Anonymous wrote:Evangelicals find displays of LGBTQ vulgar and cite bible verses. I doubt there would be any university firings over that

so do Muslims . In fact Muslims started joining parents in protesting lgbt books in schools

Anonymous wrote:Someone should find professors there posting images of jesus , especially as black . Will they get fired ?

Of course not. Jesus was a POC and images of him as a POC are everywhere in modern churches.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like everyone tempted to show a picture of Mohammad knows they're being inflammatory. For them, this is a bug rather than a feature. I don't believe there is an ignorance crisis.

The crisis is one of jerkiness. Whether or not you agree it should be offensive, understand that it is. Only jerks deliberately offend in this way.

Is violent retaliation appropriate? I think not, but we all need to understand that the action can be understood as deeply offensive and just not do it in the first place.

Signed, traditional Jew who thinks a lot of ultra-secular and progressive faith Americans and Europeans have a bizarre blind spot when it comes to respecting the traditions of groups that have traditions.

So, should the cafeteria at a secular college that your kids might attend stop serving cheeseburgers?

You're confusing a lot of things, and your example is a poor one. There's nothing offensive to a Jewish person about not-Jewish people eating cheeseburgers. No conflict.

There would be a really big problem, on the other hand, if the people at this secular college gathered Torah scrolls and urinated on them. That would be incredibly offensive. But people who aren't jerks wouldn't do that, you see.

I don't think dogmatically secular people should have so much trouble imagining that something a different community has TOLD them it considers incredibly offensive is going to offend them a whole lot. There are a lot of things you probably understand as complete jerk actions. Wearing blackface comes to mind. Add depicting Mohammed to the list. Just don't do it. Because only jerks and bullies offend intentionally.

NP. I think PP was referring to cheeseburgers offending Hindus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently this is terribly offensive. Why is that? The oldest pictures are Muslim?

And how can we tell more Americans so they don't accidentally upset people?

So, I'm not going to show a picture just to try to upset people, but this isn't that case and I can't believe the university fired this professor.

So much for moderate Muslims.

Actual, I've read several Muslims condemning the university and supporting the teacher.

The president of the Muslim Student Association is the one who got the ball rolling on her dismissal

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently this is terribly offensive. Why is that? The oldest pictures are Muslim?

And how can we tell more Americans so they don't accidentally upset people?

So, I'm not going to show a picture just to try to upset people, but this isn't that case and I can't believe the university fired this professor.

So much for moderate Muslims.

Actual, I've read several Muslims condemning the university and supporting the teacher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like everyone tempted to show a picture of Mohammad knows they're being inflammatory. For them, this is a bug rather than a feature. I don't believe there is an ignorance crisis.

The crisis is one of jerkiness. Whether or not you agree it should be offensive, understand that it is. Only jerks deliberately offend in this way.

Is violent retaliation appropriate? I think not, but we all need to understand that the action can be understood as deeply offensive and just not do it in the first place.

Signed, traditional Jew who thinks a lot of ultra-secular and progressive faith Americans and Europeans have a bizarre blind spot when it comes to respecting the traditions of groups that have traditions.

It was an art history class! The professor repeatedly warned the students that there would be an image of Mohammed; why does the intersection of history, art, and religion need to be inflammatory?

People that are religious need to understand that the world should not revolve around their fairy tale beliefs and outdated traditions. It's a-OK to have these beliefs but it's stupid to expect others to adhere to them.

+1
The class was a survey of Islamic art. The picture is widely considered to be an important work of Persian art. There was an excellent pedagogical reason to show it. The teacher gave advance warning and allowed any student to leave if they wanted. She was completely respectful.

Also, not all Muslims agree that depictions of Muhammed are improper. After all, the picture was itself created by a Muslim! I see no reason that a teacher at a non-sectarian school must abide by the dictates of any particular sect.

Anonymous wrote:Apparently this is terribly offensive. Why is that? The oldest pictures are Muslim?

And how can we tell more Americans so they don't accidentally upset people?

So, I'm not going to show a picture just to try to upset people, but this isn't that case and I can't believe the university fired this professor.

So much for moderate Muslims.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like everyone tempted to show a picture of Mohammad knows they're being inflammatory. For them, this is a bug rather than a feature. I don't believe there is an ignorance crisis.

The crisis is one of jerkiness. Whether or not you agree it should be offensive, understand that it is. Only jerks deliberately offend in this way.

Is violent retaliation appropriate? I think not, but we all need to understand that the action can be understood as deeply offensive and just not do it in the first place.

Signed, traditional Jew who thinks a lot of ultra-secular and progressive faith Americans and Europeans have a bizarre blind spot when it comes to respecting the traditions of groups that have traditions.

It was an art history class! The professor repeatedly warned the students that there would be an image of Mohammed; why does the intersection of history, art, and religion need to be inflammatory?

People that are religious need to understand that the world should not revolve around their fairy tale beliefs and outdated traditions. It's a-OK to have these beliefs but it's stupid to expect others to adhere to them.

People need to be able to understand things from one another's perspectives. Sometimes that means knowing not to do something culturally insensitive.

What’s next? Firing someone for wearing mixed fibers? Mixing their milk plates with their meat? Should stoning be enstated? Where does it end? These fairy tales should have no bearing on real life.

Evangelicals find displays of LGBTQ vulgar and cite bible verses. I doubt there would be any university firings over that

Anonymous wrote:I feel like everyone tempted to show a picture of Mohammad knows they're being inflammatory. For them, this is a bug rather than a feature. I don't believe there is an ignorance crisis.

The crisis is one of jerkiness. Whether or not you agree it should be offensive, understand that it is. Only jerks deliberately offend in this way.

Is violent retaliation appropriate? I think not, but we all need to understand that the action can be understood as deeply offensive and just not do it in the first place.

Signed, traditional Jew who thinks a lot of ultra-secular and progressive faith Americans and Europeans have a bizarre blind spot when it comes to respecting the traditions of groups that have traditions.

I guess it’s offensive if viewed from a very Shia centric interpretation. Sunni’s normally have no issues with these sorts of depictions. Nor do Sufi or many other sects of Islam. I honestly think the principle was scared of possible violent retribution and offending the large number of Sudanese migrants (many of whom are Islamic) on the schools enrollment.

Also, there is this element of self censorship that now pervades many campuses coupled with a misguided desire not to somehow offend anyone. The potential for offense was noted in the syllabus for the course. There were “trigger warnings” given. This is a famous piece of Islamic art. There are so many reasons why this firing was idiotic and reflexive. That’s great you’re traditional. However, in the United States we have separation of church and state and freedom of speech. Or apparently we did until the last few years. This famous painting, barring some new evidence, was not specifically shown to cause hurt. It was a course on Islamic art showing famous Islamic art.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is so ridiculous. I’m not Muslim and will not abide by tenants of the Islamic faith. Why do Muslims insist that we all abide by their religion? If they can’t handle pictures of Mohammed, they should drop out of art history. They were warned.

France is 100% correct to try to eradicate religion in public spaces.

This is wild to me that a non-Muslim is held to Muslim religion standards- in an art history class. If I remember correctly, there was a major publication that ran a picture of Muhammad, this was years ago. Maybe it was time? There was a lot of hoopla over it, but ultimately it is free speech. I think this professor has grounds for a winning lawsuit.

it’s a private university . However there is a strong argument to have private universities to be considered state actors like company towns are

A private CHRISTIAN university. Islamic teachings should not be a factor at all.

are they going to fire people over depicting Jesus ? Because that’s prohibited in Islam

Anonymous wrote:What’s odd is that, as I understand the Muslim belief, it bans depictions of the deity in general, as well as the prophet. But presumably the art history class can show the sistene chapel and other famous pieces of art that depict god, right? Which would be equally offensive to a devout Muslim.
It seems to me that the right answer here is to provide a warning and allow students who are offended to be excused from those assignments,
I don’t think it’s at all equivalent to the instances of newspapers running cartoons that depict Mohammad to make a political point.

there was a warning in the syllabus and in the classroom. Thr complaining student chose to stay

Why did the complaining student say as a Muslim and a “black person”? Is Islamophobia more bad if certain races are involved?

What’s odd is that, as I understand the Muslim belief, it bans depictions of the deity in general, as well as the prophet. But presumably the art history class can show the sistene chapel and other famous pieces of art that depict god, right? Which would be equally offensive to a devout Muslim.
It seems to me that the right answer here is to provide a warning and allow students who are offended to be excused from those assignments,
I don’t think it’s at all equivalent to the instances of newspapers running cartoons that depict Mohammad to make a political point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is so ridiculous. I’m not Muslim and will not abide by tenants of the Islamic faith. Why do Muslims insist that we all abide by their religion? If they can’t handle pictures of Mohammed, they should drop out of art history. They were warned.

France is 100% correct to try to eradicate religion in public spaces.

This is wild to me that a non-Muslim is held to Muslim religion standards- in an art history class. If I remember correctly, there was a major publication that ran a picture of Muhammad, this was years ago. Maybe it was time? There was a lot of hoopla over it, but ultimately it is free speech. I think this professor has grounds for a winning lawsuit.

A teacher in France was murdered for showing Mohammed. Some Muslims do not play.

Which makes Charlie Hebdo even more admirable