Lowe's Pulls Ads From American Muslim Time Slot

[Fairy1]

Gosh, guys. What are we talking about on this thread? Islam, like Christianity, is one of the major three monotheistic religions. It is not some dangerous cult, unless, like any religion, it is treated as such. I'm sorry, but it is plain wrong and seriously offensive to criticize the religion and its adherents as a whole.

Islam is the "tar baby"? (Come on). It's evil because Mohammed was a warrior? So were many of our (Christian) prophets. Mohammed is not their god. He's a prophet. And our bible is FILLED with acts of what can be deemed genocide and warfare. God commanded his people to "utterly destroy" every Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, and three other tribes that most would not recognize, leaving alive "nothing that breathes". Duet. 20:16-17. Joshua slaughtered everyone in Hebron and Debir, "utterly destroy[ing] all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded." Joshua 10:36-41. How about Psalm 137 that states "happy shall he be" who dashes Babylonian babies against stones in retribution for the captivity in Babylon?

I could go on and on.

What is important in any religion is what people do with it. Extremists throughout history have twisted religion to suit their sick desires. Today, we suffer as a result of extremist terrorists. And in this country, we have been led to believe that ALL Muslims feel the same way that a bunch of sick, fanatical monsters do. But that is not true. It is offensive to say so. Which is what this thread, really, is about. And, it is small minded to demand that all members of one religion prove they are not as evil as members of the religion who twist it for evil purposes. Frankly, it is ridiculous to me.



Liberals didn't say Obama wasn't black enough. There were discussions on the right and the left as to whether his ethnic background - white mother, African immigrant father, raised by a white grandma and mom in Hawaii - would resonate with black Americans whose cultural experience is far different. Media articles phrased the topic in the form of the question, "Is Obama black enough?" to spark interest in the discussion. That is not bigotry.

Using a monkey reference to refer to Gingrich is offensive. But that is not bigotry either. Reference to apes or monkeys is a historically bigoted way to refer to black people, not to white politicians. Thus, it would be bigoted (and not merely offensive) if Gingrich was black.



Huge difference. Nowhere is there an e-mail from Hope Depot admitting it pulled ads due to pressure from anti-Muslim groups. Lowe's did. Instead, Home Depot stated that one ad ran on the show, but that they were never sponsors and didn't plan to be. Had Lowe's said that, again, we would not be having a discussion about this at all.

Gitana - I thanked this post - but I don't feel that was enough.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. You are always the voice of reason.

 

[Herding Cats]

That's roughly what I thought, Kimberly. Thanks. My point was just that in centuries past people got married earlier. Yes, nine is pushing it, but who knows if that is literal? What we do know is that concepts of childhood were very different in the past (and no wonder, given that most people were dead before they were 30!).

Blaming modern Muslims because their prophet was a "child molester" is a dangerous game. I doubt Jews and Christians want the prophets of the Old Testament (or even Jehovah Himself) held to modern legal standards.

Just a really quick note to Nova, and then I'm getting the heck outta dodge...

In the jewish tradition, if a girl lost her virginity (*whether intentional or not) before she began menarche, she was considered spoiled, and "trash". Girls, generally, spent most of their time with women, and not men. The reasons are many, but there was also the added protection of other women who watched out for, and taught, the girls. They were also the ones who knew if a girl was 'pure', and menstruating, and thus able to marry.

Mary, being betrothed, would have already begun menarche. Even in today's early menses onset, most 9 year olds are not menstruating. Thus, I find it very difficult to believe that Mohammed's 9 year old "wife" was anything but a child, and if they had sex, it was indeed molestation.

Just for reference, molestation of a girl was an absolute sin (I don't know about the boys, sorry). Like most traditional jewish law, this was based in finances and family stability. If a girl was "defiled", she would have a very difficult time finding a husband. Her dowry would be downgraded, her bride-price would be lowered, and it would be likely that if she married, it would be as a second wife, or third, or fourth. That did not bring honor to the family; nor did it bring financial benefit for them. And, honestly, most second wives (and thirds, fourths, et cetera) were not respected in many ways; they could've been the best caretaker, maker of cheese, weaver, potter, healer...but because they were not first, they were not respected.

A good story to read about this sort of thing is the story of Dinah, Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and (oh geez, I forgot the other one). The book "The Red Tent" is a great, novelistic rendering of the story, and is very interesting in the details and the strictures of how jewish life was lived in that time, and about customs and mores regarding girls, menstruation, family, and honor.

I honestly believe that while Mary was young, she was of an age to marry. I also honestly believe that Mohammed's 9 year old wife was not of an age to marry, and that this was considered (both then and now) child molestation, and the only reason Mohammed was able to "get away with it" was because he was a violent, despotic ruler of his people, and they didn't dare say word one.

Not so short, but I do hope this sheds some light on what is commonly held beliefs about the issue.

Best-
Herding Cats

 

[Kimberlyd125]

That's roughly what I thought, Kimberly. Thanks. My point was just that in centuries past people got married earlier. Yes, nine is pushing it, but who knows if that is literal? What we do know is that concepts of childhood were very different in the past (and no wonder, given that most people were dead before they were 30!).

Blaming modern Muslims because their prophet was a "child molester" is a dangerous game. I doubt Jews and Christians want the prophets of the Old Testament (or even Jehovah Himself) held to modern legal standards.

But 9 is most definitely a child.

And Mohammed had sexual relations with the child.

Much different than an immaculate conception IMO.

I realize not everybody believes in the way The Bible tells the story.

I'm not trying to get into a religious debate. But trying to compare someone who actually had intercourse with a 9 year old to God is a little bit out there.

JMO

 

[jjw]

Exactly.

I would also venture to say that the vast majority of companies that advertise on television don't do so in support of specific programs, but rather in order to drive revenues by marketing to their targeted demographics. A company the size of Lowe's invests a tremendous amount of money to determine where they'll get the most bang for their advertising dollars. There would have been a lot less fallout if they had pulled their advertising quietly and, if called on it, just explained they realized it wasn't the right advertising vehicle for their brand.

But that's not what they said and so, IMO, their position is crystal clear. And while it wouldn't otherwise have been anyone's business, they made it everyone's business by disclosing their reasons for pulling their commercials.[/QUOTE

]

:gthanks:

 

[Fairy1]

Just a really quick note to Nova, and then I'm getting the heck outta dodge...

In the jewish tradition, if a girl lost her virginity (*whether intentional or not) before she began menarche, she was considered spoiled, and "trash". Girls, generally, spent most of their time with women, and not men. The reasons are many, but there was also the added protection of other women who watched out for, and taught, the girls. They were also the ones who knew if a girl was 'pure', and menstruating, and thus able to marry.

Mary, being betrothed, would have already begun menarche. Even in today's early menses onset, most 9 year olds are not menstruating. Thus, I find it very difficult to believe that Mohammed's 9 year old "wife" was anything but a child, and if they had sex, it was indeed molestation.

Just for reference, molestation of a girl was an absolute sin (I don't know about the boys, sorry). Like most traditional jewish law, this was based in finances and family stability. If a girl was "defiled", she would have a very difficult time finding a husband. Her dowry would be downgraded, her bride-price would be lowered, and it would be likely that if she married, it would be as a second wife, or third, or fourth. That did not bring honor to the family; nor did it bring financial benefit for them. And, honestly, most second wives (and thirds, fourths, et cetera) were not respected in many ways; they could've been the best caretaker, maker of cheese, weaver, potter, healer...but because they were not first, they were not respected.

A good story to read about this sort of thing is the story of Dinah, Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and (oh geez, I forgot the other one). The book "The Red Tent" is a great, novelistic rendering of the story, and is very interesting in the details and the strictures of how jewish life was lived in that time, and about customs and mores regarding girls, menstruation, family, and honor.

I honestly believe that while Mary was young, she was of an age to marry. I also honestly believe that Mohammed's 9 year old wife was not of an age to marry, and that this was considered (both then and now) child molestation, and the only reason Mohammed was able to "get away with it" was because he was a violent, despotic ruler of his people, and they didn't dare say word one.

Not so short, but I do hope this sheds some light on what is commonly held beliefs about the issue.

Best-
Herding Cats

HC - your points regarding defiling of virgins - and the ensuing fallout - is absolutely not relegated to any one specific religion. And pedophiles are nothing new in the world. People of all religions are guilty of horrific acts throughout the ages.

We can pick and choose something to be disgusted about for every, single religion that exists. But the people who are on this TLC program are American people living in Michigan, FGS. Is it impossible to believe that they, as with people of other religious beliefs, have evolved?

Let's try to remember those who were responsible for flying those planes on 9/11. None of them were from Dearborn, MI.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

That's roughly what I thought, Kimberly. Thanks. My point was just that in centuries past people got married earlier. Yes, nine is pushing it, but who knows if that is literal? What we do know is that concepts of childhood were very different in the past (and no wonder, given that most people were dead before they were 30!).

Blaming modern Muslims because their prophet was a "child molester" is a dangerous game. I doubt Jews and Christians want the prophets of the Old Testament (or even Jehovah Himself) held to modern legal standards.

Read Qua'ran 65:4

 

[Herding Cats]

HC - your points regarding defiling of virgins - and the ensuing fallout - is absolutely not relegated to any one specific religion. And pedophiles are nothing new in the world. People of all religions are guilty of horrific acts throughout the ages.

Agreed totally. I just wanted to put a bit of historical perspective on something a lot of folks don't really understand - the way things worked with girls in that time. It's a fascinating time period, and the traditions that were held, to me, are interesting and informative. BUt you're right, all religions are guilty of horrific acts throughout the ages in the name of God.

We can pick and choose something to be disgusted about for every, single religion that exists. But the people who are on this TLC program are American people living in Michigan, FGS. Is it impossible to believe that they, as with people of other religious beliefs, have evolved?

Well, no. Of course not. Things have evolved. But there still is a sense, at least with the muslim community, that there is some sort of thing to be concerned about; accurate or not, it's the way some people think about things, you know?

Let's try to remember those who were responsible for flying those planes on 9/11. None of them were from Dearborn, MI.

No, they weren't. But then I listen to the rhetoric from Iran. From Al queda. And from some other countries (with or without religious leaders in place)...and I worry.

BTW, I'm all for advertisers doing what they see fit with their advertising dollars. I seem to recall Glenn Beck getting booted off the air because so many people protested the advertisers, who then pulled their financial support...which is completely, utterly acceptable in terms of exercising capitalistic, free choice shopping, advertising, and support.

Seems to me, goose and gander situation, you know?

Best-
Herding Cats

 

[Fairy1]

Read Qua'ran 65:4

Read the Bible.

 

[Fairy1]

Agreed totally. I just wanted to put a bit of historical perspective on something a lot of folks don't really understand - the way things worked with girls in that time. It's a fascinating time period, and the traditions that were held, to me, are interesting and informative. BUt you're right, all religions are guilty of horrific acts throughout the ages in the name of God.

So true.

Well, no. Of course not. Things have evolved. But there still is a sense, at least with the muslim community, that there is some sort of thing to be concerned about; accurate or not, it's the way some people think about things, you know?

Things have evolved for all, certainly. While we consider Muslim beliefs, perhaps we should not forget the scandals that have over-shadowed the Catholic church in recent years.

No, they weren't. But then I listen to the rhetoric from Iran. From Al queda. And from some other countries (with or without religious leaders in place)...and I worry.

There is rhetoric and propaganda aplenty. I should hope we all can figure out the difference.

BTW, I'm all for advertisers doing what they see fit with their advertising dollars. I seem to recall Glenn Beck getting booted off the air because so many people protested the advertisers, who then pulled their financial support...which is completely, utterly acceptable in terms of exercising capitalistic, free choice shopping, advertising, and support.

I agree - 100%. Honestly, I don't pay one bit of attention to advertisers on any specific program. I think I would be more likely to boycott retailers that advertise on "Toddlers and Tiaras" than any other program I watch!

Seems to me, goose and gander situation, you know?

Best-
Herding Cats

Yes - I agree!

 

[ziggy]

Except per the original link, it isn't "their own dictates" that are at issue, it is the dictates of small but vocal groups of Christian bigots.

Watch the throwing around the term bigots here please. Don't knock small vocal groups who have a right to be heard. The gay minority has a lot of power. Just try to understand you can't make everyone think exactly like you do. Like I said, just because they might feel the show is sanitized or propagandized doesn't make them bigots. They have vastly different religious beliefs. You seem to be sticking up for the Muslims' beliefs, but Christians are bigots. That is disingenuous and not you Nova.

 

[ziggy]

Read the Bible.

I try not to justify bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior. Both books, imo, have some major inconsistencies. The more salient point is, how are these religions behaving NOW? Very differently. Weigh it. Be reasonable.

 

[Fairy1]

I try not to justify bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior. Both books, imo, have some major inconsistencies. The more salient point is, how are these religions behaving NOW? Very differently. Weigh it. Be reasonable.

Yes, how are people of these religions behaving NOW. In the USA.

I feel I'm being reasonable and, most importantly, TOLERANT.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Read the Bible.

I do. Daily. Thanks.

My point is, we were talking about Mohammad and his 9 year old wife.
That passage would explain why he thought it was totally appropriate.

 

[kline]

One thing I should add to my earlier post is I can see where some,myself included are weary of seeing Christians time and time ad nauseum deliberately portrayed as bigoted ludites or clueless objects of ridicule in popular media,obviously with a clear and deliberate Anti Christian agenda.
Then to see that same media hovering over backwards to portray Muslims in a positive light.... I can see why some might find that Galling. I get it.

 

[Gardenlady]

Look, we live in a majority Christian country, I think. White, straight Christians (including those who are Christian by default, or just nominal) are the priviledged majority. So of course they're the ones that are going to be on the receiving end of criticism and satire most often. Minorities who are discriminated against don't have as much power or influence, so there is no real cultural purpose in satirizing them or holding them to as much criticism. It's as simple as that. it serves no purpose to make a show that satirizes a minority group like Muslims, or gays, or Buddhists, because they're not the groups in our society that hold the cultural influence and power. But it does make sense to make a show that gives e majority a glimpse into a life and culture that they might otherwise know nothing about. Then we can see that although we may be different, we are also very much the same. It fosters unity and understanding.

I'm a bit weary of the crying that Christians are some sort of persecuted group in this country. If you can't take criticism and satire, then honestly you're headed down the road of being just as knee jerk as those who get bent out of shape at cartoons of Muhammad.

 

[MissJames]

The term "home grown terrorists" is creating a lot of the anxiety in our country right now and is responsible for a lot of the prejudice ,IMO. There is a fear that the friendly neighbor next door ,who happens to be a Muslim ,is secretly plotting to wipe out a near by mall.
Right or wrong ,it casts suspicion upon those within the religion.
It's not the only group to suffer from prejudice.The acts of a few can affect many.

I am a Christian,but I believe in gay rights,gay marriage and gay adoption. You can't have too much love in the world.
I hate that when I say I'm a Christian ,a set of facts is then assigned to me,but I understand why it's done.
I think what many non-Muslim Americans are hoping to see is a movement among American Muslims loudly denouncing the terrorists. Loudly and frequently.Should they have to?
No,but it would go a long way to easing tension,IMO.

Has there been any major fall out to Lowes?

 

[MissJames]

Look, we live in a majority Christian country, I think. White, straight Christians (including those who are Christian by default, or just nominal) are the priviledged majority. So of course they're the ones that are going to be on the receiving end of criticism and satire most often. Minorities who are discriminated against don't have as much power or influence, so there is no real cultural purpose in satirizing them or holding them to as much criticism. It's as simple as that. it serves no purpose to make a show that satirizes a minority group like Muslims, or gays, or Buddhists, because they're not the groups in our society that hold the cultural influence and power. But it does make sense to make a show that gives e majority a glimpse into a life and culture that they might otherwise know nothing about. Then we can see that although we may be different, we are also very much the same. It fosters unity and understanding.

I'm a bit weary of the crying that Christians are some sort of persecuted group in this country. If you can't take criticism and satire, then honestly you're headed down the road of being just as knee jerk as those who get bent out of shape at cartoons of Muhammad.

I completely disagree that minorities don't hold a lot of power in this country. It's simply not true,IMO.
I live for the day that we no longer have these conversations.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Look, we live in a majority Christian country, I think. White, straight Christians (including those who are Christian by default, or just nominal) are the priviledged majority. So of course they're the ones that are going to be on the receiving end of criticism and satire most often. Minorities who are discriminated against don't have as much power or influence, so there is no real cultural purpose in satirizing them or holding them to as much criticism. It's as simple as that. it serves no purpose to make a show that satirizes a minority group like Muslims, or gays, or Buddhists, because they're not the groups in our society that hold the cultural influence and power. But it does make sense to make a show that gives e majority a glimpse into a life and culture that they might otherwise know nothing about. Then we can see that although we may be different, we are also very much the same. It fosters unity and understanding.

I'm a bit weary of the crying that Christians are some sort of persecuted group in this country. If you can't take criticism and satire, then honestly you're headed down the road of being just as knee jerk as those who get bent out of shape at cartoons of Muhammad.

Sorry.

This absolutely portrays a double standard.

JMO

 

[jjw]

Watch the throwing around the term bigots here please. Don't knock small vocal groups who have a right to be heard. The gay minority has a lot of power. Just try to understand you can't make everyone think exactly like you do. Like I said, just because they might feel the show is sanitized or propagandized doesn't make them bigots. They have vastly different religious beliefs. You seem to be sticking up for the Muslims' beliefs, but Christians are bigots. That is disingenuous and not you Nova.

1) Have you read the statement from the Florida Family Association they sent to Lowe's that the show "profiles only Muslims that appear to be ordinary folks while excluding many Islamic believers whose agenda poses a clear and present danger to the liberties and traditional values that the majority of Americans cherish."
Yes, shame on them for showing not all muslims are wanting to fly airplanes into buildings and kill Americans. Watching this show is a danger to Americans? How so? I'm not saying you agree with this statement. But try to explain how this is not bigotry?
Why would the show be considered sanitized? Because it doesn't show extreme Muslims? If they disagree with the Muslim faith that is okay. It is not okay to start a petition to get advertisers to pull out ads because you don't like their faith. Freedom of religon??

2)What does the gay minority have to do with Lowe's pulling ads?

3)She didn't say all Christians are bigots. Nova was very clear in his statements.

Definition of bigotry:stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own

prejudice:unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious or national group

discrimination:treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination

def. from dictionary.com

I was always told the difference between prejudice and discrimination is that the first is to believe in something wrong and the second is to act on it.
This group decided to act on it by starting that petition. All-American Muslim does not deserve to have ads pulled because the people on the show are not their idea of what a Muslim is.:banghead:
jmo

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Just to be clear:
Nova is a he, not a she.