Isn't it interesting. Here one religion bans a film for entire countries
because there are elements of the film that go against the religion of some but
not all of its citizens. And then in the Mormon capital of the
world we celebrate and welcome the production of a play that mocks things sacred
to Mormons. Thankfully, I haven't heard of a single threat of
violence from any Mormon due to the play coming here. Can you
imagine a play mocking the Quran put on in these countries?Or even
our country?Neither can I. Mormons, I'm sorry a sad
double standard exist. I thank you for yor non violent and
reasonable opposition to something tht mocks your religion. You are
great examples of peace to many.
You can't be surprised...or complain. Religion is what we don't have
in common. It divides us like nothing else can.
@chris b Funny I thought Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Bahrain were
countries not a religion. The leaders of these countries no more represent the
store Muslim religion then you represent all Christians.
Sorry that should be entire not store, I did not pick up on the auto correct,
but the point remains.
intervention,Ya, hide behind the wording. It's not Islamic
leaders that are banning it and it doesn't have to do with discrepancies
between Islam and the movie huh?I bet the movie says something
negative about the political landscape in Qatar, UAE, and Bahrain.
@chris So did I say the leaders of those countries did not ban it
because of their. Beliefs? No I said and repeat the decisions made by these
three government leaders is no more representative of all Muslims then you are
of all Christians but please continue to miss represent me.
intervention,It was a religion that made this decision and any
attempt to suggest otherwise is simply dishonest. You're right
that these specific countries don't represent 100% of the Muslims world but
yes are examples of what the Muslims world thinks today and more importantly how
they act. And again isn't it interesting the differences between how the
Mormons have handled the Book of Mormon play and how most people in the US have
viewed the production as perfectly acceptable and good entertainment even though
it mocks what Mormons hold sacred. And yet even though Islam has
just as may quirks that easily could be made into a hilarious production mocking
what they hold sacred the hypocritical left would never dare support such a
large scale production mocking Islam. And I'm curious
intervention, since you want to believe these countries don't represent the
muslim world, what country would be as tolerant of a play mocking muslims as the
United States has been with the Mormon play? I don't see a
large production mocking Muslims being produced in the US ever. And
certainly not in a Muslim country.Thanks Mormons for being peaceful.
Chris B, appreciation for your appreciation of Mormons. You are right about
that. Still, there are 1 billion Muslims who don't live in those 3
countries. You won't have any problem seeing that flick in Istanbul, for
example. So let's be fair all around.
@ Irony Guy:Like the article said, there will probably be additional
Muslim dominated countries who will yet ban the film. We'll know soon
enough. I have to agree with Chris on this one. The countries who
have banned the film are basically theocracies... where country leaders make
political decisions based upon their country's dominant religion... the
Muslim religion, and tie politics and religion together. So in that sense, they
are representing their religion when choosing to ban the film. There are no
reports of any of official Muslim leaders or citizens protesting that decision.
It's actually sad that they treat their citizens like little
children who can't be trusted to make up their own minds about something so
trivial as a movie made for entertainment. That seems like paranoia by taking
away people's right to choose for themselves.Chris is also
right about there being a double standard in America... especially by the left.
They obviously treat different religions differently. They deem the play mocking
the Book of Mormon as good entertainment, while at the same time they were
incensed about a 10 minute You-Tube video making fun of Muhammad. Total double
@chris "It was a religion that made this decision" they really are
countries not "a religion." I also find it curious how you support
religions (including the LDS) using religion as a reason to impose restrictions
on all Americians.
intervention: Sorry. Here is where I need to butt in. What religion has ever
imposed a restriction on you? The LDS church or any other church has never
passed a law in this country. Their advocacy is not binding on you and forces
nothing on you.What you apparently want is for religions to vacate
their place in the public forum. You want to silence voices of certain citizens
instead of letting them advocate for what they think are the best rules for the
welfare of our society.I don't know about others but I will not
stand down and be silent. I have as much right to express my opinion as you do
to express yours. And I'm sorry if it offends you that I oppose abortion or
that I favor strict rules with regard to alcohol consumption. But, then again,
I'm sure you have things you would like to impose on me that I would find
offensive as well.
intervention,Now you're just making things up. When have I
have supported religion using religion as a reason to impose restrictions on all
Americans.No issue I support is based mainly in what a religious
group has said. Just because I may agree with something a religious group
supports does not mean my support is based on religious thinking.It
does not.Want to try again?
Considering the present state of our nation, I'm surprised Noah hasn't
been banned here.
Joe5, I especially appreciate your comment. Thank you for standing and making
it."Religion" has never bound or enslaved me. People who
blindly oppose religion seek to do that-but the way of the Lord is to allow all
to make their case, and for us to be free to choose what sort of way we'll
follow. We do not impose or enforce our way on others; we provide the knowledge
and opportunity for them to choose or reject it, while maintaining our freedom
to be on that path.
@joe5"Their advocacy is not binding on you and forces nothing on
you.""What you apparently want is for religions to vacate
their place in the public forum."But if their advocacy is not
binding and has never forced anything on me... then wouldn't they already
have no place (effectively) in the public forum of policy debate due to having 0
influence? As a result I would say that their advocacy can lead to things being
forced on me or others (like same-sex marriage bans which don't personally
affect me but do effect others).
Hang on though. Moslem nations ban bad things like alcohol,
don't they?Our LDS leadership supported that same ban in the USA.Unfortunately they had not sufficient support in Utah.Moslem
nations ban pornography I believe.Spain banned public wearing of the
bikini.Whatever else may or many not be bad about individualnations support for good things and opposition to degrading things is,
in my opinion, refreshing.Let's keep on, or begin, banning and
punishing murder, theft,false accusations, and other evils, like abortion,
and at least a certain depth of pornographic publications.I
guess if it's "Moslem" or connected therewith it mustbe
wrong, and if it's the West we are always right."Considering the state", morally, of the USA today, I am completely without amazement that very little is consideredbad enough to
ban, or good enough to praise.
@joe5your comments bring us full circle then don't they? while
religion may have "influenced" the decisions of the leaders of these
countries it was not religions that actually enforced the laws and Chris's
criticism of Islam as a whole would therefore be unfounded and unjust which
would make intervention right from the beginning.
Thanks Chris B. for your kind words
@chris b"When have I have supported religion using religion as a
reason to impose restrictions on all Americans." "I'm
not LDS but I stand with Mormon Prophet Monson and Pope Francis on this.
Technically I'm Catholic but don't really identify as a Catholic. But
it is nice knowing I agree with Pope Francis and Mormon Prophet Monson, both men
who according to their religions speak for God."
Tolstoy,No issue I support is based mainly in what a religious group
has said. Just because I may agree with something a religious group supports
does not mean my support is based on religious thinking.Want to try
Chris B, in your original comment you say:"Mormons, I'm
sorry a sad double standard exist."Are you saying that you wish
the Mormons could impose restrictions on free speech when they don't agree
with that speech?Do you actually wish that Mormons and Utah had the same
power as Qatar to squelch offensive speech?Where is the double standard?
Well I can not order a drink before my meal arrives at my table in utah because
of the church. My children will always be off on dec 25 no matter what my
religion. The countries mentioned are Islamic countries. They are
trying to be secular world hubs but they are not secular places. Any depictions
of prophets is offensive. Why would they allow such a thing? They are not
countries that embrace the atheist or support a number of faiths. They are
concerned with one faith. Plenty here won't see it either. I
recall many applauding the actions of a lady buying with the express intent of
returning Tshirts that offended her religious code of dress and expectation of
public decency. They don't object to the movie being in
existence. They just can't have a part in it.
Tolstoy the Pope doesn't speak for God. He is the successor of Peter, the
Shepard of the flock, on certain matters of faith he speaks with infallibility.
@GildasThe problem here is not that Muslims banned it, but, rather, that
those countries use the beliefs of a particular religion to ban something that
is offensive to no other religion and that would cause no harm to society. A
comparable idea would be if the US banned a movie because the LDS Church was
offended by its portrayal of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, or because the
Catholic church was offended by how it portrayed an early pope.