Quite. Certainly, the Muslims I know are not loonies like that. But then again, I don't know many right-wing born-again Christian loonies either. It's always all too easy for those who naturally foam at the mouth to demonize any group they may choose. Who's for all gays being mad rapist paedophiles?well done, give the minority extremists as much coverage as you can:bang:
well done, give the minority extremists as much coverage as you can:bang:
True, but once you get into theology, there's not always that much scope for reason. For example, I'd suggest that blasphemy is impossible, because any deity that is weak enough to be harmed by blasphemy ain't much of a deity, and any professed believer who finds blasphemy offensive enough to warrant temporal punishment is not really convinced that they're right. If they were, they'd simply treat the "blasphemers" as misguided. This is not to say that "blasphemy" may not offend people: only that those who are too deeply offended are not bothering to think things through.I assume the seminary think it is wrong to take pictures of people, but it may very well be that they have no objections to pictures of objects - say for a technical manual. Religion and religious views are not subjects to be discussed in this forum, but I think it may be OK to discuss (for clarification, not for bashing...) issues involving religious views' impact on photography.
The idea could probably be summed up as: If there is a God, He has to be perfect. Any attempt to try to make something (or more importantly; someone) look better than they are, would be like lying or trying to be a better artist than God Himself.
We may or may not accept this point of view, but as always it is a good idea to try to understand the background, cultural context and philosophy before hammering down harsh comments on the computer keyboard... 🙂
This isn't about giving extremists as much publicity as possible, it's about exposing limited thinking to the light of reason.