'Noah' banned in three countries weeks before world premiere


Return To Article
  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 15, 2014 3:08 p.m.

    The 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.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    March 14, 2014 12:46 p.m.

    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.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    March 14, 2014 10:51 a.m.

    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.

  • Ralph Salt Lake City, UT
    March 13, 2014 11:49 a.m.

    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?

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    March 13, 2014 10:17 a.m.


    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 again?

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    March 12, 2014 11:27 p.m.

    @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."

  • windsor City, Ut
    March 12, 2014 7:56 a.m.

    Thanks Chris B. for your kind words

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    March 11, 2014 9:12 p.m.


    your 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.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    March 11, 2014 2:42 p.m.

    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 individual
    nations 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 must
    be 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 considered
    bad enough to ban, or good enough to praise.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    March 11, 2014 1:41 p.m.

    "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).

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    March 11, 2014 12:39 p.m.

    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.

  • Hank Jr Draper, UT
    March 11, 2014 12:39 p.m.

    Considering the present state of our nation, I'm surprised Noah hasn't been banned here.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    March 11, 2014 12:23 p.m.


    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?

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    March 11, 2014 12:01 p.m.

    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 slc, UT
    March 11, 2014 11:43 a.m.

    "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.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    March 11, 2014 11:22 a.m.

    @ 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 standard.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    March 11, 2014 10:32 a.m.

    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.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    March 11, 2014 7:43 a.m.


    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.

  • intervention slc, UT
    March 10, 2014 11:11 p.m.


    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.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    March 10, 2014 10:48 p.m.


    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. You're right.

  • intervention slc, UT
    March 10, 2014 10:08 p.m.

    Sorry that should be entire not store, I did not pick up on the auto correct, but the point remains.

  • intervention slc, UT
    March 10, 2014 8:44 p.m.

    @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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    March 10, 2014 7:45 p.m.

    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 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 10, 2014 7:33 p.m.

    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.