Gay artist edits bible + burns quran 26 replies

Please wait...

-DarthMaul-

I'm way cooler than n0e (who isn't though?)

50 XP

11th February 2003

0 Uploads

5,051 Posts

0 Threads

#1 11 years ago

Business and Financial News - New York Times

I think a guy like this is being counter productive to the gay comunity by alienating both Muslim and Christian peoples. I'll be honest, I hate this guy for what he did. First of all he edited a holy book with black markers and scissors, so he basically was being super disrespectful to the book. Secondly he burned not just a qu'ran, but a very rare and expensive qu'ran that was a Gift to one of his family members(wife).

Why didnt he just do something better with his money and time. In kind of a sense he is trying to shove religion down my throat by editing history, and a religious scripture.

Note: I dont hate gays. I just think they are born that way, and I think in the nearfuture there will be some kind of psychiatric cure. And try not to be offended that I think its a disease of somesort.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,337 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,145 Posts

5 Threads

#2 11 years ago

What someone does with their copy of the Qu'ran or the Bible is between them and whatever god happens to exist.




Tas

Serious business brigade

50 XP

4th September 2004

0 Uploads

7,275 Posts

0 Threads

#3 11 years ago

"What someone does with their copy of the Qu'ran or the Bible is between them and whatever god happens to exist."

Quoted for truth.

It's just a book in the end, maybe not when you are religious, but when you are not.. it is.




-DarthMaul-

I'm way cooler than n0e (who isn't though?)

50 XP

11th February 2003

0 Uploads

5,051 Posts

0 Threads

#4 11 years ago

I didnt at all mean he should be restricted from doing what he did to both holy books. The point was, that what he did was counter productive in may ways for the gay community.

Besides someone said something similar on another website before. Another person said that the Taliban were fine blowing up the Bhuddist statues, because it belonged to thier country[in essense the taliban as well, since the whole country belonged to them]. Do you agree? I think not, atleast I dont.




do_NOt_ENTRY

******

50 XP

31st January 2006

0 Uploads

633 Posts

0 Threads

#5 11 years ago

Maybe he's just saying that god doesn't exist? Something that i agree with. Burning books is up to him, it has nothing to do with me or anyone else.




Tas

Serious business brigade

50 XP

4th September 2004

0 Uploads

7,275 Posts

0 Threads

#6 11 years ago

-DarthMaul-;3881217I didnt at all mean he should be restricted from doing what he did to both holy books. The point was, that what he did was counter productive in may ways for the gay community.

Besides someone said something similar on another website before. Another person said that the Taliban were fine blowing up the Bhuddist statues, because it belonged to thier country[in essense the taliban as well, since the whole country belonged to them]. Do you agree? I think not, atleast I dont.

The term "gay community" is overused, there is no more cohesion between most gays than there is between straight people. What he did was counter productive only for himself, those people who take serious offence to the book marking/burning would like to see all gays dead or converted to begin with.

As for the statues, they are not personal property, and are not simply cheap copies, or without historic value, which all those bibles lack.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,337 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,145 Posts

5 Threads

#7 11 years ago
-DarthMaul-;3881217Besides someone said something similar on another website before. Another person said that the Taliban were fine blowing up the Bhuddist statues, because it belonged to thier country[in essense the taliban as well, since the whole country belonged to them]. Do you agree? I think not, atleast I dont.

If the Buddhists sold or gave the statues to the Taliban then the Taliban would be perfectly entitled to blow them up.

The thing is that once you've given up ownership of something to someone else you no longer have a say in what happens to it. If you're not prepared to see it burnt or flushed away or whatever then you shouldn't be giving it away.




-DarthMaul-

I'm way cooler than n0e (who isn't though?)

50 XP

11th February 2003

0 Uploads

5,051 Posts

0 Threads

#8 11 years ago
NemmerleAs far as I'm concerned the physical artifacts that come with history are largely worthless, once it's been documented to a level that can enable reproduction, (in case someone wants to make one for their house or something,) then it doesn't matter. They're just little bits of stone and stuff.[/QUOTE] You in another thread about our stolen Egyptian artifacts. http://forums.filefront.com/pub/325320-getty-return-italian-treasures.html One Word/Question: Hypocrasy? [QUOTE=Tas]What he did was counter productive only for himself

You seem to forget that we live in a world where one man's action(or a few men) speak very loudly for the people that he might think he speaks for.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,337 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,145 Posts

5 Threads

#9 11 years ago
-DarthMaul-;3881320You in another thread about our stolen Egyptian artifacts. http://forums.filefront.com/pub/325320-getty-return-italian-treasures.html One Word/Question: Hypocrasy?

If these Buddhist statues had some amazing value or attribute that we couldn't reproduce then their owners shouldn't destroy them, or at least it would be wasteful of them to do so. I don't place any innate value on Buddhist statues or other similar historical artefacts, as I mentioned, they're just bits or rock and stuff, and that is exactly why their owners should be allowed to destroy them. Had they some amazing value to humanity as a whole then destroying them would be a more contentious issue, but as it is they're just bits of stone, and if you own them you can destroy them. Just as in the Egyptian thread I don't really care what happens to silly bits of rock, what happens to some statues is hardly a great item of concern to me.




Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#10 11 years ago

I think this certainly qualifies as both "stupid" and a "dick move" on his part. Granted, the Quran and Bible are books that most mass murderers, terrorists, etc. have read one of at some point in their life, but you kinda need to keep people calm if you are trying to show them the error of their ways. Evolution probably wouldn't have been accepted by the general public as a valid scientific theory if instead of it simply proving the Bible wrong, a prominent evolution-supporter said, "well, clearly, your book must be wrong, and thus worthless. You've been lied to, and now I'm going to light a cigar with this flaming Bible, to show how much I disrespect it! I'm sure you'll come around to our way of thinking."

Even if this man does not speak for the gay community, the way that bigots think tends to be "hey, that one queer did something! I don't like what he did, and I don't like queers! By my trusty logic, that must mean that all people I don't like are queers, and they all do the same thing! A-HA!"

You want examples? Just open your history book to the chapter about Europe in the 1930s-40s, or the USA from 1877-circa 1977, for some pretty prominent examples.