Guess which image Colton removed from the Dallas gamethread

[Deleted member 848]

Interesting. Thanks.
So let me ask then. Are you offended by the images posted in this thread?

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]

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.

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]

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.

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?

 

[bigb]

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?

 

[bigb]

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?

I believe all people should seek to love and respect one another regardless of anything else.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Let me ask you this: do you think it's okay for someone to degrade/mock/denigrate something another person holds as sacred?

I think one has an absolute right to degrade/mock/denigrate something another person holds as sacred. Whether it is ok depends on context. In a community such as this, no (with possible exceptions). Outside of such micro-communities, family groups, etc. which depend on tight social cohesion to function, it's fair game. (But critique of religious beliefs, done reasonably and without intention to belittle, are perfectly ok. Although again, many believers take any critique of their beliefs as belittling.) For example, if a comedien were to include routines that degraded/mocked/or denigrated sacred religious beliefs, I have no problem at all with it. George Carlin's riffs on the absurdity of religious beliefs are some of the funniest and most trenchant critiques of religious belief I've ever heard (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE)

Now your turn to answer my question.

 

[LogGrad98]

Everyone has a right to freedom of speech. What they don't have is freedom from consequences for that speech.

 

[franklin]

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

Mormons take a very similar position towards The Cross as a symbol that distracts from the true message.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I believe all people should seek to love and respect one another regardless of anything else.

I find proselytizing to be everything against this statement, here, yet people do it anyway.

Everyone has a right to freedom of speech. What they don't have is freedom from consequences for that speech.

That is exceedingly dangerous and not really all that close to accurate.

 

[LogGrad98]

I find proselytizing to be everything against this statement, here, yet people do it anyway.



That is exceedingly dangerous and not really all that close to accurate.

How is it not accurate, and how do you define speech?

You can do whatever you want but there are both imposed and natural consequences especially within complex societies. It goes back to the whole "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" aspect. Because well sure you can but you can also be arrested for the ensuing chaos.

 

[Siro]

How is it not accurate, and how do you define speech?

You can do whatever you want but there are both imposed and natural consequences especially within complex societies. It goes back to the whole "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" aspect. Because well sure you can but you can also be arrested for the ensuing chaos.

lol. No. Yelling fire in a theater is not protected speech. Making fun of religious clothing is. There are no legal consequences to free speech. Social consequences are irrelevant to the discussion, as free speech is a legal matter.

 

[bigb]

I find proselytizing to be everything against this statement, here, yet people do it anyway.

Please explain that, because I disagree.