hipsterdufus
Photographer?
I'd suggest reading Robert Anton Wilson's "Cosmic Trigger" if you believe this to be the case.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Hmmm.
The latter part of this discussion reminds me of a comment that a colleague made after watching The Dawk debate with the former Archbishop of Canterbury.
"It was," he told us, "like watching two eunuchs debating the best way to have sex. Long on theory but awfully short on facts."
The latter part of this discussion reminds me of a comment that a colleague made after watching The Dawk debate with the former Archbishop of Canterbury.
"It was," he told us, "like watching two eunuchs debating the best way to have sex. Long on theory but awfully short on facts."
DominikDUK
Well-known
Hmmm.
The latter part of this discussion reminds me of a comment that a colleague made after watching The Dawk debate with the former Archbishop of Canterbury.
"It was," he told us, "like watching two eunuchs debating the best way to have sex. Long on theory but awfully short on facts."
Superb Quote love it
Asher Kelman
Newbie
Everyone has the option of following their cultural tradition, be they part of a small family or a massive religious community. I understand the concept of not making "graven images" as for much of man's history, we've worshiped all sorts of objects including deified pharaohs and Roman emperors. The Royalty in the U.K. consider themselves head of the Church and the Pope is likewise one step away from Deity.
One can easily arrive at a fairly defendable assertion that worshipping idols, inanimate or as men, is damaging to the equitable progress of humanity. This can come either from the starting point in atheism or in the monotheistic faiths following the Abrahamic, Semetic traditions. So it's hardly surprising that concomitant with devout belief in the universal Deity that is, to all intents and purposes, required to have an abstract form, that picture taking of things that in the past have been viewed as gods could be frowned upon. I know from the Jewsih tradition, no sculpture or painting could be allowed that was a perfect rendition, as it would then be "eligible" for some version of idol worship. After all, the Bible has a prohibition of making a "graven image" for the purpose of worship.
Islam, having similar roots also has this aversion to exact copies of the human face for all to admit and venerate. So, in a sense of caution, akin to modesty,more zealous folk might tend to shy away from formal portraits.
No one is saying I can't take pictures as I please. If anyone wants to make rules for this who follow their religious advice, why should it bother me. Only where that would infringe on my own freedom would it bother me.
In general, I've seen no fanatical interference with Muslim taking pictures, except perhaps of those who do not want their picture taken. Fine by my if that's their tradition!
As to the Indiian seminary, they now deny any Fatwah being issues against pursuing study of photography. Even if they did, so what? Other Islamic authorities haven't supported them.
Islam is not a closed organization, there are various centers of learning and tradition and not all Fatwas are accepted by everyone!
So I'd not be concerned!
Asher
One can easily arrive at a fairly defendable assertion that worshipping idols, inanimate or as men, is damaging to the equitable progress of humanity. This can come either from the starting point in atheism or in the monotheistic faiths following the Abrahamic, Semetic traditions. So it's hardly surprising that concomitant with devout belief in the universal Deity that is, to all intents and purposes, required to have an abstract form, that picture taking of things that in the past have been viewed as gods could be frowned upon. I know from the Jewsih tradition, no sculpture or painting could be allowed that was a perfect rendition, as it would then be "eligible" for some version of idol worship. After all, the Bible has a prohibition of making a "graven image" for the purpose of worship.
Islam, having similar roots also has this aversion to exact copies of the human face for all to admit and venerate. So, in a sense of caution, akin to modesty,more zealous folk might tend to shy away from formal portraits.
No one is saying I can't take pictures as I please. If anyone wants to make rules for this who follow their religious advice, why should it bother me. Only where that would infringe on my own freedom would it bother me.
In general, I've seen no fanatical interference with Muslim taking pictures, except perhaps of those who do not want their picture taken. Fine by my if that's their tradition!
As to the Indiian seminary, they now deny any Fatwah being issues against pursuing study of photography. Even if they did, so what? Other Islamic authorities haven't supported them.
Islam is not a closed organization, there are various centers of learning and tradition and not all Fatwas are accepted by everyone!
So I'd not be concerned!
Asher
N.delaRua
Well-known
I think the best practice is the one protected by the constitution, essentially, live and let live.
However, that leads to many challenging situations as there is a supposed separation of church and state. If we are truly to live in a secular society then things like moments of silence are most appropriate as opposed to saying a prayer before a public event.
That lets anyone think what they want, and does not impose a view upon anyone.
I'll admit that I am a molecular biologist and I really struggle to communicate my view of the world based on my understanding of nature. Worst of all my view of the nature is not really all that enlightening or attractive so its hard for people to relate.
However, I do wait for the world to stop reading texts that are thousands of years out of date as the end all be all. When a religion claims that the words on its book's pages are literally the word of God, there is not really much room for a conversation. I find that a rather nasty situation for humanity.
However, that leads to many challenging situations as there is a supposed separation of church and state. If we are truly to live in a secular society then things like moments of silence are most appropriate as opposed to saying a prayer before a public event.
That lets anyone think what they want, and does not impose a view upon anyone.
I'll admit that I am a molecular biologist and I really struggle to communicate my view of the world based on my understanding of nature. Worst of all my view of the nature is not really all that enlightening or attractive so its hard for people to relate.
However, I do wait for the world to stop reading texts that are thousands of years out of date as the end all be all. When a religion claims that the words on its book's pages are literally the word of God, there is not really much room for a conversation. I find that a rather nasty situation for humanity.
Addy101
Well-known
Well, tell this to the Christian (!) villagers in little asia who were murdered by the crusaders, tell this to the indigenous people off south America. Also, tell this to the Jews who got protection in the Morish territories from the prosecution in Christian Spain. Despite Jesus' words, christianity isn't a religion of peace, let alone tolerance.
Time for a peaceful picture:
Unfortunately, Buddhism isn't peaceful either...... :bang:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
N.delaRua
Well-known
In the US sorry.
mike-s
Established
Turning back to the comment on secular religions, I think communism stands as a pretty good example. Although not called by the same name, it had its martyrs, saints, priests, prophets and sought to impose a rigid creed on its subjects and stifle rational thought. It did not however, oppose birth control, insist on the practice of genital surgery, restrict the education of women or promise an afterlife (at least as far as I know). I don't know whether there was a general objection to photography, other than by decadent westerners
My use of the past tense in referring to communism is intentional.
My use of the past tense in referring to communism is intentional.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Of course the religious right is principally an American invention, despite the old definition of the Church of England as "the Tory party at prayer". In the UK, and especially in the Methodist tradition (as in my native Cornwall), the religious left is much more familiar. Those familiar only with American Christianity may care to follow http://dougalthink.blogspot.fr/2010/05/may-day-may-day.html where they will find five more verses after this:
1. You faithful saints and martyrs
Who fought for truth and right,
We ask your prayers and blessings
To aid us in our fight.
Your faith shall be our watchword,
Your cause shall be our own -
To fight against oppression
Till it be overthrown.
Lift up the people's banner
And let the ancient cry
For justice and for freedom
Re-echo to the sky.
I've been thinking lately about trying to illustrate some of these old workers' anthems, for example with the pictures I took of the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders in Glasgow in the early 1970s. The words given above are not the ones I learned as a child from my great-grandmother, a millionaire's daughter until her father lost all his money. She joined the Party in 1917. "Lift up the people's banner/Now trailing in the dust/A million hearts will rally/To guard it's sacred trust." Quite unlike the 1% today, then.
Thus can religion be interpreted to suit various ends.
And to keep it bang on topic, it was a bit later in the 1970s when a Socialist Workers' Party objected to my taking his picture in Bristol. "You have the right to ask to take my picture," he spluttered. "Yes," I replied. "And I chose not to exercise that right."
The trouble is that political extremists are always convinced that you're taking their pictures as part of a Wicked Government Plot, rather than as a record of what happened or even occasionally out of solidarity. Thus do political and religious extremism coincide.
Cheers,
R.
1. You faithful saints and martyrs
Who fought for truth and right,
We ask your prayers and blessings
To aid us in our fight.
Your faith shall be our watchword,
Your cause shall be our own -
To fight against oppression
Till it be overthrown.
Lift up the people's banner
And let the ancient cry
For justice and for freedom
Re-echo to the sky.
I've been thinking lately about trying to illustrate some of these old workers' anthems, for example with the pictures I took of the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders in Glasgow in the early 1970s. The words given above are not the ones I learned as a child from my great-grandmother, a millionaire's daughter until her father lost all his money. She joined the Party in 1917. "Lift up the people's banner/Now trailing in the dust/A million hearts will rally/To guard it's sacred trust." Quite unlike the 1% today, then.
Thus can religion be interpreted to suit various ends.
And to keep it bang on topic, it was a bit later in the 1970s when a Socialist Workers' Party objected to my taking his picture in Bristol. "You have the right to ask to take my picture," he spluttered. "Yes," I replied. "And I chose not to exercise that right."
The trouble is that political extremists are always convinced that you're taking their pictures as part of a Wicked Government Plot, rather than as a record of what happened or even occasionally out of solidarity. Thus do political and religious extremism coincide.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Also, its claims to dialectical materialism are distinctly shaky. Marxism-Leninism and Maoism are very much "jam tomorrow" rather than promising immediate and genuine material improvement.
Cheers,
R.
Boris Stupak
Well-known
Church of the Subgenius
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
Here we are in the 21st century and we're still giving credence and time to the ramblings of religious zealots. We must be bonkers.
Science has the benefit of at least trying to explain cause and effect in our world and beyond and admitting defeat if it can't explain it (yet). Religion, on the other hand creates some absurd, abstract belief system to fill in the blanks and often persecutes non-believers for not believing.....
Challenging the unknown and looking for empirical proof and scientific fact is healthy and progressive, in my opinion. Being dogged by religious dogma and, worse still, imposing your "beliefs" on the impressionable young - purely by accident of their birth into a family from (enter name of religion here) is both unfair and irrational to me.
Science has the benefit of at least trying to explain cause and effect in our world and beyond and admitting defeat if it can't explain it (yet). Religion, on the other hand creates some absurd, abstract belief system to fill in the blanks and often persecutes non-believers for not believing.....
Challenging the unknown and looking for empirical proof and scientific fact is healthy and progressive, in my opinion. Being dogged by religious dogma and, worse still, imposing your "beliefs" on the impressionable young - purely by accident of their birth into a family from (enter name of religion here) is both unfair and irrational to me.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
For "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" substitute "monetarist child" or "Keynsian child" and you see just how religion is given a free ride when it comes to the rational bringing up of children. Why on earth should anyone be expected to believe anything, just because their parents do?
Then again, I suppose there are Nikon users and Canon users...
Cheers,
R.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
They shall all burn in everlasting hellfire! Only Panasonic is the true camera...
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Re-read the comment.
One could go on endlessly saying "yeah well people of this religion did X atrocity" - because so far as I know, truly atrocious people have subscribed to practically every extant religion.