Book of Mormon Huntington Post article

Hmmm...interesting...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-grenell/the-koran-in-florida-and-_b_844374.html

Holy false equivalence, Batman!

I think sadly that Grenell has nailed it. In a democracy founded in large part on the principle of religious tolerance, should a group of citizens publicly ridicule the practices and beliefs of a small and unpopular religious group because the result is a great big Broadway hit?

And if some already off-balance Mormon picked up his gun and decided to defend the faith, not an implausible scenario, would those who created the show not share in the responsibility?

(rolls eyes) the person who wrote this article has obviously yet to see the show....

I thought the point of Book of Mormon was that, despite the fact that it mocks the religion, it ultimately isn't really that mean-spirited and actually portrays the Mormon characters in something of a positive light? Call me crazy, but I don't think mocking someone's religion for a joke in a Broadway musical is the same as burning someone's holy book. That's an act meant to incite strong reactions, and the pastor that burned the Koran knew it would. Somehow I don't think the Book of Mormon is trying to incite extreme reactions from Mormons.

---

I kinda want to agree with the author, at least about the reaction to the Koran burning, but he bungles his argument so badly that I really can't.

You really just can't equate burning a Koran with the BOM. One is an act of malice (though technically protected by free speech), and the other is done in fun.

If his point is that we can't condone Muslim violence or even act like it should be expected after a Koran burning, well, I guess I agree. But then he muddles everything by seeming to say the the BOM musical is worse than burning a Koran.

He should have probably just said that an isolated act of one looney preacher in Florida doesn't justify an attack on innocent victims across the globe, and America can condemn the violence without decrying the burning. Some may disagree, but at least the point stands on its own.

To all those who want to agree with the opinion of so many major newspaper reviewers that this musical is really quite "sweet" to Mormons, just ask yourself if the reviewers would have reached the same conclusion if the minority group given the same treatment were Muslims, Jews or gays.

Since the answer is obviously NO, then how do you justify this treatment of the Mormons?

(rolls eyes at above poster)

sorry finding nemo, that eye roll was ment for olblueEyes

Let's see making fun of Jews and or gays...Monty python? Mel Brooks?it's been done and liked as long as it wasn't mean spirited. Off the top of my head I can't come up with a Muslim example though...that part of the argument I agree with, you get way fewer death threats from Jews gays and Christians(latly) then Muslims, so it does improve the chances of getting your work seen.

So, finally saw the show. I thought it was HILARIOUS. And soooo profane. But honestly, I didn't think there was one bad song in the bunch. All the songs worked in the show, and had their moments. There was never a throw away song. It's so nice to see a show where every character doesn't have their own character-defining song. I loved that the creators were smart enough to know that we didn't care about, say, Nicki M. James' dad enough to give him a song.

Anyway, it's exciting, but sucks, because I feel like the Tonys won't be that exciting. If Book of Mormon doesn't win for Book and Music and Best Musical I'd be very surprised. Maybe Scottsboro would take music? If Scottsboro and Bloody were still open, I think it could be a tighter race, but oh well.

I think Josh Gad deserves to win his Tony hands down. He was BRILLIANT. He was hilarious, but he found the humanity in it, and you felt for the character. He was a pro.

Just a great show, and a joy to watch.

Since the answer is obviously NO, then how do you justify this treatment of the Mormons?

because nothing is above criticism, most especially religion?

true or false: the mormons spent $8 million dollars to pass proposition 8. if it is true, do people get to criticize the mormons for that, or do we have to respect their beliefs?

true or false: up until 1978, it was not possible for african-americans to serve as deacons in the mormon church. if it is true, why was it true? was it because, literally, the belief was african-americans were descendants of those who did not take part in the struggle between heaven and hell, and their dark skin was a curse(!)? if there is even a hint that this hideous science-fiction was held up by the mormon church as an excuse, is it okay to criticize it, or not? since mitt romney wants to be president, is it okay to ask him whether he believed in this nonsense or should we be "respectful," and leave it be?

why do ridiculous beliefs merit automatic respect in society by simply putting them under the umbrella of religion?

to put things in perspective, some religions believe women should cover themselves because god likes it. so let's ponder this for a second. on that horrible day in march when 10 meter tall waves arbitrarily wiped out 10,000 people in japan, does anyone who believes in supernatural entities truly believe this was god's checklist: tsunami - check. crisis in libya - check. crisis in egypt - check. economic crisis in america - check. women not wearing burkha -- uh oh!

ridiculous beliefs do not warrant automatic respect and should be regarded for what they are: ridiculous. MOST ESPECIALLY if those ridiculous beliefs extend to what other adults do in their bedrooms.

Updated On: 4/7/11 at 01:02 PM

it's always okay to blaspheme. it's literally a victimless crime.

take for instance this whole business with the koran. as someone who believes in LGBT rights, i am offended every day. i was deeply offended by proposition 8. i was offended by tony perkins', maggie gallagher's, and wendy wright's defense of it, with their unctuous smiles barely masking their disgust. i am deeply offended by the fact that four countries where there is a muslim majority punish homosexuality with the death penalty. i was deeply offended with david kato's murder in his own home, his skull caved in with a hammer. i am deeply offended by the evangelicals that went to uganda and promulgated their hideous beliefs into law, which precipitated this horrible incident and the media's slimey apology for outing him, saying instead of murdering him, the proper course was to jail, prosecute, and hang him.

but where are the LGBT rallies calling to behead those that offend LGBT sensibilities? where are the placards that demand death for all those that oppose LGBT rights? it doesn't happen.

i'm sorry, but if the LGBT has learned to peacably take its licks, any of these insufferable religions can.

especially since those licks involve REAL harm to REAL people with REAL feelings who REALLY exist. REAL families were damaged by proposition 8. david kato was a REAL person who was murdered in his own home. if the LGBT community can take egregious insults to REAL people, all religions need to learn to take their licks about their beliefs, for which there hasn't been one shred of evidence over 1000s of years, especially if they think those beliefs get to determine how other people live. who was harmed by the burning of the koran? what couldn't the mormons do today that they couldn't before they were "blasphemed" by BOM? if i say i don't believe joseph smith heard from the angel moroni, who is hurt by this?

Updated On: 4/7/11 at 03:47 PM