Religious Tolerance

[Zrow]

I think you're just the closest we have to an opposition in this thread, and we need someone to argue with.

Times were more fun when we had people like Carl and Anderton to argue with.

 

[Famine]

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.

I was merely pointing out that it was the kids that named the bear, not the teacher. She didn't do anything "stupid", nor "create a false idol". The kids named the bear after one of their classmates.

My questions - why is it fine to call name a kid after the Prophet, but not a bear - are questions we should all be asking and were not aimed at anyone in particular.

 

[Kent]

Well,
The teacher allowed the name and usually adults are held responsible for the actions of children they are responsible for.
Also, like I said, there's a big difference between naming a child in honor of the prophet and naming an inanimate object after the prophet.

Finally, sorry, I just felt like you were more putting those questions towards me since you quoted my post and it seemed like a response to that. None the less, it's all good.

 

[Famine]

Also, like I said, there's a big difference between naming a child in honor of the prophet and naming an inanimate object after the prophet.

Or naming a teddy bear in honour of a child...

Finally, sorry, I just felt like you were more putting those questions towards me since you quoted my post and it seemed like a response to that. None the less, it's all good.

No worries, man.

 

[Danoff]

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.

So what? That's my question. So it's illegal. Does that mean she's in the wrong or they are? In my book, the fact that it's illegal is a black mark against the law makers, not the people who break the laws.

 

[Kent]

So what? That's my question. So it's illegal. Does that mean she's in the wrong or they are? In my book, the fact that it's illegal is a black mark against the law makers, not the people who break the laws.

That's true in an ethical and moral sense.

I'd love to say, "hey, that's not right and she only broke the law because the law is wrong."

However, try telling that to the government that committed this act. You think they are just going to lay down and say "you're right! we've been unethical, immoral, generally cruel, and seriously ignorant for the last few thousand years or so, we better change now or only god knows what will happen!"

The fact of the matter is that you are trying to lay your standards of ethics on a civilization that does not hold the same standards.

You ask, does that make them or her wrong...
Well in the UK that makes them wrong but in Sudan it is her that's wrong.

Remember a few things for me... One, I'm not saying (nor have I said) that their laws are right (actually I keep saying they are wrong) yet I seem to be the only one here who's willing to recognize that this isn't a matter of right and wrong, this is a matter of illegal and legal. It's just that simple.

So yeah, it's a black mark against the law makers. Yes they are wrong to do this sort of thing.
However, that doesn't change the fact that laws are laws (especially in muslim countries) and we have very little place to say this westerner should be exempt from their laws simply because she broke them and we as westerners don't think the law is a legitimate law.

Just try to keep in mind that I don't agree with their laws (it seems like many of you are acting like I agree with their laws ).

 

[Danoff]

You ask, does that make them or her wrong...
Well in the UK that makes them wrong but in Sudan it is her that's wrong.

Since when was right and wrong determined by where you're standing?

 

[Kent]

Ask that to the people in Sudan who believe you are wrong... Don't ask me because if you'll notice- I keep tellling you that I don't agree with them and I believe it is wrong to jail a woman for the crime in question.

None the less, ask them (the sudanese government) what you ask me.
You say it's wrong and you're in the UK. Well guess what, they say it's right and they are in Sudan.

I'd say you need to ask yourself if right and wrong have any actual bearing on the subject.

Fact is, this isn't about right and wrong, this is about legal and illegal.

Even though I think they are in the wrong, I can't say this woman should not be subject to the laws of the land in which she walks.

Btw,

Since when was right and wrong determined by where you're standing?

Hasn't that always been the most basic dilemma to what is right and what is wrong?
If you ask me, right and wrong have always been a matter of where you were standing (although I've always felt that where I stood was the only true "right" ).

 

[Danoff]

Just to clear things up, I fully recognize that you don't agree with their laws.

Even though I think they are in the wrong, I can't say this woman should not be subject to the laws of the land in which she walks.

How can you believe in a concept like "inalienable human rights" and say the above? I know I'm breaking an internet rule here, but to take an extreme example, if Nazi's say it's legal to kill jews, does that make it right? Even if they're in Naziland?

The fact of the matter is that you CAN say that the laws in another country are wrong - that they're objectively wrong. Justice isn't a matter of opinion.

Hasn't that always been the most basic dilemma to what is right and what is wrong? If you ask me, right and wrong have always been a matter of where you were standing

Not if you believe in human rights. The concept of human rights is at odds with a subjective view of justice.

Edit: A subjective take on justice isn't just at odds with rights. It's also at odds with common sense. Why should something suddenly become just if you're standing on one piece of dirt instead of another? Because the local culture has decreed that it should be so? Check my signature. Individual rights are not subject to vote. It doesn't matter what the local culture is.

I'm all for respecting the locals, attempting to live by their customs, even abiding by their laws - even if it's strictly from a self-preservation, common sense, practicality point of view. But that doesn't mean that the victims of their laws are necessarily in the wrong.

 

[Kent]

Just to clear things up, I fully recognize that you don't agree with their laws.



How can you believe in a concept like "inalienable human rights" and say the above? I know I'm breaking an internet rule here, but to take an extreme example, if Nazi's say it's legal to kill jews, does that make it right? Even if they're in Naziland?

The fact of the matter is that you CAN say that the laws in another country are wrong - that they're objectively wrong. Justice isn't a matter of opinion.



Not if you believe in human rights. The concept of human rights is at odds with a subjective view of justice.

Edit: A subjective take on justice isn't just at odds with rights. It's also at odds with common sense. Why should something suddenly become just if you're standing on one piece of dirt instead of another? Because the local culture has decreed that it should be so? Check my signature. Individual rights are not subject to vote. It doesn't matter what the local culture is.

I'm all for respecting the locals, attempting to live by their customs, even abiding by their laws - even if it's strictly from a self-preservation, common sense, practicality point of view. But that doesn't mean that the victims of their laws are necessarily in the wrong.

I'm not talking about whether this woman should or should not have been punished.
I'm talking about whether this woman would or would not be punished.

There is a difference between what is and what should be...

Now, ignoring the idea that we could be considered arrogant for saying we know best and this is right and this is wrong...

You see, when I say she "I can't say this woman should not be subject to the laws of the land in which she walks." I'm not talking about whether the laws are right or not, I'm talking about whether the laws will be enforced or not.

Fact is, I believe in inalienable human rights but that doesn't blind me to the fact that I have no control over what other people believe.

To take your nazi germany example and apply it to this...
Once again, I believe they are in the wrong. However, I wouldn't be so foolish as to think that because I know they are wrong it would be OK for a Jewish person to go into Nazi germany and expect to not be killed.

You are looking at this from a very objective, ideal world stance.
I'm looking at this from a stance of what exist, not what should exist.

This isn't about what should and shouldn't be, this is about what is and what isn't.

Right now, the woman shouldn't be in jail and the law shouldn't be what it is. However, she is in jail and in the Sudan the law is what it is (which is right in the hearts and minds of the Sudanese).

Please keep in mind that I fully understand the ideas at hand, the problem is that I'm not addressing those issues, I'm addressing the current situation as it stands in the real world (not the hypothetical world of discussion regarding ethics).

Why should something suddenly become just if you're standing on one piece of dirt instead of another?

I never said it should, I said it was. Again, real world vs the ideal.
I believe in the ideal and I hold it dear but that doesn't change my recognition of the fact that not everyone sees it as I do (which includes the Sudanese government and people).

 

[Danoff]

I'm not talking about whether this woman should or should not have been punished.
I'm talking about whether this woman would or would not be punished.

If that's all we're talking about, then there's no disagreement. There's also nothing interesting to discuss. What's the point of mentioning that it's against the law there? We know it's against the law, we know they enforce the law. I think generally we're all more interested in justice here.

Now, ignoring the idea that we could be considered arrogant for saying we know best and this is right and this is wrong...

...again. Justice is not subjective. Call me arrogant if you want, but it's wholly misguided.

You see, when I say she "I can't say this woman should not be subject to the laws of the land in which she walks." I'm not talking about whether the laws are right or not, I'm talking about whether the laws will be enforced or not.

It doesn't sound like it - which is what sparked this discussion. When you say that you "can't say she should not be subject to the law of the land" it sounds like you're saying that because it is the law, it is just that she be penalized. Since now it sounds like that's not the case, I guess we're in agreement.

Fact is, I believe in inalienable human rights but that doesn't blind me to the fact that I have no control over what other people believe.

Me neither. And I don't disagree with this statement. But I will point out that it doesn't matter what other people believe. All that matters is what's right, objectively.

However, I wouldn't be so foolish as to think that because I know they are wrong it would be OK for a Jewish person to go into Nazi germany and expect to not be killed.

What do you mean by OK? And what do you mean by expect?

By "OK" do you mean "permissible", or do you mean "smart".
By "expect" do you mean "entitled", or "anticipate".

This isn't about what should and shouldn't be, this is about what is and what isn't.

Ok that's just wrong. This story, article, discussion is about what should and shouldn't be. The facts are pretty straight forward. I understand that you're now saying that your posts are concerned with the facts and the facts alone. But the rest of us are interested in what should and shouldn't be. That's the vast majority of the reason I'm even reading this thread.

Right now, the woman shouldn't be in jail and the law shouldn't be what it is. However, she is in jail and in the Sudan the law is what it is (which is right in the hearts and minds of the Sudanese).

Agreed, not that it matters what is right in the hearts of the Sudanese.

I never said it should, I said it was. Again, real world vs the ideal.

Even though I think they are in the wrong, I can't say this woman should not be subject to the laws of the land in which she walks.

When you used the word "should" in the second quote, I clearly misunderstood your point.

 

[Kent]

First of all, I can see the problem more clearly now in that, this whole time you've been assuming we were disagreeing about something.

In any case, just to wrap this up from my end (since my line of discussion just isn't interesting)...

When you used the word "should" in the second quote, I clearly misunderstood your point

You've applied the my responses out of context and mashed together statements that were not responses to the same statements and were not presented in the same post...
I said...

I never said it should, I said it was. Again, real world vs the ideal.

In response to...

Why should something suddenly become just if you're standing on one piece of dirt instead of another?

As seen in this post

What do you mean by OK? And what do you mean by expect?

By "OK" do you mean "permissible", or do you mean "smart".
By "expect" do you mean "entitled", or "anticipate".

That's rediculus and I'd hope you understood it better than that based on the context of the discussion.

Re-written...
However, I wouldn't be so foolish as to think that because I know they (the nazis) are wrong it would be permissable (or smart) for a Jewish person to go into Nazi germany and expect (or anticipate not being killed) to not be killed.
(as for entitled... Everyone on earth, IMO, is entitled to not be killed but any Jew in nazi-land should be smart enough to know nazis are not going to honor your entitlement not to be killed)

again. Justice is not subjective. Call me arrogant if you want, but it's wholly misguided.

A bit personal eh? I mean, I did use the term "WE" in a hypothetical pre-text to the discussion.
Further, I think you need to think about what arrogance is and remove yourself from the position of "I am right" before you get worried about whether my hypothetical pre-text is misguided.
Asserting you are unfallible in your understanding of right and wrong is by nature "misguided" and arrogant (although well intended and in line with my beliefs as well).

So with that said, I think I've addressed what I felt needed to be cleared up.
Also, since my view of the discussion is clearly unappreciated and "nothing interesting" I'll be headed on to other topics.

Although I will certainly keep an eye out for your response.

Btw,

Agreed, not that it matters what is right in the hearts of the Sudanese.

That seems to me like a great contradiction to your speech regarding rights.

 

[Danoff]

You've applied the wrong responses to the wrong questions...
I said...
In response to...

It's the same issue - whether she should be subject to these laws. Yes, I mixed response with question, but I thought it simplified my point.

That's rediculus and I'd hope you understood it better than that based on the context of the discussion.

Given your re-write and interpreting "permissible" as "smart", I don't take issue with it. I just needed clarification.

A bit personal eh? I mean, I did use the term "WE" in a hypothetical pre-text to the discussion.

I don't always take that seriously. "We" is often a politically correct version of "you".

Further, I think you need to think about what arrogance is and remove yourself from the position of "I am right" before you get worried about whether my hypothetical pre-text is misguided.

lol, agreed. It is arrogant to simply assert "I am right" without justification or discussion. But that's what this thread is for - to discuss whether it is right and why.

Asserting you are unfallible in your understanding of right and wrong is by nature "misguided" and arrogant (although well intended and in line with my beliefs as well).

This time I think you misunderstood (instead of me). I'm not saying that my understanding of right and wrong is infallible. I'm saying that right and wrong are not subjective. And I assert THAT statement as absolute.

Also, since my view of the discussion is clearly unappreciated and "nothing interesting" I'll be headed on to other topics.

Your view on the topic is certainly appreciated, and the reason I've been responding to it and reading it is because I saw it as interesting. What doesn't interest me is the assertion that the law is the law and that it will be enforced. But that wasn't all you wrote.

Agreed, not that it matters what is right in the hearts of the Sudanese.

That seems to me like a great contradiction to your speech regarding rights.

It's an extension of these statements:

But I will point out that it doesn't matter what other people believe. All that matters is what's right, objectively.

Justice is not subjective.

In otherwords, the Sudanese opinion on this subject doesn't impact the validity of the law or the rights of human beings. Neither does my opinion for that matter.

 

[Kent]

Well, I'm glad I managed to clear that up. 👍

Although I must say, simply being the same subject doesn't mean different responses can't be applied out of context.
I said should in one to illustrate an idea (which was to say that, right or wrong- I expect the laws of a land to be enforced by the inhabitants).
In the other I said I never said should because I was responding to a different statement (which I believe I've already cleared up).

In any case, I'm still just glad to clear up what was blurry.

 

[Sureboss]

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.

I agree completely.

---

correct me if I'm wrong (though I don't need to type that, do I?)

But in Islam isn't calling you child Mohammed/Muhamed/etc seen as a way of going to heaven, I remember reading something like that on the BBC website. Though it seems Kent has answered this.

 

[Kent]

I agree completely.

---

correct me if I'm wrong (though I don't need to type that, do I?)

But in Islam isn't calling you child Mohammed/Muhamed/etc seen as a way of going to heaven, I remember reading something like that on the BBC website. Though it seems Kent has answered this.

That's hard to say... I know they don't have a problem with naming a child Muhammed but I'm not sure what-all that implies. With some of the Muslims out there I wouldn't be suprised if being named Muhammed was supposed to be enough for pass into heaven on the name alone.
Then again, I'd like to think that Muslims are like most other religions and believe your actions in this life dictate your fate in the next.

Here's a new question for you guys...

Who is less tolerant, the religions groups of the world or the political factions of the world?

 

[Sureboss]

Too hard!

Out of interest on this topic (the Sudan teacher thing), I'm a mod on a cricket forum, and I'll ask one of the other mods of his view on it (he's a Muslim). Results soon, hopefully...

Well its an over reaction to say the very least. True that in Islam blasphemy against the Prophet is to be severely punished, but I am a great supporter of people using some common sense when it comes to these things, but apparently that's asking for way too much. For children to name their teddies after a name that is very common in that region and that being deemed blasphemous is ludicrous.

In my personal opinion, it has less to do with children naming their teddies and everything to do with the teacher being an outsider. In many cultures, getting help from an outsider is considered dishonorable, and the people who lit this fire were probably looking for a reason to screw her over anyway.

 

[Alfaholic]

Why didn't she say...

"Sorry kids, but we can't call the teddy bear Mohammed"

?

She did, but the kids (not her) called the teddy Muhammad anyway. She attempted to stop the kids from breaking the law, and failed. The fact that she's been found guilty suggests that the justice system in the country feels she did not try hard enough, which prompts the question, just how hard would she have been permitted to try?

Also, in the Sudanese culture, how much authority does a female adult have over a male child that is not her son anyway? Would she have gotten into trouble if she tried to hard to stop them, or should she have done whatever it takes to prevent this terrible crime.... actually, is crime the right word? It sounds more like a sin to me.

@ Alex:

I hear what you're saying about the good and bad Muslims, but it's not Muslim or Islam that's the problem. The Christians were at least as bad in their day. Arguably, the only difference now is that christianity lost political power in the countries where its members were running around burning people on stakes and throwing them in rivers and stuff. Even now, somewhere in the world, you can bet there are christians persecuting homosexuals or non believers or people of another religeon in the name of their own god. I don't agree with everything Richard Dawkins says but I do agree with his point that organised religeon is a highly dangerous force and a threat to peace.

This thread was originally about religeous tolerance. Well, I don't think any religeon deserves any more or any less tolerance than any other group, preference, football team, whatever. And when that religeon is intolerant towards your people, the intolerant behaviour (not the religeon itself) should not earn a response of tolerance. Which I think is kind of what Danoff said a few posts back.

If this lady had decided to name the teddy herself, or had simply thought the name was a good idea, then yeah, I'd agree that she'd shown ignorance of the laws of the country she was in and as such had done something stupid. But that's not what happened. I don't think this whole story reflects badly on Islam. I think it's just a great example of why religeon should not receive any special tolerance at all.

 

[Sureboss]

I've not heard anything of her trying to stop the kids calling the teddy Mohammed. Got a linky, Alfa?

Lord Ahmed and Baroness Warsi are fairly confident of an early release, though given she's half way through her sentence already, it may only be reduced by a day or two.

 

[Famine]

My school has just bought a new hamster.

I'm calling her Mohamed.

 

[daan]

My school has just bought a new hamster.

I'm calling her Mohamed.

Her? HER? HER?

Oh, you are soooo dead.


Aaaaargh, I'm in the opinions forum again...

Runs away...

 

[Duke]

Hey, at least she's a hamster. She could have been a pot-bellied pig...

 

[Sureboss]

My school has just bought a new hamster.

I'm calling her Mohamed.

Remember to give her an airhole in her Burka...

 

[Touring Mars]

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.

So you'd like to kill anyone who likes to see people be killed for their beliefs? Well, it's been nice knowing you Alex.

Go to foreign lands, go by foreign laws, however stupid they seem to us.

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.

Exactly. Ignorance of the law is never a good thing, but it is a moral imperative that the punishment should fit the crime. You will hopefully agree that there are occasions where people can unwittingly break the law - especially if you are a foreigner or simply unfortunate enough to not know or appreciate the stringencies of foreign laws or customs.

Have you ever eaten a mince pie on Christmas Day, Nigel? I bet you have or atleast someone you love has. Now imagine that your neighbour (a mince pie fanatic) saw you letting your kid brother/sister eat a mince pie on Xmas morning and reported it to the Mince Pie Liberation Front who made a ridiculous kerfuffle about it and subsequently had you arrested under existing UK law (since your kid sibling is 'too young' to know any better, and it was you (a legally responsible adult) who should have known better - you did know about that law, right? Anyway, ignorance is no excuse!) Now, I don't know what the punishment is for breaking this law (lashings of custard perhaps?), but the punishment should be minor because nobody got hurt and frankly, it's pretty ridiculous in the first place. People can legally eat mince pies any other time that they want, but for some reason it's not alright to eat them on Xmas day (according to the law anyway), despite the fact that everyone does it anyway.

The analogous point is using the name Muhammed - how many teddy bears do you think exist throughout the Islamic world that are called Muhammed right now? None? I seriously doubt it. So why don't the guilty parents get thrown in jail? Because no-one reports them and no-one normally cares anyway. People are allowed to be called Muhammed, people are even allowed to call themselves Muhammed and be worshipped like an idol, but seemingly nobody's too upset about that. So exactly why did Gillian Gibbons get reported, charged and imprisoned? Well, one thing is for sure, it wasn't because her intention was to insult the prophet (or hardline Islamic fundamentalists for that matter) - but just like in the case of the Danish cartoons, it's the fundamentalists themselves who are the real culprits for inciting hatred in this case. For me, this sounds like another case of bringing the mole-hill to Muhammed...

It seems to me that the real reason that Gillian Gibbons has been treated in this way has nothing whatsoever to do with her actions (or more pertinently, her intentions), and everything to do with the kind of people who want to see people mercilessly persecuted for not being of the same creed and/or colour. No wonder that intelligent, open-minded and scholarly Muslims the world over are expressing their embarrassment and dismay with her treatment, for it is not justice - it's sheer bigotry.

 

[Alfaholic]

Sorry Sureshot... I searched all over the place and can't back up my claim. I first heard this story, and the point that she had tried to discourage the use of the name, on BBC World News, but even the BBC website doesn't back that up.

Closest I can get is this:

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=29162&cat=0

which simply states she allowed the kids to name the bear and doesn't even suggest that she did anything to intervene.

Since that makes the basis of my previous post conjecture at best, please feel free to ignore it completely.

@ Touring Mars: I thought you were joking about mince pies on Christmas day, until I found this:

http://www.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/...o_eat_Mince_Pies_on_Christmas_Day__46499.html

, but on that point, + rep to your previous post. Just shows the same thing could happen here if someone with enough power was either sufficiently offended, or more likely, had enough to gain.

EDIT: Oh wait I can't +rep anymore

 

[Sureboss]

Chris, I don't in anyway disagree with you, it's a stupid law, but to them it isn't, and as you've said we have some stupid laws (although the police would laugh their trunctions off if you complained about the Mince pie thing) and remember it wasn't that long ago that we shot our soldiers who got shell shock, it's stupid but it is foreign law and you have to accept it, I don't see this law as any different from a country having the death penalty, yet would the UK government try and stop me from being executed in say the USA if I commited a murder in one of their states which has the death penalty?

Sudan is known for being 'hardline', but you'd think they'd have bigger things to worry about, wouldn't you?

 

[Touring Mars]

Yes, you would have thought so... but the point is that although she may have inadvertently broken one law, the absurd and deliberate over-reaction by the fundamentalists was a concerted attempt to have her found guilty of other, much more serious crimes of which she was 100% not guilty of, for example inciting hatred. But will those who stirred up the controversy in the first place get charged with that crime? Of course they won't.

However, the excellent news this morning is that Gillian Gibbons is to be freed.

Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir pardoned her after a meeting with two British Muslim peers, Lord Ahmed and Baroness Warsi.

This can only be described as a triumph for reason.... faced with calls from fundamentalists who would have seen the woman killed for such a trivial incident, the UK was faced with two options. Respond with the same brain-dead intolerance and play into the hands of those who want a fight, or respond in the way that intelligent and just people should - with decency, common sense, and ultimately with reason.

 

[Famine]

Hey, at least she's a hamster. She could have been a pot-bellied pig...

Well... she is a hamster.


*listens to Sudan exploding in the distance*

 

[Sureboss]

Stop being irashional

 

[Danoff]

Respond with the same brain-dead intolerance and play into the hands of those who want a fight, or respond in the way that intelligent and just people should - with decency, common sense, and ultimately with reason.

...because we all know how reasonable these people are.

Well... she is a hamster.

Oh man! How did Chris not jump on that one?