Subject:
|
Re: LEGO Factory Terms Of Service
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 28 Aug 2005 05:55:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2099 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
| |
Islamic views on “idols” are quite a bit more .. umm.. severe? than
Christian views. Basically, Islam wants to avoid any appearance of idol
worship what-so-ever, so images of people are usually avoided. Photographs
of friends and family are permitted, but they aren’t hung on the walls or in
other places that honor the photo (ie, you can keep them in a photo book, or
next to computer). Images of the Prophet, the Prophet’s family, or other
fathers of Islam are very rare. Islamic children’s book generally have
people, but their faces are kept blank.
I should note that these are traditionalist Sunni Muslim beliefs. I’m not
sure about Shi’ite, Sufi, Kharijite or other Islamic views on idols and
imagery. Modernist or reformed Sunnis might also be more relaxed on
observing these traditions.
Contrast this with Eastern Orthodox Icons, Catholic religious paintings, and
Protestant depictions of Jesus. There are some protestant denominations who
take a stronger, more traditional view on images/idols (Jehovah’s Witnesses
come to mind, others too). Historically, early Christians (c.200AD) had a
view very similiar to the Islamic view, but when the religion was abopted by
the Romans, there were some concessions made. Ironically, the split between
Orthodox and Catholic Churchs was a dispute over use of Icons and Idols -
the Orthodox disliked Icons but later embraced them.
-Lenny
|
Thanks for the overview Lenny. I do find the wording of the original post
quite unfortunate (to put it lightly) but I can see that it is, at least,
based on a somewhat valid assumption.
On a related topic, I do find it interesting that most of the major Christian
denominations have now embraced something which is so fundamentally frowned
upon in the Old Testament and even in the New Testament (IIRC). Mind you, I
believe Hollywood had a rule at one point that one could neither portray
Jesus nor God on film so the belief seems to have lived on to some degree.
Again, thanks for the information.
Tim
|
As Lenny explained, there is a tradition in Islamic art of not portraying the human figure.
I’m not sure what you found unfortunately worded about my post. I am asking a
valid question: is the LEGO Factory TOS’ prohibition on the depiction of human
beings an attempt to placate Muslim consumers, or does it have some other
explanation?
The idea of a Scandinavian company kowtowing to Muslim fundamentalists is not
unprecedented:
PM blasts IKEA
“We have over 200 warehouses around the world and have to take cultural
considerations into account. In Muslim countries there is a problem using women
in instructions,” IKEA’s information chief Camilla Lindemann told VG.
Marc Nelson Jr.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LEGO Factory Terms Of Service
|
| (...) And I agreed that the statement was valid. It was the wording I had a problem with. (...) Had it been worded like above I would have had no problem with it at all, and would have looked the topic up or asked about it. As it was you said "Is (...) (19 years ago, 31-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LEGO Factory Terms Of Service
|
| (...) Thanks for the overview Lenny. I do find the wording of the original post quite unfortunate (to put it lightly) but I can see that it is, at least, based on a somewhat valid assumption. On a related topic, I do find it interesting that most of (...) (19 years ago, 26-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
