[Foundation-l] Wikimania and the Muhammad pix

[Andrew Gray]

On 20/02/2008, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20/02/2008, teun spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  >  "increase its educational value, null."
>  > May i disagree on this point? They at least show, i suppose, as some of the
>  >  illustrations on the Muhammed articles are some centuries old, that the
>  >  opinion on this subject has varied over the centuries.
>
>  Indeed. I was unaware, until the present discussion, just how widely
>  this viewpoint - that images of Muhammad are verboten in all
>  circumstances - is in fact highly disputed.

There is a charming story I remember, told by a journalist who had
interviewed a senior Anglican bishop (I forget who) at a time of some
public split or another, probably during the female-clergy thing. As a
joke, he asked what exactly you *had* to believe in, beyond 'God', in
order to be a member of the Church of England, given they disagreed on
so much?

A long pause. "Well, that's a very good question. Um."

The CoE is a broader group than most in this regard, of course, but
for any particularly large religion it holds true - anything more
complex than the basic tenets, anything beyond the stuff you could
write on a single postcard, is quite possibly going to be disputed
between sects, or honoured in the breach, or a matter for personal
conscience, or simply liturgical padding rather than theology...

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk