Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
back alley said:if you want to be offended i can look for my old t-shirt that read...'nuke the gay whales for jesus'
joe
That must be the updated version of the "Nuke the Whales" shirt I had back in the 1970's...
FrankS
Registered User
I love it. And Shakil is correct: Muslims actually do believe in Jesus as prophet, just not the last one, (that one being Muhamed.) Neither faiths "do it" for me. Too much emphasis/dogma on the prophet instead of the original message.
Last edited:
colyn
ישו משיח
photogdave said:You didn't pay someone to wear a Jesus shirt and confront a Muslim woman...
...or did you?
How do we know the woman is talking religion to the Muslim woman??
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Ah, but Colyn, that's the beauty - we don't know and it's that ambiguity that provides the space for the composition to work.
William
William
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
What interests me about this whole discussion is how much we're reading into it based on our own prejudices and assumptions.
The woman in the headscarf could just as easily be saying, "This jacket? I got it at Thudpucker's, on Eighth Avenue."
But as I've posted here before, often our reaction to photographs is based more on what we know, or think we know, or are told about them, than on what's actually in the photograph itself. This can be tricky. Remember how disappointed most of us were when we learned that Doisneau's famous photo of the couple kissing in Paris was made with hired models as part of a stock-shooting session? And many people prefer to just flat refuse to believe that Eugene Smith heavily retouched and composited many of the photos in his Pittsburgh essay, despite the excellent documentation now available.
I try to tell myself that it doesn't matter, that we simply need to accept that the photograph itself is something separate from what we prefer to assume or believe about it. And yet I was still a bit let-down when I saw the original print in the Hall collection, and learned that O. Winston Link had composited together his photo of the steam train passing the drive-in theater at night...
The woman in the headscarf could just as easily be saying, "This jacket? I got it at Thudpucker's, on Eighth Avenue."
But as I've posted here before, often our reaction to photographs is based more on what we know, or think we know, or are told about them, than on what's actually in the photograph itself. This can be tricky. Remember how disappointed most of us were when we learned that Doisneau's famous photo of the couple kissing in Paris was made with hired models as part of a stock-shooting session? And many people prefer to just flat refuse to believe that Eugene Smith heavily retouched and composited many of the photos in his Pittsburgh essay, despite the excellent documentation now available.
I try to tell myself that it doesn't matter, that we simply need to accept that the photograph itself is something separate from what we prefer to assume or believe about it. And yet I was still a bit let-down when I saw the original print in the Hall collection, and learned that O. Winston Link had composited together his photo of the steam train passing the drive-in theater at night...
sienarot
Well-known
Thanks for posting! It's definitely a good catch
schrackman
Established
I happen to be one of those "missionary" types (I'm a Baptist pastor), and I don't find this the least bit offensive. Not sure why you felt some would find it so.
Frankly, it's a great juxtaposition in its own sort of way. Muslim on one hand, Christian on the other. Muhammad on the left, and Jesus on the right. It conveys to me not only the differences between each religion, but how we all make our own choice as to which way we will go, and will suffer the consequences (good or bad) for our decisions.
Great pic, I say.
Ray
Frankly, it's a great juxtaposition in its own sort of way. Muslim on one hand, Christian on the other. Muhammad on the left, and Jesus on the right. It conveys to me not only the differences between each religion, but how we all make our own choice as to which way we will go, and will suffer the consequences (good or bad) for our decisions.
Great pic, I say.
Ray
colinh
Well-known
Thanks for all the comments. Quite a few interesting points raised.
The lady in the T-shirt *is* talking about Jesus. So while it is very easy to interpret things into a picture that did not actually take place, this photo is pretty honest, as it were.
I've noticed it is very difficult to avoid expressing prejudices, if one has them. I do. I'm more with Frank on this one. What some people actually *do* does not seem to bear any resemblance to what they profess to believe in. This goes for "pro lifers" shooting doctors as much as it does for jihadists (?) reclassifying women and children as combatants, so that they can be blown up with a clean conscience.
From the German wikipedia entry, it seems that, according to a UN world population report, over 5000 women and girls are murdered each year on account of "honour". Predominantly in the poorer Islamic countries. It's pointed out that this is a pre-islamic cultural practice (but that the fundamentalist, anti-western mindset appears to be conducive to it). Of course, 5000 world wide is a tiny number compared to the number of murders committed annually in the US, (Thou shalt not kill).
Regarding offensiveness, I don't think I ever mentioned the term. Back alley got it right. I thought it was obvious. Of course, the "concern" might be an insult in itself. *sigh*
colin
The lady in the T-shirt *is* talking about Jesus. So while it is very easy to interpret things into a picture that did not actually take place, this photo is pretty honest, as it were.
I've noticed it is very difficult to avoid expressing prejudices, if one has them. I do. I'm more with Frank on this one. What some people actually *do* does not seem to bear any resemblance to what they profess to believe in. This goes for "pro lifers" shooting doctors as much as it does for jihadists (?) reclassifying women and children as combatants, so that they can be blown up with a clean conscience.
From the German wikipedia entry, it seems that, according to a UN world population report, over 5000 women and girls are murdered each year on account of "honour". Predominantly in the poorer Islamic countries. It's pointed out that this is a pre-islamic cultural practice (but that the fundamentalist, anti-western mindset appears to be conducive to it). Of course, 5000 world wide is a tiny number compared to the number of murders committed annually in the US, (Thou shalt not kill).
Regarding offensiveness, I don't think I ever mentioned the term. Back alley got it right. I thought it was obvious. Of course, the "concern" might be an insult in itself. *sigh*
colin
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
A very interesting photo that leaves you wondering just what is being said. I would love to have been a fly on the wall to be privileged to hear that conversation. I find nothing to take offense at. Thanks for sharing it with us.
Bob
Bob
Michael I.
Well-known
brilliant!
oftheherd
Veteran
I would guess a christian might think how wonderful that someone is trying to save a soul, and a muslim might think how wonderful that someone is resisting the attempt. In which case neither would be offended. The photo is open to many other interpretations. None of which should cause offense or hurt. Some would no doubt be considered humerous.
Thanks for posting. I enjoyed viewing it.
Thanks for posting. I enjoyed viewing it.
V
varjag
Guest
Given the guy's T-shirt, the opposite is far more likely.Ducky said:
peterm1
Veteran
Must admit, I get cranky with proselytisers trying to convert me. I refuse to be rude to them but I still make it known and abundantly clear to them that I will not discuss or debate it with them. (I am religious enough - but in my own way - and do not need someone claiming my scalp.)
So I find the idea of christian religious fundamentalists approaching someone who is clearly of another faith and trying to convince them to convert to be quite offensive. (If this is what it indeed is)
However, the photo is not in the least offensive. In fact I thought it to be a good piece of reportage.
So I find the idea of christian religious fundamentalists approaching someone who is clearly of another faith and trying to convince them to convert to be quite offensive. (If this is what it indeed is)
However, the photo is not in the least offensive. In fact I thought it to be a good piece of reportage.
Last edited:
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
colinh said:OK, I had another look and it's a female she's talking to. So I suppose that's OK.
Although some of you misunderstood about offending people. That wasn't the point.
colin
I was thinking more like ...
"You touch my butt once more and I will see to it that you never pedal your wares round here again!"
