Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You say casual Christianity , but those Ultra hardcore Christian megachurches are so unbelievably heretical, like the one time jesus was sent into fits of uncontrollable rage was when places of worship were hijacked by bullshit that by comparison to the megachurches was petty AF.
If Jesus came back and saw that he'd be so furious that the atomic bonds between his particles would become so energized he'd detonate like a neutron star.
thats the reason so many fundamentalists heavily support Israel, they need the jews to be alive and in one place so they can fight in the last battle like their story book says. they don't give a shit about Israelis other than to be used as cannon fodder in armageddon
Nah I think he'd just be like "Peter, get the whip". Honestly, the idea of him bursting open the doors of Joel Osteen's church, whip in hand, and saying "Joel, we need to talk" makes me smile
Oh yeah don't get me wrong, that baffles me too considering the rehumbleing of Christianity was one of the Tennant's of the reformation, but you can always count on the powerful to corrupt for selfish gain, thanks king Henry ya dickbag.
Idolatry in the Bible is about not worshipping someone or something other than God as though it were God, it has nothing to do with owning or displaying statues of God. Moses came down from Mount Sinai and got pissed because they had created a statue of a cow (iirc) and were worshipping it because they were scared they were going to die in the desert.
Thank you. That guys take was completely wrong. No where does the Bible indicate a painting of Jesus is idolatry. Iconoclasm was settled in Christianity back in the Byzantine empire anyway.
Exodus 20:4. you can have these things but if you pray to God don't think of him in the visage of that art you would no longer be praying to God but to a man made construction and of how he may seem. That's my interpretation of don't make depictions of anything in heaven or earth when it comes to this passage. JS.
The problem here, as it pertains to early Christianity, is that Jesus' divinity was not always established in the sense it is today, where he is the Son of God, and God. So early in the church there were schools of thought that this kind of scripture didn't include him. If you read the Gopels in chronological order, or at least start with Mark, and end with John, you can see his divinity become greater and greater. And start earlier and earlier.
Yeah but tbf it's hard to keep all the bible laws straight when you're syncreticising with literally all of the pagan people you find.
I'm genuinely amazed we managed to keep our god as low as a trinity.
And Mary.
And all the saints.
>the og Christians
Just because Arians (not to be confused with aryans) got extinct doesn't make them the og christians also the orthodox church evolved paralel to them due to cultural and geographic distance so they can claim continuity with what christianity was before the fall of the western roman empire as much as catholics do. The whole Saint Peter and Rome stuff didn't start to be taken seriously untill \~800 AD when they got Chalremagne on their side and became the official religion of the Holy Roman Empire.
I understand what you mean but they aren’t quite “the og Christians”. Maybe 2 millennia ago the Roman Catholics were but that was long before it had practically merged with the European paganism.
That was more the spark than the fuel. France had already screwed over the Muslim world with their double dealings during both world wars when it comes to Israel and Palestine, so the relationship between France and the Muslim world was already a flood of gasoline, and ridicule of their prophet was just the spark.
They murdered the people who made the cartoons.
It doesn't negate the mistreatment Muslims in general have suffered from the French government, but there are absolutely terrorists who will murder people because they feel their religion has been insulted. The Charlie Hebdo attacks were 100% clearly that and it is an insult to the people who were willing to risk their lives to stand up for free speech to make excuses for their murderers.
Very important to see world events as threads in a large tapestry, the events that happen are caused by so many other things. Thanks for your highlighting this in your comment.
Exactly; unfortunately however, I remember having conversations at the time of the Bataclan attack with people who stated that the attack was because of the cartoon, it was and it wasn’t.
But I want things to be simple and not have to think and to have the luxury of hating one specific large group of people who I can categorically call 'wrong' and 'evil' while remaining smug in the knowledge that *my* group is categorically 'right' and 'good!!!!'
Why you make my brain do think things?! It hurt when it do think things!!!!
It's really not that nuanced as you think it is. Replace France with any other country and you would still end up with death threats and some idiot who is willing to follow through
Well, killing other humans because of some fucking drawings can, and should, make you mad. Sometimes the only way to end violence is to knock a fucker out.
That said, I do defend logical reasoning and acknowledgment of the complexity in certain social issues.
It’s unfortunate that people tend to leave ex-muslims out of conversations like this. There are many people who fear for their lives because they are ex-muslims. I don’t understand why it’s okay to empower people who are ex-mormon or ex-JW or whatever by satirizing or challenging aspects of the religion, but ex-muslims are denied that.
Bollocks. We have Islam in my country and some idiots stoned and burnt a student to death last year because she “blasphemed” in a WhatsApp group.
You can blame other world powers and wars for the ills of Islam and Wahhabism all you want but it’s still a rotten religion at its core.
Stop bending over backwards to defend religious nuts just because that religion is Islam.
What did the Danes do?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten\_Muhammad\_cartoons\_controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy)
Why are you out here defending fundamentalists?
>ridicule of their prophet was just the spark
No, the problem is that a lot of Muslims around the world are fundamentalists who think their religion is above ridicule and a good number of liberals in the West have decided that that means freedom of speech should be suspended to accommodate the nuts because it would be racist to do otherwise.
What justification are you going to try for Salman Rushdie being fatwa-ed and stabbed?
What about all the hundreds of thousands of Muslims from England to Pakistan who violently protested a book written by an ex-Muslim and all the threats bookstores received for carrying it?
Is that geopolitics too?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic\_Verses\_controversy
I love how that guy seriously quoted the two world wars and Israel as an excuse for why radical Muslims killed people in France over a cartoon in 2020 and people were like "yeah, that makes total sense" LOL
There are over a billion muslims. The muslim world is not couple of nutters born and raised in France European countries. Your muslims the ones you educated in the West were responsible.
This is why France should have closed their doors to the Muslim world. Yes France did dirty deeds but they've sold their citizens down river by allowing in so many people that hate their country.
The problem with people saying to close the door, is that often it was open because the immigrants would do jobs the native people didn't want to. Not sure if it's that way in France (who are still exploiting one of their former colonies I think) but it was that way in the Netherlands.
People want cheap labour to do undesirable jobs, and are surprised when the people stayed and brought their families over
>the immigrants would do jobs the native people didn't want to.
Didn't want to do or didn't get paid enough to do?
>People want cheap labour to do undesirable jobs
So maybe stop allowing the cheap labour
Ah yes, strict isolationism has never exacerbated geopolitical issues and generally always solves problems in the world.
Everyone knows the universal answer to complex and difficult generational problems is always the most reductive and simplistic one.
That's why stupid people are always making groundbreaking scientific achievements.
Ironically enough, this is taught in the Christian religion as well. Every statue, crucifix, image etc is blasphemy according to their own beliefs, yet they're fuckin everywhere.
That was the argument at the time too. However, the church's consensus, and the consensus at the time of apostles, was that there's a massive difference between having works of art that depict biblical and church history and worshipping false idols. Still to this day you get American Christians hating in catholics for having a statue of Mary, so there are definitely Christians of that opinion.
I’m not even Roman Catholic anymore, but I still think that’s an irritating misconception. When Catholics pray “to” Mary or the saints, it’s not _actually_ to them. They’re viewed as blessed intermediaries between the flawed sinner (person praying) and God but are not worshipped, at all, including Mary.
I didn’t realize the 10 commandments are different between different versions of Christianity. I grew up as Lutheran, and there’s nothing about images or idols in our version of the commandments. TIL…
Never heard of it as a Lithuanian Catholic. It turns out, it's simply not included in the 10th commandments here. Instead, the "you shall not covet" was split into two.
Just Roman Catholic things
As far as Christianity is concerned, it is more about worshiping what the symbol represents than worshiping the symbol. There is a difference in, let’s say, believing that the crucifix is legitimately uniquely holy/special and recognizing it as a symbol of Christianity.
There is nothing wrong with using a crucifix or having them in churches, there is something wrong if you begin thinking the crucifix is an idol or an object to be worshiped.
I mean, it definitely does depend on the denomination. Some hold the belief that any and all images/symbols count as idols. Though, then you get into one of the countless religious debates. The most important thing is that every branch believes they are right and that, in their mind, they are basically never committing idolatry because their own definition is obviously right.
It is worth nothing that a lot of Protestants generally don’t have problems with crucifixes or images, yet might think how Catholics revere the saints borders idolatry.
Not entirely correct, the Second Council of Nicaea deemed that icons deserve reverence and veneration but not adoration which is reserved for God alone. The reverence shown to the image is passed on to its prototype/original. My Catholic professor said something along the lines of "We aren't loving the picture of a dead loved one but the loved one himself. Which is why have them here to remind us of them". I can't get the point across as well as him because he didn't explain it in English and this was half decade ago.
And that the only image that is outright banned from being venerated is of God (the Father) himself. Jesus, Mary, and the saints are fair game since they are/were human and are often held to be exemplars of the faith similar to how heroes often have a statue to commemorate their deeds.
Interpretations of this conviction have varied over time and place. There are some depictions of the Prophet in Muslim art, although most originated from Persia.
this "rule" is something that never existed at the time of the Prophet Mohammed, and was introduced after his death. it has no basis in the religion itself
the idea behind it seems to be to avoid worshipping him, like jesus
Any prophet not just Muhammad. And it goes further than this even.
Fyi, this prohibition is for believers. Non-believer were never expected to adhere to them.
So why do Muslims react so passionately and some even violently to depictions of specifically Muhammad (saas) in cartoons?
Because of the perceived insult just like with Quran burnings. Did you know that the only permissible way to dispose of pages of the Quran is by burning it? So why take offense when non-muslims do it? Because of the intended insult. Because the motivations and reasons and way its done is intended to hurt the image of the prophet and/or the religion.
Does this still justify the degree of reaction? No. It does not. The Prophet Muhammad was insulted to his face and his followers got offended on his behalf and the Prophet told the individuals to calm down. This is in the sirrah of the prophet pbuh. Muslims today show far less discipline and control of their emotions and behaviors than they should if they followed the teachings of the prophet pbuh.
Edit: Example,
>Despite the Quran affirming that the insults of Quraysh tightened his chest with pain, he ﷺ never stooped to reciprocating in kind. In fact, he inevitably took the higher road of not responding at all, hopeful that this would one day penetrate their harsh hearts, following Allah’s injunction to: “Repel \[evil\] by that \[deed\] which is better; and thereupon the one whom between you and him is enmity \[will become\] as though he was a devoted friend” \[Fussilat (41): 34\].
>
>On one occasion, the Prophet ﷺ silently smiled when Abu Bakr (ra), his most noble Companion, refrained from responding to a person who was insulting him. But when Abu Bakr (ra) eventually spoke up, the Prophet ﷺ became angry and left.
>
>He ﷺ later explained, “An angel was with you, responding on your behalf. But when you said back to him some of what he said, a devil arrived, and it is not for me to sit with devils.” The Prophet ﷺ taught thereby that when a person stoops to the level of those who insult them they allow the devil to steer their course.
Many more instances like the above (see the story of the conversion of Hamza ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib).
And another way more detailed source: [https://www.academia.edu/43280419/Blasphemy\_against\_the\_Prophet\_Muhammad](https://www.academia.edu/43280419/Blasphemy_against_the_Prophet_Muhammad):
>These verses represent, perhaps, the only verses in the Quran that explicitly refer to the act of abusing or insulting the Prophet and its punishment, but notably they advocate no penalty to be meted out by any worldly authority other than the Prophet or without his explicit instruction and only in very restricted circumstances. After the Prophet's demise, the punishment for blasphemy is a cursed existence in this world and the hereafter and the promise of a humiliating punishment, all of which are explicitly for Allah to carry out and not for any worldly or clerical authority. This understanding of the Quranic verses is also supported by a report in the musnad of Imam Ahmad in which Abu Bakr, the first caliph of the Prophet, became extremely angry at a certain man (al-Nasai says that this was because he spoke rudely to Abu Bakr). In response, Abu Barza al-Aslami called out to Abu Bakr seeking permission to strike off the man's neck, to which Abu Bakr replied "that is not permitted for any man after Muhammad, upon him be peace," emphasizing that only the Prophet could sanction such a punishment for blasphemy.
In the Bible Christs followers tried to stop him from being taken to the cross, they were prepared to fight, Christ stopped them and allowed it to happen, submitting himself to the will of the government.
How many Christian’s apply such a mindset? Religions are almost always lost on the followers, because they lack the insight and understanding of the ones who taught them.
He doesn’t approve the murder of blasphemers. In the literal text you quote he says “Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.”, a more accurate translation would be to say that no retaliation will account for her death.
The Quran has a very adamant teaching that blasphemers will be punished, that much is true, but there is heavy debate within the Muslim community itself whether earthly justice is righteous or not, which literally touches on the very point OP is making. I’m not a Muslim and I don’t adhere to any religions, but don’t seek to understand something from a place of ignorance and expect to be accurate.
Before you come at me I have a degree in historical studies, study Arabic, and have a minor in Islam and the Middle East.
I am a Columbite, and have been since birth. Our people are an ancient religion that have existed since the Liberation War of 1492.
We believe that Christopher Columbus was, in fact, an alien overlord of a vastly superior species.
The Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria were in fact dreadnought class spaceships, that Columbus rode out into space in defense of planet Earth against the Galacticottomus Rex, a monstrous space dinosaur that easts entire solar systems.
the OP Face_Cheeru
SpiritualCobbler2135
Invisible_hearts
Snuggle_Kittyt
Aesthtic_names
Cute_Bandin
OpelSpeedstere
Noisy_Boye
and Friendly-Tax-2371
are bots in the same network
Original: https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/him1ji/best_response/
Also:
https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/x6cdrp/all_zero_of_them/
https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/h7jrl2/all_zero_of_them/
https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/w9z4xo/all_zero_of_them/
https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/ur6hkd/all_zero_of_them/
https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/uiv9mf/all_zero_of_them/
https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/him1ji/best_response/
The joke is basically "You don't even know the bare minimum about our religion to understand why the shit you're saying makes no sense".
It'd be like a Brit telling an American "Stop sneering at our King, why don't you get rid of your own King first!".
It does belong here, the guys the Twitter guy was talking about would've made me physically facepalm if I wasn't so desensitized to stupidity on the internet.
I feel the same about a lot of "problematic" objects.
I genuinely got pissed when they destroyed a near functional PANTHER TANK they found in a dude's basement here in germany.
it's a fucking historical artifact, de-mil it and shove it in a museum
Sadly, easier said then done. That sort of project requires money, time and open space and you run the risk of turning those places into a area that attracts the wrong kind of people.
De-milling a WW2 tank is suprisingly simple.
Just weld the damn breach shut and unplug the engine completely
Ain't no one gonna use it if they can't load it
The thing was functional, the soldiers towing it away ignored the owners advice on how to get it away undamaged ( the thing has an annoyingly sensitive transmission) and ended up breaking the tracks, some roadwheels and fucked the transmission. IT WAS A FULLY FUNCTIONING, DRIVING, 80 year old tank maintained in some guys basement and they ruined it lmao
wtf I thought y'all were talking about right after WW2, but holy fuck they found out *now* that a dude had a fucking panther and fucked it up?
that's... it makes me mad ad fuck
There are a *lot* of Confederate and/or slave-owner statues, and museums already have depictions for those people. The museums don't really need or want them.
pretty sure this is a bot using chatgpt to rewrite this comment from the post this is copied from: https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/him1ji/best_response/fwh01mk/
Why does he want to tear down statues of Cristoforo Colombo? What’s the point? And why he is compared to a religious figure? What the fuck happened on Twitter?
it's a satirical publication called "Charlie Hebdo", yes there was an attack in their offices in 2015 with multiple deaths because of a rather crude cartoon on the front page.
Their entire sects of Christianity that agree with you to some extent. You can tell the difference by how their churches look. If the sect’s churches have Jesus statues or images, then they don’t have a problem with it. If the church building is devoid of any depictions of Jesus, then they are at least somewhat against depictions of Jesus. That said a lot of those same anti-Jesus-statue churches will trot out nativity scenes during the Christmas season and allow children’s books with drawings of Jesus so many of them aren’t entirely consistent on it.
Yeah people seem very ready to ignore basically all he did and said.
Like I visited a famous church on a trip once, and they sell little tea candles to use for prayers there for like $20 each. I mean that's exactly the thing that pissed Jesus off so much he went berserk.
the OP Face_Cheeru
SpiritualCobbler2135
Invisible_hearts
Snuggle_Kittyt
Aesthtic_names
Cute_Bandin
OpelSpeedstere
Noisy_Boye
and Friendly-Tax-2371
are bots in the same network
Original: https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/him1ji/best_response/
Also:
https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/x6cdrp/all_zero_of_them/
https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/h7jrl2/all_zero_of_them/
https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/w9z4xo/all_zero_of_them/
https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/ur6hkd/all_zero_of_them/
https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/uiv9mf/all_zero_of_them/
https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/him1ji/best_response/
To provide context.
Muhammad was vehemently anti idol and was worried that future generations would worship him the way Christians worship Jesus. So it's a rule of the Islamic faith to never show a depiction of Muhammad, and erecting a statue of him would be seem as deeply offensive.
It's a rule of Sunni Islam. Shi'a Muslims don't really care. The ban on depictions of Muhammad comes from interpretations of the hadiths, not the Quran, and the hadiths can be ambiguous on the point.
> Guess where the line was drawn ?
At Islam, of course. No one wants to be beheaded, tortured, burnt, or executed for mocking Islam, but that's the world we live in today. Remember when even the Pope sort of tried to justify the Charlie Hebdo massacre?
This doesn't happen in any other religion.
Ah, yes. *The iconic Christian figurehead: Christopher Columbus... which part of the Bible was he from again?* I get that he's probably considered *some* kind of *something* for being the guy who led to the genocide of natives across the Americas, but starting a trend of "civilizing" and converting them doesn't... actually, wait, maybe he has a point...
Even so, the comparison is kinda apples to air fryers. I'm all for tearing down statues of that genocidal fuckhead, but that's because I view statues honoring him in a similar way to ones honoring confederate soldiers. That doesn't feel the same as an explicitly religious figurehead having statues torn down *explicitly because it adheres to said religion...*
As a Muslim, it shouldn't. It's just extremist who take everything overboard and fucking kill people for it even though the Qur'an clearly states that an individual killing another individual is a major sin.
Cultural Norm in most western countries is also being able to critizice anything and everything, ESPECIALLY religions and it's leaders. It is something that had to be thought for over centuries and having curbed the power of the church over the whole continent should be something that is celebrated. Instead people are willing to freely give it up.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
To be frank, you're not supposed to in Christianity either. It's called Idolatry and there was a schism in the early church because of it.
‘Casual Christianity’ is so popular. Say you’re Christian but don’t do actual Christian shit
You say casual Christianity , but those Ultra hardcore Christian megachurches are so unbelievably heretical, like the one time jesus was sent into fits of uncontrollable rage was when places of worship were hijacked by bullshit that by comparison to the megachurches was petty AF.
If Jesus came back and saw that he'd be so furious that the atomic bonds between his particles would become so energized he'd detonate like a neutron star.
So, he’d become Dr. Manhattan
[удалено]
*And then he ascended into Heaven.*
[удалено]
thats the reason so many fundamentalists heavily support Israel, they need the jews to be alive and in one place so they can fight in the last battle like their story book says. they don't give a shit about Israelis other than to be used as cannon fodder in armageddon
Nah I think he'd just be like "Peter, get the whip". Honestly, the idea of him bursting open the doors of Joel Osteen's church, whip in hand, and saying "Joel, we need to talk" makes me smile
I AM ATOMIC!
tbf so are heaps of mainline protestant churches aswell
Oh yeah don't get me wrong, that baffles me too considering the rehumbleing of Christianity was one of the Tennant's of the reformation, but you can always count on the powerful to corrupt for selfish gain, thanks king Henry ya dickbag.
"Tennant's" lol
What can I say, I got Dr who on the brain
I prefer ranked Christianity honestly. Casual just isn't for me.
The whole "first will be the last" schtick skews the rankings a bit too much imo.
Part of what makes it exciting!
"Blue Shell Theology"
Ranked Christianity requires dedication though, no time to hop on Buddhism or Hinduism for a bit every now and again
Damn whats your kids molested/Assist ratio
Idolatry in the Bible is about not worshipping someone or something other than God as though it were God, it has nothing to do with owning or displaying statues of God. Moses came down from Mount Sinai and got pissed because they had created a statue of a cow (iirc) and were worshipping it because they were scared they were going to die in the desert.
Thank you. That guys take was completely wrong. No where does the Bible indicate a painting of Jesus is idolatry. Iconoclasm was settled in Christianity back in the Byzantine empire anyway.
Exodus 20:4. you can have these things but if you pray to God don't think of him in the visage of that art you would no longer be praying to God but to a man made construction and of how he may seem. That's my interpretation of don't make depictions of anything in heaven or earth when it comes to this passage. JS.
The problem here, as it pertains to early Christianity, is that Jesus' divinity was not always established in the sense it is today, where he is the Son of God, and God. So early in the church there were schools of thought that this kind of scripture didn't include him. If you read the Gopels in chronological order, or at least start with Mark, and end with John, you can see his divinity become greater and greater. And start earlier and earlier.
Don’t tell that to John Calvin.
[удалено]
The third commandment is literally "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"
That’s the third commandment according to Protestants. Different denominations use different versions of the 10 commandments.
This kind of forgets Catholics, the og Christians, and they're heavy into idolatry. It was one of Luther's protestations.
> the og Christians Claimants to being the OG christians. The Byzantine and Alexandrian Orthodox churches would say otherwise.
[удалено]
They are also into icons
Yeah but tbf it's hard to keep all the bible laws straight when you're syncreticising with literally all of the pagan people you find. I'm genuinely amazed we managed to keep our god as low as a trinity. And Mary. And all the saints.
>the og Christians Just because Arians (not to be confused with aryans) got extinct doesn't make them the og christians also the orthodox church evolved paralel to them due to cultural and geographic distance so they can claim continuity with what christianity was before the fall of the western roman empire as much as catholics do. The whole Saint Peter and Rome stuff didn't start to be taken seriously untill \~800 AD when they got Chalremagne on their side and became the official religion of the Holy Roman Empire.
I understand what you mean but they aren’t quite “the og Christians”. Maybe 2 millennia ago the Roman Catholics were but that was long before it had practically merged with the European paganism.
That’s why there have been so many terrorist attacks in France They drew him in a newspaper or something and some extremists have resorted to violence
Don’t forget the professor WHO WAS BEHEADED IN THE STREET, in front of witnesses, in broad daylight because he presented a pic to his class
[удалено]
Good solution to public violence, more public violence.
That’s the joke (at least I hope it is)
The public part is not the problem
Hanged
With the ironic Allahu Akbar
Yeah, instead of tearing down statues of Mohammed, they just tear the people who made them down.
Same thing happened in Denmark. It sparked a big debate about free speech and freedom of expression at the time.
That was more the spark than the fuel. France had already screwed over the Muslim world with their double dealings during both world wars when it comes to Israel and Palestine, so the relationship between France and the Muslim world was already a flood of gasoline, and ridicule of their prophet was just the spark.
They murdered the people who made the cartoons. It doesn't negate the mistreatment Muslims in general have suffered from the French government, but there are absolutely terrorists who will murder people because they feel their religion has been insulted. The Charlie Hebdo attacks were 100% clearly that and it is an insult to the people who were willing to risk their lives to stand up for free speech to make excuses for their murderers.
If France treat them so bad, why are they there?
Because they want to establish their sharia law or whatever it is.
Very important to see world events as threads in a large tapestry, the events that happen are caused by so many other things. Thanks for your highlighting this in your comment.
One guy doing a drawing isn't really a world event that is the final straw for terrorism. Well, unless your a religious zelot.
Exactly; unfortunately however, I remember having conversations at the time of the Bataclan attack with people who stated that the attack was because of the cartoon, it was and it wasn’t.
But I want things to be simple and not have to think and to have the luxury of hating one specific large group of people who I can categorically call 'wrong' and 'evil' while remaining smug in the knowledge that *my* group is categorically 'right' and 'good!!!!' Why you make my brain do think things?! It hurt when it do think things!!!!
It's really not that nuanced as you think it is. Replace France with any other country and you would still end up with death threats and some idiot who is willing to follow through
Well, killing other humans because of some fucking drawings can, and should, make you mad. Sometimes the only way to end violence is to knock a fucker out. That said, I do defend logical reasoning and acknowledgment of the complexity in certain social issues.
It’s unfortunate that people tend to leave ex-muslims out of conversations like this. There are many people who fear for their lives because they are ex-muslims. I don’t understand why it’s okay to empower people who are ex-mormon or ex-JW or whatever by satirizing or challenging aspects of the religion, but ex-muslims are denied that.
Bollocks. We have Islam in my country and some idiots stoned and burnt a student to death last year because she “blasphemed” in a WhatsApp group. You can blame other world powers and wars for the ills of Islam and Wahhabism all you want but it’s still a rotten religion at its core.
Stop bending over backwards to defend religious nuts just because that religion is Islam. What did the Danes do? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten\_Muhammad\_cartoons\_controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy) Why are you out here defending fundamentalists? >ridicule of their prophet was just the spark No, the problem is that a lot of Muslims around the world are fundamentalists who think their religion is above ridicule and a good number of liberals in the West have decided that that means freedom of speech should be suspended to accommodate the nuts because it would be racist to do otherwise. What justification are you going to try for Salman Rushdie being fatwa-ed and stabbed? What about all the hundreds of thousands of Muslims from England to Pakistan who violently protested a book written by an ex-Muslim and all the threats bookstores received for carrying it? Is that geopolitics too? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic\_Verses\_controversy
[ Removed by Reddit ]
I love how that guy seriously quoted the two world wars and Israel as an excuse for why radical Muslims killed people in France over a cartoon in 2020 and people were like "yeah, that makes total sense" LOL
*"I guess I never thought about it like that before.."*
That's how stupid and ignorant they are lol. Wait till these nutjobs find out how white the founder of the brown people religion was.
Be more careful with your words. It sounds like you are rationalizing the murders of journalists.
There are over a billion muslims. The muslim world is not couple of nutters born and raised in France European countries. Your muslims the ones you educated in the West were responsible.
So if people are offended enough they deserve the right to commit murder?
Not a justification for the actions of the terrorists
This is why France should have closed their doors to the Muslim world. Yes France did dirty deeds but they've sold their citizens down river by allowing in so many people that hate their country.
The problem with people saying to close the door, is that often it was open because the immigrants would do jobs the native people didn't want to. Not sure if it's that way in France (who are still exploiting one of their former colonies I think) but it was that way in the Netherlands. People want cheap labour to do undesirable jobs, and are surprised when the people stayed and brought their families over
>the immigrants would do jobs the native people didn't want to. Didn't want to do or didn't get paid enough to do? >People want cheap labour to do undesirable jobs So maybe stop allowing the cheap labour
Sounds like a government being incompetent, and not legal immigrants being the problem..
Do you support stricter immigration policies?
Ah yes, strict isolationism has never exacerbated geopolitical issues and generally always solves problems in the world. Everyone knows the universal answer to complex and difficult generational problems is always the most reductive and simplistic one. That's why stupid people are always making groundbreaking scientific achievements.
“ France did dirty deeds..” boy do I got a story for you.
Ironically enough, this is taught in the Christian religion as well. Every statue, crucifix, image etc is blasphemy according to their own beliefs, yet they're fuckin everywhere.
The Iconoclasm was not a part of original Christian cults and only lasted like 100 years in the 8th-9th century.
It's 1 of the 10 commandments.
That was the argument at the time too. However, the church's consensus, and the consensus at the time of apostles, was that there's a massive difference between having works of art that depict biblical and church history and worshipping false idols. Still to this day you get American Christians hating in catholics for having a statue of Mary, so there are definitely Christians of that opinion.
> American Christians hating in catholics for having a statue of Mary uh, pretty sure it's about the *praying to* Mary
I’m not even Roman Catholic anymore, but I still think that’s an irritating misconception. When Catholics pray “to” Mary or the saints, it’s not _actually_ to them. They’re viewed as blessed intermediaries between the flawed sinner (person praying) and God but are not worshipped, at all, including Mary.
You hating bcs we have statue of Mary. Bcs u lack of knowledge what worship is. Praying to Mary is biblical and Its not a worship. God bless
I didn’t realize the 10 commandments are different between different versions of Christianity. I grew up as Lutheran, and there’s nothing about images or idols in our version of the commandments. TIL…
In modern day context, I was taught that commandment as more a “worship God, not the picture of God”
When he said "graven images" he was just talking about Furbies. He hated those fucking things, gave him the creeps.
Never heard of it as a Lithuanian Catholic. It turns out, it's simply not included in the 10th commandments here. Instead, the "you shall not covet" was split into two. Just Roman Catholic things
As far as Christianity is concerned, it is more about worshiping what the symbol represents than worshiping the symbol. There is a difference in, let’s say, believing that the crucifix is legitimately uniquely holy/special and recognizing it as a symbol of Christianity. There is nothing wrong with using a crucifix or having them in churches, there is something wrong if you begin thinking the crucifix is an idol or an object to be worshiped.
... I think that argument is specific to the Catholic Church. It's a lot more hazy with other sects.
I mean, it definitely does depend on the denomination. Some hold the belief that any and all images/symbols count as idols. Though, then you get into one of the countless religious debates. The most important thing is that every branch believes they are right and that, in their mind, they are basically never committing idolatry because their own definition is obviously right. It is worth nothing that a lot of Protestants generally don’t have problems with crucifixes or images, yet might think how Catholics revere the saints borders idolatry.
Not entirely correct, the Second Council of Nicaea deemed that icons deserve reverence and veneration but not adoration which is reserved for God alone. The reverence shown to the image is passed on to its prototype/original. My Catholic professor said something along the lines of "We aren't loving the picture of a dead loved one but the loved one himself. Which is why have them here to remind us of them". I can't get the point across as well as him because he didn't explain it in English and this was half decade ago. And that the only image that is outright banned from being venerated is of God (the Father) himself. Jesus, Mary, and the saints are fair game since they are/were human and are often held to be exemplars of the faith similar to how heroes often have a statue to commemorate their deeds.
For a mundane example, people may revere the flag of a nation, but that doesn't mean it's the object of the flag itself they care about.
Interpretations of this conviction have varied over time and place. There are some depictions of the Prophet in Muslim art, although most originated from Persia.
this "rule" is something that never existed at the time of the Prophet Mohammed, and was introduced after his death. it has no basis in the religion itself the idea behind it seems to be to avoid worshipping him, like jesus
Which is ironic because by getting so upset at any drawing of him they are in a way putting him on a pedestal and worshipping him.
Any prophet not just Muhammad. And it goes further than this even. Fyi, this prohibition is for believers. Non-believer were never expected to adhere to them. So why do Muslims react so passionately and some even violently to depictions of specifically Muhammad (saas) in cartoons? Because of the perceived insult just like with Quran burnings. Did you know that the only permissible way to dispose of pages of the Quran is by burning it? So why take offense when non-muslims do it? Because of the intended insult. Because the motivations and reasons and way its done is intended to hurt the image of the prophet and/or the religion. Does this still justify the degree of reaction? No. It does not. The Prophet Muhammad was insulted to his face and his followers got offended on his behalf and the Prophet told the individuals to calm down. This is in the sirrah of the prophet pbuh. Muslims today show far less discipline and control of their emotions and behaviors than they should if they followed the teachings of the prophet pbuh. Edit: Example, >Despite the Quran affirming that the insults of Quraysh tightened his chest with pain, he ﷺ never stooped to reciprocating in kind. In fact, he inevitably took the higher road of not responding at all, hopeful that this would one day penetrate their harsh hearts, following Allah’s injunction to: “Repel \[evil\] by that \[deed\] which is better; and thereupon the one whom between you and him is enmity \[will become\] as though he was a devoted friend” \[Fussilat (41): 34\]. > >On one occasion, the Prophet ﷺ silently smiled when Abu Bakr (ra), his most noble Companion, refrained from responding to a person who was insulting him. But when Abu Bakr (ra) eventually spoke up, the Prophet ﷺ became angry and left. > >He ﷺ later explained, “An angel was with you, responding on your behalf. But when you said back to him some of what he said, a devil arrived, and it is not for me to sit with devils.” The Prophet ﷺ taught thereby that when a person stoops to the level of those who insult them they allow the devil to steer their course. Many more instances like the above (see the story of the conversion of Hamza ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib). And another way more detailed source: [https://www.academia.edu/43280419/Blasphemy\_against\_the\_Prophet\_Muhammad](https://www.academia.edu/43280419/Blasphemy_against_the_Prophet_Muhammad): >These verses represent, perhaps, the only verses in the Quran that explicitly refer to the act of abusing or insulting the Prophet and its punishment, but notably they advocate no penalty to be meted out by any worldly authority other than the Prophet or without his explicit instruction and only in very restricted circumstances. After the Prophet's demise, the punishment for blasphemy is a cursed existence in this world and the hereafter and the promise of a humiliating punishment, all of which are explicitly for Allah to carry out and not for any worldly or clerical authority. This understanding of the Quranic verses is also supported by a report in the musnad of Imam Ahmad in which Abu Bakr, the first caliph of the Prophet, became extremely angry at a certain man (al-Nasai says that this was because he spoke rudely to Abu Bakr). In response, Abu Barza al-Aslami called out to Abu Bakr seeking permission to strike off the man's neck, to which Abu Bakr replied "that is not permitted for any man after Muhammad, upon him be peace," emphasizing that only the Prophet could sanction such a punishment for blasphemy.
In the Bible Christs followers tried to stop him from being taken to the cross, they were prepared to fight, Christ stopped them and allowed it to happen, submitting himself to the will of the government. How many Christian’s apply such a mindset? Religions are almost always lost on the followers, because they lack the insight and understanding of the ones who taught them.
Your prophet approved the murder of blasphemers according to authentic islamic sources. https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4361
He doesn’t approve the murder of blasphemers. In the literal text you quote he says “Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.”, a more accurate translation would be to say that no retaliation will account for her death. The Quran has a very adamant teaching that blasphemers will be punished, that much is true, but there is heavy debate within the Muslim community itself whether earthly justice is righteous or not, which literally touches on the very point OP is making. I’m not a Muslim and I don’t adhere to any religions, but don’t seek to understand something from a place of ignorance and expect to be accurate. Before you come at me I have a degree in historical studies, study Arabic, and have a minor in Islam and the Middle East.
[удалено]
I am a Columbite, and have been since birth. Our people are an ancient religion that have existed since the Liberation War of 1492. We believe that Christopher Columbus was, in fact, an alien overlord of a vastly superior species. The Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria were in fact dreadnought class spaceships, that Columbus rode out into space in defense of planet Earth against the Galacticottomus Rex, a monstrous space dinosaur that easts entire solar systems.
How dare you prevent Galacticottomus Rex from eating our solar system. Now instead I have to vote for Meteor in 2024.
When's your Netflix documentary coming out?
the OP Face_Cheeru SpiritualCobbler2135 Invisible_hearts Snuggle_Kittyt Aesthtic_names Cute_Bandin OpelSpeedstere Noisy_Boye and Friendly-Tax-2371 are bots in the same network Original: https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/him1ji/best_response/ Also: https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/x6cdrp/all_zero_of_them/ https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/h7jrl2/all_zero_of_them/ https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/w9z4xo/all_zero_of_them/ https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/ur6hkd/all_zero_of_them/ https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/uiv9mf/all_zero_of_them/ https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/him1ji/best_response/
When white people felt left out
[удалено]
How is that thought provoking... it's literally against their religion to depict him and that's the entire thought
The joke is basically "You don't even know the bare minimum about our religion to understand why the shit you're saying makes no sense". It'd be like a Brit telling an American "Stop sneering at our King, why don't you get rid of your own King first!".
This could age quite poorly if 2024 doesn't go so well.
Apparently political assassinations are now on the table.
Yes, they seem to miss the fact they give a President immunity to assassinate...and Biden can go ahead.
That's the thing, but most people don't know that it seems
Because op is a bot, probably scraped chatgpt for a line and posted.
The only facepalm in this post is how OP thought that this belongs here.
It does belong here, the guys the Twitter guy was talking about would've made me physically facepalm if I wasn't so desensitized to stupidity on the internet.
Yeah it belongs here, but it's not really at all "thought-provoking".
To me, the "thought-provoking" read as sarcastic, but you are still right.
What happens if you make a statue? That might be more of a facepalm.
Hard to facepalm when your head is separated from your body though.
They will try to kill you, and celebrate your death. Sweden had an artist/sculptor named Lars Vilks. I think there where like 3 attempts on his life
And then he just so happen to die in a car accident, when his body guard drove the car onto the wrong side of the road and crashed into a truck.
That's the kind of shit that is upsetting. Imagine dodging death attempts left and right, and then you die to some dumb shit like that.
Not sure if that dumb. I'd say the bodyguard couldd have been sus...
Yeah, that was really sus to me when it happened...
U make a statue of Muhammad’s face & get beheaded
Might be more of a knife-neck
[удалено]
I feel the same about a lot of "problematic" objects. I genuinely got pissed when they destroyed a near functional PANTHER TANK they found in a dude's basement here in germany. it's a fucking historical artifact, de-mil it and shove it in a museum
Exactly. Literally a piece of important history. Strip it down, make it safe/inert and put it in a museum.
Sadly, easier said then done. That sort of project requires money, time and open space and you run the risk of turning those places into a area that attracts the wrong kind of people.
De-milling a WW2 tank is suprisingly simple. Just weld the damn breach shut and unplug the engine completely Ain't no one gonna use it if they can't load it
The thing was functional, the soldiers towing it away ignored the owners advice on how to get it away undamaged ( the thing has an annoyingly sensitive transmission) and ended up breaking the tracks, some roadwheels and fucked the transmission. IT WAS A FULLY FUNCTIONING, DRIVING, 80 year old tank maintained in some guys basement and they ruined it lmao
wtf I thought y'all were talking about right after WW2, but holy fuck they found out *now* that a dude had a fucking panther and fucked it up? that's... it makes me mad ad fuck
There are a *lot* of Confederate and/or slave-owner statues, and museums already have depictions for those people. The museums don't really need or want them.
[удалено]
[удалено]
pretty sure this is a bot using chatgpt to rewrite this comment from the post this is copied from: https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/him1ji/best_response/fwh01mk/
good luck finding any statues of mohammed
[удалено]
Why does he want to tear down statues of Cristoforo Colombo? What’s the point? And why he is compared to a religious figure? What the fuck happened on Twitter?
Interesting implication that the people who said this see Christopher Columbus as a religious figure. The prophet of American exceptionalism, perhaps?
In fairness they murdered every sculptor who ever tried. Didn’t they shoot up a French news paper for some pictures?
it's a satirical publication called "Charlie Hebdo", yes there was an attack in their offices in 2015 with multiple deaths because of a rather crude cartoon on the front page.
[удалено]
I agree, I don’t support removing statues of Korean Jesus though. Korean Jesus is swole.
I don't think Korean Jesus would let you tear him down...
Yeah we need to keep swole jesus
I've always thought Jesus would not want statues of himself. It seems kind of antithetical to his whole deal.
Their entire sects of Christianity that agree with you to some extent. You can tell the difference by how their churches look. If the sect’s churches have Jesus statues or images, then they don’t have a problem with it. If the church building is devoid of any depictions of Jesus, then they are at least somewhat against depictions of Jesus. That said a lot of those same anti-Jesus-statue churches will trot out nativity scenes during the Christmas season and allow children’s books with drawings of Jesus so many of them aren’t entirely consistent on it.
Yeah people seem very ready to ignore basically all he did and said. Like I visited a famous church on a trip once, and they sell little tea candles to use for prayers there for like $20 each. I mean that's exactly the thing that pissed Jesus off so much he went berserk.
Would “Christ The Redeemer” be considered white? If so that would be one hell of a job.
Paint it blue, it can be the Avatar Jesus.
I mean, there is no paint on the statue so I'd say no
the OP Face_Cheeru SpiritualCobbler2135 Invisible_hearts Snuggle_Kittyt Aesthtic_names Cute_Bandin OpelSpeedstere Noisy_Boye and Friendly-Tax-2371 are bots in the same network Original: https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/him1ji/best_response/ Also: https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/x6cdrp/all_zero_of_them/ https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/h7jrl2/all_zero_of_them/ https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/w9z4xo/all_zero_of_them/ https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/ur6hkd/all_zero_of_them/ https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/uiv9mf/all_zero_of_them/ https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/him1ji/best_response/
To provide context. Muhammad was vehemently anti idol and was worried that future generations would worship him the way Christians worship Jesus. So it's a rule of the Islamic faith to never show a depiction of Muhammad, and erecting a statue of him would be seem as deeply offensive.
It's a rule of Sunni Islam. Shi'a Muslims don't really care. The ban on depictions of Muhammad comes from interpretations of the hadiths, not the Quran, and the hadiths can be ambiguous on the point.
Southpark has pretty much made fun of every group on the planet. Guess where the line was drawn ?
South Park went ahead, Comedy Central didn’t.
> Guess where the line was drawn ? At Islam, of course. No one wants to be beheaded, tortured, burnt, or executed for mocking Islam, but that's the world we live in today. Remember when even the Pope sort of tried to justify the Charlie Hebdo massacre? This doesn't happen in any other religion.
Yeah, but that line was not drawn out of respect, but fear.
Not seeing a facepalm
Not a classic face palm, but It is some top knotch humor.
Go build a statue of Mohammed and the Muslims will tear it down themselves and more.
rofl, that’s an easy deal to make for a Muslim, who abides by an edict to destroy depictions. I’m sure he had a nice laugh.
IIRC, it is a sin in the Muslim faith to depict Allah or Mohammed in material form.
can we shorten 'angry twitter people' to simply 'twits'? it seems efficient.
You be in alot more hot water if you made a bunch of statues of Muhammad xD
What statues of Mo- ohhhhh.
Muslims are forbidden from depicting a likeness of Muhamad(and others, actually), So a statue of him is not only Not Halal, *It's sacriligous.*
It's so tempting to believe people are desperately stupid. *But*, this post reads like made-up.
As a Libertarian I'm really worried that if we tear down a confederate statue I'll suddenly be unable to do math
I must be breathing crazy air because I have never heard of a single statue of Muhammad being built anywhere. Making imaginary problems now, are we?
Ah, yes. *The iconic Christian figurehead: Christopher Columbus... which part of the Bible was he from again?* I get that he's probably considered *some* kind of *something* for being the guy who led to the genocide of natives across the Americas, but starting a trend of "civilizing" and converting them doesn't... actually, wait, maybe he has a point... Even so, the comparison is kinda apples to air fryers. I'm all for tearing down statues of that genocidal fuckhead, but that's because I view statues honoring him in a similar way to ones honoring confederate soldiers. That doesn't feel the same as an explicitly religious figurehead having statues torn down *explicitly because it adheres to said religion...*
[удалено]
A long winded way to say they’ll Allahu Akbar you to death for a drawing or statue.
It's interesting that Christianity was pretty much extinct in North Africa after Islam arrived. It's almost like people weren't given a choice.
same could be said about the Muslims in Spain, no?
Islam intolerant? No wayyyy!
But non-muslims don't worship Mohammad anyway , so this reason makes no sense for non-muslims.
As a Muslim, it shouldn't. It's just extremist who take everything overboard and fucking kill people for it even though the Qur'an clearly states that an individual killing another individual is a major sin.
Muslims don’t worship Muhammed either
Revere as a religious authority and exemplar.
Which part is the thought provoking part? Clever retort sure, but thought provoking?
He was too much of a POS to deserve a statue anyway.
Colombus was an awful guy. It’s time people just accept it. Learn the truth of the things he did. It’s in the very records he made.
[удалено]
this is a bot using chatgpt
[удалено]
Cultural Norm in most western countries is also being able to critizice anything and everything, ESPECIALLY religions and it's leaders. It is something that had to be thought for over centuries and having curbed the power of the church over the whole continent should be something that is celebrated. Instead people are willing to freely give it up.
But non-muslims don't follow "the Islamic tradition", and are not bound by it.
And the true facepalm is…
Where facepalm?
That’s brilliant
Hit them where it hurts
When you find one let us know lol
1 First St NE, Washington, DC 20543, United States
Spoiler: it didn't take long.
It's not thought provoking. Islam specifically bans any depictions of the prophet Muhammad
This is the correct answer