"The Master" and "Innocence of Muslims", is it the same thing?

[Samson]

I was struck by the co-occurrence of these 2 stories, 1st of course the widespread violence sparked by the film Innocence of Muslims, and this story about The Master, a (much better) film about in part scientology.

When I 1st heard these stories I suspect I am not alone in thinking about the Innocence of Muslims that he should be allowed to make it, but he was a bit of a jerk to do so, and about The Master good, they deserved it and I am glad they made it. But then I started thinking, why? Does the violence that some Muslims are willing to engage in that scientologists will not give them a louder voice? Does the artistic merit of the Master (it won awards for acting and directing and is seen as an early contender for The Oscars) give it right to insult people? Is Islam more deserving of respect than scientology, possibly because it was not so obviously made up for personal gain?

I do not know the answer here, what about you?

[EDIT] You can read "should" in the poll to mean what you like, but NOT "should be allowed [by law]".

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, the difference is that Islam is a genuine religion that deserves respect and scientology is a scam.

 

[alva848]

And your definition of "genuine" is...?

 

[Quackers]

Why does being a genuine religion deserve any respect?

 

[Leoreth]

Being a religion deserves respect. The "genuine" was just there to imply that scientology isn't a religion, but a scam dressing up as a religion.

 

[Peuri]

What differentiates a cult from a religion? Both are belief systems that hold questionable claims about the nature of the universe. The other one just has more followers and has been accepted by the larger society the status of religion. The difference is superficial. How can we know that islam wasn't a scam concocted by Mohammed and his close followers to unite the warring tribes of Arabia too? A different sort of scam, but it could still be a scam. The fact that scientology is more obviously a scam does not diminish the fact that some people undoubtedly believe in the teachings of scientology, so the fact that the motivations of the founders or the leaders of that religion are selfish does not mean that some people could be insulted by ridicule directed at scientology too.

Scam or not, it does not give a belief system a status that should not be criticised, insulted or ridiculed. A belief system that should not be criticised or ridiculed, no matter how silly, aggravating or obviously false the claims directed against it are, is a dangerous belief system. You can criticise my atheism or belief in universal human rights any day, a statement whose power is perhaps diminished by the fact that I live in a stable, secular and moderately wealthy western nation. Now it is important that I differentiate between different forms of islam, not to give the idea that I think that all muslims are ready to murder their fellow earthlings. Some forms of islam obviously allow this, but the majority does not. Religion doesn't make its followers a monolith of uniform ideas. Obviously the makers of Innocence of Muslims could have known that it could cause bloodshed, but there are other factors that play into these recent massacres too, so the film can not be solely to blame.

 

[Quackers]

..So why does a religion deserve respect? It just seems like a special type of idealogy to me. I have the right to mock it and it's adherents as much as i want - surely?

 

[Winner]

What differentiates a cult from a religion? Both are belief systems that hold questionable claims about the nature of the universe. The other one just has more followers and has been accepted by the larger society the status of religion. The difference is superficial. How can we know that islam wasn't a scam concocted by Mohammed and his close followers to unite the warring tribes of Arabia too? A different sort of scam, but it could still be a scam. The fact that scientology is more obviously a scam does not diminish the fact that some people undoubtedly believe in the teachings of scientology, so the fact that the motivations of the founders or the leaders of that religion are selfish does not mean that some people could be insulted by ridicule directed at scientology too.

Scam or not, it does not give a belief system a status that should not be criticised, insulted or ridiculed. A belief system that should not be criticised or ridiculed, no matter how silly, aggravating or obviously false the claims directed against it are, is a dangerous belief system. You can criticise my atheism or belief in universal human rights any day, a statement whose power is perhaps diminished by the fact that I live in a stable, secular and moderately wealthy western nation. Now it is important that I differentiate between different forms of islam, not to give the idea that I think that all muslims are ready to murder their fellow earthlings. Some forms of islam obviously allow this, but the majority does not. Religion doesn't make its followers a monolith of uniform ideas. Obviously the makers of Innocence of Muslims could have known that it could cause bloodshed, but there are other factors that play into these recent massacres too, so the film can not be solely to blame.

Well said

Yeah, the difference is that Islam is a genuine religion that deserves respect and scientology is a scam.

I sincerely hope this was a sarcasm.

Being a religion deserves respect.

And this.

---

Was the film a provocation? Yes. Do people have a right to make bad taste satirical clips and publish them on YouTube or elsewhere? Yes (if you live in a free country). Do other people have a right to kill innocent people because their pitifully small egos got hurt by the satire? NO, NO, and HELL NO!

/discussion

 

[Leoreth]

..So why does a religion deserve respect? It just seems like a special type of idealogy to me. I have the right to mock it and it's adherents as much as i want - surely?

I didn't want to say that a religion deserves more respect than an ideology. I also didn't want to say that you cannot mock a religion. I do believe that you can mock something and still respect it.

The only think I wanted to say is that Scientology is a scam and doesn't deserve any respect at all.

Edit @Winner: you seem to misinterpret my statements. I didn't want to imply that anyone has the right to kill someone over something as trivial as a Youtube video at all. It's a sad reflection of the state of the current debate that even asserting your respect for a certain kind of thinking could be interpreted in such a way.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

They are similar in the sense that they are a collection of words and images that don't do anything. And it's not like they are billboards or anything. They are played in cinemas where you choose to buy a ticket (slightly different with YouTube but the principle is the same).

What differs is how one reacts after watching them. And that really depends on whether you are a dick or not.

@Leoroth.....the idea that something can be simultaneously mocked and respected is important. Well said!

 

[Truronian]

I don't think there should be any laws preventing either film from being made, but I consider the latter (and not the former) an irresponsible and juvenile creation.

 

[Winner]

Edit @Winner: you seem to misinterpret my statements. I didn't want to imply that anyone has the right to kill someone over something as trivial as a Youtube video at all. It's a sad reflection of the state of the current debate that even asserting your respect for a certain kind of thinking could be interpreted in such a way.

I still disagree that a religion should command any respect at all. To me, "respect" is something I assign to things and people I deem worthy of it, not something that is automatically applied because other people say it should be.

Example: Czech presidents usually command quite a great deal of respect. That doesn't stop me from having no respect whatsoever for the drooling xenophobic pen-thief who currently holds the office.

Example 2: I respect people of opposing political views when I know their beliefs are based on serious thought, even though I absolutely disagree with what they say.

You said that Islam is a "real" religion and should thus be respected more than a "scam" religion like Scientology. Now, I absolutely agree that Scientology is a scam. I just think that it is so easy to see through it because it's so new. The same goes to many other cults, and in some you can see how they gain "respectability" with time - e.g. Mormons. A cult based on absolutely laughable beliefs, but yet, one of them is running for the president of the most powerful country in the world. Give it a few more centuries, and it will end up being as respectable as any other religion out there.

For this reason, I see no difference between Scientology and Islam *in principle*. Neither deserves any respect whatsoever. If the Muslims want to be offended by that, it'S their right. If they want to kill and burn because they're offended, now that's a problem - their problem.

 

[civver_764]

Yeah Islam is no more valid or correct than Scientology is.

 

[Samson]

I don't think there should be any laws preventing either film from being made, but I consider the latter (and not the former) an irresponsible and juvenile creation.

This was my initial thought. However I asked myself why and could not come up with a good answer. These are the ones I considered:

Because of the predictable violence that ensued. But then violence is an effective method of preventing criticism. This justifies the violence.

Because the film is rubbish. Would high production values and Oscar nominations have changed Innocence of Muslims into a film that should have been made? I do not think so.

Because Islam is more deserving of respect, or less deserving of criticism than scientology. I actually believe this to be true, but to say something should not be made because I disagree with the content seems wrong to me.

As I said I do not know the answer, but I think the answer deserves a reason and I cannot give a good one.

That doesn't stop me from having no respect whatsoever for the drooling xenophobic pen-thief who currently holds the office.

Pen-thief? Interesting insult (I guess).

 

[bhsup]

I don't really like the wording of the poll with the "should" have been made." Should have the right to be made, sure, I don't quibble about that at all. But "should" implies some sort of imperative, as though it were important that they be made and that people watch them as some sort of public awareness/service. Well okay, maybe the one about Scientology merits that. Oh well, I'm just rambling about my vote.

Leoreth has the pulse of it here, that's clear so far so as far as this thread goes I'll just say "YEP" to whatever he says.

 

[Samson]

I don't really like the wording of the poll with the "should" have been made." Should have the right to be made, sure, I don't quibble about that at all. But "should" implies some sort of imperative, as though it were important that they be made and that people watch them as some sort of public awareness/service. Well okay, maybe the one about Scientology merits that. Oh well, I'm just rambling about my vote.

Leoreth has the pulse of it here, that's clear so far so as far as this thread goes I'll just say "YEP" to whatever he says.

Yeah, I really wanted to be clear I did not mean "Should have the right to be made". Perhaps a better wording would be "Is it irresponsible to make" but would get onto the question of who has responsibility in this matter. I guess the word can mean whatever you want it to mean, but NOT "Should have the right to be made".

 

[bhsup]

Oh. Well in that case I voted wrong. There really isn't an option that fits for me other than Downtown.

 

[Cutlass]

I think the difference is that one was meant to inform/entertain and the other was meant to enrage.

 

[Truronian]

This was my initial thought. However I asked myself why and could not come up with a good answer. These are the ones I considered:

Because of the predictable violence that ensued. But then violence is an effective method of preventing criticism. This justifies the violence.

Because the film is rubbish. Would high production values and Oscar nominations have changed Innocence of Muslims into a film that should have been made? I do not think so.

Because Islam is more deserving of respect, or less deserving of criticism than scientology. I actually believe this to be true, but to say something should not be made because I disagree with the content seems wrong to me.

As I said I do not know the answer, but I think the answer deserves a reason and I cannot give a good one.

Innocence of Muslims was not made to criticize Islam, it was made to provoke Muslims. There are many reasonable and reasonably conveyed critiques of Islam around which haven't caused this kind of backlash.

I'm not of the opinion that religions in and of themselves are deserving of respect or admonishment. What I would say is that there are many more Muslims that I have respect for than there are Scientologists.

 

[Samson]

Innocence of Muslims was not made to criticize Islam, it was made to provoke Muslims. There are many reasonable and reasonably conveyed critiques of Islam around which haven't caused this kind of backlash.

I'm not of the opinion that religions in and of themselves are deserving of respect or admonishment. What I would say is that there are many more Muslims that I have respect for than there are Scientologists.

Now this is a very good reason to distinguish between the 2. I have seen neither, but from the media coverage it would seem reasonable to conclude that The Master is justifiable fact based criticism and Innocence of Muslims is little more than intentional insult. I feel I can now vote in my own poll.