3 ms·

> "But not showing a religous figure on television has no effect apart from a negative one among the group. I see no harm in respecting this." You are making t

> "But not showing a religous figure on television has no effect apart from a negative one among the group. I see no harm in respecting this." You are making the "Peyote-Popping Native" argument: http://lesswrong.com/lw/24o/eight_short_studies_on_excuses/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/24o/eight_short_studies_on_excuses/ If you respect this, it will be an example for more to come. How about prohibiting alcohol production? Since it is forbidden by Islam and its consumption does not have much positive effect on the society.

maxklein 16y ago
That argument does not work. What this is equivalent to is the U.S passing a law in the U.S saying that Saudi Arabia should start serving Alcohol. The prophet comes from Islam. Without Islam, there would be no prophet. If you are going to use this figure, then I believe you should abide by the rules of the movement that created it, otherwise don't use it. This is an old law that harms nobody. There is no slippery slope here.
- oozcitak 16y ago
  I understand you. But there is a slippery slope. Here is an example to support my argument. Koran says that you should leave off your business every Friday for the Jumu'ah prayer: "O ye who believe! When the call is proclaimed to prayer on Friday, hasten earnestly to the Remembrance of Allah, and leave off business." (Koran 62:9) A half an hour prayer on Fridays practiced by a small group of people would harm nobody, right? I live in Turkey and I can attest that local authorities in Turkey are happy to give their employees that freedom. Besides, what is the odds that an entire brigade of firefighters turns out to be devote Muslims? http://bit.ly/bbQWcB http://bit.ly/bbQWcB [Google translation of a Turkish news page]. Once you start stretching the laws to hand out privileges to a group of people, more privileges and more groups with different requests will follow.

maxklein 16y ago

That argument does not work. What this is equivalent to is the U.S passing a law in the U.S saying that Saudi Arabia should start serving Alcohol. The prophet comes from Islam. Without Islam, there would be no prophet. If you are going to use this figure, then I believe you should abide by the rules of the movement that created it, otherwise don't use it. This is an old law that harms nobody. There is no slippery slope here.

oozcitak 16y ago
I understand you. But there is a slippery slope. Here is an example to support my argument. Koran says that you should leave off your business every Friday for the Jumu'ah prayer: "O ye who believe! When the call is proclaimed to prayer on Friday, hasten earnestly to the Remembrance of Allah, and leave off business." (Koran 62:9) A half an hour prayer on Fridays practiced by a small group of people would harm nobody, right? I live in Turkey and I can attest that local authorities in Turkey are happy to give their employees that freedom. Besides, what is the odds that an entire brigade of firefighters turns out to be devote Muslims? http://bit.ly/bbQWcB http://bit.ly/bbQWcB [Google translation of a Turkish news page]. Once you start stretching the laws to hand out privileges to a group of people, more privileges and more groups with different requests will follow.