internet buddy

2y

discuss this with the mods now @safe
i don't do discussion runarounds

red eagle

2y

Well yeah, did you expect me to support it or something?

Terminating a life for purely financial purposes (which is what the huge majority of abortions are) is insanely inhumane

Delete this now

2y

Why the f*** are yall talking about abortion? And why is free again not banned?

Birdie

2y

Jewish people allow it

This got green by studios, you don’t think these publicly traded companies didn’t check before they put this out lol?

It’s fake edge

rano

2y

and there it is

Birdie

2y

· edited

There’s nothing lol. Stop reading s*** that isn’t there.

It’s a good thing media companies have PR a departments to consult different religious and minority advocacy groups like Jewish/ black/Native American people based organizations before they publish their content. Jewish people along with Anglos are a well represented and integrated people in America with a lot of lobbying.

Muslims for most part in the last 30-40 years in America didn’t have that — it’s only recently been getting better post Trump era

People with zero brains projecting onto that post as hate thought have nothing but assumptions

internet buddy

2y

that bullshit you just quoted me with was cognitive dissonance

shut the f*** up and go back to reddit or 4chan with your nonsense

Birdie

2y

It doesn’t when you don’t ignore context of the situation like many people ITT are doing

This would be a very different discussion if we’re talking about evolution for example.

There’s little value attached to Muhammad, his appearance, and actual illustration of him for a non-Muslim. There’s no real reason in a historical context to draw him or benefit in an academic sense.

There’s obviously MUCH more weight when we’re talking about what it means for the prophet to be illustrated for Muslims.

So this scenario the views of Muslims do matter more because there’s no inherent value or significance of the subject to non-Muslims.

ASAKI

2y

You're saying that people are ignoring the context but you're quite literally ignoring the context this entire thread.

This is not a theological class. This is a class on religion based on academic historicity. There is a massive difference. The professor did not "draw" Prophet Muhammad, The art shown by the professor was drawn by Muslims centuries ago. It is an art history class. Where the professor even warned students multiple times that it would be shown, only for students to just sit there dumbfounded when it actually happened.

Saying there is no inherent value or significance to the history of how Islamic culture developed is asinine and you would garner the same response whether it was Hamline University or the UAEU.

All they could have done is bring the issue up with the professor, explain their greivances, and ask her to show paintings from history that had blotted Prophet Muhammad's face out at least.

ASAKI

2y

You're saying that people are ignoring the context but you're quite literally ignoring the context this entire thread.

This is not a theological class. This is a class on religion based on academic historicity. There is a massive difference. The professor did not "draw" Prophet Muhammad, The art shown by the professor was drawn by Muslims centuries ago. It is an art history class. Where the professor even warned students multiple times that it would be shown, only for students to just sit there dumbfounded when it actually happened.

Saying there is no inherent value or significance to the history of how Islamic culture developed is asinine and you would garner the same response whether it was Hamline University or the UAEU.

All they could have done is bring the issue up with the professor, explain their greivances, and ask her to show paintings from history that had blotted Prophet Muhammad's face out at least.

Birdie

2y

I addressed it being an art class throughout this thread so yeah no

Also, cultural and religious sensitivity should be held exclusively to theological/related classes? Yeah no.

The real context here is that the professor represents an academic institution and alienated a significant portion of student body and staff by showcasing offensive context with no regard, then advertising they were going to do it as ‘warning’ only made it worse because they can’t even claim ignorance.

After pressures from Muslims advocating for themselves the university administration decided to reprimand the professor for knowingly disseminating harmful content, knowing the risks — still doing regardless

ASAKI

2y

The professor is as sensitive as can be. Multiple warnings, saying seeing the painting would be optional to the grade and not required, and more.

Do you get angry and tell people to take down their portraits of Jesus when you walk into their house? No. Do Jews ask for professors to be fired when they walk into a Propaganda Art class and see Nazi iconography even though the teacher warned them multiple times there will be offensive imagery? No. And in the case of latter, the instructor is showing art that is precisely offensive to the group in question. Yet, there's no animosity, because students there are to be in an academic environment and not a religious one.

There is value in seeing how Islamic art has transformed through periods in time, from Persian miniatures to Mughal remnants to Ottoman hilya. It displays how the Islamic world isn't just one place and that secularism and religiosity ebbs and flows in the region, which is exactly what art can describe in a historical lens.

CKL TML

2y

everyone good islam bad

Gojira

2y

People are dying in Iran

ASAKI

2y

I was born and raised Muslim but anyone with an academic background can realize that there's a major difference between a class on the academic historicity of religion and the academic theology. This goes for all religions.

It's the equivalent of Christians turning up to a "History of Jesus and How He May Have Lived" and raging that the class is bullshit and anti-religious, or a class looking at the evolution of Judaism from polytheistic Semitic religions and Jewish folks asking for the teacher to be fired. The class is not for you. It's not trying to offend you. It's taking an academic perspective on a historical basis. This is actual Islamic art history-- it's not a Charlie Hebdo comic panel. It's Islamic art made by actual Muslims.

We can simultaneously understand that there is a strong bias against Islam in the Judeo-Christian West and its institutions, but I think this is ridiculous and goes too far.

Just my opinion though.

ASAKI

2y

The professor is as sensitive as can be. Multiple warnings, saying seeing the painting would be optional to the grade and not required, and more.

Do you get angry and tell people to take down their portraits of Jesus when you walk into their house? No. Do Jews ask for professors to be fired when they walk into a Propaganda Art class and see Nazi iconography even though the teacher warned them multiple times there will be offensive imagery? No. And in the case of latter, the instructor is showing art that is precisely offensive to the group in question. Yet, there's no animosity, because students there are to be in an academic environment and not a religious one.

There is value in seeing how Islamic art has transformed through periods in time, from Persian miniatures to Mughal remnants to Ottoman hilya. It displays how the Islamic world isn't just one place and that secularism and religiosity ebbs and flows in the region, which is exactly what art can describe in a historical lens.