Comments on: Muslim Chokes Atheist, Judge dismisses case. One atheist's thoughts on politics, religion, and philsophy Sat, 28 Mar 2015 21:28:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Dylan Walker Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:22:08 +0000 Feel free to post as long as you want.

And on the 2nd commandment about graven images the point you make was not lost on the protestant reformers in the 16th century. One of the unfortunate side effects of the reformation was the defacement and destruction of lots of medieval and renaissance works of art for precisely that reason.

By: SevenOfNine Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:34:28 +0000 Excellent point on the “if people only said things that never offended anyone then we would not need a first amendment.”

I find it interesting that a guy dressed as Muhammad was attacked when there were (in all likelihood) women walking around in slutty nurse/witch/bumblebee costumes. Shouldn’t that incense a Muslim as well? Some of those women were probably walking around without a male escort, should they have been attacked and would the court still back the religious defense? If we kowtow to even a few facets of the Muslim religion simply because we fear retaliation, we are essentially allowing them to force their religious beliefs on us. Maybe they’re not allowed to draw a picture of Muhammad, but I should be able to do so. While wearing a tank top. And sitting on a sidewalk at night without a male escort. All of these should be equally offensive to Muslims yet I should be afforded protection to do each within this country.

On a related note, it struck me not too long ago that the Bible has that whole “no graven images” commandment. “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth…” Okay, stop right there. If I cannot create any image of anything or anyone in heaven, does that extend to God and Jesus? Yes, it goes on to say you shall not worship these images, but it starts by saying you shall not create them. Think of all the Renaissance art, the statues and necklaces of Jesus on the cross, the medals of the catholic saints (to which people pray, and that seems forbidden according to this commandment).

My point being this: because the monotheistic religions are all six-of-one-half-a-dozen-of-the-other it’s not a leap to think that Christianity had a hard and fast rule about not creating images of God because it would show him as less awesome than he really is. The full scope of this commandment was probably lost in translation when the Bible made it to Europe and artists began depicting biblical events.

Interestingly, the Quaran does not expressly forbid depictions of Muhammad. In fact, there is a lot of art from as early as the 1300’s that show images of Muhammad. This whole controversy is a very recent development.

Sorry, that was a little disjointed (and long). I’ll try to keep my posts shorter lest I be instructed to get my own damn blog.