I’ve never been Jewish, and I personally find the act of deliberately desecrating objects of belief, faith and following—from blowup up Buddhas to burning flags to pissing on crucifixes to be extremely distasteful in ways ranging from mild annoyance at juvenile attempts to shock (Piss christ, Dung Madonna) to rather enraging (Blowing up thousand year old statues or burning flags as a political protest).
Things like the Torah, the Koran and the Bible (a bit less so, but still) (I have no idea about the Shruti/Smirtis, but I’ll lump them in here anyway) are not just religious texts, they are cultural icons, relics and touchstones to hundreds of millions of people. By desecrating those artifacts you are desecrating those people’s beliefs and culture. This is, at minimum rude and is a mind killer.
Now things like shitting on a torah, blowing up a church or burning a flag are distinctly different than drawing Mohammad in that drawing Mohammad (or anyone else really) is not desecration, but blasphemy. It is roughly the same as me, or anyone else “taking the lords name in vain”.
Now things like shitting on a torah, blowing up a church or burning a flag are distinctly different than drawing Mohammad in that drawing Mohammad (or anyone else really) is not desecration, but blasphemy. It is roughly the same as me, or anyone else “taking the lords name in vain”.
Can you explain what criteria you’re using to draw that distinction? Do you expect people with different cultural norms to be able to acknowledge those criteria as objectively valid?
The distinction between them is difficult for me to articulate clearly—it seems my operating definition of desecration and blasphemy were a little more narrow than common usage, but to me desecration is something you do to an object or an idea that reduces it’s utility as a sacred object or icon—essentially some sort of vandalism. Blasphemy is a secular or profane expression of a sacred idea—you can’t desecrate Mohammad’s memory by drawing him because (1) we don’t know what he looked like, and (2) drawing him isn’t doesn’t render him profane in the eyes of his believers, except where it challenges their beliefs and causes THEM to change their mind.
A desecration reduces a sacred object profane, while blasphemy is either an insult to a sacred belief or entity or the questioning of that belief or entity.
And yes, I do expect people with different cultural norms (for bounded values of different, super intelligent shades of blue may have a different enough sensory apparatus and processing engine that those concepts don’t apply) to be able to at least acknowledge those distinctions. Now, I don’t expect all members of any given culture to—after all even our culture has people who think the world is flat etc.
And there are some cultural norms that aren’t worth giving a fuck about.
Note there is a difference between “tolerate” and “accept”.
Not true.
I’ve never been Jewish, and I personally find the act of deliberately desecrating objects of belief, faith and following—from blowup up Buddhas to burning flags to pissing on crucifixes to be extremely distasteful in ways ranging from mild annoyance at juvenile attempts to shock (Piss christ, Dung Madonna) to rather enraging (Blowing up thousand year old statues or burning flags as a political protest).
Things like the Torah, the Koran and the Bible (a bit less so, but still) (I have no idea about the Shruti/Smirtis, but I’ll lump them in here anyway) are not just religious texts, they are cultural icons, relics and touchstones to hundreds of millions of people. By desecrating those artifacts you are desecrating those people’s beliefs and culture. This is, at minimum rude and is a mind killer.
Now things like shitting on a torah, blowing up a church or burning a flag are distinctly different than drawing Mohammad in that drawing Mohammad (or anyone else really) is not desecration, but blasphemy. It is roughly the same as me, or anyone else “taking the lords name in vain”.
Can you explain what criteria you’re using to draw that distinction? Do you expect people with different cultural norms to be able to acknowledge those criteria as objectively valid?
The distinction between them is difficult for me to articulate clearly—it seems my operating definition of desecration and blasphemy were a little more narrow than common usage, but to me desecration is something you do to an object or an idea that reduces it’s utility as a sacred object or icon—essentially some sort of vandalism. Blasphemy is a secular or profane expression of a sacred idea—you can’t desecrate Mohammad’s memory by drawing him because (1) we don’t know what he looked like, and (2) drawing him isn’t doesn’t render him profane in the eyes of his believers, except where it challenges their beliefs and causes THEM to change their mind.
A desecration reduces a sacred object profane, while blasphemy is either an insult to a sacred belief or entity or the questioning of that belief or entity.
And yes, I do expect people with different cultural norms (for bounded values of different, super intelligent shades of blue may have a different enough sensory apparatus and processing engine that those concepts don’t apply) to be able to at least acknowledge those distinctions. Now, I don’t expect all members of any given culture to—after all even our culture has people who think the world is flat etc.
And there are some cultural norms that aren’t worth giving a fuck about.
Note there is a difference between “tolerate” and “accept”.