Moderator: GreenCrayon
The thing is that cultural attitudes towards Christianity and Islam's respective prophets are different. In Christianity, depicting Jesus in any manner is perfectly ok as far as I know, though people are offended when the depiction is derogatory. Thus we have thousands of years of depictions ranging from paintings and murals to garden statues, decals, and bobble-heads. In Islam an important principle is the prohibition of any depiction of the Prophet Muhammad in any manner, no matte how positive. This is a pretty key part of Muslim teachings towards him. Thus any drawing that is derogatory in nature is far more offensive and inflammatory than a similar drawing of Jesus, whose image has so saturated the public consciousness.*Snarky00 wrote:The problem I have with that is that it seems to be perfectly acceptable to mess with things that other people consider sacred. Jesus is a recurring character on Family Guy and Southpark. The American flag is sacred to many people but we legally protect the right for people to burn it. ect ect
Every time this issue comes up I can't help but notice that Muslims aren't looking to be treated equally, they are looking for special treatment which is not okay. Is this purposefully inflammatory? Sure. The point is that it equalizes Muhammed by bringing him down to the level of other religious figures and freankly that is exactly where he belongs. Maybe the end result is that we stop hearing about it every single time someone draws Muhammed because the threats stop and becomes a non-issue for Muslims which is exactly what I'm looking for.
Edminster wrote:I'm starting to think Euclid lives in the past.
Snarky00 wrote:Every time this issue comes up I can't help but notice that Muslims aren't looking to be treated equally, they are looking for special treatment which is not okay. Is this purposefully inflammatory? Sure. The point is that it equalizes Muhammed by bringing him down to the level of other religious figures and freankly that is exactly where he belongs. Maybe the end result is that we stop hearing about it every single time someone draws Muhammed because the threats stop and becomes a non-issue for Muslims which is exactly what I'm looking for.
DonRetrasado wrote:Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Bitcoin.
Euclidthewheat wrote:The thing is that cultural attitudes towards Christianity and Islam's respective prophets are different. In Christianity, depicting Jesus in any manner is perfectly ok as far as I know, though people are offended when the depiction is derogatory. Thus we have thousands of years of depictions ranging from paintings and murals to garden statues, decals, and bobble-heads. In Islam an important principle is the prohibition of any depiction of the Prophet Muhammad in any manner, no matte how positive. This is a pretty key part of Muslim teachings towards him. Thus any drawing that is derogatory in nature is far more offensive and inflammatory than a similar drawing of Jesus, whose image has so saturated the public consciousness.
smiley_cow wrote:We live in a free society and people should be allowed to say and draw and write whatever they want, but I still think if you insist on desecrating someone else thinks is sacred you're being a bit of a dick.
Cirtur wrote:What I don't understand is the reasoning behind not drawing Muhammed i.e. Islam canon says he was a guy and guys have faces ERGO he had a face. If there was a photograph from that time, would we be banned from seeing it?
DonRetrasado wrote:Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Bitcoin.
Frostbite wrote:It's like the Fairly Odd Couple. But with more anger.
ol qwerty bastard wrote:bitcoin is backed by math, and math is intrinsically perfect and logically consistent always
gödel stop spreading fud
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests