How OK are you with portrayal of religious figures on TV/Cinema? - Page 15

Originally posted by: charminggenie

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?

Originally posted by: TheBoss

Saudi Arabia practices what you call Wahabbism. It is based on a policies of a person what has now been doctrinated into laws of the kingdom. If Saudi Arabia is all that represents Islam then what does countries like Turkey, Lebanon, Tunisia, Jordan, UAE do? Since they have a lot of liberal society? Thats like saying Vishwa Hindu Parishad or the Modi government represents Hinduism.

Umm, I do know Wahabbism and their conflict with Syria and how they are percieved. Turkey is not liberal any more, please check the new laws and the last 5 years when the State is becoming more prthodox. Check why the whole riot happened in the first place. Or should we talk about it's women representation in Parliament , IB etc.

Please don't say Tunisia, my heart breaks at what has happened to the beautiful city. Do read up how orthodox and Jihaad in the name of curtailing the country has impacted it. Jordan has it's own shortcoming.

ofcourse VHP represents Hinduism and Modi is a hindu. But you know what differs they cannot run the country according to the religion. if they try to SC can overturn or challenge them. Now imagine giving VHP the power or RSS the power to make a Hindu-rashtra and govern the country according to Hinduism. Yeah that thought..let that sink in and understand why religion should be separated from State. I cannot say they are not Hindus, they are Hindus and they are violating basic human rights.

Dalits are skinned if they are near beef , even though legally they are allowed to skin from dead cows . or how Muslim Board of India for women opposed SC's reforms for Muslim women on the grounds that women are less sensible than men- thats a legal argument, please google. Imagine giving them the power and letting their religious argument being part of discourse.

Killing in any shape or form is absolutely unacceptable. I do not condone it one bit. Those who did it were just looking for an excuse for their agendas and they did. And the same terrorists then also go up and blow mosques and hospitals. More muslims have died due to terrorism than any one else. This is a fact.

Yes, but do understand the basic fundamental of power, they kill to control and reek terror in their own people to control or to suppress and encourage their ideology or POV through terror. Religion is subjective, what I condone , they encourage.

For your question. Yes. Religion can be discussed just like people do in debates and in open forums but it should be done with utmost sensitivity because you need to balance it to ensure you do not end up hurting the beliefs of others based on what you think about it. Every religion has its FLAWS. Every religious stories have holes in it. There are many things that is hard to make sense of in the light of science or common sense.

Every reigion has flaws which is precisely why we must question them again and again, even if it's uncomfy and insensitive at times. because we cannot be wrapped in a time bubble and let religion be restricted to a bygone era. people, society change, so does the religious right or wrong.

Give me any religion and I will poke holes in it. But that is not going to give me any brownie points because Iam trying to apply logic to something that has happened in a different time period. But my intention should be to know what I know, enlighten myself as much as I can and go on with my life without rubbing it in. Thats what any good human being do irrespective of their religion.

You know why religions should be criticized, because it's not for browny points nor is it for personal gain but for the State and the society. Imagine if we continued the practice of Sati and neglected the criticism for it or Casteism , where would we be. Where would women be.

You can be a good human being by keeping it all private but a good nation , needs to evolve and have a healthy conversation about religion or else we should do what we did during stone age.

Anyway, we are regressing, religion is Spritiual+Cultural. See where you stand with both of them

Originally posted by: ShadowKisses

Except the law of my country, my society, my religion does not say I can't draw Muhammad or caricatures of him. Islam does and lucky for me and my beliefs, I'm not Muslim. So there goes your argument on legality and code of conduct. As for "abusing freedom of expression" by drawing caricatures, note the posthumous freedom of speech award given to Charlie Hebdo for their drawings.

Placing terrorism and having sex with a child (both of which are manifestations of physical violence, btw) against drawing a satirical caricature is so ridiculous a comparison that I'm not even going to touch it. If you really think that me drawing dumbass cartoons is the equivalent of me picking up a C9 to light you up like a Christmas tree because you are not a follower of my religious ideology, then there really is not much left to say.

Sure, you can't swing your arm at my face without expecting retaliation for the physical violence you initiated but I can write and draw whatever the f**k I want to because I'm not physically harming you by drawing a cartoon.

Anyhow, bowing out because the concept of not imposing your religious views on other seems to be unnecessarily controversial.

Originally posted by: TheBoss

So you do follow laws and you do want others to follow the law as long as its convenient to you. Just like the rest of others who do not need to be inconvenienced and have a reasonable expectation to feel so.

When Akbaruddin Owaisi spewed poison in his hateful speeches I was one of them who cheered when he was sent to jail. So in your opinion he should have been able to say whatever he wants because of his freedom of expression and hurting the sentiments of a few billion people in the process because he was trying to exercise his trap of a mouth?

Jumping in here , FOS has limits specially on political people ..hate speeches are barred from it. Nothing is absolute, like I mentioned provoking riots etc be one. Varun Gandhi was booked too. Shah, Azam Khan..FOE does exercise.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. When you try to justify and tailor made it according to what fits your acceptence levels while one is OK to you and others is not OK to you then how can you expect others to be OK with what you are OK with and should be "tolerant" of their actions? Again you want to follow things based on your comfort zone.

FOS is restricted by simple clause- must not cause riots, provocation , i think in US , it's on the extreme side of FOE which is why Trump is allowed to shit spew and he is trolled back in kind.

FOS , if not physically harm you or carries a threat it, should be biased towards absolute side.

Why stop there. This forum is a public forum. Everyone should be able to abuse each others to their hearts content and post nudity and break every single rule under the guise of freedom of expression and we should be OK with it. One should be able to call users any names they want, including their families after all its freedom of speech. Or is it again not OK because you have a problem with that since it will disrupt the flow and impede in your quality of life. Just like it will disrupt those who have a right to their religion and not laughed upon or mocked upon since there is also a thing called Freedom of Religion guaranteed by the constitution.

Then are you forgetting even the FOE is not absolute by the constitution, it comes with it's caveat. if the offense is under it's purview, State takes actions.

This is the country and it's people when one cartoonist was arrested for a provoking sentiment , people fought for his release on the basis of FOE and SC upheld it.

Originally posted by: roni_berna

'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.