DiscussMormonism.com

[#img] http://api.ning.com/files/PQch9gAJ9FDtB ... oravia.jpg[/img]

Slovakia was asked to drop halos from new two-euro coins featuring the nation's patron saints, Cyril and Methodius following complaints from some EU countries. The European Commission and some member states have asked Slovakia to remove some symbols from the draft coin to comply with the principle of religious neutrality. Thereby, the original designed looked a bit different from the above, but Slovakia was asked to make it Religion neutral e.g. no halos on the head of the saints


- the following are the designs that came second and third respectively
[#img] http://api.ning.com/files/WNymk69HNNMuq ... ?width=400[/img]
[#img] http://api.ning.com/files/kOivZi4dWIPng ... ?width=400[/img]


... and as You know, the EU is über-atheist compared to US ...


by the way imagine this as a whole comment - without images!


( ( ( [#img] http://i.huffpost.com/gen/870874/thumbs ... e570.jpg?4[/img] ) ) )

Is anyone in Slovakia upset about that?

Are you saying that buildings such as temples have to be religiously neutral as well now?

ajax18 wrote:Are you saying that buildings such as temples have to be religiously neutral as well now?

It is not about temples, it is about coins used in different countries.

ajax18 wrote:Is anyone in Slovakia upset about that?

Really, I don't know if Slovaks are more upset, or the mentioned "some members" of EU.


Who cares if there are halos on the head of the saints - depicted on coins? I don't. But there are nuts who care...


I did want to make a parallel...

http://laist.com/2012/11/19/mormons_pissed_at_oc_weekly_for_sat.php wrote:During election week, the OC Weekly ran an image on its cover portraying Mitt Romney as the Angel Moroni, the figure in Mormonism who reportedly gave Joseph Smith the content for the Book of Mormon.

The image was meant as satire, but according to the Weekly's news blog, Mormon readers didn't take too kindly to it. Editor Gustavo Arellano writes:

Starting on Wednesday and continuing ever since, Mormons from across the country but mostly centered around the Newport Beach LDS temple have called and written in to complain that our cover is offensive to their religion...

The readers in question have also threatened to stop picking up the Weekly and to boycott its advertisers.

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2012/11/oc_weeklys_romney_as_angel_moroni_cover_causes_lds_backlash.php wrote:We published [the controversial cover] on November 1, to a lot of nice comments. Then, last Wednesday, Mormons finally found out about the cover and have been whining to the Weekly ever since, demanding an apology.

Starting on Wednesday and continuing ever since, Mormons from across the country but mostly centered around the Newport Beach LDS temple have called and written in to complain that our cover is offensive to their religion, that Romney is a good man, that Mormons have never hurt anyone (tell that to folks affected by Proposition 8), that they're going to stop their subscription to the Weekly, that we would never mock Muslims that way (we did, by printing an image of the Prophet Mohammed back in 2006, and Muslims didn't give a crap because they understood the context), that they're never going to read the "Register" again (please follow through on that!), and that they're going to start an advertiser boycott unless we apologize for the cover.

[#img] http://laist.com/attachments/la_jessica ... moroni.jpg[/img]

we did, by printing an image of the Prophet Mohammed back in 2006, and Muslims didn't give a s*** because they understood the context

Is he saying that the magazine depicted the prophet Mohammed in a satirical fashion in 2006 in an equally demeaning fashion as the depiction of Romney as the angel Moroni but Muslims understood the context and were more tolerant about it than Mormons?

I find that surprising, considering that according to the liberal left in this country Muslims just killed four American officials in Beghazi Libya because some unrelated and unknown American posted an obscure video on youtube that was "offensive," to Islam. Do you think the American leaders are telling the truth about this? Kevin Graham is still convinced the video was partly to blame for the terrorist attack last I read.

What's the rule of law? If a Mormon finds speech offensive, than it's the Mormon's fault for not being tolerant, but if a Muslim finds something offensive, the offender should be in the words of Hillary Clinton, "brought to justice," for all the people the Muslims were incited to kill because of it. It sure seems that way to me.

ajax18 wrote:

we did, by printing an image of the Prophet Mohammed back in 2006, and Muslims didn't give a s*** because they understood the context

Is he saying that the magazine depicted the prophet Mohammed in a satirical fashion in 2006 in an equally demeaning fashion as the depiction of Romney as the angel Moroni but Muslims understood the context and were more tolerant about it than Mormons?
...

The newspaper editor said it...
I don't know, what percent of their words are true.

Well the left controls how social science is taught in academia in the USA. As far as I'm concerned you pretty much have to be a liberal if you want to graduate in such a profession, or at least very skilled at pretending to be one. Right now the stance of the left appears to me to be as I outlined above, basically pro-Islam, anti-Mormon. So it doesn't surprise me that this was the newspaper editors view/bias of the situation. More than likely, he's a liberal. Before Fox News and talk radio, we only had liberal media.