Recommended Posts

Posted

Yale cited fears of violence.

Yale University Press, which the university owns, removed the 12 caricatures from the book "The Cartoons That Shook the World" by Brandeis University professor Jytte Klausen. The book is scheduled to be released next week.

Yale criticized for nixing Muslim cartoons in book - Yahoo! News

Given the "big love" controversy i wonder how people stand on this? I can understand respecting ones religious beliefs but being forced follow them due to threats of violence is absurd. What say you?

Posted

It's a tenet of the moslem faith that you shall make no graven image of Mohamed. Granted, you should make no graven image of anything in the Moslem faith, but that really irks them.

I imagine they think of it very similarly to how we would react to a picture of the temple being desecrated in a particularly foul way(Use your imagination). I would be offended. I hope I wouldn't threaten violence.

*ponder* If the majority wouldn't, it would be time to look a sociological reasons why and then try to fix 'em.

Posted

From the article

Yale University has removed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad from an upcoming book about how they caused outrage across the Muslim world

Doesn't that kind've take away the whole idea of the book?

Posted

While the threats of violence are upsetting, I wish Yale had done the right thing FIRST, rather than AFTER the threats came. It's no secret that creating an image of Muhammad is a BIG DEAL for Muslims. If we ask for respect for our OWN religion, we ought to be willing to stand up for other religions' right for that same respect.

Posted

I don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it could be the publishers at Yale genuinely trying to respect the Muslim faith. The reality is that, in recent history, religious terrorists have been mainly of the Muslim religion. It wouldn't take much for one of them to target a university in a nation of infidels.

Posted

Lawrence O'Donnell, a vile human being, and actor who has had a bit role on Big Love, went on an anti-Mormon rant on a morning television program, but then said he would not speak out against fundamentalist Muslims for fear of retribution, to which Hugh Huwitt responded, "So you can be bigoted towards Mormons, because they’ll just send you a strudel."

That about sums it up for me.

Posted

I don't understand why people can't just respect other people's religions.. :confused:

I don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it could be the publishers at Yale genuinely trying to respect the Muslim faith. The reality is that, in recent history, religious terrorists have been mainly of the Muslim religion. It wouldn't take much for one of them to target a university in a nation of infidels.

Just because terrorists have been Muslim doesn't mean that they all are.. one of my best friends is Muslim so it's always bugged me when people just think of terrorists right away when thinking of the Muslim religion. (I'm not saying you are.. but people STILL do say nasty things to her and lots of other Muslims, when they have nothing to do with what happened, its just because they are of the same religion). I just wish people would stop thinking of terrorists everytime they see a Muslim.. if the terrorists were of another religion I don't think people would be doing that, but sense most Muslims are recognizable its easy to.

Posted

Just because terrorists have been Muslim doesn't mean that they all are.. one of my best friends is Muslim so it's always bugged me when people just think of terrorists right away when thinking of the Muslim religion. (I'm not saying you are.. but people STILL do say nasty things to her and lots of other Muslims, when they have nothing to do with what happened, its just because they are of the same religion). I just wish people would stop thinking of terrorists everytime they see a Muslim.. if the terrorists were of another religion I don't think people would be doing that, but sense most Muslims are recognizable its easy to.

Bigotry isn't confined to Muslims- although bigotry aimed at Muslims seems to be more prevalent than bigotry aimed at other religions right now.

There's also the fact that all of America's recent troubles with groups out to destroy us are with militant, fundamentalist Muslims. This is an undeniable fact. While the huge majority of Muslims are peaceful, for one reason or another the religion lends itself more to offensive militantism than other religions (probably has to do with the command to 'make war with the unbelievers' found a few times in the Quran and a lot to do with the history of the region). While fairness and respect is crucial, we cannot look past the fact that one of the biggest threats to America right now is militant Islam.

There's a reason that Yale didn't print the pictures with the book: fanatical men will strap bombs to themselves and kill innocent people for offenses against Islam! Maybe I just haven't heard about it as much, but I can't recall the last time a Christian fundamentalist did the same thing (maybe Timothy McVeigh...). It's a real danger that exists in the world.

Posted

Given the "big love" controversy i wonder how people stand on this? I can understand respecting ones religious beliefs but being forced follow them due to threats of violence is absurd. What say you?

I completely agree and I was very pleased that the LDS Church did not issue any fatwahs against the people associated with the Big Love show or send in any young Elders with a bomb strapped to them and a promise of many Celestial Wives. However, threats of violence are not absurd, they are criminal. Perhaps one yardstick for measuring a religion should be its capacity to allow humor, as in these cartoons, without going ballistic.

:)

Posted

There were more than enough Mormons willing to accept a fatwah. Porter Rockwell would be proud lol.

But the good thing is that today's Porter Rockwells only use apologetics and not pistols. It is more likely that any Mormons showing up at your door will either come bearing a Book of Mormon or a plate of cookies, with no intent of harm or mayhem.

BTW, I some cookies sound really good right now.

:)

Posted

They wouldn't think twice about printing an insulting Christian cartoon.

Anyways, I know that Muslims don't believe in recreating anything heavenly in art, but the writers wouldn't be printing the cartoon to attack Muslims, but to provide an image of the cartoon the book is based on.

Just print it!

Posted

They wouldn't think twice about printing an insulting Christian cartoon.

But it's not a tennant of the Christian Faith to never let anyone mock you. To me it's the difference between them printing a cartoon that pokes fun at Joseph Smith, versus printing a cartoon that depicts and pokes fun at our Temple Ceremonies. The first one would be offensive, but the second one would be a thousand times more so, because it is mocking something sacred.

ETA: And I wouldn't care if it was for "preserving history" that they printed it. It would be a cartoon that I would love to see burned. (refering to one poking fun at Temple Ceremonies).

Posted

But it's not a tennant of the Christian Faith to never let anyone mock you. To me it's the difference between them printing a cartoon that pokes fun at Joseph Smith, versus printing a cartoon that depicts and pokes fun at our Temple Ceremonies. The first one would be offensive, but the second one would be a thousand times more so, because it is mocking something sacred.

ETA: And I wouldn't care if it was for "preserving history" that they printed it. It would be a cartoon that I would love to see burned. (refering to one poking fun at Temple Ceremonies).

Great point!

I don't like that fact that they are backing down because they're scared of violence. They shouldn't be dictated what to do because of fear of how the Muslims will act.

Posted

These are the last days: fear will run rampant throughout the nations, as certain groups gain more power and use terror (read: terrorists) to force their ways of life on others. Eventually, the only safety will be within the confines of the Church and ground dedicated to its cause.

This is just one example; there will be more.

Posted

I completely agree and I was very pleased that the LDS Church did not issue any fatwahs against the people associated with the Big Love show or send in any young Elders with a bomb strapped to them and a promise of many Celestial Wives. However, threats of violence are not absurd, they are criminal. Perhaps one yardstick for measuring a religion should be its capacity to allow humor, as in these cartoons, without going ballistic.

:)

Would they go if they got orders like that from SLC?

Posted

These are the last days: fear will run rampant throughout the nations, as certain groups gain more power and use terror (read: terrorists) to force their ways of life on others. Eventually, the only safety will be within the confines of the Church and ground dedicated to its cause.

This is just one example; there will be more.

Only if you fear death...

Posted (edited)

Most do when you speak to them personally; including criminals such as Mason who was shaking at the very thought dying in a electric chair at the last hearing.

I have met practicing Muslims who cringe when they see a claimed member of there own faith in committing such murderous acts. Brainwashing techniques can override this fear factor with the hope of receiving fabricated rewards.

Edited by Hemidakota
Posted

Most do when you speak to them personally; including criminals such as Mason who was shaking at the very thought dying in a electric chair at the last hearing.

I agree. (Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my first post? I edited it to clarify.)

I have met practicing Muslims who cringe when they see a claimed member of there own faith in committing such murderous acts. Brainwashing techniques can override this fear factor with the hope of receiving fabricated rewards.

Undoubtedly. I have no doubt most Muslims see such acts of violence as reprehensible.
Posted

Howdy,

I thought I would include this link because it is related, tangentially, to the thread title:

LDS.org - Ensign Article - A Latter-day Saint Perspective on Muhammad

Latter-day Saint Interest in Muhammad

As early as 1855, at a time when Christian literature generally ridiculed Muhammad as the Antichrist and the archenemy of Western civilization, Elders George A. Smith (1817–75) and Parley P. Pratt (1807–57) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles delivered lengthy sermons demonstrating an accurate and balanced understanding of Islamic history and speaking highly of Muhammad’s leadership. Elder Smith observed that Muhammad was “descended from Abraham and was no doubt raised up by God on purpose” to preach against idolatry. He sympathized with the plight of Muslims, who, like Latter-day Saints, found it difficult “to get an honest history” written about them. Speaking next, Elder Pratt went on to express his admiration for Muhammad’s teachings, asserting that “upon the whole, … [Muslims] have better morals and better institutions than many Christian nations.” 9

Latter-day Saint appreciation of Muhammad’s role in history can also be found in the 1978 First Presidency statement regarding God’s love for all mankind. This declaration specifically mentions Muhammad as one of “the great religious leaders of the world” who received “a portion of God’s light” and affirms that “moral truths were given to [these leaders] by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.” 10

Have a great day. I really enjoyed the article.

Cheers,

Kawazu

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...