She was clearly taking glamor shots, with who knows how many people, in an entourage. Yes, that part of the world isn’t known for being expressly liberal about women. So what kind of outrage are we all supposed to have for Rhianna? Is she somehow special? I’m not sure too many churches or temples or mosques would be cool with a star just showing up without notice and lounging all over a religious place for publicity. If she didn’t ask permission to do a photo-shoot on their site, then they have a right to kick her out. Misogyny or not.
1 Like
I just said the same. Agreed.
blasphemous
^this. If these photos count as blasphemous I’d like to see the rules that she’s supposedly breaking. Any “blasphemy” is merely in the heads of the people who see those images as sexually suggestive.
1 Like
You’re focusing on the wrong aspect of this issue.
No house of worship is going to object to standard fare “tourist” style photographs of a religious location. It’s when the photographer starts behaving inappropriately in their photographing that it becomes a problem. You can’t go into the Vatican and photograph yourself flipping off the Pope or whatever and not expect to be tossed out for it.
1 Like
It doesn’t have to necessarily be suggestive, perhaps it just falls under disrespectful, because she is in a “sacred” place of God, posing like a self absorbed narcissist, taking photos about her appearance. What don’t you understand? I understand, and I’m an agnostic atheist.
2 Likes
That’s not important here.
Ms. Fenty sought access to a house of worship. She agreed to their rules, then defied them. You don’t enter someone’s home and then defy their rules. You are a guest, you are there purely at the grace of your hosts, if they seek to eject you for any reason, for any perceived slight or insult, that is their right.
It doesn’t matter if you like their rules, or think they’re reasonable. They can have the most absurd, arbitrary rules in the world, but that doesn’t matter if you agree to abide by those rules.
5 Likes
It’s when the photographer starts behaving inappropriately in their photographing that it becomes a problem.
Don’t let a lack of facts or evidence stop you from just making up a story. We’ve got tales of entourages and bad photographers when the linked article had no evidence of any of that.
Differentiation between the same actions when performed by a tourist or a celebrity seems weird to me plus they’re just stupid because: Streisand Effect. They didn’t kick her out: no one (especially not me) would’ve been looking at Rhiana’s instagram. Now: type the name of the mosque into google images and enjoy seeing Rhiana.
I just checked and see nothing flagged by you.
1 Like
Thanks. This site has been strange for me today, unless the NSA is pulling pranks. (lol, I hope?) Earlier I had a “like” on something I don’t even remember liking, then I got a message on this thread asking if I wanted to flag something, but I didn’t. Ghost in the machine.
I’m pretty sure if a male artist went into their Mosque and started making suggestive poses for the camera, they’d kick him out too. And they’d be entirely within their rights to do so.
If a man went to the Vatican and took a picture of himself air-humping some statue of a revered saint, they’d get thrown out post haste. They could not then turn around and accuse the church of homophobic discrimination for ejecting them. Why? Because the the ejection was not based in homophobia! If a woman did the same thing, she’s be kicked out too. The rule does not discriminate.
ag·nos·tic (n.)
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
a·the·ist (n.)
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
You cannot be both. Figure this out before telling me that I don’t understand something. If you were a true atheist you would not be placing the freedom of a religion to behave in a sex-imbalanced way over the freedom of a person to do as other people are doing.
1 Like
You must be new around here.
1 Like
Exactly what I was referring to.
lol new.
I hope you’ll understand why I’ll place more relevance on the actual definition of words than some dude’s webcomic from a month ago. (wow old timer, a month!)
1 Like
Yes, your intelligence and decorum is remarkable, so much so that no one is your league, therefore I shall leave you in the thread alone. I imagine you experience this phenomenon frequently.
Let me get this straight.
First, you claim I’m making things up. Or maybe that the BBC is making things up? I’m not sure. In either case, you seem to be focused on a lack of direct evidence, which, I will grant is the case. We are being made to place a certain amount of faith in various reporting parties with this story.Which is kind of how the world works - I don’t have to have seen direct evidence of Mt. Fuji to be able to have reasonable certainty that it exists.
Unless I have some reason to doubt the BBC or the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque Centre, I’m going to take their reports at face value, especially in the face of a lack of other conflicting reports.
Second, you turn around and claim that Ms. Fenty’s photography and actions are identical the photography of others. You fail to offer any evidence for this claim, but unlike the BBC or the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque Centre, you have no credibility or reputation of any kind which would compel me or others to believe you. This combined with the nature of your other posts leads me to be skeptical of your claim.
Third, you incorrectly cite the Streisand Effect. This terms describes “the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet” (Wikipedia).
The Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque Centre has in no way attempted to hide, remove, or censor any information. Additionally, the mosque in question is already a very famous site, and is far more well known for it’s own merits than for this unimportant event. Also, a google image search does not in fact bring up any pictures of Ms. Fenty.
Please try again.
I pride myself on my awful decorum. I like that you think you’ll leave me but I know you’ll be back: baiting people with devil’s advocacy is my spectator sport, especially when they’re defending rights of religion over rights of an individual.
1 Like
Even sticking strictly to the exact definitions you cite, there is no logical conflict.
ag·nos·tic (n.)
- a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not
profess true atheism.a·the·ist (n.) One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or
gods.
Agnosticism is concerned with the ability or possibility of knowing whether there is a god.
Atheism is concerned with an individual’s beliefs regarding whether there is a god.
There is no logical contradiction in believing there is not a god, and simultaneously believing it is impossible to know whether there is a god.
…defending rights of religion over rights of an individual.
Individuals do not have the right to enter another’s home, business, or place of worship uninivited.
Please try again.
Also, the fact that you are self aware enough to admit that you have awful “decorum” (synonyms include decency, courtesy, dignity, and respectability), yet you celebrate this trait rather than seek to remedy it, suggests a certain degree of misanthropy.
You said this:
It’s when the photographer starts behaving inappropriately in their photographing that it becomes a problem.
The BBC article says nothing of the sort. It alleges the poses were the “inappropriate behaviour”.
Second, you turn around and claim that Ms. Fenty’s photography and actions are identical the photography of others.
I posted a picture from the courtyard of the same mosque which appears to show a woman, without a hijab, lying against a pillar wearing a flowy skirt.
Then there’s this image and PLENTY MORE online.
Third, you incorrectly cite the Streisand Effect.
They deemed her photographs inappropriate, which would suggest it’s something they don’t want their mosque to be associated with. Now they are out there and show up when you search for the mosque’s name using Google Image search as I said. Is your Google broken?
Please try again if you want to look even more silly.
1 Like
