user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : No, this doesn't seem to make sense
Doesn't make sense to me.
Voted : No, this doesn't seem to make sense
Weird. We don't know what Jesus looked like, so should Christians forbid His image also? Too much emphasis on an image, I'd say.
Well if "Christains" took our bible seriously, we wouldn't be worshipping images of Christ either.
"thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"...
...your call.
Sure we do. Michael Jackson could be Mo's twin.
Voted : No, this doesn't seem to make sense
I wouldn't like to be in charge of the mail room at MSNBC right about now. 
I think you are being too technical. Any depiction which is intended to be a representation of Mohammed would justifiably be considerted an image. Whether it is an accurate/true representation or not is academic.
Cathexis- ANY image as long as their is an intention?
ANY, I mean ANY image? That's even worse than I thought.
If one drew a completely abstract, surreal painting made up of mere dots and lines nad then said it was intended to depict Mohammed- then that would also be condemnable?!?
"I think you are being too technical."
- There is no such thing as 'too technical'.
"If one drew a completely abstract, surreal painting made up of mere dots and lines nad then said it was intended to depict Mohammed- then that would also be condemnable?!?"
No, only if the image were in human form, Muslims wouldn't like it.
But it seems like Muslims get pissed over every little thing. Not all, though
by aya on Mon Oct 16, 06 9:56am
[+]
Voted : No, this doesn't seem to make sense
Ah Socrates you uphold you're name sake by pointing out the illogic in this type of reasoning.I think that so long as an artist names the drawing Muhammad some Muslims will see it as a sin.It's strange because when you see images of Muhammad he is a man with no face yet some Muslims take no offence to that.
Soc: Yes ... "too technical." And overly semantic.
Cathexis- I agree, Muslims are probably overly-semantic in the manner they have interpreted it.
Voted : No, this doesn't seem to make sense
This is not rational, but when has religion ever been about reason?
Christians don't worship statues of Christ. That is what the Bible is talking about.
It is really odd. Jews deeply revere Moses. Christians revere Jesus. Neither group goes and kills people, threatens them with death, blows up things, etc just because someone drew a picture of some so-called "prophet". 
um-yeh I do take the Bible seriously. Christians do not "Worship" an artists rendition of Christ. Again I say, "Too much emphasis on an image."
Voted : It makes perfect sense to ban an image- even though no one knows what the image looks like
Remember at all times- you're dealing with a species that thinks it's the top of the food chain...
It's funny, they're free to desecrate any holy symbols they choose of other religions, but non-muslims aren't even allowed to depict muhmammed. Even ones that aren't disrespectful are not tolerated.
It is so weird that the religion of peace and tolerance (and we all know they are, they tell us so often enough) is somehow acting in a less than peaceful and tolerant manner.
Voted : It's embarrassing to Muslims because he looked just like Pee Wee Herman
thats worth a vote
|
|
