Free Speech, Artistic Expression, and Islam...

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by magic99

OK, i will post some threads showing the christains doing EXACTLY the same things as the Muslims, would that be fair, would that give balance?

Magic, not hearing you denounce the two examples in the original post that started this thread, makes me think that you see nothing wrong with what the Muslims did.

When will you actually address the topic of this thread?

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by SherryGrace

This thread is about "Free Speech, Artistic Expression, and Islam" not about Christians. Its not a matter of fair or balance, but a discussion about Islam, free speech, and artistic expression. [i[To give it balance is to attempt to give it credence...to rationalize the beliefs and behavior depicted in article.[/i]

Try just talking about the rights and wrongs of the article posted...and not rationalizing it with "balance."

Amen, Sister!!!!!

[quote]Such as...

I agree with the muslims that are offended by nudity and semi-nudity on billboards. It is a moral issue that a good deal of religious persons (obviously from many different religions) have to battle. The issues revolves mainly around what you want your children to see and have access to. Think about it. We have rated theater movies, rated television, rated music, rated video games...and we are constantly advised to monitor what our children watch, play with, and listen to. Does it make sense to have non-rated billboards? In my opinion, if its not G rated, it shouldn't be in plain site of minor children, otherwise what's the point of having rated theater movies and television, if you're going to advertise it on public streets. Of course, that makes sense and God knows not everyone has that. Artistic expression has nothing to do with it...ads on billboards are just that...advertisements...and its all about making a buck. However...promoting violence as a way of protest is DEAD WRONG. But it so fits their lifestyle, doesn't it? They are a violent religion. Period...past, present, and future. They do not belong in our country, because their violence, in the name of their god, goes against our country's laws. And if you can't follow the laws of our country...pack up and get out.[/b]
I agree with what you said and I too don't want my grandie seeing that. However, no religion should be catered to, or given any preference.

In regards to muslim extremists in Holland threatening artists, irate muslims in Rotterdam threatening violence (?) because of a documentary that denounces violence against muslim women, and a Moroccan-Dutch painter having to go into hiding because his work, which depicted "hate imams", drew death threats...this is why muslims need to pack up their shyt and get go get their own country. Violence is not the answer to being offended. They cannot seem to get that through their heads. Governments may start whole wars because they are offended...but individuals must follow the laws of the countries that they are living in...and I can't think of one civilized country whose laws allow violence when confronted with artistic differences. I could be wrong...feel free to name one.

You hit what this thread, and the topic of this thread, is about. Thank you.

And by the by...what kind of religion is offended by films that denounce violence against women (of ANY religion)??? Sickos.

Precisely.

[Snowden]

Islam is a religion that forbids painting or drawing anything that is "min allah" - that is, from God. The Islamic art forbids painting a woman, a child or a tree or flower. I had a plate, which was broken and seems to be irreplacable at this point, which had the Lord's Prayer in Arabic. Beautiful, and because I say the Lord's Prayer in Arabic, it helped me read what was on the plate thus helping me keep the Arabic alphabet in my mind. The beauty combined with the availability of that meant a lot to me.

Look at ancient paintings from Persia; realize that since Islam captured Persia, which is now Iran, they have been permitted to paint only letters of the alphabet. The letters themselves are lovely - scripted, graceful and artistic of themselves. However, to limit art to letters is somewhat restrictive, isn't it?

The reality of art in Islam is much the same in architecture as it is in painting. No matter what is being built, there must be one thing that is wrong with it - this is a requirement. Only allah can create something perfect - man cannot copy perfection or anything else that is allotted to the god of Islam - who creates nothing, IMO. Their god is not our God; what one gives the other forbids or takes away. Talent is a gift from God - you don't restrict that other than to make it acceptable; not vulgar. When art becomes vulgar, it needs to be put where people don't have it thrust upon them. If they want to go see it, let the adults do that. Otherwise, keep it out of sight.

So a nude depicted on a billboard would be objectionable to me too; unless it's a baby. Especially if it's salacious. SG, I agree with what you said. With the little I have studied art, I have come to find the human body beautiful - but not something to be flaunted on a public, especially not where families object to it, no matter what their religion. But where the ethnicity forbids a woman's face to be seen outside the home, you know it will cause a problem.

The Palestinian comic I quote elsewhere defines a striptease as "full facial exposure."

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by Snowden

So a nude depicted on a billboard would be objectionable to me too; unless it's a baby. Especially if it's salacious. SG, I agree with what you said. With the little I have studied art, I have come to find the human body beautiful - but not something to be flaunted on a public, especially not where families object to it, no matter what their religion. But where the ethnicity forbids a woman's face to be seen outside the home, you know it will cause a problem.

I remember how Fundamentalist Christians would go over to Europe and cause a fuss about the nude statues that are everywhere in certain countries because they found them offensive. I also remember how they were laughed at by the Europeans. Those Fundamentalists had no right to try and impose their religious objections on others who saw nothing wrong with the art. '

The same applies here. So what if they don't like the billboards? Their religion is nothing that should determine what is, or is not, put in public. With their objections to humans being in art, even an innocent baby would be found offensive. Give in to them on this issue and the baby will be the next thing objected to. They need to realize that they live in a society that finds that ok and that society should not have to change because Islamics find that offensive.

[Snowden]

Originally Posted by Woodmonkey

I remember how Fundamentalist Christians would go over to Europe and cause a fuss about the nude statues that are everywhere in certain countries because they found them offensive. I also remember how they were laughed at by the Europeans. Those Fundamentalists had no right to try and impose their religious objections on others who saw nothing wrong with the art. '

The same applies here. So what if they don't like the billboards? Their religion is nothing that should determine what is, or is not, put in public. With their objections to humans being in art, even an innocent baby would be found offensive. Give in to them on this issue and the baby will be the next thing objected to. They need to realize that they live in a society that finds that ok and that society should not have to change because Islamics find that offensive.

A billboard in a neighborhood; I can see anybody, fundamentalist in any religion, objecting. To fine art, and much of fine art is of nudes, it's quite different. For one thing, although statues are publicly displayed, they are not going to arouse lust in a person. Somehow, that's quite different. But in Islam, of course, there is no difference. They will complain - and I won't be surprised if some of Michelangelo's art in Rome comes under their negative eyes. Marble isn't a difficult stone to deface - I wouldn't be surprised if some of his finest statues - and paintings of Michelangelo, de Vinci, etc., won't be on their list of things to be done away with. Not just because they are too "moral" to look at them - they are not all that moral. I was in my mid-fifties, being propositioned by teen agers; not at all moral.

It's the religion; the law against anything created by God being copied in any way by man; if a mosque is built, at least one pillar must be imperfectly aligned; no human form is to be drawn or painted; trees and flowers - all that we who love the Masters in art - all is forbidden. And that is one of the minor things to be lost if we surrender to Islam. Think of a world without Rembrandt, Renoir, Constable, Hodges. (That's my brother - just giving him a plug here. He paints in the classic artistic way, and it's beautiful.)

I overlooked speech here - free speech is fine in Islam. Just don't be overheard if it's contrary to Islam or the national leaders. Or if it's for women being free and considered as equal to the men. Etc. It's just so sad.

Really, while I can understand that art and billboards are not compatible, the overall refusal of any personal freedoms is what worries me most about Islam. That and that to me at least, their god is not God. I can't see the same God as both giving and taking the same things. My God gave me guides; we call them laws, He called them Words. They constitute the frame of a picture, in this case we, within that frame, would be a picture precious to him. Our God loves us; the god of Islam wants nothing but submission.

Can anybody explain to me the same God as being so different from Himself and still being the God of Love, Truth, Joy, Beauty? Would God give talent only to suppress it? It makes no sense.