Supreme Technique

Any chance O'Toole goes to 174 to try to stop Starocci from becoming a 4x NCAA champion?

I really don't want to bog this thread down by getting into the finer points of theology (also I'm not an expert on Christianity, nor Islam though I know a lot). To keep it very general, he's addressing conflicting statements between the religions about Jesus made by the prophet of Islam in the authoritative sources of Islam.

Well, I'm not sure what to say other than this is a reality that we have to deal all across the world every day.

It's not simply "whatabouttism" when the real life effects of this are seen every day. Please see me 3rd from last post on page 6.

This situation in fact brought me to this board. I had 0 previous accounts. I'm simply explaining my perspective. I didn't want to put myself at the center, but many people like me exist whether that makes people uncomfortable or not. Just because that may make the conversation more difficult that doesn't mean it should be ignored.

Please see my 3rd from last comment on page 6 to understand where I'm coming from and why the "don't disrespect religion" comment, without nuance, is not the always the way to go. Disrespecting religion or religious sensibilities is how many things that you appreciate today were allowed to be.

No, but this situation brought me to this board. I don't know Mr. Brooks personally. Please, I'm not being obtuse. It's just the "don't disrespect anyone's religion" can't be the standard, especially when the religion(s) itself would violate the very standards of respect that many are pushing for.

Well, some of these things were intended to be addressed to people of certain religions for perpetuity, not just at the time. That said, perhaps I'm getting too precise. I understand why it rubbed some people the wrong way, the issue for me is I think people aren't articulating the reason *why* properly. His comments went to the next level of direct. "Lord and savior" is less direct than "only Lord and savior" which is less direct than "Only Lord and savior for all people whether they acknowledge it or not", but all are implied in the religion. I just hope he understands that very direct statements can have disastrous consequences in other parts of the world even if he thinks that they shouldn't.

All major 'abrahamic religions" make claims that other faith systems find offensive. It's baked into the cake of the religions. That said, you bring up a very true point. He has to understand that his statements can get him into big trouble overseas. Big trouble. Even if he is willing to take the backlash which can literally get him killed, I don't think he would want that for his teammates that travel with him. I'm sure USA wrestling will speak with him about this before he travels to any future tournaments.

He is responding to something. He's directly responding to the claims of the prophet of Islam's claims about his own religion. It appears that you aren't educated on certain aspects of Islam and it's own claims about other religions that came before it or existed alongside it. Religions did not materialize out of thin air, religious figures made various claims about many different things that they came across during their lives. Just as you can respond to a claim that was made about your worldview yesterday, you can respond to a claim made a year ago or even 1000 plus years ago.

In context, he would be responding to the prophet of Islam's comments about his own religious doctrines. There may or may not have been a thread about those hypothetical comments, that doesn't mean that they are not controversial or offensive as many would take offense to those sentiments. There are very few religious statements that offend 0 people. There may, in fact, be none.

I'm not sure what was going on in Brooks mind. He was asked an explicit faith question and gave an explicit faith-based answer. Honestly, I would prefer to not hear Brooks thoughts on matters outside of wrestling.

Okay, I didn't want to do this, but I will get a little deeper. According to the standard religious doctrine (as opposed to individual adherents), I grew up a Muslim. I'm no longer a Muslim. The religious figure that Brooks addressed as being false taught that I should be killed for that fact alone. All of the various major schools of Islamic law (Sharia) agree with this figure and would cite his explicit teachings in an official court of law as to why I should be killed. If I go home, there would even be family members willing to kill me. However, they wouldn't need to as they could hand me over to authorities (not vigilantes, not ISIL/ISIS) and I would be executed by the state. And many of those 2 billion would agree with that, though not all. That's why I mentioned that you were unintentionally defending someone that has said far worse than Brooks. It's very ironic, "don't insult the religion even though that religion explicitly insults other religions, adherent of other religions, and even pagan Gods in it's authoritative texts." My "what ifs" aren't merely hypothetical. Please thoughtfully consider how your statement undercuts itself. In short, your standard would have you condemning the very religious figures/religion you are calling out Brooks for offending. There really is no way to get around this without arbitrarily making yourself an authority and dismissing the mountains of findings both past and current of sharia scholars.

What if the religion he's responding to has core doctrines that inherently insult the religion of another religion with even more adherents, in addition to other religions or those without a religion?

I think you're getting the point. All religions are guilty of insulting other religions. I don't want to get lost in the weeds but this thread is deeply ironic. Some truly appear to be defending things that they don't understand.

What if Brooks is responding to a religious figure or ideology that first insulted his religion? Religious doctrine can't be inherently offensive simply because of the amount of followers? That's why I ask, is it okay to respond to someone who disparages your religion? I think that question is fundamental to this discussion. Also, an entire faith needn't be true for one to disparage it. You can disparage a religious belief that is false. Although no religion can be shown to be true entirely, nearly every religion maps onto reality to some degree. It is true to say that Joseph Smith was a White religious figure that lived in America. If one later claims that Joseph Smith really was a Black man that lived the entirety of his life in Asia, that would be false. Mormonism need not be true to make inaccurate claims or even disparaging remarks about it.

How so? You mentioned earlier, "I get that Brooks and other guys are driven by their strong faith and they are just coming off the mat with heightened emotions, but disparaging other religious beliefs?" If disparaging religious beliefs is a bad thing, is it inappropriate to address or respond to a person that disparages religious beliefs? If yes, then Brooks may be off the hook. What if you're accidentally advocating for respect of beliefs that are inherently disparaging of other religious beliefs?

In this case, the entire religion would not have to be true for my point to stand. If certain facts associated with the religion are true then that is enough. Let me put it another way: is it okay to respond to someone that disrespects your religion? If yes, Brooks' statements can be arguably justified. It's quite possible you're condemning Brooks' actions while unintentionally defending someone that did the very same thing as Brooks on a much broader scale.

Why? Your statements about what is or isn't disrespectful largely hang on this point. Here's the rest. "If Brooks' religion is true (or at least certain facts about it), then you would be asking him to respect a religion that first disrespected his own. Put it this way, would you say it's wrong to defend your religion if it is attacked? If yes, then one could say that Brooks was doing that if, in fact, Muhammad's religion started with attacking that which came before it. The unfortunate, controversial yet true case is many religions insult others by simply existing. Thanking Jesus as the only Lord and savior would offend other religious sensibilities even without making an explicit reference to any other religion. Even those condemning Brooks statements are offending adherents of other religions or no religions (as several popular religions use what would be considered offensive language about those who do not believe in God(s)) even if they don't realize it. I could tease this out and prove that but would prefer those to really think on this before responding. In short, there are no religiously neutral statements, and there are likely none that would offend exactly zero people." In light of this, how are your statements any less controversial than Brooks'?

Overly simplistic. Ultimately a lot of these debates/discussions center on the nature of reality and whether or not the worldview or religion put forth is true or not. If Brooks' religion is true (or at least certain facts about it), then you would be asking him to respect a religion that first disrespected his own. Put it this way, would you say it's wrong to defend your religion if it is attacked? If yes, then one could say that Brooks was doing that if, in fact, Muhammad's religion started with attacking that which came before it. The unfortunate, controversial yet true case is many religions insult others by simply existing. Thanking Jesus as the only Lord and savior would offend other religious sensibilities even without making an explicit reference to any other religion. Even those condemning Brooks statements are offending adherents of other religions or no religions (as several popular religions use what would be considered offensive language about those who do not believe in God(s)) even if they don't realize it. I could tease this out and prove that but would prefer those to really think on this before responding. In short, there are no religiously neutral statements, and there are likely none that would offend exactly zero people. Also, disagreeing with something does not imply disdain. I disagree that Spencer Lee was better than Kyle Dake at any point in his career, that doesn't mean that I have disdain for those who disagree with me.