"Innocence of Muslims" Filmmaker Likely Doesn't Exist, Film May Not Exist

[Wezil]

In your opinion. That's the thing about morals, there isn't just a single set of them that everyone agrees on.

Then it is a useless standard.

It's been answered several times, you just apparently don't like the answer.

Please provide a reference as I didn't see it.

[Wezil]

I like you as a poster Ken as I find you are usually reasonable in your approach/intent which is a quality in rare supply around Poly these days. I do think your reasonableness (if I can call it that) has affected your thinking on this issue. While few people like to see masses of irate citizens protesting in the middle east (including myself) I do think you are misdirecting your blame.

Your original position was essentially that the filmmaker had yelled "fire" in a theatre (a crime) to which you have backed off from. Hence your defence of "I'm not asking that he be prohibited from saying what he said" (paraphrased).

Now you are arguing he was "morally wrong" to do what he did. The meaningless standard aside, this implies that he should have the legal right to do what he did but he still shouldn't have done it.

I will amend my question you claim has been answered to address the shift in position:

Why does Islam get a pass from what we should and shouldn't talk about? Could it be because they react badly? If stalinists were to riot whenever something not nice was said about Papa Joe should we stop talking about that as well? Can we only talk freely about issues where no one is offended?

[kentonio]

Scenario -

BenK insults atheism in a conversation with me here at Poly
I get enraged at the offence and go out and assault/kill the closest Ben I can find

Question - Is our Ben morally responsible for my act?

Let me slightly amend your question, Ben decides to start up an online conversation with someone he knows is unstable and has a violent temper. He knows that that person will literally kill over their beliefs and sets out deliberately making that person so angry that they go out and kill someone. Ben has not broken any law, is Ben completely innocent morally?

Then it is a useless standard.

Morality? Yes pretty much.

It is however a useful tool for regulating peoples behavior as part of society.

While few people like to see masses of irate citizens protesting in the middle east (including myself) I do think you are misdirecting your blame.

It feels like people are focusing on the 'this guy has to bear some moral responsiblity' part and assuming that somehow removes responsibility from those who carried out the acts.

Your original position was essentially that the filmmaker had yelled "fire" in a theatre (a crime) to which you have backed off from. Hence your defence of "I'm not asking that he be prohibited from saying what he said" (paraphrased).

True, I decided it wasn't really representing my position very well due to the legality issue.

Now you are arguing he was "morally wrong" to do what he did. The meaningless standard aside, this implies that he should have the legal right to do what he did but he still shouldn't have done it.

Basically yes.

Why does Islam get a pass from what we should and shouldn't talk about? Could it be because they react badly? If stalinists were to riot whenever something not nice was said about Papa Joe should we stop talking about that as well? Can we only talk freely about issues where no one is offended?

You can discuss Islam as much as you like, but you should recognize that actions have consequences and rights come with responsibilities. This idea that people can just say anything they like without bearing any responsibility of the outcome just strikes me as inherently childish to be quite honest, which is why I don't approve of people saying he's blameless because it sends the message to people that they can just act however they like and society will approve.

[Wezil]

To save time and effort (I am the world's worst typist)...

"Let me slightly amend your question, Ben decides to start up an online conversation with someone he knows is unstable and has a violent temper. He knows that that person will literally kill over their beliefs and sets out deliberately making that person so angry that they go out and kill someone. Ben has not broken any law, is Ben completely innocent morally?"

A more apt analogy (I realised after posting my original) would be Ben is having an online conversation at Poly that I happen to see. My involvement is too direct in the original scenario. So yes, would be my answer. He would be morally innocent.

"You can discuss Islam as much as you like, but you should recognize that actions have consequences and rights come with responsibilities. This idea that people can just say anything they like without bearing any responsibility of the outcome just strikes me as inherently childish to be quite honest, which is why I don't approve of people saying he's blameless because it sends the message to people that they can just act however they like and society will approve. "

Again, I see this as a dodge. My converstation should be tempered by what someone on the other side of the planet may take offence to? And only of course if they are liable to be violent... That's a terrible position.

I've said before that I think Joseph Smith was a fraud. Was I morally wrong to say so?

[Wezil]

Keep in mind Ken, those that are reacting violently are not in the same room as the comment maker and the offence they are taking was not personally directed. Mohammed isn't one of the aggrieved.

[kentonio]

A more apt analogy (I realised after posting my original) would be Ben is having an online conversation at Poly that I happen to see. My involvement is too direct in the original scenario. So yes, would be my answer. He would be morally innocent.

Again, I see this as a dodge. My converstation should be tempered by what someone on the other side of the planet may take offence to? And only of course if they are liable to be violent... That's a terrible position.

Keep in mind Ken, those that are reacting violently are not in the same room as the comment maker and the offence they are taking was not personally directed. Mohammed isn't one of the aggrieved.

I think we see this completely differently. You seem to see the filmmaker as making this film for his own purposes but with no expectation of it being heard about in the muslim world. I see it more as that being the reason it was made. I don't believe where was any innocent intent here, he set out to offend and achieved exactly what was intended.

I've said before that I think Joseph Smith was a fraud. Was I morally wrong to say so?

Did you say it with the intent of provoking Mormons to violence?

[Wezil]

I think we see this completely differently. You seem to see the filmmaker as making this film for his own purposes but with no expectation of it being heard about in the muslim world. I see it more as that being the reason it was made. I don't believe where was any innocent intent here, he set out to offend and achieved exactly what was intended.

His intent under the circumstances is irrelevant. The reaction was unreasonable (unless, to continue with the earlier Ben analogy, you really do think this entire region is populated by mentally unbalanced people...)

Popular speech wouldn't be an issue. No one would riot if only good things were said.

Did you say it with the intent of provoking Mormons to violence?

Ah, but there's the rub. How do you provoke Mormons to violence? It's the outcome you are weighing, not the intent.

edit - To answer your question... I said it as a matter of belief from the research I have done. No doubt any Mormons reading it were offended to some extent. If I had researched Islam (I haven't) and come to the belief Mohammed was a womanizer, is it morally wrong to say so?

[kentonio]

His intent under the circumstances is irrelevant.

In other words we very much disagree, I don't find his intent in the slightest bit irrelevant.

The reaction was unreasonable (unless, to continue with the earlier Ben analogy, you really do think this entire region is populated by mentally unbalanced people...)

Unreasonable? Yes of course. Utterly predictable however. As an atheist I find the idea of killing people over a perceived slight to a god to be utterly unbalanced incidentally.

Ah, but there's the rub. How do you provoke Mormons to violence? It's the outcome you are weighing, not the intent.

The two are not seperable, if you aim for a certain outcome then that is your intent.

edit - To answer your question... I said it as a matter of belief from the research I have done. No doubt any Mormons reading it were offended to some extent. If I had researched Islam (I haven't) and come to the belief Mohammed was a womanizer, is it morally wrong to say so?

Just answer me this one question, if you had the expectation that your insult would have led Mormons to riot and kill people, would you have made it anyway?

[Uncle Sparky]

So, this is the closest parallel I can think of. No theatres were burnt down, the Vatican didn't put a bounty on anyone involved with the production, and a lot of Christians were very, very angry. The Life of Brian also angered a lot of Christians, but because it was obviously satire, protests barely happened.

'The Last Temptation of Christ' Opens to Protests but Good Sales

By ALJEAN HARMETZ, Special to the New York Times
Published: August 13, 1988

After a month of protests and angry rallies by groups that consider the movie blasphemous, Martin Scorsese's ''Last Temptation of Christ'' opened today to long lines, sold-out theaters and scattered picketing.

People eager to buy tickets greatly outnumbered the protesters in all of the nine cities where the movie opened this afternoon. The largest number of demonstrators turned out in New York, where by early evening more than 500 people, many of them Greek Orthodox, were packed into a cordoned-off area in front of the Ziegfeld theater, with 100 police officers looking on. But the number of pickets remained small in other cities.

Several prominent movie directors held a news conference in Los Angeles this morning to defend Mr. Scorsese and the companies that financed the movie, Universal Pictures and Cineplex Odeon Films. 'Only a Movie'

In many cities the people waiting in line were defiant about their right to see the film. When one picket at the Century City Cineplex in Los Angeles admonished ticket buyers, many of the 150 people who were in line at 10:45 A.M. yelled back that they had the right to see the movie if they wanted to. In response to placards with the word ''Blasphemy,'' a man in the ticket line waved a sign that said: ''It's only a movie.''

Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ
1988
When Nikos Kazantzakis publishes The Last Temptation of Christ in 1955, the Catholic Church bans it and the Greek Orthodox Church excommunicates him. Three decades later, acclaimed director Martin Scorsese releases his screen adaptation of the novel. The film, according to its prologue, "is not based on the Gospels, but upon this fictional exploration of the eternal spiritual conflict." Scorsese, known for such masterpieces as Raging Bull and Taxi Driver, portrays Jesus as a confused man who struggles against his dual nature, in thoughts more than action.

Before The Last Temptation of Christ is completed, Christian groups worldwide condemn it as blasphemous, although Christian theology teaches that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, and that to say otherwise is heresy. Preproduction begins at Universal Studios in 1983, and until the film's release in 1988, groups affiliated with the Christian right demonstrate against The Last Temptation of Christ through petitions, phone campaigns, radio broadcasts, and street protests.

Aware of mounting organized pressure against the film, in 1987, Universal hires a liaison with the Christian community, a born-again Christian himself, and arranges a private advance screening for agitated groups, including Reverend Donald Wildmon's American Family Association and Bill Bright's Campus Crusade for Christ. The audience is especially disgusted by a closing image: Christ on the cross is tempted by Satan with visions of a "normal" life with the prostitute Mary Magdalene, replete with sex, marriage, and children. Some 1,200 Christian radio stations in California denounce the film, and Mastermedia International urges a boycott against parent company MCA. Bill Bright offers to reimburse Universal for its investment in The Last Temptation of Christ in exchange for all existing prints, which he vows to destroy. Universal responds with an open letter in newspapers across the country, saying that acquiescence to these forces would infringe on the First Amendment rights of all Americans. On the day the letter appears, more than 600 protesters, sponsored by a Christian radio station in Los Angeles, picket MCA headquarters.

The protests are effective. Edwards Theaters, with 150 theaters nationwide, refuses to screen the film, as do United Artists and General Cinemas, with 3,500 theaters between them. In August 1988, Universal opens The Last Temptation of Christ in nine major cities in the United States and Canada. The day before its premiere, Citizens for a Universal Appeal, a coalition of religious groups from Orange County, CA, stages a protest in front of Universal's L.A. headquarters that attracts some 25,000 participants. By the time The Last Temptation of Christ goes into wide release in September, the national controversy has waned, but now individual cities and towns seek bans. Among them, Savannah, GA, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, and Santa Ana, CA, succeed.

In 1989, Blockbuster Video declines to carry the film in its stores. The policy remains, though it is available for purchase on the chain's Web site. In the mid-90s, The Last Temptation of Christ reignites protests in Canada and Russia when it airs on national television. Although critics give the movie mixed reviews on aesthetic grounds, the film earns Martin Scorsese an Academy Award nomination for Best Director. And in 1997, the American Film Institute bestows upon him the Life Achievement Award, considered the highest career honor in Hollywood.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock...emptation.html

[Wezil]

Just answer me this one question, if you had the expectation that your insult would have led Mormons to riot and kill people, would you have made it anyway?

If it was an issue important to me, yes. I would not be silenced by the threat of violence.

The Mormons would be the ones with the problem and in need of curbing their behaviour.

[Kidlicious]

So how does that excuse other's bad behaviour?

"He showed a disregard for human life. "

NO. The rioters showed the disregard for human life. He just made a (bad) film.

I suspect that you are trolling.

[Wezil]

True. I didn't actually see his film so I can't really say if it is bad filmmaking or not.

[Kidlicious]

True. I didn't actually see his film so I can't really say if it is bad filmmaking or not.

Bad film making is irrelevant. He called someone's prophet a child molestor, and he expected there to be a violent reaction. Beyond this I won't feed your troll.

[Wezil]

Reasonable people would counter his argument with their own. They wouldn't go on a rampage.

[Kidlicious]

Reasonable people would counter his argument with their own. They wouldn't go on a rampage.

I'm not saying they are reasonable. The film maker knew they weren't. In fact he expected them to kill people.