Placebo
by meyers

Comment by meyers:

Originally posted by OmanOtter: An atheist who was raised in almost any religion you can name may still feel culturally a member of that religious group.

As an athiest raised by Christians, I can tell you that is not always true. As for the stick in my woody's rear, please take a look at the image below; I was referring to the base, which attaches to the woody in a seeemingly uncomfortable location.

Placebo
by meyers

Comment by OmanOtter:
PDF: It's the word "attacking" that bothers me; I guess it all depends on how its done. What's clearly unobjectionable to me is someone criticizing religion in general. At some point it could become hateful, though, and I don't like that. I mean, if someone criticizes you too much, you're not going to like it, right? At some point, you'll become mad.

I have absolutely no problem with the position that prayer is a placebo. It's a valid theory. No one knows for a fact that God exists, they just believe it -- or want to believe it. So, for a person who doubts God's existence, the idea that prayer can heal is a placebo. And, either way, prayer can definitely be viewed as an alternative medicine. Some religions (Jehova's Witnesses?) don't even allow the use of medicines; but demand only faith and prayer for healing. I disagree with them in the strongest terms.

I regret having used the term hate speech at all, because "hate speech" gets legislated against in the U.S. and I am absolutely against making hate speech, or any speech, illegal unless it advocates the overthrow of the government, incites violence, urges the commission of crimes, etc... If someone hates a particular group and wants to say unkind things about them, I think that should be his or her LEGAL right just as it is the legal right of the victim to respond in kind. So, I'd NEVER want legislation against this photo; but that doesn't mean I can't take issue with the person who did it.

As for attacking a specific belief system. I guess it all comes down to what you mean by "attacking." And I don't know how you separate the belief from the people. Religion is culture. It's emotional and deep and intertwined with one's sense of identity. It's not as simple as believing something to be true or not. An atheist who was raised in almost any religion you can name may still feel culturally a member of that religious group.

Placebo
by meyers

Comment by PDF:
Just curious... would you think that "attacking" religion in general (not a specific belief such as "prayer works") would be hatespeech? What about "attacking" a specific belief system (christianity, islam, whatever) if it's not attacking the PEOPLE but the beliefs?

Placebo
by meyers

Comment by OmanOtter:
PDF: I disagree with your last point because I was just using Yarmulkas, beards and feathers to help demonstrate what I was getting at. A Torah, Qur'an and peyote bud with a Woody in the appropriate prayer position for the religion referred-to would suffice, in my opinion.

To everyone, I'd like to say that, as pissed-off as I was when I made my first post on this, I've said my peace and am no longer angry. IF the photo was only intended to say that prayer in-general is a placebo, then I have no issue with the message. I simply don't believe that that was what this picture was about -- not JUST that anyway (reference "stick in Woody's rear end" photographer comment above.)

Placebo
by meyers

Comment by PDF:
incidentally, I think you were making a straw man argument when you said "a Jewish Woody with a yarmulka or Torah, a Muslim Woody with a beard and a Qur'an, a Native American Woody with feathers and a bud of peyote." in your original post. The woody in the picture wasn't wearing a christian cross, or the robes of a christian priest, or anything else that would say that the woody is a christian. Doing so IMO would imply that it WAS an attack on those people, (not that I'd want it censored or anything) but I think the way the photograph was set up implies that he was attacking the BELIEF (in prayer), and not the PEOPLE. That is a HUGE detail. It's one thing to attack a group of people, and a completely different thing to attack a specific belief.

Placebo
by meyers

Comment by PDF:
OmanOtter, courage was ONE of the reasons I gave this a ten. Not the only one. Just like people give points for creativity whatnot, I think that the amount of courage it took is a perfectly fine way of rating a photograph.

about it being an attack... yes, I do think it WAS an attack- It was an attack on the power of prayer. I don't think it was an attack in christianity in general, the bible, or religion in general. Just prayer.

Something doesn't need to be an attack to require courage. Most people are very sensitive when it comes to religion, and something doesn't have to be an attack to offend people. For example, coming out as being homosexual (or an atheist for that matter) might offend many people, but it is not an attack and it takes courage.

I don't think the "same basic picture" wich used the torah or the koran or whatever would be hate speech either.

Placebo
by meyers

Comment by Melethia:
If you'd titled it "The Power of Prayer", there would be no controversy. Or would there? And yet the picture still represents a valid "alternative medicine" choice - many do choose the power of prayer, regardless of their religion. Whether or not it works, well, that's not for the photograph to say. Or is it? Nicely done!

Placebo
by meyers

Comment by OmanOtter:
I think Meyers and I have buried the hatchet. But I'll still address a few of the comments below.

Sandstrider: You sound like a 60's hippie with the "judge like a child" stuff. Think about the implications of what you're saying: As long as it's done in a photographically-excellent way, the message doesn't matter. So, a photo that intentionally attacks or mocks a culture or group of people is just fine as long as it's well-executed or esthetically-pleasing?! Christians are certainly not "a known majority" in the country where I live, or any country anywhere near where I live. Do you ever get out of the United States?

PDF: If "courage" was a reason you gave this a 10, then you must have known that it was an attack. Whether you agree with the message is irrelevant to whether it's acceptable.

Poonaka: While "the Holy Bible" contains Jewish sacred scriptures in what Christians refer to as "the Old Testament," I do not believe that Jewish people commonly refer to their sacred scriptures as "the Holy Bible." A Jewish person can correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Everyone: Here's the test: Ask yourself if the same basic picture would be socially acceptable if it mocked Jews, Muslims, Native American religion, or the African American spiritual/cultural celebration of Kwaanza. If you would think twice before presenting such a picture, you understand what I'm getting at.

While I've called this "Hate Speech," I don't think Meyers is a hateful person. But the picture is intentionally insulting and inflammatory, culturally insensitive and provoking. It was an intentional jab; and I answered back.

Placebo
by meyers

Comment by poonaka:

Originally posted by OmanOtter: I got pissed because you singled-out one group for ridicule

Actually I believe the bible is used in Judaism as well. So that's two groups.

To be honest I can't see how you can call this hateful. The photo is in good taste.

Being an atheist doesn't make you hateful.

Message edited by author 2007-03-14 23:33:16.

Placebo
by meyers

Comment by PDF:
I rated this a 10.
points for simplicity, composition, courage, and humorous elements.
I don't think this is hate speech at all, I completely agree with the statement this picture makes, and I hope you keep up the good job.