PDA

View Full Version : Religious overkill?



Pages : [1] 2

Pendragon
11-30-2007, 06:22 AM
Yes, I know this is a touchy subject generally but I'd like some opinions on this particular case I just read about on the BBC News website.

It seems to have caused a bit of a kerfuffle.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7112929.stm

Elysia
11-30-2007, 06:31 AM
Absolutely ridiculous...
Since when is it a crime to name a bear after Muhammad, and even if it's against the religion to picture the man, it doesn't apply to other religions, anyway. And what happened to the basic democracy? I don't know how it is in UK, but being able to freely name something is a right.

indigo0086
11-30-2007, 07:41 AM
They're ruled by religious law, what would one expect?

Pendragon
11-30-2007, 07:42 AM
From what I can gather... which is not an in-depth knowledge of Islam I might add... is that it is okay to honour a person with the name of the prophet but not to give that name to objects or creatures as it is seen as an insult by some.

We have democracy (at the basic level but I won't go into the state of British politics right now) but this teacher was not in the UK, she was in the Sudan.

The reason I highlight this is that as Britons living in the British Isles (I'm not sure how this translates to other countries), we are expected to embrace and almost to yield to cultural differences and diversity within our country yet it seems that this policy does not appear to be valid elsewhere. This is where this case has come from. She is a British citizen teaching in the Sudan, and, although she should indeed have some knowledge of the culture of the children she teaches, she should not have to have an in-depth knowledge of the intimate and intricate 'laws' surrounding it. She didn't steal anything, she didn't kill anyone, she didn't incite hatred (the children named the bear in honour of the prophet) and I'm sure the prophet Mohammed will recover from the embarrassment of being a bear for a week. It's something that's completely alien to me and, evidently, to a lot of other people. Surely, compassion and education for those who are different would be more productive than the proposed fourty lashes?

It seems to be a matter of interpretation. Many Muslims have commented on this story citing pretty much what I have outlined here.

matsp
11-30-2007, 07:46 AM
She is a British citizen teaching in the Sudan, and, although she should indeed have some knowledge of the culture of the children she teaches, she should not have to have an in-depth knowledge of the intimate and intricate 'laws' surrounding it.

On the other hand, ignorance of the law is not a valid defence in the UK courts.

And I don't think Sudan ranks very highly on the "openess and freedom of religion charts" [although I'm not overly familiar with Sudan and their cultural system].

--
Mats

Pendragon
11-30-2007, 07:51 AM
On the other hand, ignorance of the law is not a valid defence in the UK courts.

I'm aware of that... but Britain is a democracy with a very diverse set of cultures.

Picture this situation in say, Chipping Norton? It would not happen in this country because there would be an outcry from every man (and woman) and his (her) dog and the labour party would be rapidly evicted from Westminster by the people who have the power. Us. We have the power to a limited degree to change legislation. I doubt the Sudanese have that liberty.


And I don't think Sudan ranks very highly on the "openess and freedom of religion charts"

This is precisely the point of this thread... to discuss this fact.

matsp
11-30-2007, 07:58 AM
Sure, UK is much more "non-religious" - in fact, I think that England [or UK] was one of the first places after what would become the USA to introduce "Freedom of religion" in law. Other countries doesn't necessarily have this, or at least not as thoroughly.

Of course, a few hundred years back, someone in the UK could be prosecuted in court for Heresy, with, I believe, a death penalty as one possible punishment. So, whilst it's freedom now, it hasn't always been that way.

Some places aren't nice to people of other religions, and Sudan is one of those.

--
Mats

maxorator
11-30-2007, 08:14 AM
What else can I say - totalitarianism.

Pendragon
11-30-2007, 08:16 AM
Can you think of why though? (to matsp) I have an urge to try and understand things that completely flummox me (like my current C# issue but that's another story) and, if I don't know, I will speculate on the most likely reason.

maxorator
11-30-2007, 08:21 AM
Well, some of the most important things in totalitarianism are restricting freedom of speech, only one allowed ideal of life, abusing basic human rights, secret security organizations (like KGB). Is Sudan in the UN?

Edit: Oh right. Almost every country in the world is in the UN. It doesn't seem to me that the UN is capable of resolving such problems...

indigo0086
11-30-2007, 08:24 AM
Sure, UK is much more "non-religious" - in fact, I think that England [or UK] was one of the first places after what would become the USA to introduce "Freedom of religion" in law. Other countries doesn't necessarily have this, or at least not as thoroughly.

Of course, a few hundred years back, someone in the UK could be prosecuted in court for Heresy, with, I believe, a death penalty as one possible punishment. So, whilst it's freedom now, it hasn't always been that way.

Some places aren't nice to people of other religions, and Sudan is one of those.

--
Mats

But do the british still not pay taxes to the catholic church? Those free of religion or not?

matsp
11-30-2007, 08:24 AM
I'm not saying I understand it - I'm just saying that it's not always been "freedom of speech" in the UK either.

One thing about it is of course power - lack of freedom in general is about control of the population in the country. Laws based on religion is another form of "power" to the religion itself.

That's not an attempt to make sense of the situation as such, I just think it's very easy to say "In Country X it's this way, I can't see why it's not so in Country Y". Different countries have different laws, different main religions, and different cultural "values". We can of course say "they shouldn't", but that's how it is.

--
Mats

PING
11-30-2007, 08:26 AM
I dont get this.. these people make a big issue out of such a small thing. They should be concentrating on improving living conditions and eradicating hunger from Sudan, and they are more concerned about someone naming a cute teddy bear mohammed.. I dont know much about islam, and i dont know whether it is a crime to name someone mohammed, but if it is a crime, i must say it is a very stupid law.

matsp
11-30-2007, 08:29 AM
But do the british still not pay taxes to the catholic church? Those free of religion or not?

Certainly not t the Catholic church. That's would be the Irish [if we're discussing the British Isles at least]. The "Church of England" is a protestant form of Christianity. And I honestly don't know how much, if any, of the tax goes to C of E or any other religious group(s).

But freedom of religion is more to the point of "You are allowed to excercise whatever religion you like in this country" [this applies within reason - you still can't kill virgins as sacrifice, even if that's part of your religion in some other country, for example. I don't think even animals can be sacrificed].

--
Mats

Pendragon
11-30-2007, 08:29 AM
But do the british still not pay taxes to the catholic church? Those free of religion or not?

I think the relationship between the Church and the government is more a relic of Britain's past though, don't you?

maxorator
11-30-2007, 08:33 AM
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.


Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Correct them if the UN is wrong.

Pendragon
11-30-2007, 08:33 AM
I don't think even animals can be sacrificed


At least... it's not called that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shechita


Unfortunately maxtorator not everyone agrees with the UN as you see on the news so often. Imagine the outcry if the cleric Abu Hamza were permitted on these grounds to continue his 'teaching'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri#Preaching

There is always a limit and has to be else anyone could incite hatred citing it as being within his/her human rights.

maxorator
11-30-2007, 08:48 AM
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
If I get it right these may not be used against these rights. That Abu Hamza seems to try to destruct the human rights, so how can they apply to him then?

hk_mp5kpdw
11-30-2007, 08:50 AM
Looks like some in the Sudan are now calling for her execution (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22039372/).

Do the kids get punished for coming up with the name?

Pendragon
11-30-2007, 08:50 AM
...and, as per usual, things escalate yet further.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7121025.stm



That Abu Hamza seems to try to destruct the human rights, so how can they apply to him then?

Touchy subject. All he's doing is talking. He's expressing his opinion, whatever the interpretation of his teaching, it is not, directly at least, his doing.

indigo0086
11-30-2007, 08:52 AM
I think the relationship between the Church and the government is more a relic of Britain's past though, don't you?

I was genuinely asking, thanks for the answer matsp.

Pendragon
11-30-2007, 08:54 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7119391.stm

Some more thoughts on the matter.


The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said he could not "see any justification" for the sentence, calling it an "absurdly disproportionate response" to a "minor cultural faux pas".

indigo0086
11-30-2007, 09:02 AM
I do believe the laws themselves are backwards. Basing modern lawn on a book over a thousand years old invites almost militaristic enforcement of them.

Pendragon
11-30-2007, 09:07 AM
I think a lot of the problem relates to how one interprets what is in said book... not so much what is actually written in it.

matsp
11-30-2007, 09:11 AM
This applies to many books. According to certain South Africans, the bible says that people of "non-white" origin are less valued than white ones. It's not exactly the message you get when you speak to OTHER Christians. I beleive Ku Klux Klan in America has been known to "find strength" in the bible too.

If you have a big enough amount of text, and cut excerpts out, you can come to almost any conclusion, I think.

--
Mats

Pendragon
11-30-2007, 09:15 AM
the bible says that people of "non-white" origin are less valued than white ones.

Interesting considering where the book is supposed to have originated.

It reminds me of a quote from a film:

"You're painting Jesus white... are you sure he was white?"

"Of course he's white! *whisper* sometimes I wonder if he's mentally handicapped as well"

It's from a not-very-serious film but I think illustrates the attitude of some christians.

matsp
11-30-2007, 09:20 AM
Interesting considering where the book is supposed to have originated.

It reminds me of a quote from a film:

"You're painting Jesus white... are you sure he was white?"

"Of course he's white! *whisper* sometimes I wonder if he's mentally handicapped as well"

It's from a not-very-serious film but I think illustrates the attitude of some christians.

Haha. Yes, and of course, I'm pretty sure that Jesus's non-violent approach doesn't quite match the Apartheid principles - but all of this is down to interpreting, and very often, cutting small pieces out of a big context - and you don't always get the full picture, if you use a stamp-sized view of the world.

--
Mats

laserlight
11-30-2007, 10:23 AM
hmm... 15 days imprisonment? I thought it would be smarter to make some cash by imposing a hefty fine then deporting Mrs Gibbons right away. Also, they would not have to spend resources keeping her in prison, meeting with representatives from Britain and dealing with protests over the 15 days.

Pendragon
11-30-2007, 10:41 AM
Yet even in our own fair country in these supposed enlightened times... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7120699.stm

Thantos
11-30-2007, 11:20 AM
While I don't share Sudan's view of using religious law in such a way I don't see what the problem is. The teacher should have known what the country's laws were before going there. If she was unwilling to follow the laws then she shouldn't have gone. If she was unaware of the laws then that just shows poor planning.

15 days sounds about right for a minor offense.

BobMcGee123
11-30-2007, 11:22 AM
I think that she's an evil .......... and she should have her head cut off. Allahu ahkbar.

maxorator
11-30-2007, 11:57 AM
While I don't share Sudan's view of using religious law in such a way I don't see what the problem is. The teacher should have known what the country's laws were before going there. If she was unwilling to follow the laws then she shouldn't have gone. If she was unaware of the laws then that just shows poor planning.

15 days sounds about right for a minor offense.
I suppose there is no statement in the law that "teddy bears can't be named..." so what the government (or whatever they call it) takes as a religious offence is totally decided by the people running the country rather than the law. Then she should have acquired the biography of all the important goverment and judge system related people there??

I still think they are violating human rights...

Thantos
11-30-2007, 12:11 PM
While I'm sure there is no law specific to teddy bears there very well might be laws that regulate naming.

zacs7
11-30-2007, 03:59 PM
Law #3956: Don't name things Muhammad.

BS, they name their children Muhammad. She's teaching them, they could at least respect that.

Where do you draw the line? For example there was a lot of commotion in Australian schools if Muslims should be able to wear turbans. I say no, I can't wear my hat, just like I can't name my teddy what I want.

teck
11-30-2007, 04:16 PM
Yeah, talk about blown out of proportion. Especially considering the fact that it was the students (as I've read) that proposed the name. Granted that it may have upset some people but comon, even if ignorance of the law is not a valid reason under most circumstanses this is one of those instances.

It would appear to be a law that is distinct to specific countries of certain religous backgrounds. So, if they do actually carry out the punishment, I'd think that there'd be lawsuits.

Were the case different (such as someone committing a "honour" killing in Canada) then I believe that the law should be expressed to it's fullest extent because laws against murder are in practically every single country in the world (even in Sudan). Furthermore, it is an extremely serious offense in that it causes loss of life which cannot be replaced. An insult however can be withdrawn and apologized though.


Ummm.... I'm pretty sure Britain doesn't pay taxes to the Catholic Church, especially considering the fact that Britain seperated from the Catholic Church and formed the Anglican Church in the 14-16th century (date?). So, I think you're thinking more about either France or Canada (yes, in Canada, particularly Ontario, Catholic private schools get funding).

whiteflags
11-30-2007, 04:20 PM
>Where do you draw the line? For example there was a lot of commotion in Australian schools if Muslims should be able to wear turbans.
Well the difference is that if you break code on the school uniform then you're sent home, not put in jail or fined something. In my mind that is a reasonable request. I really don't understand why Muslims in Australia want to wear turbins in school but that's beside the point. I understand the school's position.

I consider a turbin ceremonial dress, no one has a reason to wear such a thing in a public environment like the schools. Dress appropriately for church and masque and dress appropriately for everywhere else.

Lots of religions have ceremonial items or clothing that are sacred and don't need to be put on display constantly. Christians have beads. If someone just whips out a rosary and prays at public school then you better believe that just as much ........ will hit the fan and that's hypocritical. I refuse to give anyone special treatment because they want to advertise who they are unless we can guarantee the same rights to everyone.

zacs7
11-30-2007, 04:37 PM
> I refuse to give anyone special treatment because they want to advertise who they are unless we can guarantee the same rights to everyone.

That's my point, for example -- I couldn't wear a necklace with a cross on it at school, why should they be allowed their turbans?

My point is, they're obviously treating her like this because She's British, a woman, and possibly non-Muslim. She didn't tell the children to name the teddies Muhammad.

That's my opinion, no-one flame me for having it.

whiteflags
11-30-2007, 04:42 PM
It wasn't a flame dude. At least we agree.

zacs7
11-30-2007, 04:44 PM
Nah, I know :)

Just making sure someone doesn't come along with facts that blow my argument out of the water. Ie, Future proofing myself from potential arguments.

whiteflags
11-30-2007, 04:54 PM
I seriously doubt this British lady even has an opinion of Mohammud the prophet, even in the event that she ignored cultural values, and simply allowed it, like Thantos seems to think. I apologize if I misunderstand you Thantos. How odd that cultural indifference is the same as blasphemy. :-\

But it's just as easy to imagine a scenario where she didn't let the kids name the bear Mohammud and got in as much trouble. It's a sad state of affairs. The crime is pretty ambiguous to me.

World peace without the Middle East anyone?

MikeyIckey
11-30-2007, 05:01 PM
eh, i think that it's just one big misunderstanding all around.
She didnt know the religions rules on the subject.
and she was only trying to let the kids have fun when they named it.

The government shouldnt be this upset.
They could just ask her to rename the bear.
I'm sure she would be more then happy to do it.

[disclaimer: i bring absolutely no knowledge of the islamic religion, these are just my thoughts on the matter, and yes, i know they're wishfull thinking]

MacGyver
12-01-2007, 12:35 AM
While I don't share Sudan's view of using religious law in such a way I don't see what the problem is. The teacher should have known what the country's laws were before going there. If she was unwilling to follow the laws then she shouldn't have gone. If she was unaware of the laws then that just shows poor planning.

15 days sounds about right for a minor offense.

This post gets voted by me for Dumbest Post I've Read in This Topic.

Considering the kids voted on what to name the bear, and some kid wanted it named after himself, and the vote of the kids was such that the name stuck, you think the teacher is supposed to stop and say, "Hold on there, little Muhammad. You can't name the Teddy bear after yourself because it's a bear and not a human like yourself. Doing so is punishable by 15 days in jail."?

Apparently that's what a lot of idiots over there think. They're not punishing her for actually naming the bear. They're punishing her for not correcting the kids in deciding to name the bear what they did.

You tell me why a non-Muslim teacher is supposed to know more about stupid islamic laws more than the kids and parents.

Islamic countries are in a mess over stupid things, and western countries have idiots that want to try to explain these stupid actions. You can't explain them. The countries are messed up.

zacs7
12-01-2007, 02:26 AM
I still don't understand why you can name a child Muhammad yet not a bear?

Most of these countries are still 3rd world, that's no coincidence.

MacGyver
12-01-2007, 03:10 AM
Maybe I'm just wrong and see if differently because I'm sick of what seems to be unequal weights and measures.

Think about it from another angle. Let's say it's the US or England, and some teacher has the kids vote on what to name the bear, and we had a child named after Jesus. If the kids voted to name it after their fellow student, would there be riots to kill the teacher? Personally, I disagree with naming your kids that, but it does happen. I wouldn't like the bear being named it either. The New Testament says that the name of Jesus is unique, etc. etc..

With that said, I wouldn't think this is some conspiracy of some muslim teacher to poison the minds of the kids. For crying out loud the kids voted! It's not like kids were brainwashed by the teacher. I hardly think we (ie. The West) would want the teacher killed or jailed. It's rather silly.

The same people that are saying the actual teacher should be aware of these islamic laws are probably the same people that would say that in the equivalent example, she would not be expected to know any Christian rules if she was a muslim.

Remember, we're talking about the state of things when pictures of their supposed prophet cause riots that kill people. Until these countries actually wake up, and many of their supposed religious leaders stop calling for jihad and beheadings, we will have the same type of problems we had with the catholics during the Dark Ages. It's very ugly when ignorant masses follow the teachings of evil men.

Daved
12-01-2007, 02:52 PM
>> I still don't understand why you can name a child Muhammad yet not a bear?
Because naming a child Muhammed honors the prophet, but naming a play thing Muhammed does the opposite. It trivializes the sacredness of Muhammed. The difference should be pretty obvious.

>> This post gets voted by me for Dumbest Post I've Read in This Topic.
I might vote for yours if I thought about that sort of thing.

>> you think the teacher is supposed to stop and say, "Hold on there, little Muhammad. You
>> can't name the Teddy bear after yourself because it's a bear and not a human like yourself.
>> Doing so is punishable by 15 days in jail."
Yes, of course. Why couldn't she? If they named the bear #$@!er I'm pretty sure she'd stop and say that they can't do that, so why is it any harder to stop them from practicing blasphemy. She's the teacher in charge of the class. It is her responsibility to make sure they follow the rules. You aren't going to hold the kids accountable, are you?

>> You tell me why a non-Muslim teacher is supposed to know more about stupid islamic laws more than the kids and parents.
Because she lives in the country? Who says the parents knew? The kids are only 7 years old, are you sure you want to put the blame on them?

>> western countries have idiots that want to try to explain these stupid actions
I'm not sure you've been understanding the arguments. There is a big difference between saying the law itself makes sense and saying that as long as the law exists there's nothing wrong with them applying it in a reasonable fashion.

>> Let's say it's the US or England, and some teacher has the kids vote on what to name the
>> bear, and we had a child named after Jesus. If the kids voted to name it after their fellow
>> student, would there be riots to kill the teacher?
No, because naming a bear Jesus is not as significant of a sin in Christianity as naming a bear Muhammed is in Sudan.

>> The same people that are saying the actual teacher should be aware of these islamic laws
>> are probably the same people that would say that in the equivalent example, she would
>> not be expected to know any Christian rules if she was a muslim.
Are you sure? The point is that they are the country's laws. And I would guess that if she were in a nation with laws based on Christian culture these same people would say that a Muslim should be held accountable for them as well.

I completely agree that religious zealotry (of any faith) makes a society less tolerant. I am not saying that I think the law is a good one, or that I like the society that such a government seems to create. I am saying that complaints about this often seem to be based on one's own personal morals and convictions without respecting those of the Sudanese.

zacs7
12-01-2007, 04:38 PM
Either way, she's been dubbed guilty before proven so. They're massing in the street wanting to cut her head off, and for what?

Would you consider assault the same as blasphemy? In Australia the kids get off with a slap on the wrist for throwing rocks at police cars, or even assaulting police officers. And their argument? They don't know how to function in our society, because school is too hard and no-one told them how they should behave. We cut them slack, so the Sudanese should cut her slack, even while our laws are documented and plainly enforced and their's is made-up and implicit.

I understand if you're Sudanese, but I'd consider it treason if you think she deserves to be punished for an obscene, undocumented rule. Even when they interviewed a Muslim boy in Sudan he said, "It's like a big red line, and she crossed it". And of-course he'd like her dead over some 'plainly evident, yet undocumented law'.

I can't even go to a Sudanese dominant suburb 7km from my house, because there are frequent stabbings, assault on police and car jacking (in broad day-light). Most of them are mad, which is being stereotypical of me yes... but when you're dealing with a country you have to do so. Sudan wants her dead, not just a few people. I bet if you were over there in her shoes, you'd want a fair trial -- and people of the western world to support you.

BTW,
>I might vote for yours if I thought about that sort of thing.
Do you mean, democracy? If so, I can see where your argument is coming from.

MacGyver
12-01-2007, 04:39 PM
>> This post gets voted by me for Dumbest Post I've Read in This Topic.
I might vote for yours if I thought about that sort of thing.

You get second place in my vote. See below.


>> you think the teacher is supposed to stop and say, "Hold on there, little Muhammad. You
>> can't name the Teddy bear after yourself because it's a bear and not a human like yourself.
>> Doing so is punishable by 15 days in jail."
Yes, of course. Why couldn't she? If they named the bear #$@!er I'm pretty sure she'd stop and say that they can't do that, so why is it any harder to stop them from practicing blasphemy. She's the teacher in charge of the class. It is her responsibility to make sure they follow the rules. You aren't going to hold the kids accountable, are you?

You think naming the bear after a kid in the class is the same as naming the kid after some vulgar word?

How is she supposed to know that allowing the kids to name the bear after a student is wrong?

And if the muslim kids don't know it's blasphemous, then why should the non-muslim teacher know? And since when was she tasked with teaching them about islam?


>> You tell me why a non-Muslim teacher is supposed to know more about stupid islamic laws more than the kids and parents.
Because she lives in the country? Who says the parents knew? The kids are only 7 years old, are you sure you want to put the blame on them?

Yes, I do want to blame the kids. I don't expect a muslim to tell my kids how to follow their religion, and I don't expect to teach their kids how to follow theirs.


>> western countries have idiots that want to try to explain these stupid actions
I'm not sure you've been understanding the arguments. There is a big difference between saying the law itself makes sense and saying that as long as the law exists there's nothing wrong with them applying it in a reasonable fashion.

Is there anything reasonable with wanting to kill the teacher over this? I fail to see it.


>> Let's say it's the US or England, and some teacher has the kids vote on what to name the
>> bear, and we had a child named after Jesus. If the kids voted to name it after their fellow
>> student, would there be riots to kill the teacher?
No, because naming a bear Jesus is not as significant of a sin in Christianity as naming a bear Muhammed is in Sudan.

OK, so let's take it a step further. Let's say in my example the muslim teacher mutilated the teddy bear after naming it after a student named after Jesus and said things against Jesus and against Christianity. That's enough to consider it blasphemous.

Would there be riots to kill the teacher? I still think not. We are way too tolerant and willing to allow warped islamic teachers to affect us! Stop and think! This is a classroom. They voted on what to name the bear. You think she's seriously supposed to think that it's wrong to name the bear after a kid?


>> The same people that are saying the actual teacher should be aware of these islamic laws
>> are probably the same people that would say that in the equivalent example, she would
>> not be expected to know any Christian rules if she was a muslim.
Are you sure? The point is that they are the country's laws. And I would guess that if she were in a nation with laws based on Christian culture these same people would say that a Muslim should be held accountable for them as well.

Considering we don't hold muslims to the same laws we hold our own people to, I have to say you're totally wrong. We give them all kinds of ridiculous freedoms to abuse our laws it's disgusting. The West is destroying itself from the inside out. Thinking ourselves to be open and tolerant, we are tearing ourselves down one step at a time.

Reminds me of the case how that idiot woman in Florida wanted to have her driver's license picture not show her face due to religious reasons. So many reasons why that is stupid, and it raised controversy. Nevermind the fact that in real islamic countries, she wouldn't be allowed to drive, and nevermind the fact she was arrested before as a criminal and had her ugly picture taken before, but she seemed to think that somehow she was above the laws of the land she was in.


I completely agree that religious zealotry (of any faith) makes a society less tolerant. I am not saying that I think the law is a good one, or that I like the society that such a government seems to create. I am saying that complaints about this often seem to be based on one's own personal morals and convictions without respecting those of the Sudanese.

This is the idiocy that makes you get 2nd place. Both you and the other person seem to think the woman deserves this, or if we say that the woman does NOT deserve this, somehow we are trampling on the Sudanese. Defending her is not necessarily attacking the Sudanese, and I fail to see your point.

You think a complaint about these people wanting to kill a teacher over this is based on my "own personal morals and convictions without respecting those of the Sudanese"? Are you kidding me? Would you be happy if they actually killed her? How much respect are you willing to show them in the name of respect for their culture?

The teacher should be deported for her own sake. It's about time people out there start thinking of her culture and her rights as a human being.

We don't even necessarily give 15 days in jail if you get busted down drunk driving, but somehow people think that for not stopping the kids here in naming the bear after them, 15 days in jail is more than lenient. I think something is wrong here.

Daved
12-01-2007, 05:15 PM
>> Either way, she's been dubbed guilty before proven so.
Wasn't she convicted already after a trial? She was even acquitted of the more serious offense and convicted of the smaller one.

>> Would you consider assault the same as blasphemy?
Did you see the part where I said I don't think the law is a good one?

>> their's is made-up and implicit
Is it? It has defined maximum punishments. How could it be made up and implicit?

>> I'd consider it treason if you think she deserves to be punished for an obscene, undocumented rule.
Please provide evidence that it is an undocumented rule.

>> Sudan wants her dead, not just a few people.
It is just a few people. Only a couple hundred protested. How many people are in Sudan?

>> I bet if you were over there in her shoes, you'd want a fair trial -- and people of the western world to support you.
She did get a fair trial as far as I can see. She got convicted of the smaller offense and acquitted of the more serious charge. She got punished for her crime. The punishment was 15 days in jail and deportation. She wasn't punished with death.

Am I missing something? The facts you seem to be basing you arguments on are very different than the facts in the few articles I've read about this issue.

Daved
12-01-2007, 05:39 PM
You think naming the bear after a kid in the class is the same as naming the kid after some vulgar word?I made an analogy, which means I think it is similar. And I didn't say I thought it was similar, I said they do. In fact, I hope you understand that blasphemy is probably considered much, much worse.

Please remember that I am not saying that I agree with the law. I am trying to explain the importance they put on it. Using your values to judge the application of their laws doesn't make sense. Their laws are based on their values, so of course they should apply the laws based on their own values.

How is she supposed to know that allowing the kids to name the bear after a student is wrong?It is the law of the country. Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. You can ask for leniency because you didn't know the law, and I would hope that you would get it, but that doesn't mean you must get it.

And if the muslim kids don't know it's blasphemous, then why should the non-muslim teacher know? And since when was she tasked with teaching them about islam?
Are you are saying that 7-year olds should be held responsible and punished when they break allow but their teacher should not be punished for allowing it?

Yes, I do want to blame the kids. I don't expect a muslim to tell my kids how to follow their religion, and I don't expect to teach their kids how to follow theirs.This is a law of the country, their religions are irrelevant to whether they must obey that law.

Is there anything reasonable with wanting to kill the teacher over this? I fail to see it.Did you honestly read my post or Thantos's and think that's what we're saying? If you think we're saying anything even remotely close to this, then you are completely misunderstanding. I am in no way defending the people who are protesting. I am merely defending the right of the government to apply one of their laws in a reasonable fashion, which it appears is what they did. I am also defending the right of a nation to make laws based on their values, and I am saying it is the responsibility of visitors to a country to respect their rules or accept the consequences if they break them.


OK, so let's take it a step further. Let's say in my example the muslim teacher mutilated the teddy bear after naming it after a student named after Jesus and said things against Jesus and against Christianity. That's enough to consider it blasphemous.

Would there be riots to kill the teacher? I still think not. We are way too tolerant and willing to allow warped islamic teachers to affect us! Stop and think! This is a classroom. They voted on what to name the bear. You think she's seriously supposed to think that it's wrong to name the bear after a kid?Again, the sin you described is not as significant in our society as blasphemy is in theirs. Also again, I am not defending the protesters. I strongly disagree with their viewpoint. And again, it is her responsibility to both abide by the laws of the country she is in and also not allow her students to break them while under her supervision.


Considering we don't hold muslims to the same laws we hold our own people to, I have to say you're totally wrong. We give them all kinds of ridiculous freedoms to abuse our laws it's disgusting. The West is destroying itself from the inside out. Thinking ourselves to be open and tolerant, we are tearing ourselves down one step at a time.

Reminds me of the case how that idiot woman in Florida wanted to have her driver's license picture not show her face due to religious reasons. So many reasons why that is stupid, and it raised controversy. Nevermind the fact that in real islamic countries, she wouldn't be allowed to drive, and nevermind the fact she was arrested before as a criminal and had her ugly picture taken before, but she seemed to think that somehow she was above the laws of the land she was in.I'm not aware of any circumstances where "we" (are you talking about America, "the West" or something else?) don't hold Muslims to the same laws as others. Was the woman who wanted her veil on in her driver's license allowed to do so?

It is hard to take your comments here seriously. "Our own people"? What does that mean?


This is the idiocy that makes you get 2nd place. Both you and the other person seem to think the woman deserves this, or if we say that the woman does NOT deserve this, somehow we are trampling on the Sudanese. Defending her is not necessarily attacking the Sudanese, and I fail to see your point.

You think a complaint about these people wanting to kill a teacher over this is based on my "own personal morals and convictions without respecting those of the Sudanese"? Are you kidding me? Would you be happy if they actually killed her? How much respect are you willing to show them in the name of respect for their culture?

The teacher should be deported for her own sake. It's about time people out there start thinking of her culture and her rights as a human being.

We don't even necessarily give 15 days in jail if you get busted down drunk driving, but somehow people think that for not stopping the kids here in naming the bear after them, 15 days in jail is more than lenient. I think something is wrong here.This entire quote seems to be based on them misapprehension that I am defending the protesters that want her killed. So it makes no sense for me to respond since you might feel differently if you understood that I'm defending the right of a country to make laws and apply them even if I disagree with those laws.

In fact, perhaps I should have stopped responding to your entire post when I made that realization. If you still feel your arguments apply after I clarified my position, feel free to say so.

mike_g
12-01-2007, 05:59 PM
So far no-one here seems to have remembered the genocide that was going on in Sudan not so long ago. That followed a civil war where the muslims tried to kill all the christians.

In a country where murder seems to be the popular form of entertainment a 15 day jail sentence is nothing. To go to teach in a county that probably has the death sentence for not being muslim, without a deep understanding of the culture, is plain stupid. Especially when you're a British and your country is has invaded Iraq and Afghanistan; any excuse will do.

When the day comes that everyone understands scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) all religious tensions, and religion itself, will disappear.