Marcus Brigstock on the Abrahamic faiths

Listening to it was wonderful. I understand the objections to the images that were compiled by individual (alien8ted) who posted it on youtube, but the actual spoken commentary was refreshing. Thanks for posting it martin.

Hmmmm,....well,..yes...,hmmm...

 Mr. Brigstock spreads it around pretty evenly among the faiths, and his topic is extreemism, and what deeds are done in the name of religion.  I see he also characterises more moderate believers as enablers.  I would not necessarily agree with that position, but he's entitled to make it.

I should say I found it kind of funny.  My own feeling is that it's one of those things that in itself is ok to post, but may not end up ok depending where the conversation goes.

I'm also trying to be cogniscent of my own biases here, and will admit that I may be somewhat deaf to some objectionable parts because Marcus is at least within the ballpark of my own view on what has been done in the name of the major world religions, so I would hold myself (as always) open to being overridden and/or convinced otherwise.

Ironically (and perhaps eerily) Brigstock foresaw this thread.

"I can guarantee that each one of those faiths will be utterly convinced that I've singled them out for special criticism"

Brigstock is spot on.   And if you think that a Muslim extremist wearing a dynamite belt, or a Jewish extremist pointing an assault rifle at a child, or a Christian extremist CHILD holding a "God blew up the space shuttle" sign is offensive... well, what do you think extremists look like?  How should they be portrayed so as to be authentic, yet bland and comfortable for you?  How about if they're all just shown as scowling a bit?  

Next we'll be implying that CEOs are all ruthless, money-hungry greedheads, and Conservative politicians are all judgemental, xenophobic clench-butts in $99 suits.

But seriously, what do you want your extremists to look like?  He's talking about extremists, and unless it's all a Photoshop job, he's showing pictures of extremists.  It's hard to get more accurate than that.  If you object to these extremists being "stereotypes" then you should address that with them.  They're the ones who seem to be unable to stop looking and acting like those stereotypes.  Are we all just supposed to pretend?

I kinda want to wade in again and slap a few faces. Pay attention kiddies, look to the right of the video when you have the youtube screen open, there is a description posted by alien8ted on how s/he took an AUDIO presentation and applied IMAGES to it. If you want to talk about the IMAGES refer to alien8ted, if you want to talk about the Brigstock confine yourself to the AUDIO. The original piece is definitely worthy of posting here - that it was only available in the form that was posted says nothing about the OP or Marcus Brigstock.

Thanks for pointing that out Bagkitty. I'm still left with wondering the purpose and validity of posting a link to the video on Babble.

Scare quote? au contraire. The quotes question the stereotype of "extermists".

I watched the video. Or, more accurately, listened to the video.

First, this was clearly done as a standup routine and the images were added in afterwards as bagkitty said. So, in listening to the audio only, no, the comedian did not single out any one religion in particular.

However, the "humour" and yes that's in scare quotes on purpose, does draw from racist, Islamophobic and anti-semitic tropes. How could it not, really? As a Christian society, please note, there are no "anti-Christian tropes", so he merely invoked the extreme Christians through examples.

He sees that religion is the connection between all the extremists. He made no comment that the vast majority of the people who he would call religious extremists are, in fact, men. Funny, he didn't say a thing about that.

My thoughts are that religion is one of many methods/means for extremists. It's power and control (by men) by whatever means necessary that is the connection. And on the individual level, hate. 

But since people don't live in vacuums, then the larger society has to be looked at. In his context (Britain) and ours (Canada or North America). In these contexts, as Christian-founded (need scare quotes for that one) nations (ditto) there is no way to do a piece like that and not be racist, Islamophobic and anti-Semitic. Which he was, and proud of it.

Do I think this thread should be closed? Yes. Have threads which are far more offensive than this been allowed on babble? Yes.

Fill your boots, boys.

P.S. Agreeing with Caissa is a very strange feeling.

I despise all these religions, as I have stated ad nauseam on this board.

However, [b]Caissa is absolutely right[/b]. This linked piece (audio plus added photos) treats Christians as eccentric, Jews as occasionally going too far, and Muslims as dangerous lunatic mass murderers. There is no "balance" whatsoever. In that respect, it reminds me of "The End of Faith", in which Sam Harris, under the guise of critiquing religion, provides Islamophobic cover for the aggressive agenda of the U.S. in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Likewise, this piece is like Daniel Pipes with some feeble comments tossed in about Jews and Christians to make it look "fair".

If you can't show the weakness of religion without pointing to suicide bombers, then you really aren't critiquing religion at all.

ETA: In response to Maysie (with whom I agree almost entirely), yes, there are anti-semitic tropes, but they sure do pale in comparison with the anti-Muslim stereotypes.

SOL is shit out of luck.

And marzo you stated that I was trying to silence conversation by using horrible words like Islamophobia. I disagree. I calls it as I sees it.

Unionist, thanks, and I feel like I've used up my anti-racist rage here. Hence my lack of focussing on how Islamophobia carries a different intensity of meaning and destructiveness.

And the images were appalling, just to say that for the record, but the comedian isn't responsible for them. But look what his words "inspired". Ick.

To provide some balance I thought I would post one oif my favourite questions for christian extremists. "would he snuff out the kids or just take out dad and mom."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaQ2JavrQuw&feature=related

So nuanced, insightful and most of all respectful.

You should be the opening act for dude in the OP.

Maysie, what's the nuance to say bullshit?  I don't get how religion can be included in progressivism?  Unless it's populist progressivism?  A means to an end?

Religion is evil.

Bullshit.

I'll accept that but still call all religion BS.  Christianity should be exposed for the same.

I disagree with calling all religions bullshit, RP, so we will disagree on that always.

And I say that as a non religious person who was lucky enough to not have been brainwashed with religion when I grew up.

Maybe, I should make it clear that Christianity gets too much of a free ride.  I wade clear of specific religions but the whole cult mentality is open season for me.

Okay, lets be fair, he should have mentioned the Crusades and the Inquisition, the Witch Trials and the surpression of the Cathars. He should have mentioned the Christian zealots who will shoot physicians, the Orthodox Jewish zealots who will bomb a community centre for LGBT youth and Muslim zealots who wage a campaign of torture and murder against gay men. He also should have mentioned the genocidal campaigns of the Israelites "Thus saith the LORD of hosts go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass" (1 Samuel 15: 2-3 if anyone is interested). And he definitely should have mentioned that there are prominent Christian and Jewish (as well as Muslim) clerics who look upon those things approvingly... Unfortunately, the piece was in the format of a radio monologue and it is a little difficult to annotate the spoken word in the middle of a performance. So let's give him a C+ for content, but I still contend it was a solid A for intentions.

Martin and snert are you intentionally twisiting what I'm saying? Let me be clearer then on what I am saying. My academic history is in history. That which is aclaaed scripture by religions are historical documents. They should be approached as historical documents as historians approach other historical documents in context.

I'm not sure what you are saying or think I'm saying.