A Lecturer Showed a Painting of the Prophet Muhammad. She Lost Her Job(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
A Lecturer Showed a Painting of the Prophet Muhammad. She Lost Her Job
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/08/us/hamline-university-islam-prophet-muhammad.html
285 comments
https://archive.ph/SVhFH
Recent and related:
College that fired prof for showing image of Muhammad could lose accreditation - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34293131 - Jan 2023 (85 comments)
College that fired prof for showing image of Muhammad could lose accreditation - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34293131 - Jan 2023 (85 comments)
The painting in question: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Mohammed...
It's a gorgeous piece of art and I am truly surprised that even the faithful would see this as blasphemous. Islamic art is really underappreciated in the west.
That's definitely not Islamic art, though. Islamic art quite notably does not depict humans or animals, and instead combines calligraphy and geometric patterns (and floral, maybe? I'm not entirely sure). You should definitely check that out too, though, it's beautiful!
As for this art piece, I think it would certainly cause some controversy. I'm a Muslim myself, and afaik depictions of living beings are discouraged, and depictions of the Prophet (PBUH) are a no-no (though perhaps I should mention that I do believe firing that teacher was absolutely the wrong decision, and what she did was not at all an instance of Islamophobia).
As for this art piece, I think it would certainly cause some controversy. I'm a Muslim myself, and afaik depictions of living beings are discouraged, and depictions of the Prophet (PBUH) are a no-no (though perhaps I should mention that I do believe firing that teacher was absolutely the wrong decision, and what she did was not at all an instance of Islamophobia).
Sunni Islamic art doesn't depict humans or animals, but my understanding is that's actually not a universal characteristic of Islam. You'd know better than I do, but Ken White (who is not a Muslim) pretty stridently takes the university to task for universalizing the anti-art stance to all of Islam, as opposed to the specific sects involved. Is he wrong?
No, he's not wrong. It's definitely not a universal stance. My own belief (based on my sect) is that the depictions that the Prophet (PBUH) banned were done so to discourage idolatry among muslims (much more relevant at that time than now).
Beyond that, there is little to suggest that Islam explicitly forbids art depicting humans. In the case of prophets though, I think it is discouraged (by muslims) largely to prevent misattributing features or misrepresenting them (and of course, mockery as well).
I should add, there is probably a bit of miscommunication when people use the term "Islamic art". Some may mean art that does not violate Islamic principles (whatever those may be to them), others may take it to refer specifically to the typical aniconistic style of art that has now become synonymous with "Islamic art" (at least that's what I, admittedly, thought of in my previous comment), or perhaps art originating from muslim territories / made by muslims, etc.
Beyond that, there is little to suggest that Islam explicitly forbids art depicting humans. In the case of prophets though, I think it is discouraged (by muslims) largely to prevent misattributing features or misrepresenting them (and of course, mockery as well).
I should add, there is probably a bit of miscommunication when people use the term "Islamic art". Some may mean art that does not violate Islamic principles (whatever those may be to them), others may take it to refer specifically to the typical aniconistic style of art that has now become synonymous with "Islamic art" (at least that's what I, admittedly, thought of in my previous comment), or perhaps art originating from muslim territories / made by muslims, etc.
Gotcha. This is super helpful, thank you so much for taking the time.
He's wront imo, and it's important to keep in mind the almost complete opposition in belief between sunni islam and shiism, w.r.t idolatry and iconoclasm. The difference is so wide that I don't think it makes sense to speak about a universal islamic characteristic on that subject.
Just as an example, in sunnism even the grave of the prophet Mohammed (pbuh) is basically completely anonymous and unremarkable, to the point where you wouldn't know about it even if you were right in front of it. That's to avoid any grave worshiping, or ritualistic "pilgrimage."
Shiism, on the other hand, involves a LOT of rituals around saint worshipping, huge shrines, and important relics. Because of that, representations of saints and even the prophet are a lot, lot less problematic (and even mainstream, with portraits of Husayn being common in religious ceremonies). Even then, Persian art was historically even less restrictive than the mainstream modern shia tendency of not really representing the prophet itself anymore.
Now, you might say that this proves Ken White's point, but it really doesn't!. The reality is that for most muslims, sunnism being the biggest denomination by far, there is really no debate that this type of representation is completely forbidden. There is also virtually no disagreement on the subject between the different sunni branches (who usually are pretty similar in general anyways). The only rift is between sunnis and shias, but it is so wide that it makes no sense to even lump the two groups together in this conversation. It's not just a sectarian disagreement over interpretation that could be open for debate, it's almost two completely different approaches and beliefs.
So basically those "specific sects" would basically include 99.99% of practicing sunnis, all branches of sunnism, and every sunni religious authority. That's more than 80-85% of muslims, including shias. So there is definitely some universality of opinion here.
Just as an example, in sunnism even the grave of the prophet Mohammed (pbuh) is basically completely anonymous and unremarkable, to the point where you wouldn't know about it even if you were right in front of it. That's to avoid any grave worshiping, or ritualistic "pilgrimage."
Shiism, on the other hand, involves a LOT of rituals around saint worshipping, huge shrines, and important relics. Because of that, representations of saints and even the prophet are a lot, lot less problematic (and even mainstream, with portraits of Husayn being common in religious ceremonies). Even then, Persian art was historically even less restrictive than the mainstream modern shia tendency of not really representing the prophet itself anymore.
Now, you might say that this proves Ken White's point, but it really doesn't!. The reality is that for most muslims, sunnism being the biggest denomination by far, there is really no debate that this type of representation is completely forbidden. There is also virtually no disagreement on the subject between the different sunni branches (who usually are pretty similar in general anyways). The only rift is between sunnis and shias, but it is so wide that it makes no sense to even lump the two groups together in this conversation. It's not just a sectarian disagreement over interpretation that could be open for debate, it's almost two completely different approaches and beliefs.
So basically those "specific sects" would basically include 99.99% of practicing sunnis, all branches of sunnism, and every sunni religious authority. That's more than 80-85% of muslims, including shias. So there is definitely some universality of opinion here.
[deleted]
Sorry, I guess I should have said "Persian" art? I'm having trouble finding the origin of the painting, this is about it:
"The illustration was originally found in a work of history called “The Compendium of Chronicles” (or “Jami al-Tawarikh” in Arabic) by Rashid al-Din Hamadani (1247–1318), a Persian physician and bureaucrat who served the Mongol conquerors of Iran in the 13th and 14th centuries."
Dunno if I agree all Islamic art doesnt depic humans, that does not agree with what I've seen in museums. Also, since it's a representation of an event that occurred in islam, I thin kit's not entirely unfair to say it's "islamic art" even if it was created by a Persian jew.
Dunno if I agree all Islamic art doesnt depic humans, that does not agree with what I've seen in museums. Also, since it's a representation of an event that occurred in islam, I thin kit's not entirely unfair to say it's "islamic art" even if it was created by a Persian jew.
This is absurd thing to get fired over.
I really don't like pandering to the religious beliefs of a minority, especially when said group was given tons of precautions from the professor. The student in question still made the choice to show up to class, made the choice to complain, and made the choice to cry in front of other students saying that she felt deeply offended. The girl was given every chance to avoid this altogether, but instead chose to put herself in the situation so she could be the victim.
I feel absolutely terrible for the professor, they did absolutely nothing wrong. I took an religious art history class in college too...and yeah, we had Muslims in the class. One of them just didn't show up that day, and others just continued on as if it was just another piece of art. No complains, no grandstanding. Just mature people with the mindset of "I'm not in any position to complain, I'm not special, the professor isn't targeting me, nor anyone else. My religious beliefs are not and will never be part of the law system here and I don't expect them to be." That's it.
We are a secular country. We have separation of religious institutions from our government (in theory). If someone of any faith wants to whine about being offended because of a picture they saw at school, they need to grow the fuck up.
I feel absolutely terrible for the professor, they did absolutely nothing wrong. I took an religious art history class in college too...and yeah, we had Muslims in the class. One of them just didn't show up that day, and others just continued on as if it was just another piece of art. No complains, no grandstanding. Just mature people with the mindset of "I'm not in any position to complain, I'm not special, the professor isn't targeting me, nor anyone else. My religious beliefs are not and will never be part of the law system here and I don't expect them to be." That's it.
We are a secular country. We have separation of religious institutions from our government (in theory). If someone of any faith wants to whine about being offended because of a picture they saw at school, they need to grow the fuck up.
Even if it was a religious majority it should stand. She was trying give an example of art history , how it was. The fact that some believe it is outlawed in their beliefsystem (which is a result of the Wahhabism movement as I understand it) is exactly the point of learning and knowing the context of which an image was made in.
It’s indeed a form of maturity. Or learning or aspiring to be exposed to other viewpoints and ways of seeing.
It’s indeed a form of maturity. Or learning or aspiring to be exposed to other viewpoints and ways of seeing.
> The girl was given every chance to avoid this altogether, but instead chose to put herself in the situation so she could be the victim.
The problem is that this doesn't matter. In the case of the beheaded french teacher the girl just lied about being in that class (he was not her teacher, and she didn't even come to school that day) and tell everybody later that she was forced to see pictures of the prophet naked. I wonder where is she now.
The problem is that this doesn't matter. In the case of the beheaded french teacher the girl just lied about being in that class (he was not her teacher, and she didn't even come to school that day) and tell everybody later that she was forced to see pictures of the prophet naked. I wonder where is she now.
It's crazy that this happened at all, let alone in an art history context. For the record, there are at least two academic sources attesting that the prohibition on depiction of the prophet Muhammad are recent.
1. Wijdan Ali's From the Literal to the Spiritual: The Development of the Prophet Muhammad's Portrayal from 13th Century Ilkhanid Miniatures to 17th Century Ottoman Art. 1999. Open Access, available here: https://webspace.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/islam/downloads/ejo...
2. Christiane Gruber's The Praiseworthy One: The Prophet Muhammad in Islamic Texts and Images. 2019. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37702531-the-praiseworth...
1. Wijdan Ali's From the Literal to the Spiritual: The Development of the Prophet Muhammad's Portrayal from 13th Century Ilkhanid Miniatures to 17th Century Ottoman Art. 1999. Open Access, available here: https://webspace.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/islam/downloads/ejo...
2. Christiane Gruber's The Praiseworthy One: The Prophet Muhammad in Islamic Texts and Images. 2019. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37702531-the-praiseworth...
> Dr. López Prater’s situation was especially precarious. She is an adjunct, one of higher education’s underclass of teachers, working for little pay and receiving few of the workplace protections enjoyed by tenured faculty members.
I hope this bit doesn’t get lost in the conversation. Tenure seems to be extremely hard to get, even for very smart people who (in my opinion) fully deserved it.
I hope this bit doesn’t get lost in the conversation. Tenure seems to be extremely hard to get, even for very smart people who (in my opinion) fully deserved it.
Absent a radical retrenchment of reactionary-style teaching institutions, I don't see how "getting tenure" is a viable strategy going forward. The institutions have radically shifted their construction to be administration/student-centered rather than professor-centered. It may be that tenure as an institution could not survive the massive growth of the university system. Like any guild, membership growth must be limited. Tenure is a kind of life membership that simply cannot be conferred willy-nilly. Modern university economics simply will not support it. The trend is to disempower labor. Meanwhile, existing tenures are precious resources inspiring perverse behavior. In some ways, the tenure system has badly back-fired for professors, hastening their proletarianization (like doctors in the hospital system). It hasn't helped that most professors have been complicit in their own disenfranchisement, refusing to fight for their non-ideologically-aligned cohort, supporting the administrators in their anti-professor actions on behalf of student-customers. The whole thing is a mess but tenure is done. We may as well lament the loss of the guilds at this point. The barn is open, the cow is gone.
> I don't see how "getting tenure" is a viable strategy going forward.
It's not, which is why many schools are moving away from tenured faculty and more toward contract instructors. They're paid like regular faculty (not pennies like adjuncts) but aren't on a tenure track. 3-5 year contracts give better job security than a typical job, but not a guaranteed job for life.
It's not, which is why many schools are moving away from tenured faculty and more toward contract instructors. They're paid like regular faculty (not pennies like adjuncts) but aren't on a tenure track. 3-5 year contracts give better job security than a typical job, but not a guaranteed job for life.
3-5 year contracts are maybe better than employment at will for faculty but they are of a kind with deleveraging the profession vis a vis the institution. The institutional character has shifted to big-E Education. Like big-H Health it is a rationalization of the industry that disempowers the "productive" professionals in favor of the "managerial" professionals (administrators) who manage the economic relationships (means of production/distribution) of the whole shebang. Maybe the death of tenure will augur a new age of unionization for faculty (I have my doubts).
Honestly I feel like it gives me more leverage. Every 3-5 years the administration has to be ready for me to walk, and they need to make competitive offers to keep me. These are not like tenured positions that only open up once a generation, so it's actually worthwhile to see what else is out there, so threats to leave for greener pastures are more credible.
I wonder if it will really depend on market demand for your specialization. Free agent poetry profs may have to wait tables and go begging but STEM profs can write their own ticket? What kind of university does that create? I think it sounds better than it is. High-skill jobs always have some built-in leverage. Heck, this is HN. We all know this. But technics is not merely crystallized knowledge at a point in time. After a while, all but the top 20% are competing at a disadvantage. Factor in reach/amplification technologies and I wonder if the university's pursuit of market efficiencies isn't going to expose contract work as more precarious than not.
>Every 3-5 years the administration has to be ready for me to walk, and they need to make competitive offers to keep me.
That is easy to say when you don't have family. Children don't do well being pulled out of school and moved to different school, they can suffer academically, emotionally and socially from having their lives disrupted. Then you have to consider your spouses career.
That is easy to say when you don't have family. Children don't do well being pulled out of school and moved to different school, they can suffer academically, emotionally and socially from having their lives disrupted. Then you have to consider your spouses career.
In Europe she would be likely be dead or in protective custody.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10655679/Teacher-30...
https://www.france24.com/en/france/20211015-the-violence-sho...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10655679/Teacher-30...
https://www.france24.com/en/france/20211015-the-violence-sho...
The response from a caricature vs a respectful historical depiction may be very different.
Remember that in US this happened not a long time ago: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabbing_of_Salman_Rushdie
Remember that in US this happened not a long time ago: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabbing_of_Salman_Rushdie
It's incredibly sad seeing Shia extremism making its way to North America. This was only a few months ago too. What's even scarier about this case was that the Iranian government issued a fatwa on the victim in 1989, and then Iranian state media celebrated the attack 30 years later.
Oddly enough, Shias are much more tolerant of depictions of Muhammed, it's the hardline Sunni who really have a problem with it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad#Conte...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad#Conte...
toxik(6)
"In Europe" often doesn't makes sense as a generalisation. Both the UK and France have a significant Muslim population. That does not extend to Europe in general though. France is ~6% Muslim with large communities. Poland is well <0.1% with anti-islam ideas being common.
> France is ~6% Muslim with large communities.
I'm French and there were many muslim kids in my school when I was a kid (a few decades back). This type of "incident" didn't happen in those days. I don't remember religion ever being an issue. These kids would often respect ramadan and not eat pork, but this was the only visible religious thing, and nobody really cared about it.
I don't know what exactly has changed, who are the extremists and where they got their ideas, but something has changed.
I'm French and there were many muslim kids in my school when I was a kid (a few decades back). This type of "incident" didn't happen in those days. I don't remember religion ever being an issue. These kids would often respect ramadan and not eat pork, but this was the only visible religious thing, and nobody really cared about it.
I don't know what exactly has changed, who are the extremists and where they got their ideas, but something has changed.
They have very large representations compared to every other major non-christian religion in european countries. Islam is also the fastest growing religion in the world, by far.
On top of that, it is the religion that gets in unproportional amount of media time in every european country due to all the problems it represents.
On top of that, it is the religion that gets in unproportional amount of media time in every european country due to all the problems it represents.
> There were increases in the number of people who described themselves as “Muslim” (3.9 million, 6.5% in 2021, up from 2.7 million, 4.9% in 2011) and “Hindu” (1.0 million, 1.7% in 2021, up from 818,000, 1.5% in 2011).
UK Census 2021 (England and Wales): https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/cultural...
UK Census 2021 (England and Wales): https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/cultural...
Germany is also ~6% Muslim. But one could argue whether Germans are a significant part of "Europe". Belgium is ~5% but that's just the seat of the EU, not a real country. Spain is ~3%, which is "interesting" given the history of Moorish conquest of Iberia and the Treaty of Grenada and the Inquisition. 2-3% in Italy, but Catholics and Muslims have a long tradition of living together in harmony. Poland's % may be a result of anti-Islam sentiment rather than a cause. But again, are Germany, Spain, Italy, and Poland really part of Europe? "Europe" is just a collection of EU members anyway, if it means anything at all. Which means Turkey will soon be "in Europe".
> which is "interesting" given the history of Moorish conquest of Iberia and the Treaty of Grenada and the Inquisition.
Why? In Spain either you converted to Christianism 500 years ago or you got expelled. Most of Moors which came into Iberia where from modern Morocco origin and a few from Algeria. And a lot of them have "interesting" beliefs, such as drinking in private.
Also, every Moroccan has satellite TV and for sure they follow the Spanish soccer Liga.
They are very aware of Flamenco in Andalusia and the tiling from toilet rooms, which are the same in Andalusia and Morocco, or pretty close. Thus, they get assimilated fast in Spain to the Western values.
Why? In Spain either you converted to Christianism 500 years ago or you got expelled. Most of Moors which came into Iberia where from modern Morocco origin and a few from Algeria. And a lot of them have "interesting" beliefs, such as drinking in private.
Also, every Moroccan has satellite TV and for sure they follow the Spanish soccer Liga.
They are very aware of Flamenco in Andalusia and the tiling from toilet rooms, which are the same in Andalusia and Morocco, or pretty close. Thus, they get assimilated fast in Spain to the Western values.
Precisely. It is interesting it is not more given the history and proximity to Morocco. It is interesting it is not less given the expulsions and forced conversions.
Morocco and Andalucia are pretty close, you can spot Morocco´s coast from some places. Also, there is the issue of Ceuta and Melilla.
Yes, only a stone's throw. Why doesn't Spain have the ~6% Muslim population of France or Germany?
France keep strong historical links with several North African countries that were its french-speaking former colonies. This probably generated a lot of migration between France and Africa fullfiling the requisites to be granted French citizenship.
In the case of Germany is probably because they received a lot of Turkish workers after WWII.
In the case of Germany is probably because they received a lot of Turkish workers after WWII.
Ah. France. The country who’s president is opposed to the right to self-defense too.
Perhaps the bigger question is, should purportedly liberal institutions feel obliged to implement their own version of Islamic apostasy law, as is the case here?
That was my second thought here.
This would not have caused problem in Malayasia, Maldives, Indonesia, Bahrain, among many other countries.
This would not have caused problem in Malayasia, Maldives, Indonesia, Bahrain, among many other countries.
Here's what the professor had to say:
“I am showing you this image for a reason. And that is that there is this common thinking that Islam completely forbids, outright, any figurative depictions or any depictions of holy personages. While many Islamic cultures do strongly frown on this practice, I would like to remind you there is no one, monothetic Islamic culture,”
https://hamlineoracle.com/10750/news/who-belongs/
“I am showing you this image for a reason. And that is that there is this common thinking that Islam completely forbids, outright, any figurative depictions or any depictions of holy personages. While many Islamic cultures do strongly frown on this practice, I would like to remind you there is no one, monothetic Islamic culture,”
https://hamlineoracle.com/10750/news/who-belongs/
[deleted]
If south park gets censored for it, then what chance does anyone else have?
That's a reference to South Parks great 200/201 episode, which are all about that topic and in which Kyles speech at the end got censored. Despite there is no single frame, where Muhammad is shown. But the speech probably contained too much uncomfortable truth :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TMHIYDHMSE
"If there's anything we have learned, is that terrorizing works"
"If you don't want people to make fun of you anymore, all you need are guns and bombs"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TMHIYDHMSE
"If there's anything we have learned, is that terrorizing works"
"If you don't want people to make fun of you anymore, all you need are guns and bombs"
This is as much about the relative lack of power held by adjuncts. It’s easy for a college to fire an adjunct, as there are so many more ready to grab the spot.
Someone showed a picture in an educational context with no intent of harming but to educate and lost their job because of it.
People seem to be losing all sense of being reasonable in their response to things they or someone else find "offensive".
The fake outrage is really disgusting back to the dark ages.
The fake outrage is really disgusting back to the dark ages.
The fact that people describing themselves as progressive are fighting to forbid blasphemy has got to be the worst “freedom is slavery” newspeak in the last decade. When did it become acceptable for one sect to dictate what we are allowed to talk about? They are the enthusiastic useful idiots for dark age theocrats, the exact translation of our despicable white nationalists and Christian supremacists.
Well, if it makes you feel any better, I would describe myself as progressive, and I think the actions of the university —letting the professor go, if described accurately in the article — were clearly ludicrous and indefensible, and I can’t think of a single one of my friends or acquaintances who would think otherwise.
Yeah the more I learn about history in my spare time, the more corollaries I see with medieval papal censorship and suppression of freedom of thought, and some movements today going in that direction.
I yearn for the, looking back, somewhat balanced days where not everyone was head deep in politics, and we could have useful debates about maybe health care or national budget, without degenerating into blanket character attacks. Then after the debate, everyone is at least cordial.
Just finished the first season of white lotus. Did not expect to see some good dichotomies of two generations interacting with one another (re: the scuba family)
I yearn for the, looking back, somewhat balanced days where not everyone was head deep in politics, and we could have useful debates about maybe health care or national budget, without degenerating into blanket character attacks. Then after the debate, everyone is at least cordial.
Just finished the first season of white lotus. Did not expect to see some good dichotomies of two generations interacting with one another (re: the scuba family)
That is unfortunately a feature of modern-day progressivism. There are a number of other 'blasphemies' that it condemns (that are actually often censored on HN too, in the name of civility) as well.
I miss the progressivism of old, where there was more of an emphasis on tolerance even when one disagrees.
I miss the progressivism of old, where there was more of an emphasis on tolerance even when one disagrees.
> That is unfortunately a feature of modern-day progressivism.
You'll find this is a feature of all isms. Even the free speech absolutists ban the blasphemers when given the chance.
You'll find this is a feature of all isms. Even the free speech absolutists ban the blasphemers when given the chance.
> The fact that people describing themselves as progressive are fighting to forbid blasphemy has got to be the worst “freedom is slavery” newspeak in the last decade.
Thankfully this isn't happening, so crisis averted I guess.
Thankfully this isn't happening, so crisis averted I guess.
Isn't it prohibited to depict any of god's creations in some/many/all Islamic sects? Thus all the interesting geometric patterns.
Does that mean that virtually all Western art is islamaphobic?
At what point does the demand that Western art doesn't do something that offend Islam itself become westernphobic.
Does that mean that virtually all Western art is islamaphobic?
At what point does the demand that Western art doesn't do something that offend Islam itself become westernphobic.
This isn't Western art, it's classical Persian art, done by Muslims for Muslims. This is beyond stupid, it's plain fanaticism. These students should be sent to Iran or Afghanistan to get their feelings right. I have absolutely no patience for this sort of fascism disguised as victimisation.
Your lack of patience notwithstanding, it helps to take into consideration the fact that Islamic cultural practices vary from place to place. Saying that something is Persian doesn't fully capture the context. Sudanese Muslim culture is extremely conservative and until recently included laws against apostasy. The student who complained comes from this cultural background. Persians are generally from a different sect of Islam and have their own cultural complications.
Right or wrong, that's the context.
One fact of religious tolerance is that one person will inevitably view as sacred something that another person views as stupid. Drawing lines around certain practices is a challenging task for society as a whole. I personally don't believe that reducing everything to "fascism" is productive.
Your suggestion that people be deported to Iran or Afghanistan is among the most common racist retorts against Muslim people and indicates a lack of tolerance for what is in reality a fairly complicated issue that can only be solved by mutual respect.
Right or wrong, that's the context.
One fact of religious tolerance is that one person will inevitably view as sacred something that another person views as stupid. Drawing lines around certain practices is a challenging task for society as a whole. I personally don't believe that reducing everything to "fascism" is productive.
Your suggestion that people be deported to Iran or Afghanistan is among the most common racist retorts against Muslim people and indicates a lack of tolerance for what is in reality a fairly complicated issue that can only be solved by mutual respect.
> mutual respect
That's the point. This student obviously doesn't have any respect for the country and the culture he's currently living in. He has a point to make and a war to wage.
And that's not xenophobic to say that; I've hosted an Afghan refugees for months. I didn't try to feed him pork, and he didn't try to stab me for eating ham or not praying for Allah. There are decent people everywhere. You can be an oppressed refugee, and still be a fascistic, intolerant moron; you can be a white cis male billionaire and still be a good person (this one's tough though). Being a victim buys you no moral superiority at all. Being a decent person only does.
That's the point. This student obviously doesn't have any respect for the country and the culture he's currently living in. He has a point to make and a war to wage.
And that's not xenophobic to say that; I've hosted an Afghan refugees for months. I didn't try to feed him pork, and he didn't try to stab me for eating ham or not praying for Allah. There are decent people everywhere. You can be an oppressed refugee, and still be a fascistic, intolerant moron; you can be a white cis male billionaire and still be a good person (this one's tough though). Being a victim buys you no moral superiority at all. Being a decent person only does.
Firstly the article says the student is a girl. How much do you really know about her and her attitude if you didn't read that part of the article?
Regarding your experience with a refugee...doing good isn't a cache of poker chips. You can't justify judging a person today based on using something good that you said/did yesterday.
I don't think it's right to say something along the lines of "we might as well send this Sudanese person to Afghanistan for objecting to an image depicting something they consider sacrilegious."
I think you are wrong to frame the situation as a renegade student who is out to wage war. This (along with "if they don't like it, deport em") is a pretty common racist trope that is used to put Muslims down. Not saying that's your intent.
Religious freedom in the US is usually viewed in a way that differs from Europe (esp. France). Rather than forcing people to act or think secularly, Americans try to respect other people's boundaries as they are. It's a fundamentally different concept. No idea where you're from, but based on your attitude toward the meaning of "mutual respect" I'm guessing France.
It is likely that a Sudanese Muslim will view a depiction of the Muslim prophet as impermissible, and that a Persian Muslim will not. Why conflate the two?
There's more context in the school newspaper. [0] "'I am showing you this image for a reason. And that is that there is this common thinking that Islam completely forbids, outright, any figurative depictions or any depictions of holy personages. While many Islamic cultures do strongly frown on this practice, I would like to remind you there is no one, monothetic Islamic culture,' the professor said before changing to the slide that included these depictions."
The lecturer was aware that the images would be considered by many Muslims as forbidden. The head of the university's Muslim Students' Association was in the class. The lecture was on video and undoubtedly reviewed by the administration before they chose to let the adjunct professor go.
To me, it seems like this was a self-own by the lecturer rather than some kind of "war" waged (as you put it) by a student.
[0] https://hamlineoracle.com/10750/news/who-belongs/
Regarding your experience with a refugee...doing good isn't a cache of poker chips. You can't justify judging a person today based on using something good that you said/did yesterday.
I don't think it's right to say something along the lines of "we might as well send this Sudanese person to Afghanistan for objecting to an image depicting something they consider sacrilegious."
I think you are wrong to frame the situation as a renegade student who is out to wage war. This (along with "if they don't like it, deport em") is a pretty common racist trope that is used to put Muslims down. Not saying that's your intent.
Religious freedom in the US is usually viewed in a way that differs from Europe (esp. France). Rather than forcing people to act or think secularly, Americans try to respect other people's boundaries as they are. It's a fundamentally different concept. No idea where you're from, but based on your attitude toward the meaning of "mutual respect" I'm guessing France.
It is likely that a Sudanese Muslim will view a depiction of the Muslim prophet as impermissible, and that a Persian Muslim will not. Why conflate the two?
There's more context in the school newspaper. [0] "'I am showing you this image for a reason. And that is that there is this common thinking that Islam completely forbids, outright, any figurative depictions or any depictions of holy personages. While many Islamic cultures do strongly frown on this practice, I would like to remind you there is no one, monothetic Islamic culture,' the professor said before changing to the slide that included these depictions."
The lecturer was aware that the images would be considered by many Muslims as forbidden. The head of the university's Muslim Students' Association was in the class. The lecture was on video and undoubtedly reviewed by the administration before they chose to let the adjunct professor go.
To me, it seems like this was a self-own by the lecturer rather than some kind of "war" waged (as you put it) by a student.
[0] https://hamlineoracle.com/10750/news/who-belongs/
I strongly disagree. The professor said that she was about to show the picture and people who didn't like it had the option to not look at it. It was a planned, extremely deliberate aggression from the student to make a point about her intolerant, hateful interpretation of Islam. By going in a US University she knew that she would be exposed to ideas that will challenge her backwards beliefs.
I think intolerant religion must not be tolerated in an open society. I think that a society has absolutely no obligation to try to be amenable and welcoming to any ideology. When I travel in a Muslim country, I don't go around at noon during Ramadan eating ham sandwiches and drinking beer. That student is doing exactly that. She's literally spitting in the face of the country that hosts and educates her.
Yes, the professor may have tried to teach her students about the complexity of the world. That's the very definition of her job, after all!
The next step for a person like this student ends in a Samuel Paty or Charlie Hebdo. My advice is to deport her back to her miserable, war-torn, fascistic backward country she shouldn't have left.
Tolerance is great, but must be with at least a modicum of reciprocation. As Paul Claudel said "Tolerance? There are houses for that."
I think intolerant religion must not be tolerated in an open society. I think that a society has absolutely no obligation to try to be amenable and welcoming to any ideology. When I travel in a Muslim country, I don't go around at noon during Ramadan eating ham sandwiches and drinking beer. That student is doing exactly that. She's literally spitting in the face of the country that hosts and educates her.
Yes, the professor may have tried to teach her students about the complexity of the world. That's the very definition of her job, after all!
The next step for a person like this student ends in a Samuel Paty or Charlie Hebdo. My advice is to deport her back to her miserable, war-torn, fascistic backward country she shouldn't have left.
Tolerance is great, but must be with at least a modicum of reciprocation. As Paul Claudel said "Tolerance? There are houses for that."
Respectfully, you don't appear to understand the topic and you are heavily editorializing. I flagged your comment because it strikes me as hateful.
Historically speaking, prohibiting depictions of Muhammad are a recent concept in Sunni Islam, especially the Saudi driven Wahhabism which is extremely conservative. Over history art as always been a huge part of Islamic life. This painting has been revered for centuries. The only reason this time it caused the school to go berserk is a single student complained, leading to overreaction in fear. Details: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/08/an-art...
Are you saying Shia muslims don't feel the same?
I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that being Islamophobic is actually a good thing overall, given the content of Islam as written in the Quran and Hadith, and the actions of Mohammed.
If it were to be implemented in full in any of our Western societies today, it would result in a misogynistic, brutal, intolerant regime that infringes severely on what we understand as universal human rights. Just look at Afghanistan for an example. We should definitely be "phobic" of this.
If it were to be implemented in full in any of our Western societies today, it would result in a misogynistic, brutal, intolerant regime that infringes severely on what we understand as universal human rights. Just look at Afghanistan for an example. We should definitely be "phobic" of this.
> If it were to be implemented in full in any of our Western societies today, it would result in a misogynistic, brutal, intolerant regime that infringes severely on what we understand as universal human rights.
Similar to fundamental Christianity then?
Similar to fundamental Christianity then?
Yes. That one sucks too. They both suck. It's not a zero sum game, religious beliefs are not a good basis for societal norm regardless of the name of the religion.
It is not prohibited by the Quran at all, at least I’ve never found a reference in the Quran that indicates that it is forbidden. Please do correct me if I’m wrong, it’s been many years since I last read the Quran.
The Bible however, does actually forbid it: Exodus 20:4
I seem to remember that Jehovas Witnesses actually practice this as they take the words of the Bible literally.
I’m by no way an expert on theology, mainly interested on a hobby level, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
The Bible however, does actually forbid it: Exodus 20:4
I seem to remember that Jehovas Witnesses actually practice this as they take the words of the Bible literally.
I’m by no way an expert on theology, mainly interested on a hobby level, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
“In Exodus 20:4 God condemned the carving of statues for the sake of worshipping them as idols–a blasphemy the Catholic Church also condemns.
In Exodus 25:18-20, on the other hand, God commands Moses to carve statues for a religious purpose: two cherubim which would sit atop the Ark of the Covenant.
Notice that these angelic images were to serve such an exalted purpose (not because the statues themselves were in any way intrinsically exalted but because of the use to which they would be put) that God was very exacting in the instructions he gave Moses as to the materials to be used and the posture in which they were to be carved.
Similar divine commands to carve statues and embroider images of various religious objects are found in Exodus 21:6-9, Numbers 21:6-9, 1 Kings 6:23-28, and 1 Kings 7:23- 39. In each case, the statue or embroidered image was intended by God for a religious use.
Although the worship of anything, not just statues, in place of the True God is idolatry, there are times when statues are not just tolerable but recommended.
Just as those Old Testament statues were ordered fashioned by God to reminded the Israelites of heavenly realities, Catholic statues of Jesus and the angels and the saints serve the same purpose.”
In Exodus 25:18-20, on the other hand, God commands Moses to carve statues for a religious purpose: two cherubim which would sit atop the Ark of the Covenant.
Notice that these angelic images were to serve such an exalted purpose (not because the statues themselves were in any way intrinsically exalted but because of the use to which they would be put) that God was very exacting in the instructions he gave Moses as to the materials to be used and the posture in which they were to be carved.
Similar divine commands to carve statues and embroider images of various religious objects are found in Exodus 21:6-9, Numbers 21:6-9, 1 Kings 6:23-28, and 1 Kings 7:23- 39. In each case, the statue or embroidered image was intended by God for a religious use.
Although the worship of anything, not just statues, in place of the True God is idolatry, there are times when statues are not just tolerable but recommended.
Just as those Old Testament statues were ordered fashioned by God to reminded the Israelites of heavenly realities, Catholic statues of Jesus and the angels and the saints serve the same purpose.”
Most Jews and Christians interpret this text as prohibiting the creating and worshipping of idols, not of prohibiting images in general. As long as it's not being directly worshipped, or being created for that purpose, you're fine. As always for any text, it's important to read the text before and after it. I think its context makes it clear that the text is addressing just idols.
As evidence, consider the vast number of practicing Jews and Christians who were or are artists. Also consider the vast number of churches which have artwork (like stained glass and statues).
As evidence, consider the vast number of practicing Jews and Christians who were or are artists. Also consider the vast number of churches which have artwork (like stained glass and statues).
This is a nonsensical conclusion because obviously the Muslim world doesn’t perceive western art in this way. I do think there is a distinct difference between expecting respect from people that you share space with. Someone will surely reply about the violence some people partake in. Violence is never okay and is the route of maybe 0.5% of people, so I think basing how you interact with an entire demographic of people on that is myopic.
You assume the majority doesn't support violence as a response for depiction of Mohammed. The reality might surprise you.
> At what point does the demand that Western art doesn't do something that offend Islam itself become westernphobic.
The standard response is that there can be no such thing as Westernphobia because the West is powerful and Islam is weak, just as there can be no such thing as anti-white racism because whites are powerful and nonwhites are weak.
The standard response is that there can be no such thing as Westernphobia because the West is powerful and Islam is weak, just as there can be no such thing as anti-white racism because whites are powerful and nonwhites are weak.
tell that to white people in Kenya or South Africa... I don't have the link handy right now, but I read they are routinely in danger of rape/murder because of anti-white hate.
Yes and I take issue with that, $phobia isn't wrong just because of the power imbalance. Further these aren't monolithic entities, the power distributed between people is unequal. I've been denied a job because they were looking for a manageress (by a woman), who has the power in that situation?
If you want me to treat you equally, you need to hold us both as equals, anything less is hypocrisy.
If you want me to treat you equally, you need to hold us both as equals, anything less is hypocrisy.
Thus apparently extends to gender or rather sexuality as well recently.
I've been banned for asking why my sexuality - heterosexual, is excluded, actually not even asked why but if a flag representing my sexuality existed, since there were a bunch of flags that represented every possible spectrum, even asexuality.
I am not at all racist, my best friend has dark skin, but I also can't help but notice that on social networks there's always that black* group/tag/community never do you see white,red, yellow, only ever black. I do find that quite racist and exclusive. If we're all the same, why does such distinction exist?
I am not at all racist, my best friend has dark skin, but I also can't help but notice that on social networks there's always that black* group/tag/community never do you see white,red, yellow, only ever black. I do find that quite racist and exclusive. If we're all the same, why does such distinction exist?
> I am not at all racist, my best friend has dark skin, but I also can't help but notice that on social networks there's always that black* group/tag/community never do you see white,red, yellow, only ever black. I do find that quite racist and exclusive.
That is not remotely true, if I log into Reddit I can find subreddits with white, black, Spanish, German, Japanese, Indian, French, Jamaican, etc. topics as well several subcategories such as Valencian etc. I am not sure what or where you are looking.
I don’t think Native Americans go by red or East Asian people yellow as well honestly. What social networks are banning you?
There is a heterosexual flag here if you need one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_flag
That is not remotely true, if I log into Reddit I can find subreddits with white, black, Spanish, German, Japanese, Indian, French, Jamaican, etc. topics as well several subcategories such as Valencian etc. I am not sure what or where you are looking.
I don’t think Native Americans go by red or East Asian people yellow as well honestly. What social networks are banning you?
There is a heterosexual flag here if you need one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_flag
> I don’t think Native Americans go by red or East Asian people yellow as well honestly.
You're wrong about that; the Chinese do refer to themselves as yellow. (It's not a native tradition there - it's taken from the old Western taxonomy. But it's still current.)
You're wrong about that; the Chinese do refer to themselves as yellow. (It's not a native tradition there - it's taken from the old Western taxonomy. But it's still current.)
If you want representation for red-skinned people you should go to the popular tourist spots in Spain and find some British people. Outside of that I don't think there are many people who'd identify themselves that way.
From a quick Google search it looks like both Heterosexual and Cisgender have flags, ex. https://prideflags.info/
You’ve never had to fight for basic human rights as a white straight person.
What if the commenter is female, or disabled, or doesn't own property, or is subject to the many other axes of marginalization?
It's not all about race and sexuality.
It's not all about race and sexuality.
He specifically asked about a straight flags.
Non property owners are discriminated against?
Non property owners are discriminated against?
Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_flag
There are places in the world where this is not true, particularly Zimbabwe and South Africa. By the western definition of "white," which includes Arabs and middle easterners, this is not true even in the most "tolerant" parts of the west.
> You’ve never had to fight for basic human rights as a white straight person.
Look for the etymology of the term "slave". You will be surprised.
Look for the etymology of the term "slave". You will be surprised.
I don’t think this is true?
That is such a myopic, stupid take. How do you even know? Are you somehow deluded enough to believe that even in western countries nobody has to fight for basic human rights? Fuck, half of Americans’ basic human rights are in flux right now, have you been paying attention?
I'm late here, but you broke the site guidelines extremely badly. We ban accounts that post like this, regardless of how wrong another comment is or you feel it is.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
I didn’t say other marginalized groups don’t have to fight for human rights.
Proselitizing to religions (and I'm not talking about only one) is one of our moral failures of this past years
I swear I've seen this before in a musical.
Edit: found it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDx3vnvSbm8
Edit: found it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDx3vnvSbm8
> So last semester for a global art history class, she took many precautions before showing a 14th-century painting of Islam’s founder. In the syllabus, she warned that images of holy figures, including the Prophet Muhammad and the Buddha, would be shown in the course. She asked students to contact her with any concerns, and she said no one did. In class, she prepped students, telling them that in a few minutes, the painting would be displayed, in case anyone wanted to leave.
> After Dr. López Prater showed the image, a senior in the class complained to the administration. Other Muslim students, not in the course, supported the student, saying the class was an attack on their religion. They demanded that officials take action.
Why is she complaining if she chose to stay in the class despite all the warnings?
Islam doesn't allow much nudity either:
---
[0]Tell the believing men to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts. That is purer for them. Indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what they do.
[1]And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their chastity, and not to reveal their adornments1 except what normally appears.2 Let them draw their veils over their chests, and not reveal their ˹hidden˺ adornments3 except to their husbands, their fathers, their fathers-in-law, their sons, their stepsons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons or sisters’ sons, their fellow women, those ˹bondwomen˺ in their possession, male attendants with no desire, or children who are still unaware of women’s nakedness.
---
I'm pretty sure art history is full of pictures of men and women in various state of nudity - should all that also be purged from the classroom? What is the standard to decide whether a painting can be shown? Or should the universities start allowing random art students from various religions to make decisions on whether The Dancing Girl[2] or Michelangelo's David[3] is fit to be displayed in the class?
Observing Hindus worship cow but beef is routinely consumed in Europe/America. So in accordance with their beliefs, they don't consume beef. Strict observers do not even go to places that serve beef (as is their right). What they don't do is complain to McDonald's that they are offended by other people consuming beef (and even if they did, I'm pretty sure the answer won't be to ban beef in McDonald's).
> At the Dec. 8 forum, which was attended by several dozen students, faculty and administrators, Ms. Wedatalla described, often through tears, how she felt seeing the image.“Who do I call at 8 a.m.,” she asked, when “you see someone disrespecting and offending your religion?”
What you do is, you question whether what happened was non-malicious, whether there was legitimate reason behind it and whether the offended person had the chance to avoid the experience altogether. In this scenario the answer to all those questions is, yes.
> The lecture was so disturbing, she said, that she could no longer see herself in that course.
Absolutely correct thinking and beneficial to all parties because clearly she doesn't have the mindset necessary for an art history class.
[0]: https://quran.com/24?startingVerse=30
[1]: https://quran.com/24?startingVerse=31
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_Girl_(sculpture)
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)
> After Dr. López Prater showed the image, a senior in the class complained to the administration. Other Muslim students, not in the course, supported the student, saying the class was an attack on their religion. They demanded that officials take action.
Why is she complaining if she chose to stay in the class despite all the warnings?
Islam doesn't allow much nudity either:
---
[0]Tell the believing men to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts. That is purer for them. Indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what they do.
[1]And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their chastity, and not to reveal their adornments1 except what normally appears.2 Let them draw their veils over their chests, and not reveal their ˹hidden˺ adornments3 except to their husbands, their fathers, their fathers-in-law, their sons, their stepsons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons or sisters’ sons, their fellow women, those ˹bondwomen˺ in their possession, male attendants with no desire, or children who are still unaware of women’s nakedness.
---
I'm pretty sure art history is full of pictures of men and women in various state of nudity - should all that also be purged from the classroom? What is the standard to decide whether a painting can be shown? Or should the universities start allowing random art students from various religions to make decisions on whether The Dancing Girl[2] or Michelangelo's David[3] is fit to be displayed in the class?
Observing Hindus worship cow but beef is routinely consumed in Europe/America. So in accordance with their beliefs, they don't consume beef. Strict observers do not even go to places that serve beef (as is their right). What they don't do is complain to McDonald's that they are offended by other people consuming beef (and even if they did, I'm pretty sure the answer won't be to ban beef in McDonald's).
> At the Dec. 8 forum, which was attended by several dozen students, faculty and administrators, Ms. Wedatalla described, often through tears, how she felt seeing the image.“Who do I call at 8 a.m.,” she asked, when “you see someone disrespecting and offending your religion?”
What you do is, you question whether what happened was non-malicious, whether there was legitimate reason behind it and whether the offended person had the chance to avoid the experience altogether. In this scenario the answer to all those questions is, yes.
> The lecture was so disturbing, she said, that she could no longer see herself in that course.
Absolutely correct thinking and beneficial to all parties because clearly she doesn't have the mindset necessary for an art history class.
[0]: https://quran.com/24?startingVerse=30
[1]: https://quran.com/24?startingVerse=31
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_Girl_(sculpture)
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)
[deleted]
Not long ago in the UK: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14462046/school-teacher-prophe....
Separately but on the same theme, there was an outrage against sex education in schools, because Muslims were offended, saying it was against their way of life. The irony was that the protest was lead by a dude who didn't even have children.
Separately but on the same theme, there was an outrage against sex education in schools, because Muslims were offended, saying it was against their way of life. The irony was that the protest was lead by a dude who didn't even have children.
Ken White did a pretty useful breakdown on this whole story:
https://popehat.substack.com/p/hamline-university-and-cancel...
https://popehat.substack.com/p/hamline-university-and-cancel...
[deleted]
They should have instead shown the audience Jesus and Mo [0]
[0] - https://www.jesusandmo.net/
[0] - https://www.jesusandmo.net/
Could the lecturer sue the school? this doesn't seem like a legitimate reason to fire someone.
Different civilisations have different views, values, and “red lines” to borrow a term from elsewhere. Some of these may make the civilisations incompatible. How anyone is surprised by this I do not know.
Je suis Charlie.
Unfortunately, the world is such that losing a job is the least pain and torture.
In India, a Lady, Nupur Sharma merely quote the Hadith about Mohammad's marriage to Aisha and she had to go underground.
Many people lost their lives. The Islamists call for 'San Tan se Juda' - Separation of the Head from the Body.
The Islamic world needs a renaissance.
In India, a Lady, Nupur Sharma merely quote the Hadith about Mohammad's marriage to Aisha and she had to go underground.
Many people lost their lives. The Islamists call for 'San Tan se Juda' - Separation of the Head from the Body.
The Islamic world needs a renaissance.
> In India, a Lady, Nupur Sharma merely quote the Hadith about Mohammad's marriage to Aisha and she had to go underground.
This is not equivalent to the case in question (to be clear about my stand, I think the firing of the lecturer was completely wrong). However, there are few things to consider in Nupur Sharma case:
1. Nupur Sharma is not a random Lady, she was the spokesperson of the ruling party BJP. As part of the ruling party, she had the responsibility of acting as is appropriate for a national-level party member. More so as being the spokesperson, her views could be seen as the views of the party. See point #3 on why this is relevant.
2. Her comments were not part of some art history or philosophical discussion. By her own admittance, she couldn't accept the insulting of Hindu god Shiva and retaliated by making comments about prophet Mohammad.
3. Her comments were not made within the confines of a classroom where free academic discussion is paramount; she went on three national TV channels and basically tried to make the same comments deliberately knowing well that in a deeply religious country like India, such actions have far reaching consequences. My personal view is that one should be free to insult any god, Hindu or Muslim or any other religion; however, practicality demands that care should be exercised by members of political parties on such public platforms (if she was a Muslim leader who insulted a Hindu god, the point would still stand i.e. her behavior was irresponsible).
This is not equivalent to the case in question (to be clear about my stand, I think the firing of the lecturer was completely wrong). However, there are few things to consider in Nupur Sharma case:
1. Nupur Sharma is not a random Lady, she was the spokesperson of the ruling party BJP. As part of the ruling party, she had the responsibility of acting as is appropriate for a national-level party member. More so as being the spokesperson, her views could be seen as the views of the party. See point #3 on why this is relevant.
2. Her comments were not part of some art history or philosophical discussion. By her own admittance, she couldn't accept the insulting of Hindu god Shiva and retaliated by making comments about prophet Mohammad.
3. Her comments were not made within the confines of a classroom where free academic discussion is paramount; she went on three national TV channels and basically tried to make the same comments deliberately knowing well that in a deeply religious country like India, such actions have far reaching consequences. My personal view is that one should be free to insult any god, Hindu or Muslim or any other religion; however, practicality demands that care should be exercised by members of political parties on such public platforms (if she was a Muslim leader who insulted a Hindu god, the point would still stand i.e. her behavior was irresponsible).
I guess the focus of OP comment was the death threats she received, the beheading that followed of a tailor.
But it seems your comment sort of justifies all that because nupur is a spokesperson of a party.
But it seems your comment sort of justifies all that because nupur is a spokesperson of a party.
My comment points out the difference between the two incidents i.e. the lecturer's behavior was NOT irresponsible and Nupur Sharma's was. Death threats are not justified in either case under any circumstances.
I think more than nupur saga a decade ago a professors hand was chopped off for alleged blasphemy. This might be more relevant to the headline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_on_T._J._Joseph
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_on_T._J._Joseph
If Muslims are not OK with their religion and its figures being talked about in ways that are not within the rules of their religion, they shouldn't bring it up, and we should act as if it doesn't exist. You think your prophet was righteous? I don't care, I can't talk about him anyway, so it won't be part of my world of ideas. This has been my position on this topic since I got scolded by a Muslim for not referring to Islam's prophet with the obligatory "s.a.s."
If LGBTQ are not OK with their gender and the movement's figureheads being talked about in ways that are not within the rules of their safe spaces, they shouldn't be shoving it down everyone's throats constantly, and we should act as if they don't exist. You think being LGBTQ is important? I don't care, I can't talk about them anyway, so it won't be part of my world of ideas. This has been my position on this topic since I got scolded by some transgender person for not referring to them by their preferred pronouns.
This is unironically a very good point.
The intolerance that many trans-rights activists show to those who don't accept that a man with a 'female gender identity' is a woman is similar to the intolerance that many followers of Islam show to non-believers.
No-one on the gender critical side has been beheaded yet, but there is a surprisingly large "kill the terfs" movement that parallels the extremism of Islamists.
The intolerance that many trans-rights activists show to those who don't accept that a man with a 'female gender identity' is a woman is similar to the intolerance that many followers of Islam show to non-believers.
No-one on the gender critical side has been beheaded yet, but there is a surprisingly large "kill the terfs" movement that parallels the extremism of Islamists.
What you're reading as "intolerance" is likely a defense and self-preservation mechanism.
Let's put this whole subthread in perspective. Someone told a story about how they "got scolded" and then two replies later the conversation has drifted to the idea that LGBTQ don't exist, their movement parallels one of the most inflammatory boogeymen you can use in US political discourse, and the only reason they haven't come for our heads yet is because they aren't powerful enough. The conversation usually drifts from here to "Well how do we stop them from getting power?", at which point it gets really ugly. It's a subtle move from "these LGBTQ don't even exist" to "these LGBTQ shouldn't exist", and unfortunately we've seen the consequences of that kind of thinking more often recently. The usual solutions are: make their existence illegal through the political system we control, or exterminate them with violence.
And this gets me back to the defense mechanism. It's unfortunate, I agree. In a better world there would be room for nuance and polite discussion to foster understanding. Unfortunately in the real world, things go really quickly from a misunderstanding to actual violence. The real kind, not the suspected kind. So to prevent that real violence, you get a "nip this at the bud" kind of responses to things that may be benign or just a misunderstanding. Unfortunately deadnaming and misgendering are followed often enough by violence, that even when it's not intentional the response can be harsh. The sad part is that this way of interacting is not productive for anyone, but survival mechanisms are usually a last resort, not something meant to be polite.
Let's put this whole subthread in perspective. Someone told a story about how they "got scolded" and then two replies later the conversation has drifted to the idea that LGBTQ don't exist, their movement parallels one of the most inflammatory boogeymen you can use in US political discourse, and the only reason they haven't come for our heads yet is because they aren't powerful enough. The conversation usually drifts from here to "Well how do we stop them from getting power?", at which point it gets really ugly. It's a subtle move from "these LGBTQ don't even exist" to "these LGBTQ shouldn't exist", and unfortunately we've seen the consequences of that kind of thinking more often recently. The usual solutions are: make their existence illegal through the political system we control, or exterminate them with violence.
And this gets me back to the defense mechanism. It's unfortunate, I agree. In a better world there would be room for nuance and polite discussion to foster understanding. Unfortunately in the real world, things go really quickly from a misunderstanding to actual violence. The real kind, not the suspected kind. So to prevent that real violence, you get a "nip this at the bud" kind of responses to things that may be benign or just a misunderstanding. Unfortunately deadnaming and misgendering are followed often enough by violence, that even when it's not intentional the response can be harsh. The sad part is that this way of interacting is not productive for anyone, but survival mechanisms are usually a last resort, not something meant to be polite.
I'm sincerely sorry that my comment on a totally unrelated topic has led to such comments; if I had known that someone would bring up a supposed similarity with LGBTQ struggles I would have completely refrained from commenting. I guess deleting the original comment now doesn't make sense either.
They aren't committing atrocities because they don't have the resources for that, not because they are ethical and chose not to. Weakness is not a virtue, we shouldn't give them credit for it.
What makes you come to the conclusion that they would "commit atrocities"? On the one hand there is constant and widespread violence perpetrated against the LGBTQ, on the other there are vague threats by a couple of anonymous accounts, and your conclusion is that "they aren't committing atrocities because they don't have the resources"? I find this comment really insensitive, to say the least.
Let me rephrase it: they were not given a choice of committing something or not, so we don't know what they would choose if they were. I'm not saying they would (I see now that my comment can be read as if I did), I'm just saying that not having this choice is not a virtue.
It's like if someone said the Elon Musk is bad because he invested X amount of money into Y, and I'm better because I didn't (suppose I'm broke and I spend my days in a basement playing games). The "I'm better part" is flawed because we don't know what I would do if I was given his choice.
It's like if someone said the Elon Musk is bad because he invested X amount of money into Y, and I'm better because I didn't (suppose I'm broke and I spend my days in a basement playing games). The "I'm better part" is flawed because we don't know what I would do if I was given his choice.
There's a difference though: You were talking about them, and not some public figure you are supposed to be following. When you are talking about me to my face, I'd really like you to use the proper form of address, otherwise you are insisting on being disrespectful.
So, imagine your grandfather was in the nazi camps, he struggles to stay alive every day, he doesn't lie, cheat, or do anyone wrong, he does stand his ground, he defends the weak, feeds the poor even if it's his own food, how would you feel if someone mocked him in your face? called him a warlord, a traitor, a nazi associate, made derogatory cartoons of him etc.
And this just doesn't come close to what he did and the battles he fought and the pain he's been through, all done to praise God and obey his commands, all to spread the message of God to the world, and he's been reciting a verse about the Idols and how they've wasted a lot of lives along with another verse, and he cries and raises his hands to the sky saying: Oh God my people, my people. as in "God I am afraid for my people".
He's dearer to us than ourselves.
And this just doesn't come close to what he did and the battles he fought and the pain he's been through, all done to praise God and obey his commands, all to spread the message of God to the world, and he's been reciting a verse about the Idols and how they've wasted a lot of lives along with another verse, and he cries and raises his hands to the sky saying: Oh God my people, my people. as in "God I am afraid for my people".
He's dearer to us than ourselves.
Not sure why any Muslim would scold you about that, as far as I am aware it's not obligatory but strongly encouraged
This encouragement doesn't apply to non-Muslims, like at all.
I think there are shortcomings on our side speaking of explaining our religion to the western audience but trust me it's not easy because any conservative Sunni Muslim who speaks out is being silenced and you're being left with Shia and liberal Muslims, and you're not going to get anything related to Islam from these people, for now you can follow Daniel Haqiqatjou and Sheikh Uthman Ibn farook.
One final thing I have to clarify is, Shia aren't representatives of Islam, why? simple as their books are based on dreams this is the short version, the long version is something you have to research for yourself.
Sorry about your bad experience.
I think there are shortcomings on our side speaking of explaining our religion to the western audience but trust me it's not easy because any conservative Sunni Muslim who speaks out is being silenced and you're being left with Shia and liberal Muslims, and you're not going to get anything related to Islam from these people, for now you can follow Daniel Haqiqatjou and Sheikh Uthman Ibn farook.
One final thing I have to clarify is, Shia aren't representatives of Islam, why? simple as their books are based on dreams this is the short version, the long version is something you have to research for yourself.
Sorry about your bad experience.
I wonder. Why are this classes still opened to muslim students?
Seriously. Why?. What's the point of all this drama?
Teachers risk entire careers. Risk decades of hard study and even their lives, to show students concepts like free speech and different points of view.
Students don't seem to appreciate the effort. Each single time, somebody will feel justified to use this situation to feel outraged and punish the teacher. Their families will use it politically and ask for public lynching. Is always the same history.
Wouldn't be more wise for the university to apply a self-defence stance and made muslim students to pick a different class. Period. No exceptions?
Save yourself all the bullying, and the undesirable publicity. Why to be forced to burn valuable human resources in a war that is not your war?. Why universities still accept the role of the dummy punching bag in this history? They should know better.
Wouldn't be better also for muslim students not to force them to choose between the university and their families?
Seriously. Why?. What's the point of all this drama?
Teachers risk entire careers. Risk decades of hard study and even their lives, to show students concepts like free speech and different points of view.
Students don't seem to appreciate the effort. Each single time, somebody will feel justified to use this situation to feel outraged and punish the teacher. Their families will use it politically and ask for public lynching. Is always the same history.
Wouldn't be more wise for the university to apply a self-defence stance and made muslim students to pick a different class. Period. No exceptions?
Save yourself all the bullying, and the undesirable publicity. Why to be forced to burn valuable human resources in a war that is not your war?. Why universities still accept the role of the dummy punching bag in this history? They should know better.
Wouldn't be better also for muslim students not to force them to choose between the university and their families?
> I wonder. Why are this classes still opened to muslim students?
Because this is an exaggeration:
> Students don't seem to appreciate the effort. Each single time, somebody will feel justified to use this situation to feel outraged and punish the teacher.
I don't know what causes you to feel this way, but it's just not true. That some students cause outrage at one small school, that doesn't mean students or Muslims writ large feel the same, or that "every single time" Muhammad is depicted something like this happens. Frankly it seems like the opposite it true; the last time this was controversy in the news that I can remember were the terrorist attacks a decade ago. If it's true that Muslim students will use this to punish teachers and feel outraged, why doesn't it happen more often?
Really all that seems to be happening here is that a student got more upset than they should have, the school overreacted more than they should have, and now the anti-woke internet mobs (because the reactionaries are just as bad as the activists at this point) are overacting as well.
Because this is an exaggeration:
> Students don't seem to appreciate the effort. Each single time, somebody will feel justified to use this situation to feel outraged and punish the teacher.
I don't know what causes you to feel this way, but it's just not true. That some students cause outrage at one small school, that doesn't mean students or Muslims writ large feel the same, or that "every single time" Muhammad is depicted something like this happens. Frankly it seems like the opposite it true; the last time this was controversy in the news that I can remember were the terrorist attacks a decade ago. If it's true that Muslim students will use this to punish teachers and feel outraged, why doesn't it happen more often?
Really all that seems to be happening here is that a student got more upset than they should have, the school overreacted more than they should have, and now the anti-woke internet mobs (because the reactionaries are just as bad as the activists at this point) are overacting as well.
> Because this is an exaggeration
Not. Is a risk, and risks should be addressed.
> the last time this was controversy in the news that I can remember were the terrorist attacks a decade ago
2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Samuel_Paty
Universities and schools should meet over a common protocol for damage control and stop the problem for good. This lectures are like throwing blood in a shark pool; any extremist in a radius of a thousand miles around will be invoked in holy duty mode to "save the students souls".
And the risk/benefits ratio is just mew. Is a losing situation for everybody.
Not. Is a risk, and risks should be addressed.
> the last time this was controversy in the news that I can remember were the terrorist attacks a decade ago
2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Samuel_Paty
Universities and schools should meet over a common protocol for damage control and stop the problem for good. This lectures are like throwing blood in a shark pool; any extremist in a radius of a thousand miles around will be invoked in holy duty mode to "save the students souls".
And the risk/benefits ratio is just mew. Is a losing situation for everybody.
2021: A school in northern England apologised on Thursday (25.03.2021) and suspended a teacher for showing a caricature of the Muslim prophet Muhammad in class, sparking a protest movement
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-56590417
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-56590417
This was the wrong decision. Liberal institutions in the west have begun to increasingly yield to the demands of extremist minority views and doing so only emboldens them. You are free to insult white people, Christianity, and non transexual heterosexual men in this country but everyone else is a protected class. Even speaking positively or respectfully discussing the protected classes in a vaguely defined wrong way spurs outrage and likely costs you your job. Its interesting watching institutions act outraged over Florida's "don't say gay" bill while instituting their own version of it that just targets everything else.
> institutions act outraged over Florida's "don't say gay" bill
Were you upset of the 'don't say gay bill'? It's an example, not just of a single school acting to restrict academic freedom and freedom of expression in general, but the actual government enforcing this on ALL schools. That should be enraging to anyone who cares about freedom. A elementary school teacher was fired not too long ago for reading 'A need a new butt', because Christians found it offensive.
I think the decision to fire this guy was wrong, but this sort of action is hardly the sole domain of the 'left', the 'right' is doing plenty of censorship in schools all by itself.
Were you upset of the 'don't say gay bill'? It's an example, not just of a single school acting to restrict academic freedom and freedom of expression in general, but the actual government enforcing this on ALL schools. That should be enraging to anyone who cares about freedom. A elementary school teacher was fired not too long ago for reading 'A need a new butt', because Christians found it offensive.
I think the decision to fire this guy was wrong, but this sort of action is hardly the sole domain of the 'left', the 'right' is doing plenty of censorship in schools all by itself.
The bill in Florida was perfectly reasonable.
Classroom instruction by school personnel or third
parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur
in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-
appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students according to state standards.
3rd grade classrooms are not places of intellectual freedom. They are places of indoctrination. A third grader does not have academic freedom, there is no countervailing point in the classroom. It is completely different than a university setting. According to the t xt of the bill, I can't think of any good reason for a teacher to want to violate the law unless they want to push their own agenda onto the children. And that should not happen in a public school.
3rd grade classrooms are not places of intellectual freedom. They are places of indoctrination. A third grader does not have academic freedom, there is no countervailing point in the classroom. It is completely different than a university setting. According to the t xt of the bill, I can't think of any good reason for a teacher to want to violate the law unless they want to push their own agenda onto the children. And that should not happen in a public school.
Why can't the banning depictions of mohammad also be 'perfectly reasonable' because it university classrooms are not places of intellectual freedom, they are places of indoctrination. I can't think of any good reason for a teacher to want to violate this policy unless they want to push their own agenda onto the students. See how generic your defense is? It can be used for anything you disagree with.
'I need a new butt', was a book on the schools reading list. Was firing that teacher perfectly reasonable also? Was a funny book about butts indoctrination?
Critical race theory is being muzzled at the university level by the government in florida. Are you angry about that overreach by state?
'I need a new butt', was a book on the schools reading list. Was firing that teacher perfectly reasonable also? Was a funny book about butts indoctrination?
Critical race theory is being muzzled at the university level by the government in florida. Are you angry about that overreach by state?
> Critical race theory is being muzzled at the university level by the government in florida. Are you angry about that overreach by state?
After all, Ibram X. Kendi who is generally regarded as the foremost proponent of Critical Race Theory argued in his book How to Be an Antiracist that, “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” This is a fundamental position of Critical Race teachings.
Many would argue it's reasonable for parents to not want this sort of "good racial discrimination" being taught to their kids.
> Either they're all ok or none are ok.
Ibram X. Kendi is making a few points in the quoted passage.
The first is that it's not enough to just say "no more discrimination" after the entire system has already been set up to discriminate. That just results in a system that perpetuates discrimination.
To illustrate with an example: you and I sit down to play a game of Monopoly. Except instead of letting you play from the beginning, I tie you down and you have to watch me play the game alone until I control the bank, and have hotels on every space. At this point, I untie you and invite you to join me playing by the usual rules of the game.
"But that's not fair, you're obviously going to win." you say
"How is it not fair? We're both playing the game by the same rules."
--
The second point he's making is that there's no "end" to discrimination. The entire idea is just nonsense given the dynamics he describes, and it shouldn't be a goal much like eliminating all bias to appear fair and balanced, or vowing to never make a mistake again in order to be competent. Even if you declare it at an end, and try your hardest to end it in practice, discrimination still happens. It should be our goal to think long and hard about how to deal with discrimination rather than to endeavor to eliminate it.
Ibram X. Kendi is making a few points in the quoted passage.
The first is that it's not enough to just say "no more discrimination" after the entire system has already been set up to discriminate. That just results in a system that perpetuates discrimination.
To illustrate with an example: you and I sit down to play a game of Monopoly. Except instead of letting you play from the beginning, I tie you down and you have to watch me play the game alone until I control the bank, and have hotels on every space. At this point, I untie you and invite you to join me playing by the usual rules of the game.
"But that's not fair, you're obviously going to win." you say
"How is it not fair? We're both playing the game by the same rules."
--
The second point he's making is that there's no "end" to discrimination. The entire idea is just nonsense given the dynamics he describes, and it shouldn't be a goal much like eliminating all bias to appear fair and balanced, or vowing to never make a mistake again in order to be competent. Even if you declare it at an end, and try your hardest to end it in practice, discrimination still happens. It should be our goal to think long and hard about how to deal with discrimination rather than to endeavor to eliminate it.
Your analogy doesn't work because it assumes anything that happens to your ancestors necessarily affects you directly for every generation that comes after, forever. Your monopoly example is using a game that you and I play in directly against each other, when the reality is we have no idea how much positive or negative impact the ancestors of any given person has had on their lot in life.
Do you think people in Appalachia or a trailer park near you who have lived in generational poverty are some how benefited by their skin color? That would assume upper class people associate themselves with lower class, just due to skin color. But we know really that it's based on in groups and out groups. To test this, ask the average upper or upper middle class educated white person to describe the average trailer park dweller with the same color skin, and see their response.
It also assumes a lot of things based on skin color alone. If the concern is that we want to help those who need financial assistance, or educational assistance or whatever then there are ways to do that with means testing, not by relying on a Sherwin Williams color chart held up against your skin.
Do you think people in Appalachia or a trailer park near you who have lived in generational poverty are some how benefited by their skin color? That would assume upper class people associate themselves with lower class, just due to skin color. But we know really that it's based on in groups and out groups. To test this, ask the average upper or upper middle class educated white person to describe the average trailer park dweller with the same color skin, and see their response.
It also assumes a lot of things based on skin color alone. If the concern is that we want to help those who need financial assistance, or educational assistance or whatever then there are ways to do that with means testing, not by relying on a Sherwin Williams color chart held up against your skin.
> anything that happens to your ancestors necessarily affects you directly for every generation that comes after, forever.
No, that's not what I said. The point is that the state of the system interplays with the rules governing the system. You can't ignore the state of the system and declare the game fair by looking at just the rules.
> when the reality is we have no idea how much positive or negative impact the ancestors of any given person has had on their lot in life.
I mean, we do though. Generational wealth is a thing. American slavery isn't even the distant past; the last person born into slavery died within living memory.
> If the concern is that we want to help those who need financial assistance, or educational assistance or whatever then there are ways to do that with means testing
Right, which involves a process of discrimination to correct for past discrimination.
> not by relying on a Sherwin Williams color chart held up against your skin.
Of course there are better ways to do things than this terrible strawman you built.
No, that's not what I said. The point is that the state of the system interplays with the rules governing the system. You can't ignore the state of the system and declare the game fair by looking at just the rules.
> when the reality is we have no idea how much positive or negative impact the ancestors of any given person has had on their lot in life.
I mean, we do though. Generational wealth is a thing. American slavery isn't even the distant past; the last person born into slavery died within living memory.
> If the concern is that we want to help those who need financial assistance, or educational assistance or whatever then there are ways to do that with means testing
Right, which involves a process of discrimination to correct for past discrimination.
> not by relying on a Sherwin Williams color chart held up against your skin.
Of course there are better ways to do things than this terrible strawman you built.
> I mean, we do though. Generational wealth is a thing. American slavery isn't even the distant past
So if 15-20 generations isn't long enough, how many more generations into the future would you say we need to discriminate against people based on skin color before we can call it enough? And what do we do about the millions of poor people with the wrong color skin, just keep discriminating against them due to their race and hope they don't take it personally?
> Of course there are better ways to do things than this terrible strawman you built.
[1] https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/generational-wealth:-why-do-...
[2] https://money.com/rich-families-lose-wealth/
[3] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-why-90-of-rich-peopl...
> American slavery was around 15-20 generations ago
Maybe you missed where I said the last person born into slavery died in living memory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_last_survivors_of_Am...
But the discussion of slavery kind of misses the larger point; that systemic discrimination was not in fact dismantled in America with the end of chattel slavery. Other systems replaced the intent, and those persisted long past the Civil War, well into recent history to today.
> It's not a strawman though. If you're basing preferential treatment on race, how exactly do you determine that?
No one is holding up color scales to people’s skin, and no one suggested doing so, certainly not me. That’s how your argument is a straw man.
It sounds like you are trying to make a different argument now, and if you want to make that one without building a straw man, please do so.
Maybe you missed where I said the last person born into slavery died in living memory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_last_survivors_of_Am...
But the discussion of slavery kind of misses the larger point; that systemic discrimination was not in fact dismantled in America with the end of chattel slavery. Other systems replaced the intent, and those persisted long past the Civil War, well into recent history to today.
> It's not a strawman though. If you're basing preferential treatment on race, how exactly do you determine that?
No one is holding up color scales to people’s skin, and no one suggested doing so, certainly not me. That’s how your argument is a straw man.
It sounds like you are trying to make a different argument now, and if you want to make that one without building a straw man, please do so.
I gave you the data that shows your claims of generational wealth trickling through to an entire race of people, are false. You haven't addressed that.
You are the one making the argument that we need racial discrimination to right past wrongs. I gave you the reasons that is not only immoral, but unworkable. So if you have some method to make your vision of present & future racial discrimination a net benefit for society, I would like to hear it. Logically it isn't possible, so I'm curious to hear your proposed solution.
You are the one making the argument that we need racial discrimination to right past wrongs. I gave you the reasons that is not only immoral, but unworkable. So if you have some method to make your vision of present & future racial discrimination a net benefit for society, I would like to hear it. Logically it isn't possible, so I'm curious to hear your proposed solution.
You supplied three links about how wealthy families lose fortunes over time, I don't think they're really relevant to the discussion. They don't address anything we're talking about here, which is how some groups are systemically held back by building wealth in the first place.
Well then I don't get it. Putting up depictions of Mohammad can easily be viewed as inflammatory discrimination against Muslims, but that's ok?
Again, I don't think this teacher should have been fired. But the arguments against it in these comments seem hypocritical when support is given to other types of censorship only because they happen to disagree with what was being suppressed.
Again, I don't think this teacher should have been fired. But the arguments against it in these comments seem hypocritical when support is given to other types of censorship only because they happen to disagree with what was being suppressed.
> Although it was unnecessarily inflammatory in my opinion, it isn't a universal belief among Muslims that Mohammad can't be depicted and it certainly isn't a core tenet of Islam. If anything, one would argue that depictions of Mohammad should be treated the same as depictions of Jesus, Moses etc.
Exactly my point. Arguments could be made about the validity of any of these topics. There is no consistent basis, just 'This is censorship because topic is bad in my opinion, but other topic can be censored without issue because I disagree with it'.
Exactly my point. Arguments could be made about the validity of any of these topics. There is no consistent basis, just 'This is censorship because topic is bad in my opinion, but other topic can be censored without issue because I disagree with it'.
> Well then I don't get it. Putting up depictions of Mohammad can easily be viewed as inflammatory discrimination against Muslims, but that's ok?
Ps, side question. How do you make the quoted part of the comment come out in a different font like that?
Prepend a paragraph with two spaces
Honestly no, elementary thru highschool is not the same as intellectual free wheeling college. Lower levels are there to teach you the basics needed to survive they are not there to present sexual ideas to kids and challenge social norms. Parents are free to educate their kids outside of school how they want. I'm fine with elementary school kids not learning about homosexuality and transexuality. I actually voted Republican for the first time in my life to support this bill.
> This was the wrong decision.
It seems like it. It seems like the university didn’t even clearly understand that Muslims are divided on this topic before taking action.
> Liberal institutions in the west have begun to increasingly yield to the demands of extremist minority views and doing so only emboldens them. You are free to insult white people, Christianity, and non transexual heterosexual men in this country but everyone else is a protected class.
This, however, is just straight up alt-right talking points.
It seems like it. It seems like the university didn’t even clearly understand that Muslims are divided on this topic before taking action.
> Liberal institutions in the west have begun to increasingly yield to the demands of extremist minority views and doing so only emboldens them. You are free to insult white people, Christianity, and non transexual heterosexual men in this country but everyone else is a protected class.
This, however, is just straight up alt-right talking points.
Really? If you speak ill of "white people, Christianity, and non transexual heterosexual men" will you lose your job? Will you lose your job in liberal universities if you speak ill of Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, African Americans? In case of perceived bias, I'm a swing voting (95% Dem) Jew.
The worst thing is that the white left decides what is offensive or not. I’m Asian and most of the things they claim as racism against Asian are so cringe, literally nobody cares.
Same goes with the latinx movement. Actual people from latin America find it stupid and in some cases, ironically, offensive
[deleted]
Yes, it's cringe because it's said as a laughing matter and can have no consequences nowadays or it mostly doesn't.
I used to think this way too before and I am still not liberal but the thing with racism is, the start might be jokes but once it's systematic because "nobody cares it's just jokes" those same words might start to hit differently.
The liberals can be overreaching about such matters, but I personally think racial slurs shouldn't be tolerated a lot.
This is just my 2 cents on the subject.
The liberals can be overreaching about such matters, but I personally think racial slurs shouldn't be tolerated a lot.
This is just my 2 cents on the subject.
The point is, banning things does not solve problems. It just complicates things, force people to act in certain ways to make sure they aren't racist, instead of being genuine. When I'm accepted into interviews for jobs that aren't going to hire me anyway... it just wastes my time and their time.
The problem isn't much about racism, it is about some people act like jerks. And people can be jerks with or without racism.
The problem isn't much about racism, it is about some people act like jerks. And people can be jerks with or without racism.
The point of banning racism is so people don't feel comfortable doing it in public
Because once that's there, systematic racism is going to be back, things won't stop at the random jerk level.
Being a jerk might be because someone had a bad day etc, it's not loaded, you can counter it and it's not organized hate.
But racism is different, racism targets anyone who looks like you, and it's usually organized efforts and loaded with ideas about dehumanizing people.
sometimes things escalate and this same random jerk might murder you if they think there is a high chance they will escape the justice system because you're basically a subhuman under the new laws that these lighthearted racists passed.
You can't make everyone good and decent, but you can for sure punish the racists and limit their access to power and that's what banning does in this case.
sometimes things escalate and this same random jerk might murder you if they think there is a high chance they will escape the justice system because you're basically a subhuman under the new laws that these lighthearted racists passed.
You can't make everyone good and decent, but you can for sure punish the racists and limit their access to power and that's what banning does in this case.
What would be illegal under this law? If a couple guys are sitting having a beer at home discussing their opinion on the difference in races and how some are better than others would that be illegal? If the neighbor overhead and turned them in, how long would they go to jail for over this private conversation that had previously been protected by the 1st? Would you advocate taking their children away from them? Does this law extend to people saying bad things about whites? What other speech would be outlawed as dangerous? What political ideas are banned? The 1st amendment exists for a very important reason. Restricting speech is a slippery slope that can rapidly lead to the party in power staying in power by banning opposing ideas.
Yes, depending on what you say, absolutely. If I stood in my classroom and made blanket disparaging statements about cis men or Christians or white people, I guarantee students in those groups would go to the admin and complain. If what I said was bad enough, I’d likely be fired.
You wouldn’t get fired at Rutgers:
https://torontosun.com/life/rutgers-professor-calls-white-pe...
Or Drexel:
https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/health/drexel-professor-white...
Or Yale:
https://news.yahoo.com/psychiatrist-delivered-lecture-yale-d...
But say things that are embarrassing yet true of minority students at Georgetown, and you’ll be fired and disowned by the college in under 48 hours:
https://news.yahoo.com/georgetown-law-professor-fired-over-1...
https://torontosun.com/life/rutgers-professor-calls-white-pe...
Or Drexel:
https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/health/drexel-professor-white...
Or Yale:
https://news.yahoo.com/psychiatrist-delivered-lecture-yale-d...
But say things that are embarrassing yet true of minority students at Georgetown, and you’ll be fired and disowned by the college in under 48 hours:
https://news.yahoo.com/georgetown-law-professor-fired-over-1...
To be clear when I wrote my post I had in mind classroom instruction. The first two links are about comments made outside of the classroom, by tenured professors nonetheless. Hard to fire them for almost anything, but it does happen from time to time. The Drexel professor was later placed on administrative leave and then resigned.
The Yale link was about a lecture given by someone not affiliated with the University.
> you’ll be fired and disowned by the college in under 48 hours:
Yes, much easier to do with adjuncts compared to tenured professors.
The Yale link was about a lecture given by someone not affiliated with the University.
> you’ll be fired and disowned by the college in under 48 hours:
Yes, much easier to do with adjuncts compared to tenured professors.
Modern progressivism does distinguish instances of “punching down”, yes. That’s no secret and is not intended to be.
That’s not the point, though. Turning this into a “what about the white men!” whinge is blatantly misrepresenting this scenario as the result of “modern progressivism” when it’s actually something else.
I believe that you’re not going to find many proponents of the sort of progressivism that the “white about the white men!?”crowd fight against, that are actually in favour of this decision. Furthermore I believe that you’d find plenty that are against it.
Around the proponents of this ideology are concentric circles of people making misguided attempts to “capitulate to this PC culture”, often as an ass-covering tactic. By the time you get to a layperson perceiving ‘the culture’, it’s a xerox of a xerox of a xerox created by various corporate HR, PR, and marketing departments. Then, of course, you’ve got the people revolting against Big Org #836 mandating wearing pronoun pins in the office when that’s clearly not something any trans person would advocate for. The collective facepalming at misguided attempts to pander to “LGBTQIA+” is a big part of the current queer community / culture. This is just the community I am familiar with. I imagine it’s the same elsewhere.
I don’t believe that this is much of a ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy. It’s pretty easy to draw a logical bound between those that believe in the cause, and the rest.
I do not believe that this action was taken as a genuine act of modern progressivism. It’s a typical corporate ‘make this go away and don’t upset the minorities with megaphones’ action. But we’ve got some great keywords like “university” and “Muslim” which opportunists obnoxiously use to fuel the culture war.
That’s not the point, though. Turning this into a “what about the white men!” whinge is blatantly misrepresenting this scenario as the result of “modern progressivism” when it’s actually something else.
I believe that you’re not going to find many proponents of the sort of progressivism that the “white about the white men!?”crowd fight against, that are actually in favour of this decision. Furthermore I believe that you’d find plenty that are against it.
Around the proponents of this ideology are concentric circles of people making misguided attempts to “capitulate to this PC culture”, often as an ass-covering tactic. By the time you get to a layperson perceiving ‘the culture’, it’s a xerox of a xerox of a xerox created by various corporate HR, PR, and marketing departments. Then, of course, you’ve got the people revolting against Big Org #836 mandating wearing pronoun pins in the office when that’s clearly not something any trans person would advocate for. The collective facepalming at misguided attempts to pander to “LGBTQIA+” is a big part of the current queer community / culture. This is just the community I am familiar with. I imagine it’s the same elsewhere.
I don’t believe that this is much of a ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy. It’s pretty easy to draw a logical bound between those that believe in the cause, and the rest.
I do not believe that this action was taken as a genuine act of modern progressivism. It’s a typical corporate ‘make this go away and don’t upset the minorities with megaphones’ action. But we’ve got some great keywords like “university” and “Muslim” which opportunists obnoxiously use to fuel the culture war.
> Modern progressivism does distinguish instances of “punching down”
I'm not alt-right and I'm not white and I'm not religious. I agree completely with that view.
> It seems like the university didn’t even clearly understand that Muslims are divided on this topic before taking action.
Of course, I'd assume most muslim don't care about this event, besides a minority of fanatics. But I don't think it even matters. A art history teacher should be free to discuss a painting in their class no matter what "Muslims" think.
Clearly the issue is with the school here. Not the teacher, and not the "muslims". This complaining student should have been explained that her demands are not legitimate.
Of course, I'd assume most muslim don't care about this event, besides a minority of fanatics. But I don't think it even matters. A art history teacher should be free to discuss a painting in their class no matter what "Muslims" think.
Clearly the issue is with the school here. Not the teacher, and not the "muslims". This complaining student should have been explained that her demands are not legitimate.
> This, however, is just straight up alt-right talking points.
Doesn't make it inaccurate. Trying to cudgel GP into submission by casting aspersions of being "alt-right" affiliated is evidence of it being true, even. The gaslighting is unwelcome.
Doesn't make it inaccurate. Trying to cudgel GP into submission by casting aspersions of being "alt-right" affiliated is evidence of it being true, even. The gaslighting is unwelcome.
I disagree with the alt-right categorization. I am thankful I am not a teacher who has to lead a discussion in a liberal arts school.
I am asian(Indian) and while I have heard / seen plenty of offensive content against my ilk, I have never felt threatened / fearsome or the need to play the victim card like the Ms. Wedatalla.
>“Who do I call at 8 a.m.,” she asked, when “you see someone disrespecting and offending your religion?”
Over the top, much?
Over the top, much?
> This, however, is just straight up alt-right talking points.
I beg to differ, this is exactly my impression, too.
I beg to differ, this is exactly my impression, too.
You are allowed to insult brown people of other faiths without repercussion. Honestly there are only two faiths that can get you cancelled with a high degree of success. To phrase this as some anti-christian white-only intifada is dis-genuine.
[flagged]
Please don't take HN threads into religious flamewar. Also, please don't fulminate. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Even if it was tasteless, would that be morally objectionable? Many people around the world experience oppression because of the faith of others.
[deleted]
It was one student complaining.
Imagine the harm a group of those fanatics can achieve if one student can make a whole University comply to his intolerant whims. Karl Popper famously said that an open and tolerant society must manage carefully the intolerant...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
You realize there are 2 million Muslims living in America without any problem right? Take your bigotry elsewhere, HN is typically more elevated than that.
I have no qualms with Muslims anywhere. However I despise fanatics be they Muslims or Christians or Jews or whatever religion. I hate equally the Talibans, the Ayatollahs, the Zionist far-right in Israel, the racist nationalist Hindus, and the crazy racist Bible-thumpers in the US.
I read the GP comment more charitably than that in the context of the thread in general terms.
More like "if one arbitrary student (of no particular description) can cause this much damage, how much damage can multiple like-minded students (of any particular alliance) cause?" And that question would apply to secularists Muslims Christians etc. equally.
Not necessarily "if one Muslim can do this, how much damage can lots of Muslims do?"
But maybe I'm wrong? I could see how you got that impression upon rereading the comment.
More like "if one arbitrary student (of no particular description) can cause this much damage, how much damage can multiple like-minded students (of any particular alliance) cause?" And that question would apply to secularists Muslims Christians etc. equally.
Not necessarily "if one Muslim can do this, how much damage can lots of Muslims do?"
But maybe I'm wrong? I could see how you got that impression upon rereading the comment.
That's not targeting Muslims, that's targeting fanatics of all ideologies.
But not one single of them asked the university to readmit the teacher. None emailed or marched in front of the university to support the teacher. This is a big part of the real problem.
Is Islam at all compatible with secular values in the same country?
In the end, you will have one of the two encompass the other. Either you have a secular country living by democratic, progressive law which allows people to be Muslims modulo this. Or you have a Muslim country living by Shariah law, but tolerating secular non-believers in it.
First won't work because Muslims (in the traditional sense) won't tolerate some other framework encompassing their worldview. They have taboo topics nobody should ever question, and secular ideology based on science will question things.
And second won't work because Shariah law gives very concrete directions on dealing with non-believers.
In the end, you will have one of the two encompass the other. Either you have a secular country living by democratic, progressive law which allows people to be Muslims modulo this. Or you have a Muslim country living by Shariah law, but tolerating secular non-believers in it.
First won't work because Muslims (in the traditional sense) won't tolerate some other framework encompassing their worldview. They have taboo topics nobody should ever question, and secular ideology based on science will question things.
And second won't work because Shariah law gives very concrete directions on dealing with non-believers.
Please don't start religious flamewars on HN. Last thing we need here, and highly avoidable.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Is Islam at all compatible with secular values in the same country?
It is. There are plenty of more or less practising Muslims who behave perfectly well and are strongly opposed to theocracy. In the same way that there are plenty of white Christians who don’t feel the urge to take a gun and mow down blasphemers.
> And second won't work because Shariah law gives very concrete directions on dealing with non-believers.
It’s a false dichotomy. Lots of Muslims do not believe that Shariah law should be applied. On the Christian side there have been debates for centuries about this sort of issue, and pretty much nobody believes that the laws in the Old Testament should be applied or have any relevance nowadays. By painting the whole of Islam as being one simple shade of fundamentalism, we contribute to making the situation worse. People need to realise that there are old Muslim traditions that don’t advocate for stoning people, and that what we take for standard Islam is the creed of a particular cult and not universal.
It is. There are plenty of more or less practising Muslims who behave perfectly well and are strongly opposed to theocracy. In the same way that there are plenty of white Christians who don’t feel the urge to take a gun and mow down blasphemers.
> And second won't work because Shariah law gives very concrete directions on dealing with non-believers.
It’s a false dichotomy. Lots of Muslims do not believe that Shariah law should be applied. On the Christian side there have been debates for centuries about this sort of issue, and pretty much nobody believes that the laws in the Old Testament should be applied or have any relevance nowadays. By painting the whole of Islam as being one simple shade of fundamentalism, we contribute to making the situation worse. People need to realise that there are old Muslim traditions that don’t advocate for stoning people, and that what we take for standard Islam is the creed of a particular cult and not universal.
You're right, I shouldn't be generalising.
> Lots of Muslims do not believe that Shariah law should be applied.
I feel that one big difference of Islam is that it makes the rules very explicit, from how the government should be organized to the last detail of how you should wash your hands (and how often). Christianity, on the other hand, has very few concrete regulations, but instead a ton of metaphysical, mystical and ethical things from which people are trying to deduce those regulations.
So Christianity was easier to steer away from being a concrete manual for life to being a philosophical thing, a matter of choice that people who live within secular ethical framework can voluntarily practice. My question is, if you do the same to Islam will it still be Islam given how deeply the practical instructions are ebedded in it?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, I have a rather rudimentary education in both topics.
> Lots of Muslims do not believe that Shariah law should be applied.
I feel that one big difference of Islam is that it makes the rules very explicit, from how the government should be organized to the last detail of how you should wash your hands (and how often). Christianity, on the other hand, has very few concrete regulations, but instead a ton of metaphysical, mystical and ethical things from which people are trying to deduce those regulations.
So Christianity was easier to steer away from being a concrete manual for life to being a philosophical thing, a matter of choice that people who live within secular ethical framework can voluntarily practice. My question is, if you do the same to Islam will it still be Islam given how deeply the practical instructions are ebedded in it?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, I have a rather rudimentary education in both topics.
"Christianity, on the other hand, has very few concrete regulations"
Well, have a look in the old Testament then. There are very explicit rules about how to treat homosexuals and heretics for example and they are not nice.
(I like the brick testament - famous bible quotes illustrated with Lego stones)
https://thebricktestament.com/the_law/homosexuality/lv20_13a...
And yes, there is also Jesus, but among other things he has (supposedly) said,
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of Moses or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them."
https://thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_the_...
So it is really not that simple. But the basic comparison between Jesus and Muhammed, well the one seemed to be mostly a love preaching hippie and the other mainly a warlord. But I know I have met Muslims who were devout believers, but who would never use violence, except to defend themself.
Well, have a look in the old Testament then. There are very explicit rules about how to treat homosexuals and heretics for example and they are not nice.
(I like the brick testament - famous bible quotes illustrated with Lego stones)
https://thebricktestament.com/the_law/homosexuality/lv20_13a...
And yes, there is also Jesus, but among other things he has (supposedly) said,
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of Moses or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them."
https://thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_the_...
So it is really not that simple. But the basic comparison between Jesus and Muhammed, well the one seemed to be mostly a love preaching hippie and the other mainly a warlord. But I know I have met Muslims who were devout believers, but who would never use violence, except to defend themself.
That still fits my idea of "few".
And also doesn't Christianity give some good excuses to question or review these? Especially, considering that New Testament builds up on top of the Old Testament. I'm asking about the stuff around the quotes you've shown (otherwise we could fall for confirmation bias).
Please understand me correctly. I'm not saying Christianity doesn't have cruel or bad things. I'm saying it doesn't give one concrete, final, unchangeable set of rules. With Christian rules, it's easier to find excuse to augment or re-interpret them. I'm not saying there's no rules.
And also doesn't Christianity give some good excuses to question or review these? Especially, considering that New Testament builds up on top of the Old Testament. I'm asking about the stuff around the quotes you've shown (otherwise we could fall for confirmation bias).
Please understand me correctly. I'm not saying Christianity doesn't have cruel or bad things. I'm saying it doesn't give one concrete, final, unchangeable set of rules. With Christian rules, it's easier to find excuse to augment or re-interpret them. I'm not saying there's no rules.
"I'm saying it doesn't give one concrete, final, unchangeable set of rules."
Like I said, it is complicated and up for debate. I have heard many conflicting viewpoints about it. Some take the whole bible literal, including the literal laws of the old testament - and they are not just a few, but many, many explicit laws about everything. More are mainly literal about the 10 commandments. And for some the only law is Jesus saying: "Love other people like yourself".
Since being raised catholic, I know quite a lot about the bible and less about the coran, but as far as I understand "With Christian rules, it's easier to find excuse to augment or re-interpret them." this is possible there as well, as Mohammed also said conflicting things, was softer in the beginning and harsher in the end, so you can also pick what you like. Hijab for example is not an explicite rule. And about Homosexuals, well, you probably won't find anything tolerant in the coran about it, but I think you won't find something in the bible either. What matters to me, is what people are doing.
Like I said, it is complicated and up for debate. I have heard many conflicting viewpoints about it. Some take the whole bible literal, including the literal laws of the old testament - and they are not just a few, but many, many explicit laws about everything. More are mainly literal about the 10 commandments. And for some the only law is Jesus saying: "Love other people like yourself".
Since being raised catholic, I know quite a lot about the bible and less about the coran, but as far as I understand "With Christian rules, it's easier to find excuse to augment or re-interpret them." this is possible there as well, as Mohammed also said conflicting things, was softer in the beginning and harsher in the end, so you can also pick what you like. Hijab for example is not an explicite rule. And about Homosexuals, well, you probably won't find anything tolerant in the coran about it, but I think you won't find something in the bible either. What matters to me, is what people are doing.
Ok, maybe I was wrong, I don't know. I'd really like someone who knows about both to comment on what I wrote.
> And also doesn't Christianity give some good excuses to question or review these? Especially, considering that New Testament builds up on top of the Old Testament. I'm asking about the stuff around the quotes you've shown (otherwise we could fall for confirmation bias).
To some extent, yes. Also, there is a long tradition of theological debates in Christianity, right from the beginning. Christians are much more comfortable with the idea that the Bible should not be taken literally.
Of course, there are 2 points that show up immediately when you say that. First, some Christians are literal fundamentalists so a long tradition is not enough. Second, Islam also has a long tradition of theological debates, and many different views and movements. I am not familiar enough with the History of Islam in the 20th century, but the fact is that there are lots of aspects that we associate with the religion without second thoughts that are actually Wahabbi practices. The rules against sex and alcohol are no less strict in the Old Testament than in the Quran. There is no reason why Islam would have to be more literal than any Christianism.
> With Christian rules, it's easier to find excuse to augment or re-interpret them. I'm not saying there's no rules.
That’s because we let a fundamentalist sect (well, mostly 2) redefine a whole religion.
To some extent, yes. Also, there is a long tradition of theological debates in Christianity, right from the beginning. Christians are much more comfortable with the idea that the Bible should not be taken literally.
Of course, there are 2 points that show up immediately when you say that. First, some Christians are literal fundamentalists so a long tradition is not enough. Second, Islam also has a long tradition of theological debates, and many different views and movements. I am not familiar enough with the History of Islam in the 20th century, but the fact is that there are lots of aspects that we associate with the religion without second thoughts that are actually Wahabbi practices. The rules against sex and alcohol are no less strict in the Old Testament than in the Quran. There is no reason why Islam would have to be more literal than any Christianism.
> With Christian rules, it's easier to find excuse to augment or re-interpret them. I'm not saying there's no rules.
That’s because we let a fundamentalist sect (well, mostly 2) redefine a whole religion.
To underline the point, nearly half of American Catholics are pro-choice. Religions really aren't a monolith, even when the stern Official Doctrine is quite clear.
> pretty much nobody believes that the laws in the Old Testament should be applied or have any relevance nowadays.
The Ten Commandments are in the Old Testament, and there are lots of conservative Christians in the U.S. trying to get them posted in courtrooms and public school classrooms.
The Ten Commandments are in the Old Testament, and there are lots of conservative Christians in the U.S. trying to get them posted in courtrooms and public school classrooms.
>It is. There are plenty of more or less practising Muslims who behave perfectly well and are strongly opposed to theocracy.
Bit of a false scottsman. Not every Italian eats Tagliatelle and joins the Mafia but it's still an Italian recipe.
Bit of a false scottsman. Not every Italian eats Tagliatelle and joins the Mafia but it's still an Italian recipe.
> Bit of a false scottsman.
That’s a bit disingenuous. It’s easy to see who is Muslim and who is not: you just need to ask them. I don’t see a reason to say they aren’t when they identify themselves that way and believe in that religion. I am not saying that only moderates are true Muslims, just that there are more believers than the fundamentalists.
> Not every Italian eats Tagliatelle and joins the Mafia but it's still an Italian recipe.
I’d be surprised if Italians were the majority of tagliatelle-eating people these days.
Wahhabism is a view of the religion. It is the mirror image of Christian supremacism, just with a different book and different sound bites but with the same goal of subjugation. I would not say that all Christians are murderers, either.
That’s a bit disingenuous. It’s easy to see who is Muslim and who is not: you just need to ask them. I don’t see a reason to say they aren’t when they identify themselves that way and believe in that religion. I am not saying that only moderates are true Muslims, just that there are more believers than the fundamentalists.
> Not every Italian eats Tagliatelle and joins the Mafia but it's still an Italian recipe.
I’d be surprised if Italians were the majority of tagliatelle-eating people these days.
Wahhabism is a view of the religion. It is the mirror image of Christian supremacism, just with a different book and different sound bites but with the same goal of subjugation. I would not say that all Christians are murderers, either.
Strawman on top of the false scottsman. Nobody said that all Muslims are murderers.
Saying Islam feels far too strong. There are still groups of Christians who demand the death penalty for practicing gays.
Certainly some Islamic groups are incompatible with secular values.
Certainly some Islamic groups are incompatible with secular values.
> Saying Islam feels far too strong. There are still groups of Christians who demand the death penalty for practicing gays.
If you read the news there is certainly a stronger impact by one group.
If you read the news there is certainly a stronger impact by one group.
> Is Islam at all compatible with secular values in the same country?
Yes it is. I don't know about Shariah law, but all muslims I know are just like anybody else. I think you're conflating some zealots with a large group of people who are mostly secular (just like lots of christians don't do anything christian besides celebrating Christmas and the occasional funeral at the church). The real issue here is some school administrators bending over because a fanatic complained.
Yes it is. I don't know about Shariah law, but all muslims I know are just like anybody else. I think you're conflating some zealots with a large group of people who are mostly secular (just like lots of christians don't do anything christian besides celebrating Christmas and the occasional funeral at the church). The real issue here is some school administrators bending over because a fanatic complained.
morby(2)
fancybouncy(3)
I don't think this belongs on Hacker News. It's an issue worth discussion, but it's an a category of general controversial news that gets plenty of discussion elsewhere. Also there is no technical, scientific, or engineering context to it.
HN threads don't need to be technical, scientific, or engineering. They just need to be intellectually interesting (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
Anything as prominent in humanity and history as religion is certainly that. However, flamewars destroy intellectual interest (put bluntly, they're predictable, nasty and dumb), and it's nearly impossible for a large community to discuss religion without religious flamewar (the most predictable, nastiest, and dumbest of all flamewar). That's unfortunately the other issue with stories like this, besides the run-of-the-mill controversy that you correctly point out.
Anything as prominent in humanity and history as religion is certainly that. However, flamewars destroy intellectual interest (put bluntly, they're predictable, nasty and dumb), and it's nearly impossible for a large community to discuss religion without religious flamewar (the most predictable, nastiest, and dumbest of all flamewar). That's unfortunately the other issue with stories like this, besides the run-of-the-mill controversy that you correctly point out.
i believe that flagging my comment was not an attempt to avoid flamewars, but plain censorship of a honest intellectual question that any society taking a stance, against or in favor of multiculturalism (that is, hosting non-integrated completely different cultures within its borders), must confront sooner of later when things like this lecturer's ordeal start happening.
The article was a concrete instance of the abstract dilemma i posed in my comment, so it was on-topic and necessary imho.
The article was a concrete instance of the abstract dilemma i posed in my comment, so it was on-topic and necessary imho.
You can call it censorship if you want—people mostly use that word nowadays to express a feeling—but the moderation point is that you plainly broke HN's rules with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34298516, and doing that will get you banned here.
i disagree that it was against the guidelines - after all, it did generate some interesting intellectual comments.
either way, your home your rules, so whatever. (which, ironically, confirms my original point...)
either way, your home your rules, so whatever. (which, ironically, confirms my original point...)
Not sure why it's a fireable offence since precautions were taken. Give a strike or whatever and debate it's relevance to the course of "art history".
I don't think the painting itself is significant, it could just be referenced. The context of why the painting is banned inside of Islam is relevant as previously there was a lot of idol worship and even nowadays figureheads like Jesus are now claimed to be God, stuff like "Jesus is Lord". But this moves more into theology than art history now.
Reminds me a bit of Kanye being banned on the new free speech platform Twitter and people saying it wasn't an actual Swastika, it was an UFO cult symbol, it being tied to the older peace symbol of Hinduism etc.
I don't think the painting itself is significant, it could just be referenced. The context of why the painting is banned inside of Islam is relevant as previously there was a lot of idol worship and even nowadays figureheads like Jesus are now claimed to be God, stuff like "Jesus is Lord". But this moves more into theology than art history now.
Reminds me a bit of Kanye being banned on the new free speech platform Twitter and people saying it wasn't an actual Swastika, it was an UFO cult symbol, it being tied to the older peace symbol of Hinduism etc.
"the context of why the painting is banned inside of Islam is relevant"
How is that relevant to anyone not muslim? Because this is what this is about - (some) muslims wanting other people to follow their religious rules.
How is that relevant to anyone not muslim? Because this is what this is about - (some) muslims wanting other people to follow their religious rules.
Well, when I said relevant or not relevant, significant or whatever, I mean in terms of the class "art history".
It's not like any of the painting depictions had any notable art styles nor new techniques, from what I can tell. So I think it crosses moreso into the intersection of religion and art, that's why historical context becomes relevant. If you deem context irrelevant then why include any of it unless the art has some different quality about it?
I think there was art novelty with the decorations of churches and mosques though.
It's not like any of the painting depictions had any notable art styles nor new techniques, from what I can tell. So I think it crosses moreso into the intersection of religion and art, that's why historical context becomes relevant. If you deem context irrelevant then why include any of it unless the art has some different quality about it?
I think there was art novelty with the decorations of churches and mosques though.
Edit as this is flagged by many people already: My opinion is all art and historical text should be discussed and talked about. Apparently an attempt to share the context is not very appreciated here.
No horse in the race but I find it important to try to understand the perspective from all sides.
Apparently its similar to showing a swastika or hail hitler. People have been punished for that as well: https://www.thefire.org/cases/george-washington-university-j...
No horse in the race but I find it important to try to understand the perspective from all sides.
Apparently its similar to showing a swastika or hail hitler. People have been punished for that as well: https://www.thefire.org/cases/george-washington-university-j...
At least that swastika thing was on a bulletin board in a dorm, I think it would be much harder to object to one being shown in context in a history class, for example.
It is not similar at all. Kids all over the world draw swastikas on bathroom stalls and such, just to provoke. Rarely do they get beheaded/stabbed as a consequence, though.
Swastikas are not acceptable, but very few have any strong personal feelings about it. The prophet of this ideology, however, is like a (glorified) family member to 1/4 of the world's population, and you can very easily get killed for depicting him. The most recent and well-known case was the stabbing of Salman Rushdie.
Swastikas are not acceptable, but very few have any strong personal feelings about it. The prophet of this ideology, however, is like a (glorified) family member to 1/4 of the world's population, and you can very easily get killed for depicting him. The most recent and well-known case was the stabbing of Salman Rushdie.
This is classical Persian Muslim art they're complaining about. Not Charlie Hebdo caricatures... Figure that, then weep.
You mean like how a Swastika is shorthand for "I support the extermination of Jews and black people"... An image of Mohammed is shorthand for "I support stoning women who don't cover their faces"?
I dunno if that is quite right! Context matters.
I dunno if that is quite right! Context matters.
I was definitely shown a swastika in history class, as well as read about heil Hitler.
So we shouldn’t be showing swastikas or Hitler in a history class, for they might offend someone?
Or on anti-Nazi media like the Wolfenstein series of computer games. For Wolfenstein 3D at least, Germany made them replace all the swastikas with neutral imagery before the game could be released there.
> For Wolfenstein 3D at least
Not just Wolfenstein 3D, the same thing happened even with the Wolfenstein: The New Order and Wolfenstein: The New Colossus
But that law was retarded and they recently repealed it. It's now okay to depict fictional nazis and nazi iconography even in Germany.
Not just Wolfenstein 3D, the same thing happened even with the Wolfenstein: The New Order and Wolfenstein: The New Colossus
But that law was retarded and they recently repealed it. It's now okay to depict fictional nazis and nazi iconography even in Germany.
Let us not forget the difference between the hakenkreuz and the swastika please.
Swastika is welcome, the nazi version of it isn't.
The better and most appropriate term is Hakenkreuz, that the Nazis themselves used.
Swastika is welcome, the nazi version of it isn't.
The better and most appropriate term is Hakenkreuz, that the Nazis themselves used.
what difference ? The clockwise version (࿕) is called swastika in Hinduism, and is the exact same symbol as what the Nazis used.
It used to be (until the 1930s) used in art quite a lot all over Europe.
You can still find it high up on the facade of old houses.
And Yes, some people are offended by it, but when you explain both the building and the symbol predate Nazism, they usually calm down.
Hi, a "fundamentalist Muslim" here, bite me
Why is it so hard to accept that some people have redlines, once violated you leave no place for respect anymore? Is it a hard concept or is it entitlement that makes you feel you have the upper moral ground?
What do you all think about the UN forcing LGBTQ+ rights on Muslims in their own countries?
Do you consider that "freedoms" too? or is it proxy colonization?
I wonder.
My heart goes for this teacher I am sure if someone depicted her or anyone, she cares about in a derogatory manner she'd be so happy and grateful and quite tolerant, she'd joke about it I guess especially if the picture was shown to a wide audience. I'd have loved to see people making derogatory cartoons of someone she loves and sharing them on the internet and seeing how much of a tolerant and freedom advocate she is.
Must be so hard for the atheists to understand that we care about our prophet and to stop mocking him and just be decent people. You have to mock religious people or otherwise you're not the cool kid I guess, because disbelieving gives you extra brain points, who gives them? nvm, they just pop up out of nowhere.
Why is it so hard to accept that some people have redlines, once violated you leave no place for respect anymore? Is it a hard concept or is it entitlement that makes you feel you have the upper moral ground?
What do you all think about the UN forcing LGBTQ+ rights on Muslims in their own countries?
Do you consider that "freedoms" too? or is it proxy colonization?
I wonder.
My heart goes for this teacher I am sure if someone depicted her or anyone, she cares about in a derogatory manner she'd be so happy and grateful and quite tolerant, she'd joke about it I guess especially if the picture was shown to a wide audience. I'd have loved to see people making derogatory cartoons of someone she loves and sharing them on the internet and seeing how much of a tolerant and freedom advocate she is.
Must be so hard for the atheists to understand that we care about our prophet and to stop mocking him and just be decent people. You have to mock religious people or otherwise you're not the cool kid I guess, because disbelieving gives you extra brain points, who gives them? nvm, they just pop up out of nowhere.
Your account has posted literally about nothing but flamewar topics. That's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
Moreover, "bite me" is pure flamebait and even trolling. I'm sympathetic to the discomfort of being in a small minority, surrounded by hostile views and so on, and how it creates a tendency to pre-emptively lash out in this way. But it's still extremely against the rules here.
I agree with the parts of your comment that are arguing for tolerance, understanding the other's point of view, and not mocking religious people. Nonetheless your account is not using this site as intended. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and start using HN as intended, we'd appreciate it.
Moreover, "bite me" is pure flamebait and even trolling. I'm sympathetic to the discomfort of being in a small minority, surrounded by hostile views and so on, and how it creates a tendency to pre-emptively lash out in this way. But it's still extremely against the rules here.
I agree with the parts of your comment that are arguing for tolerance, understanding the other's point of view, and not mocking religious people. Nonetheless your account is not using this site as intended. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and start using HN as intended, we'd appreciate it.
> Why is it so hard to accept that some people have redlines
I accept they have, but I'm not obligated to respect them. Imagine a world where it's sufficient to declare an arbitrary redline to force the rest of humanity to respect it.
I accept they have, but I'm not obligated to respect them. Imagine a world where it's sufficient to declare an arbitrary redline to force the rest of humanity to respect it.
I think you have a point because she warned the students, gave them a chance to leave and asked them to contact her if they find any issues with this.
I don't know why they did that to her they should have left the class and contacted her later to take exemption from the classes she's going to use those pictures in.
I don't know how to feel about this but firing her and complaining to the administration before contacting her to clarify the situation, these are 2 wrongs I won't defend.
I don't know why they did that to her they should have left the class and contacted her later to take exemption from the classes she's going to use those pictures in.
I don't know how to feel about this but firing her and complaining to the administration before contacting her to clarify the situation, these are 2 wrongs I won't defend.
Why do you consider a painting of someone which is not mocking them to be mocking them?
Because she knew it's prohibited and it's not what we do and everyone seems to be taking their free speech dig at our prophet and I would assume this is no different, because there is literally no reason to bring that image.
However, I think they should have left the class and contacted her regarding this subject and firing her probably was an overkill and done to make the problem go away, though not sure why the student complained to the administration before contacting her despite her giving warnings to the students.
However, I think they should have left the class and contacted her regarding this subject and firing her probably was an overkill and done to make the problem go away, though not sure why the student complained to the administration before contacting her despite her giving warnings to the students.
It seems that the case for banning it is not universal among believers, and might be differently portrayed as a case for not worshipping it (or any other image).
The reason for "bringing it" to an art history class is that it is historical art.
The reason for "bringing it" to an art history class is that it is historical art.
> Because she knew it's prohibited
Not it isn't. Teaching art is totally legal in Minnesota.
Not it isn't. Teaching art is totally legal in Minnesota.