How OK are you with portrayal of religious figures on TV/Cinema?

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

~*sindhu*~

@~*sindhu*~

Sparkler

Posted: 9 years ago

#131

Originally posted by: charminggenie

Haaha, nobody worships Arjun, Yudi etc . But Ram and krishna because they are considered as demi-Gods but like most things in Hinduism they are part of mythology . So you can be a Hindu and consider them as Gods as well as be a Hindu who considers them as Human. Your call. Which is why both MB and Ramayana are heavily debated by Hindus too all the time.Check a serial forum for them or even by literature . 😆

For one moment I really thot I m way more clueless than I should. Krishna is a religious figure and I do worship him but pandavas are just characters, at the most historical figures.I take MB as a story that gives valuable and thought provoking lessons and teachings to human lives. I read the bible with the same belief. I don't consider them as religious figures.

Quote

TheBoss

@TheBoss

Stunner

+ 4

Posted: 9 years ago

#132

Originally posted by: charminggenie

So, is the intent noble when a State declares it's affiliations to a particular religion and make laws for the entire land irrespective of who follows the religion or not. Why should I care if the intent is to make money . It is broadcasting it and people will talk, discuss and debate. Just like authors write books to sell and not to give freek ka gyaan. Which religious body doesn't have an ulterior body. Anyone with that power is in the business of selling only.

What might be offensive to you , can be humour to other. Depends on if you want to enforce your sensibilities on another being then that person has an equal right to force his POV on you. Which is why , FOE unless it provokes riots, wars etc . If you are offended, go debate it out, present your POV , and encourage discussion. By suppressing you are letting other have the right to do the same to you when he/she has the power .

No its not. But this has nothing to do with religion or else all Islamic nations would be the same. I hope you know that there are many countries who are very western and gives a lot of liberty to its citizens. One country or few leaders do not represent an entire religion which is spread across the world. They actually have no religious authority to do so either; they only use the power and might to dictate their own rules just like any banana republic.

To make it simple. Saudi Arabia = NOT Islam. It is a country with its own laws. There are many stupid and ridiculous laws around the world and Saudi Arabia is one of them.

Freedom of expression vs Freedom of religion is a delicate balance. The best way to go about is to ensure one isn't encroaching upon the other. If you want to draw up bombs on cartoons of holy figures and call it figure of expression or humor and expect everyone else to laugh along with you because you are just joking isnt humor. It is insensitive irrespective of which Gods we are talking about.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

~*sindhu*~

@~*sindhu*~

Sparkler

Posted: 9 years ago

#133

I read most of MB in school because I had to give exams on them, maybe thats why I can't see it as anything else 😆

Quote

shrikrishna

@shrikrishna

Voyager

Posted: 9 years ago

#134

Originally posted by: ~*sindhu*~

For one moment I really thot I m way more clueless than I should. Krishna is a religious figure and I do worship him but pandavas are just characters, at the most historical figures.I take MB as a story that gives valuable and thought provoking lessons and teachings to human lives. I read the bible with the same belief. I don't consider them as religious figures.

I've always seen Pandavas with a shade of grey since all of them have their shortcomings. They're nowhere near religious figures. Usually people tend to see them white coz Lord Krishna supported them

Quote

charminggenie

@charminggenie

Stunner

+ 2

Posted: 9 years ago

#135

Originally posted by: ~*sindhu*~

For one moment I really thot I m way more clueless than I should. Krishna is a religious figure and I do worship him but pandavas are just characters, at the most historical figures.I take MB as a story that gives valuable and thought provoking lessons and teachings to human lives. I read the bible with the same belief. I don't consider them as religious figures.

The whole MB is about humans. Infact even though Krishna is considered as a God there is more familiarity in terms of speech, adoration with him. We consider him as a brother, friend and treat him like a kid too. While the contrast with Ram is totally different . Thats because they both belonged to a different era. We don't hate the villains we don't even consider them as Bad people. But question their actions. Ravana is revered by Hindus as a scholar and we have a discourse where Lord Rama made laxman get gyaan from him. it's never about the people or beliefs but actions at large. It's fascinating how we look at Gods.

I personally find Islam enriching too , history wise. But I don't think the historical side is mainstreamed . I mean , it was an evolving religion with Mughals practicising Islam differently than Persians etc. But that part is rarely highlighted . The plurality.

You are right, religion should be about thoughts , learnings and evolution. While spiritualism is too personal .

Quote

Something Or The Other

@ShadowKisses

Dazzler

+ 3

Posted: 9 years ago

#136

Originally posted by: TheBoss

When it comes to pitchforks, you wont find much takers if two people are engaged in consential homesexual relationship vs some person with a pen drawing bombs on cartoons under the pretext of freedom of speech and satire and calling it fun. Switch it with any other religious figure/God and things would be the same. To me that isnt funny. And freedom comes with a responsibility not to abuse it.

And that is exactly what I find inconsistent.

Why term it "pretext of freedom of speech" when it is people's absolute right to say/draw/do what they want to? Free speech isn't just "free speech I agree with" but absolute and extends to unpopular ideas of people who think differently.

If we should start censoring speech just because someone finds it offensive, we are just inviting more people to be offended and ending a discussion/debate by censorship rather than valid arguments. Moreover, freedom of speech trumps hurt feelings any day of the week as being offended does not make you more right.

A Muslim can and should decide how he or she wants to live his/her life. They can abstain from writing blasphemy, eating pork or drawing the prophet.

However, they do not get to decide that for everyone. They do not get to decide what others draw, write or think. They can find such cartoons in bad taste, unfunny and they absolutely can boycott the medium in protest of what they find distasteful but they can not go around telling others - who don't subscribe to the same religion - how they should live their lives, or how others should portray religious figures in movies or print media. This does not just go for Muslims, but for every Hindu who decides that absolutely no one should eat beef because Hinduism prohibits it, for every Christain who decides that no one should be homosexual because their religion prohibits it.

Quote

TheBoss

@TheBoss

Stunner

+ 4

Posted: 9 years ago

#137

Originally posted by: ShadowKisses

And that is exactly what I find inconsistent.

Why term it "pretext of freedom of speech" when it is people's absolute right to say/draw/do what they want to? Free speech isn't just "free speech I agree with" but absolute and extends to unpopular ideas of people who think differently.

If we should start censoring speech just because someone finds it offensive, we are just inviting more people to be offended and ending a discussion/debate by censorship rather than valid arguments. Moreover, freedom of speech trumps hurt feelings any day of the week as being offended does not make you more right.

A Muslim can and should decide how he or she wants to live his/her life. They can abstain from writing blasphemy, eating pork or drawing the prophet.

However, they do not get to decide that for everyone. They do not get to decide what others draw, write or think. They can find such cartoons in bad taste, unfunny and they absolutely can boycott the medium in protest of what they find distasteful but they can not go around telling others - who don't subscribe to the same religion - how they should live their lives, or how others should portray religious figures in movies or print media. This does not just go for Muslims, but for every Hindu who decides that absolutely no one should eat beef because Hinduism prohibits it, for every Christain who decides that no one should be homosexual because their religion prohibits it.

Every society has its laws and everyone must abide by it or else we would be living in a lawless society. The system tells you from morning to evening what you are suppose to do. Where and how you can drive, when you can drink, who you can f**k, who you cant harm etc. In a utopian world what you say is ideal but in reality there is always going to be laws and code of conducts. Religion is a set of beliefs. Beliefs that are held together by a portion of people. You cannot abuse your freedom of expression to go on and disturb their sensitivity.

If we go by your logic why is terrorism and pedophilia banned? Why aren't people allowed to preach terrorism? Why do you expect them to get arrested? Why do you have a problem when somebody f**ks little children? If you are not OK with it maybe you should look elsewhere.

See. Suddenly the world feels like in chaos. If everyone goes by leaving everyone else be then the whole world will be in a state of curfew. People will be breaking into your homes, philandering and murdering and destroying each others religious beliefs, caricartures, idols and holy books.

My right to swing my arm ends when it touches your nose.

Edited by TheBoss - 9 years ago

Quote

Erika

@roni_berna

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 9 years ago

#138

Originally posted by: ShadowKisses

And that is exactly what I find inconsistent.

Why term it "pretext of freedom of speech" when it is people's absolute right to say/draw/do what they want to? Free speech isn't just "free speech I agree with" but absolute and extends to unpopular ideas of people who think differently.

If we should start censoring speech just because someone finds it offensive, we are just inviting more people to be offended and ending a discussion/debate by censorship rather than valid arguments. Moreover, freedom of speech trumps hurt feelings any day of the week as being offended does not make you more right.

A Muslim can and should decide how he or she wants to live his/her life. They can abstain from writing blasphemy, eating pork or drawing the prophet.

However, they do not get to decide that for everyone. They do not get to decide what others draw, write or think. They can find such cartoons in bad taste, unfunny and they absolutely can boycott the medium in protest of what they find distasteful but they can not go around telling others - who don't subscribe to the same religion - how they should live their lives, or how others should portray religious figures in movies or print media. This does not just go for Muslims, but for every Hindu who decides that absolutely no one should eat beef because Hinduism prohibits it, for every Christain who decides that no one should be homosexual because their religion prohibits it.

'Freedom of speech' also can apply to those others who give speeches provoking terrorism, murder, rapes and other criminal activities. They can also say that they have a right to freedom of speech like the ISIS who keep teaching their men to commit crime. For me, the speech that doesn't mean to harm anybody else physically or mentally is considered as freedom of speech. I don't support what we call as Bhadkau Bhashan.

Quote

246851

Hibernated

Posted: 9 years ago

#139

Mahabharat is not religion per se. Its more a socio economic cultural representation. If you stop any discussion or movies that will have an ounce of Mahabharat then you need to stop everything. Mahabharata comprises all sorts of things that happen in real life and how it impacts further events.

And the entire addition of vaishnavism, gdness of Krishna is a much later and controversial addition. There are countless debates on it itself.

For more knowlr you need not go further than If 'S mahabharat forum.

While people will always take advantage of openness and tolerance, if we keep on creating taboos on what to include and what not, we will be left woth nothing one day.

Another thing, Hinduism is a vast umbrella under which different philosophies have gathered. There is no one Jesus or one prophet.

Shaivaites make fun of vaishnavites and vice versa for example. How will you determine this is the line? This is thr sentiment that must not be crossed?

Quote

charminggenie

@charminggenie

Stunner

+ 2

Posted: 9 years ago

#140

Originally posted by: TheBoss

No its not. But this has nothing to do with religion or else all Islamic nations would be the same. I hope you know that there are many countries who are very western and gives a lot of liberty to its citizens. One country or few leaders do not represent an entire religion which is spread across the world. They actually have no religious authority to do so either; they only use the power and might to dictate their own rules just like any banana republic.

To make it simple. Saudi Arabia = NOT Islam. It is a country with its own laws. There are many stupid and ridiculous laws around the world and Saudi Arabia is one of them.

Freedom of expression vs Freedom of religion is a delicate balance. The best way to go about is to ensure one isn't encroaching upon the other. If you want to draw up bombs on cartoons of holy figures and call it figure of expression or humor and expect everyone else to laugh along with you because you are just joking isnt humor. It is insensitive irrespective of which Gods we are talking about.

FOE >>>>>>FOR simply because you would never do justice to a state when you make your policies or sensitivites based on religion. Religion of any kind needs to be separate from law making because it gives power to the leaders to control nation and masses.

So , Saudi Arabia , Indonesia etc are not Islam but they do make laws citing Islam as a principle. You can indulge either ways , but thats what the State declares itself as.

You need to understand . Criticizing Islam and Ciriticism States which are run on religion are too different concepts. Both should be allowed . While Islam is bigger and would live on as it's a belief . State rules dictate the laws , hence need more debating and critique.

it's not a stupid concept. The thought of one religion dominating a State's policy is dangerous concept.

Cartoons are silly, stupid and trashy. Critise them, bash them, debate them but whats with killing, threatening them? it's just a piece of drawing which we give way too much power.

A question for you, do you think a religion , any , should be criticized or debated upon? Like the text, clauses, practices etc?