Adventure Game Studio

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1294455,00.html

It's so sad that so much of the world is so, so backwards.

Yeah, but imagine how offended you would be if I called by Teddy bear Spaff!

What perhaps struck me most was this:

'"All we can do is show our support by speaking about what a wonderful person she is and how concerned she will be that she has insulted and offended people," said Miss Langworthy.'

Really, should that matter at all? The way I see it, she could well be a complete ass, and she could be gleeful about having insulted and offended people, and that is still no excuse to base laws on religion. What sort of a person she is, or how much remorse she is supposedly feeling, shouldn't matter at all, and acting like it does just diverts attention from what the true problem is: religious dogma trumping human rights.

Before the whole religion discussion thing starts again, I'd like to use this opportunity to express how stupid I think this whole case is. Thank you for your attention, and now let's get back to The Religion Is Evil No It's Not Yes It Is Show.

"She is fascinated by different countries and cultures. She loves finding out about different ways of life,"

Nothing like living life to it's fullest, eh!  Bring on them lashes baby! ;)

I read about that this morning, hehe. Stupidness. What I love is the fact they somehow specifically found out the teddy bear's name Mohammed was that after the great prophet or what not. I take it there are no other Mohammed's in the world?

Another inventory item that should never be used, the prophet mohammed. Or a teddy bear with a similar name.

Great points though Eldkatt. To be fair though it is really only one religion that takes any minor offence mind-bogglingly seriously & with stupidly seriously consequences. But its okay none of them are terrorists.

In the USA, if she'd cut up a US flag to mae a bear some clothes, she could be arrested, too..

Quote from: SSH on Tue 27/11/2007 19:18:56
In the USA, if she'd cut up a US flag to mae a bear some clothes, she could be arrested, too..

I doubt that she would be punished with 40 lashes though.

Quote from: m0ds on Tue 27/11/2007 18:47:16
Great points though Eldkatt. To be fair though it is really only one religion that takes any minor offence mind-bogglingly seriously & with stupidly seriously consequences. But its okay none of them are terrorists.

But unfortunately it also happens to be a religion with huge influence on actual legislation, etc, in a significant number of countries. If it were not so, I wouldn't really mind how seriously it takes anything. Islam and Islamic countries with Islamic law are AFAIK sort of unique in this aspect as well. (Though the USA might have gone down that road too if it weren't for the constitution...)

Good point regarding the name, anyway. Made me laugh. Isn't Mohammed, like, the most common name?

Quote from: EldKatt on Tue 27/11/2007 20:11:10
Good point regarding the name, anyway. Made me laugh. Isn't Mohammed, like, the most common name?

Mostly because it's a custom to name your eldest son after the prophet. It is believed (if it's true is as always disputed) that the prophet was the first one with that name.
So everyone called Mohammed is named after him.


Still a load of bollocks to give someone 40 lashes ofcourse.

What right do we have to judge the laws of Sudan?

If you're travelling abroad, you always have to take into account local laws and customs, and be aware that if you break them you will be subject to their punishments.

If I went to America and slept with a 16 year old, would the fact that it's legal in the UK excuse me from abiding by the law there?

The issue is not that we want westerners to be exempt from their laws. The issue is that (at least to those of us with a secularist or humanist outlook) the laws themselves are harmful to everyone. I really don't see why we ought to keep quiet about these things out of respect. I think we have every right to judge their laws and consider them unethical.

If you ask me, it generally boils down to human rights. Legislation mandating specific religions by its very nature contradicts the freedoms of thought and of expression. Legislation preventing unbiased education ultimately denies children the freedom of thought. These are serious things (IMO more grave than your freedom of sex with 16-year-olds ;)), and I think it's necessary that we deal with them if we want our species and its habitat to survive for any great deal of time.

I feel sorry for the real victim.  The Teddy bear.

Anyway.  I'm sure if the great prophet were still around today he'd be flattered at having a cuddly toy named after him.   No one should be lashed 40 times for anything.  It's a shit excuse for a punishment.

I'm assuming this breaks a law to do with acting disrespectfully towards the national religion or something (rather than a law that states no stuffed animals may be named after deities). Surely its obvious she didn't do it on purpose, wouldn't have done it if she had realised and hence it should result in a warning only.

...if I may state the case of Marx versus Lester, a sufferer of dyslexia and the unfortunate labelling of his toy Basset "Dog"...

Indeed. I'm pretty sure world peace doesn't include 40 lashings.

Religion enforced peace may do.

Funny that!

Quote from: Pumaman on Tue 27/11/2007 22:18:41
If I went to America and slept with a 16 year old, would the fact that it's legal in the UK excuse me from abiding by the law there?

Be my guest.  They all dress like little whores and then when they get into trouble with somebody over 18 they pretend they didn't know what they were doing.

Woops, I probably just offended somebody there...

Quote from: EldKatt on Tue 27/11/2007 22:45:15
The issue is not that we want westerners to be exempt from their laws. The issue is that (at least to those of us with a secularist or humanist outlook) the laws themselves are harmful to everyone. I really don't see why we ought to keep quiet about these things out of respect. I think we have every right to judge their laws and consider them unethical.

My thoughts exactly.

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


I've said this before I know but, I also don't feel the need to respect religions if they are executed/practiced in a way that I find offensive. I'm not going to purposely try to attack people about their religious beliefs unless they do something, personally, to me that I don't like. But I'm not going to pretend I find them okay either.

This situation with the teddy bear is unbelievable. Some of the parents have now come out and said they find it ridiculous too. One of the children has said he misses his teacher and acknowledges that he was the one to come up with the name, based on his own name. Why is this woman being held?

Quote from: Nightfable on Wed 28/11/2007 02:57:00

Quote from: EldKatt on Tue 27/11/2007 22:45:15
The issue is not that we want westerners to be exempt from their laws. The issue is that (at least to those of us with a secularist or humanist outlook) the laws themselves are harmful to everyone. I really don't see why we ought to keep quiet about these things out of respect. I think we have every right to judge their laws and consider them unethical.

My thoughts exactly.

These two videos speaks for what happens and is considered "normal" in those countries.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9c2_1175003196 --> Her father gave her to another family to settle a dispute and that family tortured her for 2 years. Often disputes are solved in Pashtunwali by giving daughters. Eventually people rescued her and took her to Kabul for help. She is only 7 years old. She is being treated by a Kabuli doctor.

See, this is the problem with lumping them all into 'those countries'. What are 'those countries'? I think you vaguely referenced religion in their somewhere, but you forget (or are not aware) that Pakhtunwali is not a religious ideology, but a tribal ideology that has nothing to do with religion. By 'those countries' do you mean countries with inhumane practices? Because there are dozens of such countries with hugely varied cultures, religions and backgrounds. I think there only connection is that they'd probably all be 'Developing Countries'.

Quote from: EldKatt on Tue 27/11/2007 17:59:03
Really, should that matter at all? The way I see it, she could well be a complete ass, and she could be gleeful about having insulted and offended people, and that is still no excuse to base laws on religion.

I'm not sure how basing laws on religion are any different from basing laws on anything else. Separation of Church and State is primarily an axiom of western thought, and while it might apply to most western countries, in a country that has decided to fundamentally identify itself in a religious way, it is up to them what they base their laws on. Now if you are talking about human rights, then I very much agree with you. However, given the choice, I'd rather go for 40 lashes than for a few months in prison. I don't see how one is less humane than the other.

Now on to the absurdities of of the accusation:
* The children themselves voted on what the name of the toy should be
* Many islamic people name their pets islamic names (why would a Sudani person name their pet Spot, for example?)
* They haven't really clarified how naming a toy Muhammad is insulting to Islam. I don't think they'd be able to come up with a sane explanation.

Wasn't it in Sudan that the guy was forced to marry a goat as a punishment for beastiality?

SSH, one quick question...

You said "In the USA, if she'd cut up a US flag to make a bear some clothes, she could be arrested, too..." In a clumpsy deffense of the possibility of a woman being lashed 40 times for nothing.

Imagine you read the news "A man arrested for dishonoring the american flag"

Would you authomatically think "Well, in Sudan you could be lashed 40 times for dishonoring Mahoma"?

Because, if you won' t, then it means you have some kind of fixation with America.

If your mind directly goes to "how can be this used to bash America?" at any little aspect, with any news, with every little thing you see, that would mean you have some kind of mental disorder. Presecutory mania, paranoia, something like that.

Relax man... Stop thinking in America every time you see that the World is not perfect, because, you know? In some bad things going on... Americans are not involved AT ALL!!! BELIEVE ME! Pass page! Go to the light!

The day we (Europeans) stop using America as "the joker card", using them as an excuse for everything going bad, and focus in us and how to be better, we will be in position to kick some Yankee asses!!! Till that moment, we will go on twisting and twisting in our slow spiral of decadency!!! Till the moment we stop making books like "We never were there" best sellers, in spite of trying to reach Mars before they do we won' t reach anywhere. The day we change "Haha... The Yankees pissed it off again"  :D for "What can I do to beat those fuckin' Americans?"  ??? We will Rule the World!!! We will recover our lost dignity, we will be unbeatable!!!

ARE YOU WITH ME, ANDREW??? ARE YOU WITH ME EUROPEANS FELLAS!!! COME ON! SING WITH ME!



P.S: What was this thread about???  ???

this was a lot funnier in the other thread :D :D

To the issue, I think there's no discussion here. Who here really thinks that this is justified? And who of you who don't, believes that we can do something about it?

Glad to amuse you! ^_^ Agreed, nobody can justify this.

But we can do something about it...Apparently, things like that happens when people from the "West" go to Islamic countries. CJ posted "If you're travelling abroad, you always have to take into account local laws and customs, and be aware that if you break them you will be subject to their punishments"

Nightfable had to wear a shaddor when in Iran.

Ain' t now the fucking time US to make THEM to take our local laws and customs when they COME here? Australia is showing the path. Ain' t you happy with girls showing their calfs (EDIT: Calves, thanks Tuomas)? Go to your country! Nobody put a gun in your head to come here! Can't you stand girls without veil? Go to your country, with your camels and with your only-eyes-can-be-seen girls. Do you think that shaddor is a personal choice by your wife that harms no one and you are NOT going to try to impose it to us, your hosts? YOU ARE WELCOME! You can' t imagine how welcomed you' ll be.

How can I have the guts to post this having friend muslims members who can read this? Easy... Because this is not aimed to them. Babar and Gord10 behave normally in their countries and wouldn't be "noticeable" in the bad sense, if they visit us, or will complain if a girl shows her legs or her hair.

This is for those who force a man to marry with a goat because he has kept extra matrimonial relations with it. This is for those who force her wife to wear a black burka in summer. This is for those who burn embassies because of 5 or 6 silly doddles in a magazine 5,000 kilometres away from their country. This is not aimed to muslims. This is aimed to idiots covering theirselves in a nice culture to spread their idioticy.

Specially for them: Idiots!

If somebody wants to write a simillar essay with "idiots" using cristianism to spread their idioticy, I will concurr, as well.  :)

I completely agree. Especially with the girls showing their calves part ;) It's not an attack against the islamic world when our western christianity ridden world has just as many similar flaws. It's against those stupid people who happen to be in charge. Oh well.

You have the gift of expressing propperly and in short what I think, my friend.

I have some points to make:

1. Because America gets some things wrong, other nations and people can be as barbaric as they like.
2. Gibraltar
3. "Invicible Armada"? Hahahahhahah
4. Cueta and Melilla and Parsley Island obviosuly should belong to Morocco
5. Anything else that might wind up Nacho ;)

Quote from: Tuomas on Wed 28/11/2007 14:05:34
And who of you who don't, believes that we can do something about it?

I'm not the anti-society rebellious sort, but it has occurred to me that simply being born does not equate to the signing of a contract.  I do not enter this world obligated to follow rules that I find to be injust.  If my government attempted to do that to me, I would fight it with my last breath.

I follow the rules set before me because I believe that they were arranged to make my world and life better.  No matter how corrupt those who now enforce the rules may be, the rules themselves are still beneficial.  It doesn't mean I have to feel guilty about rolling my eyes when I see a speed trap... and it doesn't mean that I can't feel outraged when I see the rulekeepers abusing their power.

Getting back to the point, though... I honestly don't believe that some rules are beneficial to anyone.  Nobody is going to suffer because of what this woman has named her teddy bear.  She didn't break any moral code.  It's my (possibly narrow-minded) opinion that the rule is incredibly stupid and I feel no compulsion to respect it.

Finally, to answer your question... that's tricky.  Yes, we can do something about it when we are involved.  Technically, yes.  We could gather a large enough group of people to storm the prison and remove her forcibly at pain of death.  Or maybe we could give the right people enough money to make it all go away.  Yes, I realize that both of these options are oh, so American.  That would only serve our purpose once, though.  In order for laws like this to fail for good, many individuals will have to decide for themselves that such laws are wrong and should be removed from the books.

As long as cultures (yes, mine included) continue to brainwash their own creators, however, that will never happen... or it's going to take a very charismatic rebel to kick it off.

Andrew:

1. When something is barbaric, we gotta mention it. Not just think "Americans do something simillar" and relax.
2. We don' t want that filthy rock.
3. We were saboutaged.
4. You are not rowing in the same direction I am... EUROPE!!! SHOUT IT WITH ME!!! Remember?!?!?!?!
5. Of course Aria' s are real!!! I said nothing about Zemanova's, but ARIA'S AIN' T FAKE!!! SHE IS 100% NATURAL!!!

Nacho: I agree 100%. (regarding your 2nd post on this page)
We visit them: we have to respect their culture.
They *live* here: we have to respect their culture.

The respect we're supposed to pay to religious customs, no matter whether they seem extreme to us or not, isn't justified by anything.

Imagine I founded a sect that worshiped the shadow. I could use that as grounds to accuse people of insulting my religion when they happen to step on my shadow!
This may seem silly at first, but it's really the same thing.

A contemporary example: there's a religious group in New Mexiko who is allowed to consume an LSD-like substance because they said it was how they practiced their religion.
In another state (I think Nevada, at least a state without very strict drug laws), people suffering and dying of cancer are denied to relieve their pain by smoking marijuana!
Unbelievable.

QuoteI do not enter this world obligated to follow rules that I find to be injust.  If my government attempted to do that to me, I would fight it with my last breath.

Just a quick note here:  you feel this way because you were likely raised in an environment that promotes freedom of thought.  Many muslims are not raised in this environment and, consequently, do not have the benefit of their brains being filled with lots of alternatives and possibilities.  They tow the line they've been trained to tow, and if not by conditioning or zeal then by the fear of what they see happen to those who do not.

As much as you'd like to say 'I wouldn't do this', you're hardly in a position or lived their lives to really say that and know it.  This isn't to pick on you specifically; I've found myself say the same thing before without actually thinking about all the underlying conditions to what makes people who they are.  People raised in oppressive societies tend to think differently by nature of that society, and while you could leap in like Batman from the outside and help them, from the inside you'd probably feel as they do.

This, in my mind, is why some of those real big "aid" deals, where some American builds a factory or something, don't usually work in my view. One,your barging into there culture, often insulting it, even if inadvertently, and creating something in a vacuum, with out thought to wether the cultural environment could take it. Remember when Opera opened up that school. I vehemently disagreed with her reasoning. I think she could have done better opening up at least a few thousand  well made primary tree schools, in the poorer parts of Africa, rather then this higher education facility, that relatively few could aspire to anyway.
On the other hand, a good example of helping within the local culture was the pot in pot fridge. all it was a big clay pot, a smaller clay pot,sand water and a damp cloth. didn't need any electricity,  and could be made with all local materials. But it kept food fresh much longer then otherwise possible.http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/lab/pot_refrigerator/index.htm (http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/lab/pot_refrigerator/index.htm)

ProgZ:

I wasn't attempting to project my own viewpoint on them and then ask why they don't feel the way that I feel, but I can certainly see how it came off that way.

I was really trying to express the fact that I do not feel bad about having complete contempt for some of their laws.  Cultural awareness is great, but I think that completely blind tolerance of other cultures (as backed up by the old mantra that we didn't grow up there so we couldn't possibly understand) is extremely naive.

You're absolutely right... it is not in the (manufactured) nature of some people to question authority at any cost.  I don't blame the people at all.  But due to my own naivete, I do like to think that one day one among them will stand up and refuse to take it anymore, and that enough of the others will listen.

lo_res_man:

I agree.  It seems that we sometimes make these grandiose gestures that have nothing to do with the problems that the people we're "helping" face.  We're giving shiny, golden round pegs to people who happen to have nothing but square holes.  But hey, the peg is golden, right?  Well, too bad if they don't have any use for it.

E.F. Schumacher realised the need for more useful aid in the 60's and 70s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriate_technology

I'm starting to get suspicious about all this.  First Nightfable starts a thread asking why people like to see women suffer and then a couple of days later Meowster starts this one!  What  are you girls up to?   ;)

Oh and SSH, about making bear britches from the American Flag, yeah some people/groups would whine loudly about it but the woman would probably end up on the Oprah show.  .... Oooooh!  :o Wait!  That's a fate far worse than 40 lashes?  ;)

Quote from: ProgZmax on Wed 28/11/2007 15:18:52
As much as you'd like to say 'I wouldn't do this', you're hardly in a position or lived their lives to really say that and know it.  This isn't to pick on you specifically; I've found myself say the same thing before without actually thinking about all the underlying conditions to what makes people who they are.  People raised in oppressive societies tend to think differently by nature of that society, and while you could leap in like Batman from the outside and help them, from the inside you'd probably feel as they do.

Exactly. 99% of your personality and thought process is formed through your experiences in life. If you'd been born in Sudan, you might well be offended by the bear being named Mohammed, because it's the culture you've been brought up to think is "right".

And really, who are we to say that we're more right than they are. We only believe that freedom of speech is right and lashings are wrong because that's what our society has indoctrinated in us to believe.

Quote from: Pumaman on Wed 28/11/2007 19:38:49
And really, who are we to say that we're more right than they are. We only believe that freedom of speech is right and lashings are wrong because that's what our society has indoctrinated in us to believe.

Thing is this though.

Those learnings (to which I agree that 99% is what we are taught in society and family, if not 99.9%) are rather easy to break for half the population. When people do join the western world they usually leave behind such things (or they never had them in the first place?) When a westerner joins... Sudan, for example, no one expects them to pick up the idea of lashings.

BTW, I'm not actually opposed to the idea of "lashings" for punishement, only maybe because it's too little. A thief has 2 choices, an x number of lashes or an x days in prison. guess what they all choose. This is not a great idea of "law".

Well, as I've suggested, I am blissfully naive.  I believe that every person knows the difference between right and wrong and bad and good.  And I believe that everyone who has ever felt pain knows that it is wrong.  Maybe I'm too narrow minded to grasp the real feelings that they have toward the naming of the bear, but I do know that forty lashings would cause pain... the real, physical kind... and I know that the teacher has supporters even among those indoctrinated citizens of Sudan.

QuoteExactly. 99% of your personality and thought process is formed through your experiences in life. If you'd been born in Sudan, you might well be offended by the bear being named Mohammed, because it's the culture you've been brought up to think is "right".

And really, who are we to say that we're more right than they are. We only believe that freedom of speech is right and lashings are wrong because that's what our society has indoctrinated in us to believe.

I think that, considering that one of "our" people is in Sudan, suffering for this ridiculous "crime" when her only intention was to be a good person and to help and to educate... I think then it gives us a right to judge whether what they do is right or wrong.

If all the barbaric people stayed huddled together in a little island and never bothered anyone for all eternity, then it would be none of our business what they decided to do to each other. The fact is that their barbaric behaviour effects people in a negative way... be it this teacher, or their own people. Sudan has terrible, terrible human rights, and I think the level of suffering in the country should speak for itself as to whether it's right or wrong.


Except from BBC news today:


The Muslim Council of Britain reacted angrily to the news, saying it was "appalled" and demanded Mrs Gibbons' immediate release.

"This is a disgraceful decision and defies common sense. There was clearly no intention on the part of the teacher to deliberately insult the Islamic faith," said Secretary-General Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, in a strongly-worded statement.

"We call upon the Sudanese President, Omar al-Bashir, to intervene in this case without delay to ensure that Ms Gibbons is freed from this quite shameful ordeal," said Dr Bari.

Sudan's top clerics have called for the full measure of the law to be used against Mrs Gibbons and labelled her actions part of a Western plot against Islam.[/i]

Today, Sudanese people are rioting in the streets demanding that Gillian "Funky" Gibbons is shot. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7121025.stm)

W

T

F

Now that's scary. Why is nobody demanding that the kid who chose the name be shot? I'd be interested in seeing some newspaper reports from Sudan, but I don't speak Arabic.

Wow, that is effed up!

Quote from: Nightfable on Fri 30/11/2007 16:03:50You guys better be careful what you write on here, there could be one of them reading this very thread and accusing us of insulting Islam AND that we should all be executed for it. See, this is how incredibly stupid and unpredictable these religion fanatics are. I just can't find the proper words to express myself... so I'll use this smilie instead  ::) and name him Mohammed.

I openly insult Islam outloud.  They should give her the 40 lashes for her heinous crime and then go right back to preaching peace and tolerance.  Way to go!  I used the bathroom yesterday and I named the result Mohammed.  That should be enough to kick-off the next Crusades!

Now before anybody has an anuerism or, in the name of peace, wants to cut my head off for my "racist" comments, you should know I feel the same way about all organized religions.

I agree with CJ's sentiments about culture dictating what's acceptable.  I'm not saying their practice of lashing is right or wrong.  I just don't like the hypocracy of a religion, which preaches peace and tolerance, giving lashes to somebody that named a bear.

QuoteIf I meet these whores I will have the honor - I repeat, I will have the honor - to be the first one to cut the heads off Madonna and Britney Spears

A bit OT, I know, but isn't there only ONE time you can do that? Way to go, team  ::)

Allah gave that guy two hands, so, with two cimitars he could behead two at once.

About some things told here: The "They are educated that way" is dangerous. It's a Rousseanian conception that nowadays' psicologysts shortly describe as: CRAP. Nazis interviewed after the war showed that they knew that what they did was bad. People electroshocking (not really, but they thought they were) another people in experiments recognised they knew that was bad. People cowardly sheltered in a mob know that are behaving unpropperly, but they happily on because it's what EVERYOBDY does.

It's the same things that happens when at the school everybody laughs when somebody makes a lame joke with the local nerd... You really know that' s not fair, but you laught and thing "***Phew*** At least that' s not happening to me".

But it finally reaches to time to grow up, stand up, and tell to the local thug, "Hey, moron... leave the guy alone, that' s not funny at all!"

I' ve been there. I stand up, and it' s scary... But the thug is as scared as you (More... they are cowards, and just in the moment you stand up you made a big step that left your fears alone)

Deffending those morons with the "enviromental" excuse is... Not hypocrital, but I can't seem to be able to find a better word... We never used that "Socioeconomical issues pushed the German population to gas 6,000,000 Jews, so, it' s ok, we should have made it in the same way" with the Nazis.

No. If it' s bad, it' s bad.

Why using this "enviromental" excuse with the Sudanese? Because some Islamist zealot could read this and chop our balls? Come on, let' s have guts. Those in the streets calling for executing a woman for nothing are totally bastards, as the mob laughing at the burning Jew' s business in Reichskristallnacht. Just the same. Why not appling to those the same adjectives we used with the nazis? Same crap, different smell.

And about religions... I think religions are mostly healthy. but, as happens with some healthy bodies, some cells can go nuts. We have a tumour, as well... Cristianity, for example (We can find more) has that zealots who kill abortist doctors (And I am with some shades, anti-abortist, but there' s an abyss between that and putting bombs). Jews have those "Hareddim". And Muslims have another big cancer as well... If you ask me, I think their tumour is quite bigger than that we have in Cristianity, and I, as friend of some "cells" of that "mostly healthy body", would like that dangerous Cancer to be extirpated ASAP. Using "envirmental" excuses and those "pacification policies" that some people wants to use, doesn't seem the answer to me.

Add all of these ingredients (in no specific order) and you get a raging mad Islamic terrorist:

- Poor education
- Violent upbringing
- Oppressing government
- Severe religious brainwash
- Peer pressure & indoctrination
- Faulty moral values
- Resentment/hate/envy
- Nothing better to do
- Access to weapons

Building a system of law around religious ideals is akin to building a house on a cloud.

EDIT: http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article3209882.ece ....pfft.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Fri 30/11/2007 17:06:05
I'm not saying their practice of lashing is right or wrong.  I just don't like the hypocracy of a religion, which preaches peace and tolerance, giving lashes to somebody that named a bear.

It's easy to forget that until relatively recently, countries in the West had Blasphemy laws and would behead/imprison people who said anything against Jesus; not forgetting that if you did anything out of the ordinary in your day to day life, you'd be branded a witch and put to death.

You could argue that countries like Sudan are simply at a different stage of "evolution" to countries in the West, and that in time they will become more moderate. It's only when two countries at different stages collide that it becomes a problem, as in this case.

Quote from: Pumaman on Fri 30/11/2007 21:08:20It's easy to forget that until relatively recently, countries in the West had Blasphemy laws and would behead/imprison people who said anything against Jesus; not forgetting that if you did anything out of the ordinary in your day to day life, you'd be branded a witch and put to death.

You could argue that countries like Sudan are simply at a different stage of "evolution" to countries in the West, and that in time they will become more moderate. It's only when two countries at different stages collide that it becomes a problem, as in this case.

Oh believe me, I'm not sticking up for Christianity by any means.  We're just as hypocritical a bunch as any organized religion.  I say "we" 'cause I was raised Christian and still consider myself one.  Even though I hate what's been done in the name of my religion (and all organized religions).  Yet I still call myself one...  See?  Hypocrits all.

As for the Sudan being at a different state of "evolution" well ... I don't know.  I'm of two vastly differing opinions on this.

Part of me thinks a line must be drawn somewhere.  The world is evolving and 40 lashes for naming a bear is dumb.  What if they believed it was a crime worthy of a hanging/beheading?  Should we just say, "well, it's their culture"?  It's 2007, not 1380!

Then another part of me says, "who are we to say what they believe is right or wrong?"  It's their land and their culture and they should dictate it, not us.

But I lean more towards a line being drawn.  Her 'crime' is a joke and giving her lashes (even 1) is barbaric and, it would seem to me, intentionally confrontational.  Seems more like they want to "show the west (Christians/Jews)" something rather than actually caring about the bear.  Wars have been started over things far more trivial I suppose.

I can see it now ... 100 years from now the history records will say, "And then there was World War III ... the most deadly war in human history that destroyed nearly the entire planet.  All because of a teddy bear."

Way to go religion!!

Quote from: Pumaman on Fri 30/11/2007 21:08:20
It's easy to forget that until relatively recently, countries in the West had Blasphemy laws and would behead/imprison people who said anything against Jesus;

Still does in the UK. Last successful prosecution was 1977. Of course, if the teahcer had written a poem about shagging a muslim prophet's skull, as was the equivalent in the 1977 case then the reaction might have been somewhat more understandable.

What's an offense? People tend to cower behind this word way too often these days.

So I say that you suck. Do you sue me? Probably not, you simply retaliate, throw a punch or ignore. Even if I tell it to other people.
But if I say that your skin color or god/sexual preference/faith sucks? What happens is a social hurricane.
Why are these two statements so different?

What I tend to think in those situations is:
On individual level, you should protect your identity much more than a racial group or religion of someone's. Did God ask for your f***king help?! He's almighty, he will punish me by himself, shut the hell up. Or did all those billion people of same color/sex preference? There's way more of them than one me. You don't have to play hero and saviour.

And why are all people in the world playing along with this sick, pointless game?
Especially in religion issues: if you're a true believer, no infidel should bend your faith with wrong word.
Why invent harsh punishments, require strict clothing, force all this? Is this faith so fragile and thin?

There's two similarities in Islam and Catholic Christianity: Both are oppressive (in their history). Both forced and even today force people to follow. Religious freedom in wide area of the world has somewhat cut down their reach and power a bit, but there's still large masses of people who are forced to follow.
Lot's of pacifist love-spreading believers would argue me on this, but all it takes is a history textbook to prove. Also, they isolate themselves from aggressive believers, claiming that those interpret Holy Bible (or Qur'an) in wrong way (murder is sin, etc), but if so huge percent of believers of something are like this, well, they can't be called exceptions.

I believe that one born in Islam country would risk his health and life even in early childhood when rebelling against the religion.

And even free democratic governments are still bound to faith. Military has its own preachers, people are buried in ground in catholic areas, president's call for God in their speech.  I'm not against this, in fact, I would like to be buried too and I celebrate Christmas. But I didn't really choose to do this, it's tradition of almost every single human around me. In few weeks, whole city will be full of Christmas adverts and shopping campaigns, a Christmas tree will be erected in city square, and so on. I can't really escape this even if I wanted to. Or be accepted in community, If I still choose to evade this. I would be called a nut case. That's what I call pressure. Not direct, but still social. And it works, too.

Still, political correctness is a word that makes me want to throw up whenever it comes up. It's a disease of 21th century.
People act and talk like total idiots because of this. And even generate whole court cases that would fit better into a comedy show.

Where does the catholic church force people to follow it today?

Quote from: SSH on Fri 30/11/2007 22:32:40
Where does the catholic church force people to follow it today?

"Force" is a strong word, but I do find their policy regarding marriage between Catholics and Non-Catholics to be somewhat objectionable.  If the wedding is officiated by a Catholic Priest, the Catholic party has to sign a document stating that he or she will see to it that the children are raised in the Catholic Church.  Sorry, but I don't believe in baptising a seed.

Basically, their culture does not annoy me. A side of me thinks "Poor English teacher... But somehow she deserves it... Why travelling to those countries?".  Their culture must be magic, maravelous, amazing... But THERE. What really annoys me is that they come here and they want their culture to be respected, when it' s obvious that they don't respect ours when we go there. It' s a simple rule of three...

Of course, you all know who I am taling about when I refer to "they"... No muslim (or any person from any other culture) annoys me if he comes here and doesn't try to impose anything to me. IMPOSE is the key word. I am even happy if they don' t finally succedd with integration. Do they want to go on living like if they were in Cairo while they are in the middle of London? Perfect... but indoors, please... Don't impose.

The other side of the omelette? We won't be able to impose them anything? Perfect, for me, that' s a deal. How would affect me if a guy in Sudan can't drink Coca Cola?  :P

The best weapon against communism was to put a wall (They did it, actually...) and waiting 30 0r 40 years so everyone could see which side works better. ^_^

Well, "force" is a strong word indeed. It works more via manipulation, propaganda, aid, etc.

But to answer direct question:

QuoteWhere does the catholic church force people to follow it today?

Violent areas in Africa.

As far as Islam goes, I think that world works quite correctly right now. Peaceful muslims are allowed to believe if they want in mostly catholic or free-religion countries, and radicals (terrorists, etc) are shot on sight. I don't really see problem in this, theoretically. If specific followers of specific religion declare war on others, it should play by the rules of war.

However, in reality, innocents tend to get shot. And stupid teachers get lashes.

All would be fair if teacher would respect them...  BUT they would respect free thinking teacher might had and caused this incident. Anyway, as world is right now, these lashes would probably reconfigure that teacher. Or if it won't happen, give more crazy people reason to strap bombs on themselves. Either way, it's bad and should change for us to survive peacefully.

Quote from: Nacho on Fri 30/11/2007 22:55:40
Basically, their culture does not annoy me. A side of me thinks "Poor English teacher... But somehow she deserves it... Why travelling to those countries?".  Their culture must be magic, maravelous, amazing... But THERE.

The sad part is that their laws and their culture don't just affect westerners who decide to go there. They also affect those who happen to have been born there, consenting or not...

Quote
"Force" is a strong word, but I do find their policy regarding marriage between Catholics and Non-Catholics to be somewhat objectionable.  If the wedding is officiated by a Catholic Priest, the Catholic party has to sign a document stating that he or she will see to it that the children are raised in the Catholic Church.  Sorry, but I don't believe in baptising a seed.

Don't you think that when two people from different religions plan marriage that they ought to agree under which religious tradition they will raise their children before they get married?   It seems to me that the Catholic Church's position is quite practical and reasonable;  decide before you get married.  Once you make a decision have a priest, minister, rabi, mullah, shaman, pubah, or whatever from the religion you choose perform the ceremony.  Seems perfectly sane to me!  :=

I refrained from joining this discussion, because religion is a muddy issue and I try not to jump in feet first in any discussion about it. But I'm beginning to feel awfully disturbed here by some of the attitudes displayed in this thread.

First off, yes I think 40 lashes is definitely way way way overboard. In an ideal world, the religious authorities would take the opportunity to explain their religion to both the teacher and student, and everyone would leave enlightened by this exchange. Yeah right. Our world is nowhere near ideal, sadly.

That said, here are the trends that I find disturbing:

1. That people are venting their anger by deliberately bringing up the name of Mohamed in what they hope is an offensive manner. I find this disturbing because basically, doing this will offend innocent Muslims who happen to be reading this thread. You may say "Oh, anyone stupid enough to be offended by these offhand remarks are as idiotic as the Sudanese authorities and deserve to be offended." Perhaps that's how the extremists thought in the first place: anyone stupid enough to [insert offensive action here] are [insert degratory term here] and deserve to be [insert punishment here]. But does this mean we have to think likewise?

2. That there is this notion of "them" and "us". Maybe it's easier for you to see the "them" and "us" clearly, but for some of us the line is very much blurred, and that's why I get disturbed by this attitude. It's easy to be angered by such an incident to the point where you say "Sure, multiculturalism and pluralism is great... if you keep them segregated. Those barbaric Muslims should just stay in their own countries, and we should just stay in ours and not poke our noses into other people's affairs."

I live in a society where "them" and "us" (Muslims and Christians, as well as all others in between - Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, agnostics, aetheists) are all living in the same apartment block - by law. Sounds strange to you? Well, this is the same country (Singapore) which gave an American boy 6 strokes of the cane for vandalism. "Barbaric!" I hear you cry. But we didn't justify it by religion. It's just our laws.

Are we condemning the act of the 40 lashes, or the religion behind it? Why can't we just condemn the act without painting the whole religion with the same brush? After all not every Muslim country would punish this kind of "crime" with 40 lashes, so obviously it's not part of Islam.

I don't think it was the teacher's or the student's fault at all. I think the student was adorable, and if he is a Muslim, I hope he will grow up to know how extremism can be dangerous. But I don't think it's Islam's fault either. It is simply the fault of the authorities, who are human. And the only people who can change that are the Sudanese themselves. I think much of our vitriol against religion stems from our frustration at not being able to forcefully bend others to our way of thinking, but that slow and apparently ineffective education and communication is apparently the only way.

Which is what that teacher was doing, actually.

For what it's worth, I identify myself as Christian, but I have ideas that other Christians might consider strange or even blasphemous.

Ok, I'm re-modifying this because I want to say something...

Religion make evil people achieve their goal through the blind faith of others. That's why I think, religion is bad and should be banned!!!!

QuoteWell, this is the same country (Singapore) which gave an American boy 6 strokes of the cane for vandalism. "Barbaric!" I hear you cry. But we didn't justify it by religion. It's just our laws.

I actually remember when this happened.  There was a big state poll here that asked what Americans thought of this kind of punishment for vandalism/theft and a majority were actually for it (like 60%)! 

Caning someones buttocks hurts their pride more than anything, but 40 lashes can easily kill someone.

Auriond, I think that those who are venting their "anger" here have been very carefull with sepparating the "muslims" from the "zealots"... Basically good muslims (99.999% of them) are victims as well.

You know, it is very easy for 'innocent' muslims to get caught in all of this. In many areas, the only thing a person has to hear the 'official' news is national TV and radio. Other than that, it is only the mullahs. So in the unlikely event that one source is telling the truth, the other will say it is lies. It doesn't really matter what the truth is, it is only what they've been told that matters. An example is the furore over the cartoons, or even more irritating, the weirdness being spread that polio vaccinations are actually a zionist conspiracy to render the muslim population impotent.

I'd be happy to know how you can fight this sort of thing? Kick out a few mullahs? That'll just antagonise the people. Go on a TV/radio offensive? It is already being done, a bit, but it isl just being countered by mullah propaganda. Besides, the target audience of most TV/radio channels that are willing to do this, are so far away from these people, that it wouldn't make a difference.

They start hanging up banners in the big cities, with huge lettering saying all these things, and hey, an english speaker going past will nod with approval (or shake the head because of the bad spelling), but what about the people the banner is supposed to target? Those that very likely can't even read english, let alone their own language, and don't come to the big cities very often? And when you get governments that don't really care one way or another, the situation is pretty much hopeless.

It's difficult... I think my opinion is quite clear... I don' t think that Islam is screwed up, doomed or something, but has some evident problems that come from its roots. Correct me if I am wrong, but... What do you need to be an Imam? I've been told that the Imam is just the guy who conducts the Oration, you don' t need to pass an exam or something. You can arrange a garage, put some carpets, and autodeclare yourself the "local" Imam, correct? If the Imam is nuts, surelly not all his followers will go nuts, but one, two or three of them could. Many of the terrorist strikes done in Europe has been made by terrorists groups borned in an "unofficial" Mosque of those, whose Imam was nuts and recruited 3 o 4 for activists who were as nuts as him. At least that happened in Madrid, whose perpetrators founded the group after some meetings in the M-30' s Mosque (It' s the name of a road, Madrid-30 freeway). Same with London, no?

It's more difficult to become a Catholic priest (Secondary school passed, one year of Noviciate, three of Seminar, exams... More chances to put a "filter" (Even considereing some pedophilia cases... What can I say? Lamentable as well...)

The sollution? Maybe doing what we "happily" criticise of the Catholic Church. "Vaticanize" the Islam. As far as I know, each certain time some "Mullahs" make a meeting and decide things, but it' s far from being something "official". Rome is old fashioned, unplugged with the real society and unpopular, yes, but at least being so stiff is also a guarantee that the local jerk is not going to use God' s Word for free. Dunno about the Protestants, what reaches me of the american TV-preachers makes me think that your rules are a bit more lax, no? Does the Islam has a "Rome"?

Thank for the replies, and sorry if I am lame with the questions, I am amazed with the differences between cultures. ^_^

As far as I know, Islam has many flavors, and the problem isn't with the religion itself. Any religion, culture or tradition that has a long history contains reasons for conflict - so in my opinion the real challenge is in quelling, not primarily the angry people or whatever they justify their anger by, but the source of their fears. I can't understand the fundamentalist hatred, but I know that when I've been angry, it has usually been motivated by fear, sometimes in an attempt to mask it, even if only from myself.

In Sudan there are plenty of sources of fear. One part of the population has been systematically murdered, raped and driven from their homes for some time now, and another part is afraid of international intervention and prosecution for these crimes. Chad has stated that they will battle the international force being sent to secure the border and stop the janjaweed raids, so right now the situation is extremely dangerous, and nobody can feel very safe. Not the oppressed, not the government people, not the ordinary citizen. Perhaps people vent their anger at something basically harmless like a teddy bear, because it's the only safe way to vent their anger and frustration at all. And it's a way of asking for sympathy from the muslim world community in face of an international intervention.

We can just hope that most people are clever enough to see that this conflict isn't about religion, that it's a political maneuvre, a way of posing as the offended party in order to justify far worse crimes.

Ain't the "many flavours" of Islam a problem, itself? We have our deviations, but they never go too far from the three main branches, as far as I know. In some countries, almost every town or tribe has a different interpretation of Islam, I think. Difficult to "control", methinks.

What three main interpretations? Are you thinking Catholic, Eastern orthodox and Protestant? Because even in the USA, there are many further subdivisions.

Islam doesn't so much have different sects (there is basically only Shi'a and Sunni), as much as different schools of thought(involving mostly minor things like whether you should pray while bleeding, or whether all pig derived products are banned, or only pig derived products that you eat, etc.). Even if there was a central authority, what would make sure that everyone follows them? You can't forcibly excommunicate someone from Islam. There was originally a Caliphate in Islam, but it was abolished long ago.

While there are many parties trying to get it reinstated (Osama Bin Laden being one of them, with himself as leader, of course), they'd have to get themselves approved by at least every muslim country. Even if they do that, the individual communities within that country may disregard them. You may have a massive Islamic meeting every few years with the Caliph elected (of course, then the Shi'as would be out :( ), but not all Islamic countries are that friendly with each other, some groups (or even entire countries) may boycott these. Also, which country would the Imam be based at? Saudi Arabia :o?

Besides, Imams really don't have any function except to lead the prayer. They do give a sermon on Fridays and religious holidays, and you might argue that that gives them a large amount of power, but that is it. Imams don't really need to 'declare' themselves, either. Out of any large group of muslims (while travelling, at a gathering or party) who decide that it is time to pray, any one can come ahead and lead the prayer as long as they are sufficiently knowledgeable of the words to say during the prayer.

People have all kinds of religions and beliefs, it only becomes problematic when there is some basically 'political' conflict, because religion is then taken hostage and used to legitimize all kinds of crimes.

Europe's history is basically one long chain of emperors trying to conquer Europe by siding with the pope, and the  pope's power was to a large extent based on cold cash from sale of indulgences, and from the fact that he could appoint the priests in the Christian countries and thus establish a very strong and well-distributed intelligence and 'news' network and pose an inside threat to any secular ruler. So centralizing a religion doesn't necessarily make it less inclined to involve itself in politics, in fact it could make it a much stronger player, for better or worse.

I think most religious conflicts ease out once the underlying political conflict is solved. I don't believe religion can ever really be controlled, but providing a basic level of justice in society would probably be the best way of keeping it moderate. Give people some peace and safety, so they can educate themselves. Slowly, the 'need' for extreme religion and other extreme justifications will hopefully fade.

Quote from: Babar on Sat 01/12/2007 13:08:28
What three main interpretations? Are you thinking Catholic, Eastern orthodox and Protestant? Because even in the USA, there are many further subdivisions.

I mentioned it before ^_^ USA is a part... Any TV preacher is a sub-division as well!  :D

Quote from: Nacho on Sat 01/12/2007 12:44:09
Ain't the "many flavours" of Islam a problem, itself? We have our deviations, but they never go too far from the three main branches, as far as I know.

What about mormons, for instance?

And what about those religions that have only one flavour, but are nevertheless considered problematic by some - like the scientologists, or the raelians? (and that's just a few that I've heard of - Wikipedia lists hundreds of "new" religious movements)

As said, I was basically talking about Roman Apostolical Cotholicism... Anyway... Some of this "Christian" sub-branches rules a whole country and demmands for physical punishments, such as lapidations or lashings? I think... not.

Whereas Sharia does.

Saying that "our" problems are nowadays the same as "theirs" is politically correct, and it' s ok... But, sadly, it' s a lie.

There are many branches of Christianity too, and some of them are fairly extreme, some of them even use computer games to prepare us for the fight against the Antichrist! http://www.eternalforces.com/ (http://www.eternalforces.com/)

But Christian countries are generally rich and have less desperate people in need of desperate supernatural explanations. I think that for example corruption and organized crime are far greater threats than any religious movement in the west. Then again, I'm not into conspiracy theories.

I agree that our problems aren't the same as theirs - I'll chose secular government over sharia or mob rules any day.

QuoteI find this disturbing because basically, doing this will offend innocent Muslims who happen to be reading this thread.

Still!... WTF is that "offended" thing?!
Are they made of glass? Can our discussion break their faith? Or are they hurt because everybody doesn't love Allah?
Or because not everyone admires their beliefs? This is SO selfish! Oh, you don't like the things I like, now I hate you.

I'm quite sick of this 'offended' issue in every topic. If someone says that my drawings are bad, well, I try to get better at it. If the criticism has no other reason than mean act, I ignore it. Preachers like this is probably the most dangerous thing for the teacher: justifying the lashes by abstract "offended" word.
But offended? I can't even imagine this. Should I cry myself to sleep because someone dropped a bad word at me?

Jeesh.

Thinking about that teacher again, a public excuse to muslims is the most she should do to get out of this. Anything more is way too harsh and ignites public hate.

Quote from: InCreator on Sat 01/12/2007 19:16:51
Still!... WTF is that "offended" thing?!
Are they made of glass? Can our discussion break their faith? Or are they hurt because everybody doesn't love Allah?
Or because not everyone admires their beliefs? This is SO selfish! Oh, you don't like the things I like, now I hate you.

I presume you're not a religious person, because if you were you'd be more likely to understand what it means when somebody insults or makes fun of the very thing that you've built your life around.

Yes, but at this situation the teacher was ignorant that this would cause what caused.
So they should let her know how the situation is like so that she doesn't misbehaves.

QuoteI presume you're not a religious person, because if you were you'd be more likely to understand what it means when somebody insults or makes fun of the very thing that you've built your life around.

I actually don't know. Maybe it's just my thick skin of scandinavians. As I said, I don't understand it a bit and my logic doesn't explain this. If you're believing in something so much that you're "building your life around it", our modern, scientific and free-thinking world is battling you every day. I mean, REALITY. In a situation like this, a single group of individuals saying simple words should be least of your concern, and nowhere near serious offense.

But about my own religion, I think that I want to believe. Something. Great. Up. There.
Maybe a bit I even do. I believe that Christ existed and maybe other prophets too, like Allah.

But angry always-punishing bearded jew on a cloud top, sorry, no.

Quote from: InCreator on Sat 01/12/2007 19:43:08
If you're believing in something so much that you're "building your life around it", our modern, scientific and free-thinking world is battling you every day. I mean, REALITY.

You'd be surprised at how accurate the term "battling" is in this context.

But it's hardly just muslims. Look up the war in Kansas Education for a different example, which also had its share of court battles.

Quote from: RickJ on Fri 30/11/2007 23:56:25

Quote
Don't you think that when two people from different religions plan marriage that they ought to agree under which religious tradition they will raise their children before they get married?

It all seems reasonable on paper, but being in that situation sucks.  Just look at the very quote that you wrote:  "...when two people plan marriage..." This particular bit of dogma really makes if feel like "A couple billion people vs. one."  I realize that they have the right to impose that condition since their religion is officiating, but it doesn't mean that I have to like it.

I'm a non-Catholic.  My wife is Catholic.  If my mother should wish to take her grandchild to her own church one Sunday, is my wife obligated to protest?  Is she obligated to explain to our child what's "wrong" about our doctrines beforehand?

Quote from: InCreator on Sat 01/12/2007 19:16:51Still!... WTF is that "offended" thing?!
Are they made of glass? Can our discussion break their faith? Or are they hurt because everybody doesn't love Allah?
Or because not everyone admires their beliefs? This is SO selfish! Oh, you don't like the things I like, now I hate you.

Well, the feeling is very much like when someone insults your mother (assuming, of course, that you love your mother). You know they don't mean it, that they're just saying it to irritate you, but for that brief moment after they say it you're angry anyway.

And I'm not talking about rational discussion; I'm sure many religious people are more than willing to have a calm, rational talk about their faith. I just get worried when people say things like "Ha! So they get offended by naming pets and things after their precious Prophet? Well I'll name my pig Mohammed! Whatcha gonna do about that ya pig-hating fanatics?" Not that anyone in this form has said that, but for a while there it was definitely heading in this direction.

A group of people saying simple words has always been the basis of a lot of offense: sexism, racism, class oppression, homophobia... If the group being discussed doesn't have the right to say "Hey, be careful, you're saying stuff that might become offensive", then who does?

Huh, well.

If someone can deny reality as we know it, and believe in something (s)he cannot see, hear or prove, it takes a special kind of person I guess. And mentality. I cannot imagine comparing insulting biological mother to a church I attend, but from atheist viewpoint it should make some sense: If you take a fairy tale seriously enough to live by it, why not have so strong feelings about arguments against it. This much I understand, at least I think I do.

To not offend anyone, I'll try to repeat text above in my simple, immature, atheistic way. Religious people know how to fight temptation to hightlight it, so don't look...

Spoiler

If you're f**ked up enought to believe, you're probably f**ked up enough to burst in tears if someone takes a step against you religion.

[close]

That's how I see it now.

I deny religion because much things in its structure don't make sense to me. Like preachers/priests/pope/etc. How can a  sinful, unworthy human being decide that he has right to be an ambassador of the almighty? To speak in Lord's name, to rise above the masses and act as God's secretary? To actually imagine that creator of world needs HIM to spread his word, orders or love? That's a blasphemy! 

These lashes for teacher and islamic-countries' laws are somewhat similar. People shouldn't decide that they need to protect someone or something that made them and owns them and their life from soul to cells. It's like saying that God is weak and can't handle a single miserable teacher? And what, Prophet will be happy about that woman getting some beating from his followers? Is that how they think?

I don't judge any religion, but I do judge people.
Using God as a shield and excuse from humanly evil and/or stupidity is wrong.
That's what I think.

I could go on like this, but this is way offtopic already.

There's a fine line, it seems, between being civilized and being barbaric.

Question 2: If a magazine in Nigeria publish 5 silly cartoons of Jesus... Would we go and burn Embassies of countries with Muslim majoritary population?

Quote from: InCreator on Sun 02/12/2007 01:11:06
I deny religion because much things in its structure don't make sense to me. Like preachers/priests/pope/etc. How can a  sinful, unworthy human being decide that he has right to be an ambassador of the almighty? To speak in Lord's name, to rise above the masses and act as God's secretary? To actually imagine that creator of world needs HIM to spread his word, orders or love? That's a blasphemy!

It's probably not true for everyone in the church, but all of the church leaders that I know are in the job because they feel called to it. They don't just sit down and decide one day, "I know, I think I'll be a vicar. I always wanted a dog-collar". In the churches I've been to - certainly the ones that are more alive - the focus is very much on listening to God, and even when the vicar gives out a message for the church that they feel has come from God everyone is encouraged to think about it, pray about it and weigh it against what they know of the bible to decide if it is from God and they should follow it or not. The church leaders don't choose the job, God chooses it for them, and generally speaking they are fairly 'in touch' with God and wouldn't last long if the job wasn't right for them.

As for why God decided to work through humans, well that's a bit harder to suggest explanations for. He certainly doesn't need us. Maybe its because He loves us and wants to spend time with us, and wants to let us do something important. My brother and I built a sort of den area in the top of our garage with our dad, even though he could have made all the decisions and done all the building work himself, and probably to a higher standard. Yet he let us help as a bonding exercise, and so that we would grow in maturity and knowledge and skills. Maybe that explains it a little. Sinful and unworthy we may be, but God didn't make us just to run around on the Earth randomly like any other animal. He loves us and wants us to be a part of what He's doing. That at least is as far as I understand it.

I think I'll go burst into tears now ;)

Anyway, that's all a bit off topic... but then again so is the situation in Sudan

Fluffy bunnies

Lovely article on BBC... the opinion of one UK Sudanese man: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7122562.stm

Thanks for the article, Yufster.

Quote from: InCreator on Sun 02/12/2007 01:11:06I cannot imagine comparing insulting biological mother to a church I attend, but from atheist viewpoint it should make some sense: If you take a fairy tale seriously enough to live by it, why not have so strong feelings about arguments against it. This much I understand, at least I think I do.

Thanks for understanding :) It's a rare person who does actually see and understand that there is method in a religious person's "madness", although I do appreciate that acceptance is another matter altogether. I just wished to point out that we can have discussions about religion without resorting to insults (and here I just want to emphasise again that I'm against insults, and not criticism).

Quote from: InCreator on Sun 02/12/2007 01:11:06I don't judge any religion, but I do judge people.
Using God as a shield and excuse from humanly evil and/or stupidity is wrong.
That's what I think.

There I agree with you very strongly.

Quote from: Meowster on Sun 02/12/2007 23:51:22
Lovely article on BBC... the opinion of one UK Sudanese man: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7122562.stm

Great article, thanks Yufster! I was just thinking that the one voice missing from this discussion was the voice of the Muslims themselves, so this was a timely post. I know and respect a lot of Muslims in my own life, and I know they would be shocked and saddened by the original article - and they would be further saddened by the general response to it. I think they would agree with Dr Hassan.

Quote
Don't you think that when two people from different religions plan marriage that they ought to agree under which religious tradition they will raise their children before they get married?

Quote
It all seems reasonable on paper, but being in that situation sucks.  Just look at the very quote that you wrote:  "...when two people plan marriage..." This particular bit of dogma really makes if feel like "A couple billion people vs. one."  I realize that they have the right to impose that condition since their religion is officiating, but it doesn't mean that I have to like it.

I'm a non-Catholic.  My wife is Catholic.  If my mother should wish to take her grandchild to her own church one Sunday, is my wife obligated to protest?  Is she obligated to explain to our child what's "wrong" about our doctrines beforehand?

Is that what you agreed to when you signed the document?   I have a feeling that it is silent on that point, isn't it and that it's something that you and your wife have never talked about before right?  Now your mother wants to take your daughter to her church so that she can show your daughter off to her friends, otherwise she would just take your daughter to a Catholic church.   The only other reason for not taking your daughter to a Catholic would be to undermine her Catholic teachings which is a violation of what you agreed to when you married your wife.  If this is the case shame on your mother for even attempting this at this.

As I understand it your obligation was to see to it that she got the catholic training.  I was raised catholic in a mixed household the same as your daughter.  I just had to take some classes a couple of hours on Saturday morning for a couple of years.  So I know the drill.  Probably what your wife is objecting to is the fact that Catholics are taught that attending a non-catholic church is a venial sin and she doesn't want your daughter to commit a sin, not even a little one.     

If your daughter did commit such a sin, the Catholic church would sentence her to say a half dozen "Hail Marys".  You're bringing this up in the context of the insanity mainfested, far too often, by practicioners of Islam, where your daughter would be facing a death sentence.   You can't be serious about making such a comparison can you?   

She's apparently been pardoned today!

15 days in prison and deportation, she seems to be being very calm about it. Did anyone read the bottom of this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7123517.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7123517.stm), where it was suggested that the protests were planned?

Whoah, RickJ... hang on a second.  I didn't make the nature of my position completely clear.

I don't have any children yet, and I have most definitely not signed any documents.  That was the responsibility of my wife.  Since I have no particular problem with Catholicism as a faith, I did not protest her signing said document.

As for my mother, of course she'd want to show off her grandchild.  Beyond that, why should she be expected to go to a Catholic service when her own personal beliefs do not hold with some of Catholocism's?  It's not an evil plot to reprogram the child's mind.  It's about being in the church that you love surrounded by the people that you love.  I'm sorry if there's no room for that in Catholic doctrine, but neither me nor my wife would dream of robbing my mother of that experience.  The question is what the Catholic Church would expect my wife to do.  Your suggestion that we haven't talked about what we're going to do when faced with this situation was a bit unfair, I feel.  We have most certainly discussed it... one thing about the Catholic Church that I do appreciate is their insistence that anyone wishing to wed under their roof be subjected to counseling.  Note that we had already talked about it even before that.

The most important point that I have to make here above all others is that I am not comparing Catholicism to Islam.  My original post was in response to someone's remark about what the Catholic Church "forces" people to do.  I even prefaced my input with the phrase "'force' is a strong word."

I absolutely do not appreciate the Catholic Church's methods of gaining the dominant hand in Catholic/Non-Catholic marriages.  I have no intention of deliberately offending any Catholics, but I won't sit on my opinion, either.

No one can say it quite like Pat Condell... He definitely got my subscription.

Just wanted to pop up and say:"Glad it finished well!"  :)

To Caesar what belongs to Caesar, firstly the Sudanese goofed, now fixed it somehow.

Half of the people in Muslim countires name their own children Mohammad.  Surely she could have argued that the Teddy bear was being named after some guy from the market.

Damn, thanks for those Pat Condell links. I almost fell of my chair because I was laughing so hard. :D

Here's another one:

Why does faith deserve respect? (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f7a_1184871139)

My thoughts exactly on this video here. I'll quote him when I get children of my own. I really liked his reference to a tupé... And I have little respect for religion, but I do have respect for say, my mom, grandma, and my girlfriend, but yeah, not for their beliefs.

This Condell fellow is quite something. Love the way he talks, and his presentation. Great speaker.

Oh, and he says right things, as well. But that's subjective, the former was objective.

Heh.

Very nice videos. And it works as a video, cause he is a great talker and his faces shows that!

Thanks!