Do you think that San Francisco would promote their sex fair using images of Mohammed?

Question

Like they do to this one using christianity:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298277,00.html
If it is not intended as a direct assault on christianity why don't they throw other religious rigures in the promo? Islam is as much against homosexuality as is christianity, so why the hypocrisy?

Is it because they feel safe to insult christians knowing that they will not cut off their heads?

Answer 1

Actually, an honest assessment of the Hadiths clearly shows that Mohammad did not turn on one of his disciples who appears to have been homosexual, Abu Huraira seems to have been gay and to have approached Mohammad about it who told him that the "pen was dry" (another words it could not be changed - he was as he was and must be). The arguments against homosexuality in Islam are based on the sin of the people of Lut -- primarily forceful castration of natural males and male/male rape -- both things that I think are wrong as well - don't you? Those who were natural eunuchs with no interest in women were recognized by early Islam just as they were by early Christianity. It was not until later that Christianity condemned homosexuality when it was not rape or men who preferred women using men instead or going to the male temple prostitutes of pagan gods (like the Great Mother); and it was even after that that Islam, primarily due to Christian victories against its holdings in the colonial period -- began to turn to extreme homophobia. We know beyond doubt that things were nowhere near as bad at one time. Not only is this revealed in the tales of Abu Nuwas, but it is also recorded in the history of the use of wine boys and special male concubines among the Arabian and related peoples up until the Christian conquests in the 1800s. There are even verses in the Koran that many translators think may refer to homosexual activity in paradise, particularly when compared to similar references to the ever virgin (perpetually fresh) girls expected to be given to each man, particularly martyrs. It has even been argued by some that the verses imply pederasty -- although that is really meaningless, as pederasty was much different in a world with an average life span of less than half ours -- when 13 year olds were considered adults in all cultures we have studied (thus the bar mitvah, for example, in Judaism) Verses of interest might start with:

Koran 52:24
Round about them will serve, to them, boys (handsome) as pearls well-guarded.

Koran 56:17
Round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness.

Koran 76:19
And round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness: if thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered pearls.

So in any event, I think that there are legitimate arguments and certainly historical proof that Islam has not always felt about male/male sex as it does now.

As to your specific question, no they wouldn't, I don't think -- not because of head cutting, but because of the riots and destruction of the innocent that would follow in Muslim countries if they did. It isn't out of fear, its out of a desire not to cause deaths and harm to people one will never see.

Additionally, honestly -- the danger here is from fundamentalist Christianity, not fundamentalist Islam. Coral Ridge ministries can wield more power that all the fundamentalist Muslims in the country - and they belong to a smallish denomination where there is much sentiment in support of killing gays... and women who have had abortions... and liberals... and so forth.

I am reminded when we went to Salem MA two years ago, and took a young Arabian friend who is in University here and then will go to work translating for our government as he can never go back, and there are departments that don't kick you out for being gay like the military does. As we passed through the great triangular area in Salem on foot with thousands of others, a small group of fundamentalist Christians were in the middle of it, guarded by local police, with huge signs on 20 foot poles; and loudspeakers. Our Arabian friend, one of the sweetest gay bois you could ever meet, very slightly built and handsome, and gentle and kind and thoughtful, stopped and carefully read the whole of the signs, then he turned to us and a half dozen straight friends that were with us and said, very seriously, "they are just like the fundamentalists at home, except they are Christian, they hate the same things."

Finally, lest you say Christian fundamentalists have committed no violence -- I point you to abortion clinic bombings, I point you to Oklahoma City, I point you to lynchings, well within living memory, committed by members of the SBC, I point you to recent attacks at gay clubs and so on and on.

Yes, there is a segment of Islam that is more likely than any segment of Christianity to kill THEMSELVES in order to take anyone with them -- but realistically, if groups like the Reconstructionist Christians thought for a moment that they could get away with it -- the religious law here would be harsher than religious law is in Iran, and the gutters would run red with blood.

I too fear fundamentalist Islam, but I recognize that the difference between them and fundamentalist Christianity is the amount of power in their own areas that each holds. Thank Lord Christ for mainstream Christianity, mainstream Islam failed decades ago -- and there is the real difference, at least so I think.

Kind thoughts,

Reyn
http://www.rebuff.org

Answer 2

That small group in no way represents the majority of Gay people. Maybe the group is atheist who is making a political statement. The Christians are the largest religious group in America. The Christian majority have done everything in it's power to stop equal rights for Gay's.

I don't think it's any difference from the movie Sister Act.

Answer 3

I thought it was tacky, and I'm gay. But as to why not including Mohammed: Probably because there aren't that many Muslims in America, and virtually none in power politically or economically. Why bother with someone who isn't a factor in your life? I doubt it even occurred to anyone to consider it. But I did think it was really tacky.

Answer 4

No, it is not precise, yet while maximum persons see "San Francisco" and "gay" in an identical paragraph what consists of concepts is "Saddam and Gomorrah" from the Bible. The ask your self is going away promptly, makes you sense sorry for them, and you pass on. Their "Church" is possibly not rooted in any of the Biblical ideals maximum Christians have so the full adventure turns right into a circus of varieties. maximum of flaming homo's basically love the ask your self cost, and make it undesirable for the others, unhappy unhappy unhappy

Answer 5

well, Im not personally offended but, I can see where they are coming from,

It just seems to me that the religious groups dont understand that some things thrive on the publicity they generate simply buy exsiting,

also, Im planning a hetrosexual festaval in my town,,, wait till you see poster for that :) you think I can get miller to sponsor that ???

Answer 6

You kidding?? They can get away with it with us, but they know there'd be worldwide riots if they did it to muslims.

But honestly, I saw that more as a parody of DaVinci's painting than an attack on Christianity....

Answer 7

For the same reason they don't want to offend the jews by using pictures of a rabbi.

Answer 8

How about a picture of Mohammed with a d*ld* in his turban?

Answer 9

The catholic church has no credibility whatsoever and as stated before, it is just a parody.