss how we might live if we are truly free. Unfortunately It seems to me that some kinds of freedom require the 鈥榖ricks and mortar鈥� of ridicule, cat-call and insult to build their 鈥楥amelot鈥�.

Of course there is tension; there is injustice, and when the powerful require respect to maintain this injustice, yes we must speak up, yes, we must raise a finger or two! But how do we ever get beyond this if we are only ever the people of protest, how do we ever get to love if we are forever justifying our own actions, and how do we ever get to loving our enemies? I鈥檓 not denying that we must act justly, we must; but our enemies are precisely the people who do 鈥榚vil鈥�. Our enemies are precisely the people who speak 鈥榥onsense鈥�. Our enemies are precisely the people who are 鈥榠ntolerant鈥�. This is our tension, our very real tension. Enemies are real, and while I sit in comfort bashing a wireless keyboard I find myself thinking that I am called to love my enemies and I find myself reflecting that there are people who do.

Have I a practical answer, no, not really. A church (my community) which is more concerned about it鈥檚 buildings and it鈥檚 praise bands (or it鈥檚 book burning) has no time to love it鈥檚 enemies. But what I do know is this: the concept of god often pilloried on this blog, the god of 鈥榤agically answered prayers鈥� and other such 鈥榩resents鈥� under the Christmas tree, is not the god who loves enemies, it is not a god I identify with. That is a pathetic and pallid little god, not worth the bother of protesting against; but the god of the cross provides me with a framework within which I (I would rather use the collective we) begin to do good to those who despise us, to those who hate us... to our enemies. It鈥檚 this enemy loving bit which is the problem.

Parrhasios: I did not mean that there were no 'shoulds' in moral debate - I was just meaning that even if we know what the shoulds are - fact is many people are unable to fulfil them.

Disrespect not only exposes intolerance, it also challenges tolerance.

Are you saying it is not possible to expose intolerance or challenge tolerance in a way that is also respectful?

Why should we respect nonsense, why should we respect evil and those who propagate it?

HAving respect to me means you would not respect nonsense or evil! But not respecting it is not the same as being disrespectful I feel.

So here's my tuppence worth: respect for me is a bit like love - it starts with self. If we respect ourselves we will respect all others. That does not mean that we have to agree with them or let them off with this that or the other. Having self -respect would mean that abuses of any kind would not be tolerated - but that does not mean it has to be done disrespectfully. THe more one is able to self-respect (and thus others) it becomes apparent that being disrespectful is actually harming to the person that is being disrespectful. This feeds into 2MP comments as well. It is possible to love one's enemies, the essence of the person but not the expression that is coming through them which may be evil and occurs because they are in separation to their true nature.
Admittedly - it can be difficult in the heat of the moment to live that! :-)

What we put out comes back, what we sow, we reap. SO if we go around being disrespectful - that will in some way come back to us.

Peter - I can whole-heartedly agree that "enemy loving is the problem". I admit that I do not know what it really means to love my enemy, possibly because my life has been insufficiently Christ-like for me to have anyone that I would really perceive as an enemy.

Often the Scriptures give us some sort of parable to take us deeper into some of Jesus' more challenging teachings. I may be wrong but I can not recollect any parable which helps us comprehend the meaning of this command. All we can do is look at the accounts of Jesus' own life, the life of someone who was certainly not without enemies.

The people who conspired to bring about Jesus' death, his enemies, were the Temple authorities and their super-religious followers and henchmen. Jesus did not, in any sense of the word, show these people respect. It is hard indeed to see his interaction with them as loving, certainly as we commonly understand the term. He questioned their piety. He rubbished their faith. He viciously insulted them. He deliberately and openly, with intent, profaned things they (and others) considered holy. Now this is challenging! What does it mean when such a man tells us to love our enemies?

I have, at best, but the glimmering of a notion and that involves, as you suggest, attempting never to lose sight of the person who inhabits my enemy's skin. I do not know what Jesus would do if he were here today. I think Pastor Jones was not the one to do it but some true followers of Christ should burn the Koran to highlight the perversion of the idolatry which places a book above human life. I would attend such a burning.