Religious Tolerance
- Thread starter Danoff
- 313 comments
- 20,214 views
- 5,080
- Panama City, FL
Danoff wasn't basing his point on inductive reasoning, he was saying the child's belief in his parents was based on inductive reasoning.
So: no, he's not saying it can be illogical based on inductive reasoning. He's saying that inductive reasoning is not logically supported. He's made it very clear that inductive reasoning means (literally) thinking based on assumptions not known as true; that you have induced a conclusion based on wishful thinking. The child has assumed his parents won't lie, but it's not a provable fact in reality. The child draws a conclusion based on what he hopes to be true. It is neither logical nor illogical. It's not proven by fact or disproven by fact. It's non-logical; logic will not apply.
I would have used non-logical instead of illogical in his sentence about faith. I don't like using the term illogical for a situation where logic does not apply. Faith is not supported by logic, but neither is it disproven, thus non-logical rather than illogical. For many, the lack of logical support is enough to make it (faith) a pointless endeavor. To me, illogical shows a proof of a false condition: a != b, b = c, the to say a = c would be illogical.
- 8,835
- Northamptonshire
- AlexGibbo27
Ok, I thought there was a thread called racial tolerance but I could only find this. I may be flamed to hell and back for this but:
THE RED ARROWS WILL NOT PERFORM AT THE LONDON 2012 OLYMPICS BECAUSE IT MAY OFFEND OTHER COUNTRIES.
However, they are happy to build a 20,000 seater mosque. How much are we betting It'l take priority over the stadiums as well.
THE RED ARROWS WILL NOT PERFORM AT THE LONDON 2012 OLYMPICS BECAUSE IT MAY OFFEND OTHER COUNTRIES.
However, they are happy to build a 20,000 seater mosque. How much are we betting It'l take priority over the stadiums as well.
- 29,378
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
The Red Arrows are a Royal Air Force (military) display team. They do fly-overs/displays at big events like the Queen's Golden Jubilee, the opening/closing ceremonies of sporting events, Famine's birthday etc....
I looked it up on Google and there's a piece about it in today's Guardian. Apparently The Sun (a tabloid rag) broke the story and there's even an online petition to Downing Street to protest... only slight problem is that the supposed ban is (and I quote The Guardian) "complete tosh"...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/nov/29/politics.egovernment
More info on the debunk..
Original Sun article
I looked it up on Google and there's a piece about it in today's Guardian. Apparently The Sun (a tabloid rag) broke the story and there's even an online petition to Downing Street to protest... only slight problem is that the supposed ban is (and I quote The Guardian) "complete tosh"...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/nov/29/politics.egovernment
More info on the debunk..
Original Sun article
- 1,202
The Sun's cried wolf so many times I'm surprised that they don't supply their toilet paper with that popular TV disclaimer on it... you know the one:
"All characters portrayed within are entirely fictional. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is entirely coincidental blah blah"
The "Every religeon but Christianity is tolerated" story in the UK is being vastly overblown as most newspapers will toss out the sensational headline to stoke the fires of outrage in readers. Later one in the small print of some other paper you learn the full story and realise that the religeous link is usually coincidental, or based on some reporter's imaginative interpretation of an innocent comment. There was one about a schoolgirl who was not allowed to wear a catholic cross to school, while Muslim classmates were allowed to dress appropriately for their religeon. Turned out that it was the necklace that was banned, not the cross. Noone was allowed to wear necklaces, regardless of religeon. She could have worn a hat with a cross on it if she wanted. Someone just twisted the story around to get their own way. I'll bet this Red Arrows story is the same. Not all government officials are terminally stupid.
"All characters portrayed within are entirely fictional. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is entirely coincidental blah blah"
The "Every religeon but Christianity is tolerated" story in the UK is being vastly overblown as most newspapers will toss out the sensational headline to stoke the fires of outrage in readers. Later one in the small print of some other paper you learn the full story and realise that the religeous link is usually coincidental, or based on some reporter's imaginative interpretation of an innocent comment. There was one about a schoolgirl who was not allowed to wear a catholic cross to school, while Muslim classmates were allowed to dress appropriately for their religeon. Turned out that it was the necklace that was banned, not the cross. Noone was allowed to wear necklaces, regardless of religeon. She could have worn a hat with a cross on it if she wanted. Someone just twisted the story around to get their own way. I'll bet this Red Arrows story is the same. Not all government officials are terminally stupid.
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
Wow, that would be like banning the Blue Angles in America. That's just stupid. It's part of the country. Why shouldn't the hosting country be able to show off a cool part of the country?
If I was a citizen of GB I'd be really offended by this decision.
If I was a citizen of GB I'd be really offended by this decision.
- 29,378
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I don't know how well publicized this case is in the rest of the world, but the fiasco of the Gillian Gibbons case took a horrible turn yesterday, as she was sentenced to 15 days in prison in the Sudan for allowing the pupils of her class to name a teddy bear Muhammed. Charged with insulting Islam, she faced a year in jail and/or 40 lashes - a barbaric sentence by any standards. She escaped conviction for inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs, however - hence her relatively "lenient" sentence of 15 days in a Sudanese jail, where conditions are described as "very harsh" by former UN envoy to Sudan, Jan Pronk.
It's hard to under-state the level of sheer revulsion that alot of people here in the UK are feeling right now, that a woman who has chosen to attempt to educate children in a country where there is a desperate need for such committed and caring people, should be treated in such a disgusting and mind-numbingly intolerant way. The condemnation of this sentence has been swift and almost universal, save for the hardline idiots in charge of justice in the Sudan itself...
Dr. Muhammed Abdul Bari of the Muslim Council of Britain said "This case should have required only simple common sense to resolve. It is unfortunate that the Sudanese authorities were found wanting in this most basic of qualities. They grossly overreacted in this sad affair. Gillian should never have been arrested, let alone charged and convicted of committing a crime. We hope that Gillian will be able to return home without much further delay."
Before the sentence, Massoud Shadjareh, Chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission in the UK, said: "Both the Sudanese government and the media must refrain from using Islam and Islamic principles to legitimise this fiasco, which may result in the unjust conviction of an innocent person, and which will only lead to the promotion of Islamophobia and further demonisation of Islam." and the Muslim youth organisation 'The Ramadhan Foundation' said "this matter is not worthy of arrest or detention and her continued detention will not help repair the misconceptions about Islam."
Amnesty International described the sentence as "a mockery of justice" and called for her unconditional and immediate release and the Archbishop of Canterbury called the sentence "an absurdly disproportionate response to what is at best a minor cultural faux pas. And I think that it's done the Sudanese government no credit whatever."
This, for me, is a (tragically) perfect example of what happens when religious zealotry is allowed to flourish and all reason and common sense is dispensed with. The Sudanese government should hang their heads in shame at presiding over this ridiculous affair which - at the end of day - insults the name of Islam infinitely more than any number of teddy bears ever could.
It's hard to under-state the level of sheer revulsion that alot of people here in the UK are feeling right now, that a woman who has chosen to attempt to educate children in a country where there is a desperate need for such committed and caring people, should be treated in such a disgusting and mind-numbingly intolerant way. The condemnation of this sentence has been swift and almost universal, save for the hardline idiots in charge of justice in the Sudan itself...
Dr. Muhammed Abdul Bari of the Muslim Council of Britain said "This case should have required only simple common sense to resolve. It is unfortunate that the Sudanese authorities were found wanting in this most basic of qualities. They grossly overreacted in this sad affair. Gillian should never have been arrested, let alone charged and convicted of committing a crime. We hope that Gillian will be able to return home without much further delay."
Before the sentence, Massoud Shadjareh, Chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission in the UK, said: "Both the Sudanese government and the media must refrain from using Islam and Islamic principles to legitimise this fiasco, which may result in the unjust conviction of an innocent person, and which will only lead to the promotion of Islamophobia and further demonisation of Islam." and the Muslim youth organisation 'The Ramadhan Foundation' said "this matter is not worthy of arrest or detention and her continued detention will not help repair the misconceptions about Islam."
Amnesty International described the sentence as "a mockery of justice" and called for her unconditional and immediate release and the Archbishop of Canterbury called the sentence "an absurdly disproportionate response to what is at best a minor cultural faux pas. And I think that it's done the Sudanese government no credit whatever."
This, for me, is a (tragically) perfect example of what happens when religious zealotry is allowed to flourish and all reason and common sense is dispensed with. The Sudanese government should hang their heads in shame at presiding over this ridiculous affair which - at the end of day - insults the name of Islam infinitely more than any number of teddy bears ever could.
- 1,202
I hope he wasn't born in Sudan. His parents would have been up to their eyeballs in trouble...
Does anyone know how many lashes the kids that actually committed this heinous crime are getting?
- 29,378
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
And the response in Sudan? The sentence of 15 days in prison then deportation is too lenient and she should be shot Article... 👎
As one blogger (Atom John) on the BBC News "Have Your Say" section commented:
Article... 👎As one blogger (Atom John) on the BBC News "Have Your Say" section commented:
Too true, especially when thousands of people want you murdered. Yes, there is such a thing as respecting foreign customs and practices when abroad, but there's also respecting foreigners in your country and having the common decency to realize when an innocent mistake is made.
- 24,016
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
And the response in Sudan? The sentence of 15 days in prison then deportation is too lenient and she should be shot
I think i might hire a banner plane and fly over the capitol with the message "I've re-named by ass Mohammed"
Seriously, do they think this will help the image of the Islam as a religion to the rest of the world?
- 15,494
- UK
Hasn't the Sudanese government funded the Janjaweed in the past? They deny this, obviously. I expect nothing sensible from a country like that, on the other hand the teacher was quite stupid, she must've known that calling a teddy bear Mohammed (any spelling) would've broken the law?
It's stupid, but she did break the law of their country and she faced punishment for it. This seems to be inciting more political angst with us than the Darfuri genocide.
It's stupid, but she did break the law of their country and she faced punishment for it. This seems to be inciting more political angst with us than the Darfuri genocide.
- 29,378
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Clearly she didn't. If she knew that calling a teddy bear Mohammed constituted a criminal offense that carried a potential punishment of a public flogging plus a year in a Sudanese jail, then I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have allowed it. And remember, Alfaholic is right - she didn't name the bear anyway, it was her class - but apparently being an ignorant child is OK, but being an ignorant foreign adult is not.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
At what point do we have to simply say to ourselves "this is Islam" or "this is religious zealotry". At what point do we have to simply acknowledge that this kind of behavior isn't worth "tolerating"? Or that religious fundamentalism should command zero respect.
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
I honestly challenge any Muslim that reads this thread to backup the concept that Islam is the "religion of peace" that is put forward by many in the Muslim world.
This is ridiculous. Wanting to kill someone for a name. Absolutely insane.
This is ridiculous. Wanting to kill someone for a name. Absolutely insane.
- 29,378
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I'm with you on the last bit, definitely. But I think that the original post I made this morning highlights the important fact that Islam and radical Islam are two very different things. I would imagine most Islamic scholars are extremely embarrassed and equally appalled by the treatment of Gillian Gibbons, and the most prominent Islamic organisations in the UK were quick to denounce the Sudanese government too for pandering to the minority of radicals (both pro and anti-Islamic) who take any possible opportunity - however trivial - to start an international incident.
- 2,734
- AndrewPaul
As different as radical and normal Islam are, I don't think you can argue that by and large, Islam just is not a very peaceful religion.
What is "peaceful" anyway? If by "peaceful" you mean "doesn't kill people and treats others humanely", then I guess many or most Muslims are. But welcome to the 21st century: most people live up to this standard. You're expected to. Sharia law violates this to some degree, and that's strict Islamic teaching. Peaceful religion wha?
- 8,191
- Southern Louisiana
- GTP_Kent
Am I the only one here who understands Idolatry and Islam's stance on said subject? 
It is laid out clearly that no depiction of Muhamed (sp?) or Allah is acceptable. Further, punishing such crimes is a matter for the offended Islamic state to decide based on their own legal system (not that I'm ok with it or anything).
None the less, most of the time crimes of this nature are being responded to in a way that is based on Islam itself. Right or wrong, that's Islam.
Argue it's a religion of peace all you want but I've read scripture and beating women for disobedience (sp?) or using cruel and unusual punishment is perfectly acceptable in "mild" forms of Islam (not just the radical forms as some would have you believe).
I've done my homework and the understanding I have of Islam is the product (reading korans printed before 9/11 issued by the my university is enough for me, not to mention general observations of the real world's practice of Islam).
Point is... I don't believe Islam is a fair and non-violent religion.
Also, I believe that "when in rome..." This lady should have known not to do something as stupid as create a false idol in Sudan.
Also, people need to recognize that this is the result of westerners mingling in the muslim world without any understang of the weight their actions will carry (she really should have known better).
Finally, we should all know- like it or not, you enter foreign soil and you are subject to foreign law.
I'd still like to see this woman go free but only if she will return to the UK and never see muslim lands again. However, if she gets out and stays in muslim regions...
It is laid out clearly that no depiction of Muhamed (sp?) or Allah is acceptable. Further, punishing such crimes is a matter for the offended Islamic state to decide based on their own legal system (not that I'm ok with it or anything).
None the less, most of the time crimes of this nature are being responded to in a way that is based on Islam itself. Right or wrong, that's Islam.
Argue it's a religion of peace all you want but I've read scripture and beating women for disobedience (sp?) or using cruel and unusual punishment is perfectly acceptable in "mild" forms of Islam (not just the radical forms as some would have you believe).
I've done my homework and the understanding I have of Islam is the product (reading korans printed before 9/11 issued by the my university is enough for me, not to mention general observations of the real world's practice of Islam).
Point is... I don't believe Islam is a fair and non-violent religion.
Also, I believe that "when in rome..." This lady should have known not to do something as stupid as create a false idol in Sudan.
Also, people need to recognize that this is the result of westerners mingling in the muslim world without any understang of the weight their actions will carry (she really should have known better).
Finally, we should all know- like it or not, you enter foreign soil and you are subject to foreign law.
I'd still like to see this woman go free but only if she will return to the UK and never see muslim lands again. However, if she gets out and stays in muslim regions...
- 8,835
- Northamptonshire
- AlexGibbo27
I would persnally like to collect each and every single muslim person, and sort the honest hard working muslim people from the ones who like to see people killed for their beliefs. The latter should all be set on fire. I mean, if the Shi'ites and the other type fight and kill each other, what chance does anyone else have? ITS THE SAME RELIGION!
- 15,494
- UK
Why didn't she say...
"Sorry kids, but we can't call the teddy bear Mohammed"
?
Go to foreign lands, go by foreign laws, however stupid they seem to us.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
Also, people need to recognize that this is the result of westerners mingling in the muslim world without any understang of the weight their actions will carry (she really should have known better).
Finally, we should all know- like it or not, you enter foreign soil and you are subject to foreign law.
Yes, when in rome. But!!! There is such a thing as human rights. There is such a thing as an inhumane law. Justice is independent of region. What happened to her is unjust - regardless of what the local laws are.
Legal != Just.
- 1,748
- 38,956
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
I thought the Islamic and Arabic world was famous for its intelligence and invention/innovation, not for peace.
Anyway, I don't think you can blame sanctimony on religion itself. The person would be at fault. I think the whole Sunni/Shia conflict has been the main contributor to this whole violent undertone that plagues the middle east and is found rarely anywhere else.
- 87,629
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Am I the only one here who understands Idolatry and Islam's stance on said subject?
It is laid out clearly that no depiction of Muhamed (sp?) or Allah is acceptable.
This lady should have known not to do something as stupid as create a false idol in Sudan.
The kids named the teddy bear Mohamed. Back in September.
One of the kids in the class is called Mohamed. Why is that not idolatry? Dr. Muhammed Abdul Bari of the Muslim Council of Britain is called Mohamed. Why is that not idolatry? Why is it that people called Mohamed are not idolaters, but a soft toy called Mohamed is?
- 8,191
- Southern Louisiana
- GTP_Kent
Well I imagine there is a difference between naming your child after Mohammed and naming an inanimate object of affection (such as a teddy bear) mohammed.
Also, don't rail me like I'm the one who put her in jail.
I don't agree with their laws.
I'm simply accepting them for what they are... If you want their justification for their laws then ask them.
Otherwise, as is, I'm just telling you how it goes.
Keep in mind that I don't agree with them, I just understand them enough to know what was done was illegal in muslim law.
Also, don't rail me like I'm the one who put her in jail.
I don't agree with their laws.
I'm simply accepting them for what they are... If you want their justification for their laws then ask them.
Otherwise, as is, I'm just telling you how it goes.
Keep in mind that I don't agree with them, I just understand them enough to know what was done was illegal in muslim law.
