Guess which image Colton removed from the Dallas gamethread
- Thread starter ♪alt13
- Start date
Gobert got away with a foul on his screen pivot. Impressive move tho
Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app
Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app
Sort of, depending on what you mean. They are called temple garments because they are symbolic of sacred covenants made in the temple, not because we wear them only in the temple. But yes, they are considered sacred and not to be displayed. Clothing worn over the garments is supposed to cover them completely.
Yeah but were his garments showing?
As has been mentioned before, mormons are heavily indoctrinated as to the sacredness and specialness of temple garments. They (we, I should say... I am an active, garment wearing mormon), as a group, can be very defensive about them.
Personally, I'm not. They're sacred, not secret. If someone else wants to use that angle try to be disrespectful, well, that's their prerogative. I can choose not to be offended. Hard core Morms find it difficult because they don't seem to understand that other people don't hold their underwear in the same high regard.
Like I said, I'm a Morm, and to this point I still wear mine, even though I am a horrible Mormon. But I often think it's a pretty cozy little scheme, telling members "You have to wear a certain type of underwear and, oh, by the way, we're the only supplier."
Posting (and re-posting) the pic was a deliberate attempt to rile the you-know-whos. And it worked. So, mission accomplished, right Alt?
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Yep, that is precisely what freedom of speech entails. You take the good with the bad.
BTW, I'm sure you didn't intend this, but your clever little vignet here actually reinforces my point. Westboro Baptist Church's rhetoric and actions are religiously inspired. If we were indeed to grant a privileged status to religiously sourced beliefs (as some would argue, but then, mostly only related to their own religious beliefs, less so to others'), then we would be enjoined from criticizing Westboro. But, because we are free to criticize religiously-based beliefs, we can criticize those of Westboro.
Note, you can't claim the right to criticize others' religious beliefs, while simultaneously demanding that we privilege yours. Well, you can, but then you'd be guility of inconsistency, which I'm sure you'd want to avoid.
I think it's ok to scrutinise, and even (constructively) criticise .... but mocking is really uncalled for in most cases.
Leads to conflict. Leads to hate. Leads to war.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
And again, that is precisely what I was implying. We refrain from intentionally giving offense (or at least where it is reasonable to do so) in the interest of promoting harmony within our online community. Thus is a 'positive' obligation, done so with good intent, rather than a 'negative obgligation, or done so to avoid being a dick.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Mocking is often well deserved. It's frequently impolite and impolitic, and thus we, for the most part, refrain from doing so out of felt social obligation (or because the easily offended are childish and violent). Mocking is best used to 'punch upwards' to ridicule and call out the powerful and less well used to 'punch downwards' to ridicule the weak. And in Utah, the LDS Church is the state's most powerful institution, so . . . .
The problem is that often those religiously inclined perceive legit criticism by the non-religious as mocking, while the converse is also true in many cases.
Keefe
Well-Known Member
This is pretty much what I thought. Some are being way overly sensitive and subjective while Alt is being a dick for the sake of being a dick.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
Bronco said it pretty well. Personally, I will be in the house without a shirt on over my garment shirt. But I won't answer the door like that or take out the garbage, etc.
And no, I didn't take offense to the picture alt posted. I think it's on poor taste. It was also retarded to post it the second time.
I've thought about this question for awhile. With the disclaimer that I don't know enough about what Muslims view as sacred, I don't think it's any different than a Mormon (or any Christian) posting a depiction of Christ. As long as it's not done in a degrading easy.
addictionary
Well-Known Member
We believe that it is offensive and a sin to try to depict all prophets (not only Muhammed) and give the images sacred meanings. For example when praying you cannot have an image in front if you to remember this rule. Because you know, Islam came down to a society of paganism so statues and concrete God symbols were pretty much the enemy of true belief. It wanted to destroy the entire 'people worshipping statues' thing and lead them to one true God that all religions were actually in the seekage of.
Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz
Interesting. Thanks.
So let me ask then. Are you offended by the images posted in this thread?
addictionary
Well-Known Member
I thought I wouldn't but somehow I felt like this ain't right. Hekate is my man and he and I are homeboys so no hard feelings. But aside from that the images reminded me that we should not try to create images of those awesome people who tried to save our souls, because it downgrades their true values which was about their teachings not the beard and outfit etc.
Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Most Muslims think it's sacrilegious and wrong to construct visual representations of *all* of our prophets (including the likes of Abraham/Ibrahim and Moses/Musa and Jesus/Isa) for the reasons addictionary stated. While for some, seeing these images can be uncomfortable because many of the faithful don't want their imaginations of these prophets perverted by extant visual representations of them-- but for most, the furor stems from people making very obviously intentionally-bigoted depictions of Muhammad both to discomfort Muslims in light of their avoidance of visual depictions of Muhammad, as well as to discomfort Muslims by fusing racist bigotry into their aforementioned depictions.
With this said, volumes and volumes of depictions of Muhammad exist, constructed in appreciation by Muslims themselves. Many sects disapprove, but some dont mind.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Just curious, do you see is as reasonable for devout Muslims to expect non-Muslims to avoid constructing visual representations of Mohammad?
Do non-Muslims have any obligation (whether even out of courtesy) to comply?
More generally, where do we draw the line as to what's reasonable to expect (for religious believers) and when is it reasonable to comply (for non-believers)?
I suppose that if I observed that believers who expect their icons/beliefts, etc. to be held sacred by others extended the same courtesy across the board, I might be more sympathetic. For example, I find the degree of anti-semitism (and holding of unflatering Jewish stereotypes) among my many Muslim friends to be quite appalling.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
So is it your view that people (society in general) should avoid any degrading depiction of Christ so as to avoid offending believing Christians? Or does this expectation (if any exists)apply on a more limited basis to those social circles to which you belong?
Let me ask you this: do you think it's okay for someone to degrade/mock/denigrate something another person holds as sacred?