How many more attacks before the West has to consider the previously unthinkable?

[tomndebb]

@SlackerInc

You seem to be overlooking the fact that India is the world’s largest democracy. Puritanical censorship out of step with the common practice in the rest of the world’s most successful cinema would not survive decades without widespread support from the people.

You are overlooking the fact, already noted, that this censorship of movies is a recent phenomenon in the culture that only occurred after the imposition of a couple of hundred years of British involvement in the society. And an appeal to “democracy” hardly succeeds in a society where laws against a number of acts, (group rape, honor killings, etc.), have been frequently ignored for years. It may simply be a matter that the Indian population has other things to worry about than restrictions on their movies.

[Gyrate]

nm

[Monty]

@SlackerInc

The Bible is actually much more clear and explicit in mandating appalling acts of violence including literal genocide. So the texts themselves are somewhat beside the point.

Doesn’t this negate your so-called point about Islam?

[madsircool]

@Monty

Doesn’t this negate your so-called point about Islam?

No because those passages were only valid in the context of the ancient Israeli kingdom. I haven’t run into an Edomite for almost 2500 years.

[SlackerInc]

@Monty

Doesn’t this negate your so-called point about Islam?

Negate? No. Granted, it doesn’t exactly strengthen it. But believe it or, I try to seek truth, wherever that leads me. I don’t operate like a lobbyist, or a lawyer arguing a case and only acknowledging evidence that supports my argument.

[up_the_junction]

well then you need to get the hell out of that parochial, mono-cultural work/home/social hell hole you currently live in.

[SlackerInc]

Oookaaayy then.

[Monty]

@madsircool

No because those passages were only valid in the context of the ancient Israeli kingdom. I haven’t run into an Edomite for almost 2500 years.

So, what you’re saying is that abrogation applies to the Jewish and Christian sacred texts, but does not for Islamic texts. Why is that, pray tell?

[SlackerInc]

@Monty

So, what you’re saying is that abrogation applies to the Jewish and Christian sacred texts, but does not for Islamic texts. Why is that, pray tell?

I’m just glad that I has an atheist don’t have to try to defend that pretzel logic.

[Monty]

@SlackerInc

I’m just glad that I has an atheist don’t have to try to defend that pretzel logic.

This likely qualifies as a rhetorical question, but here goes anyway. Do you know what you’re talking about?

[SlackerInc]

@Monty

So, what you’re saying is that abrogation applies to the Jewish and Christian sacred texts, but does not for Islamic texts. Why is that, pray tell?

@SlackerInc

I’m just glad that I has an atheist don’t have to try to defend that pretzel logic.

(That was supposed to be “I *as *an atheist”, but I voice-dictated on my iPad and did not catch the transcription error.)

@Monty

This likely qualifies as a rhetorical question, but here goes anyway. Do you know what you’re talking about?

I’m gonna go ahead and guess that you didn’t understand what I was saying there, at all. Maybe my “typo” of “has” in the place of “as” muddied the waters. In any case, the way you got your dander up suggests that you thought I was characterizing *your *post as difficult to defend “pretzel logic”. In fact, I was actually chiming in on your side, kind of. I was rolling my eyes at **madsircool’s **attempt to defend what is probably his religion’s holy text (the Bible) while hypocritically savaging the Quran (which, as I noted, would lose a contest of “which text contains more appalling and offensive content”).