Yes, Rose, this is a quiz. How anyone could think themselves competent to judge another culture without knowing that culture in something like its fullness is beyond me. We're horrified to see radical Islamicists talk about America in terms of "the Great Shaytan", but we're just as eager to villify their culture on the least provocation. To hell with all of that. I'm sick of it. In this particular case, I would say that it is likely pertinent that the defendant is British by nationality, given that the Sudanese have historically seen the British as oppressors and political rivals. It's both naive and egocentric to refuse to consider the case on those grounds -- egocentric because a less informed perspective demands that the Sudanese match our presumable a-historical standard of liberal democracy. That perspective annoys me immensely. It's both irrational and conceited.

(Naturally, I assume that you recognize that these criticisms are not leveled at you, despite the fact that your reply afforded me the opportunity to vent them.)

If the defendant were native Sudanese, I'm not sure that the case would a) be as volatile an issue, and b) receive the sort of international attention that would bring it to our notice. Buy most of the people who have commented on the case could give a damn that the Sudanese have an ongoing historical entanglement with the British. All they see is the conflict between Islam and an apparently secular liberalism, and anyone who insists on a historical perspective is obviously a apologist with a vested interest in giving religion a pass. Dirty theists.

And Mr. P, your sarcasm is duly noted. Bring to my attention a case of religious intolerance that doesn't have so ridiculously obvious a political element and maybe you'll shut me up on this point. But every article you quote on this matter is such a softball. They've all got a heavy political component. Either that, or the antagonists are such obvious candidates for negative psychological evaluation. And I can't help but suspect that the reason is that politics is far more likely to support a militant mob mentality than religion. Prove me wrong. Please.

Mad
Bring to my attention a case of religious intolerance that doesn't have so ridiculously obvious a political element and maybe you'll shut me up on this point.

I doubt that this will shut you up... but how about that chocolate Jesus fiasco? It involved hate mail and death threats that ultimately shut down the show, does that count? To my knowledge there was no political involvement at all. Yet I would still label that religious intolerance.

Later

irishrose wrote:But, as far as I can tell, that doesn't really have anything to do with this story.

Well this is really the point here...but of course Mad needs to insert his crap in whenever he sees religion under attack. And if you are sick of things I post Mad (if you refer to me in your little aside to Rose), have the balls to confront me about it and not go through another poster. You are an apologist plain and simple. Religion is NEVER wrong...only used by bad people for other reasons in your mind.

But I see that you, Mad, have conveniently ignored my statement that it was NOT the political body that called for the lashings and execution...it was the SHEEP that saw a religious slight. The political body was actually going to be very lenient (relative to the law).

Mad wrote:How anyone could think themselves competent to judge another culture without knowing that culture in something like its fullness is beyond me.

The simple fact is that this is NOT about the history and politics of Sudan...it is a Muslim Religion wide thing we see here.

As for other examples of PURE religious intolerance...how about Theo Van Gogh, The cartoonist that drew the Muhammad picture a few years ago (do not remember the name) or Rushdie? All were threatened or killed for daring to go against the RELIGION of Islam. But nothing will ever satisfy you on this matter...when a culture's politics and religion are SO entwined, there can never be a clear case of separation on any instance.

Maybe their maltreatment of women is political too...but even if it was, why is not their wonderful religion able to help them overcome their antiquated ways?

All they see is the conflict between Islam and an apparently secular liberalism

You are the only one that has drawn this conclusion...I just saw a person getting punished for bullshit. I do not know if she is a strict Muslim, Catholic or anything so secularism has nothing to do with it. I see religious beliefs making people suffer for EXTREMELY slight offenses.


Mr. P.

I have just watched "Dateline London" on BBC World, in which this issue was discussed. The Arab journalist in the programme, Barry, said that the decision of the Sudanese government was totally unjustified from the point of view of islamic values, and that British Muslims did not support the condemnation.
He added that the publishing of the cartoons about Prophet Mahommet in the Danish press were a different story, that they were offensive and had been made , in his view, with the express intention of being disrespectful towards Islam, as opposed to the naming of the teddy bear.

Frank 013 wrote:I doubt that this will shut you up... but how about that chocolate Jesus fiasco? It involved hate mail and death threats that ultimately shut down the show, does that count?

Actually, we talked about that on the forums, and if I recall correctly, I both sympathized with the artist, defended a particular (positive) interpretation of the piece, and denounced those who took criticism to the extreme of threatening physical violence. Of course, it gets ignored that my position is actually pretty moderate, and certainly never more than when I take a position that is actually in line with what you guys are saying. But the fact is, cases like that one are rarely brought up around here. More often than not, it's the cases with a) political entanglements or b) obvious psychological abnormalities that get discussed at BookTalk. It's absurd, really.

misterpessimistic wrote: ...but of course Mad needs to insert his crap in whenever he sees religion under attack.

Has it occurred to you that I almost never bring this subject up on my own? If you and several others weren't periodically posting links to articles that supposedly prove the intrinsic injustice and irrationality of religion, then I'd have zero opportunity to rebut. And it certainly hasn't passed my notice that of the three of us (you, me and Frank), I'm practically the only one who actually uses the politics forum to talk about political events that have no religion component -- despite your claim that I'm an apologist, plain and simple.

And if you are sick of things I post Mad (if you refer to me in your little aside to Rose), have the balls to confront me about it and not go through another poster.

A) I did address you directly. B) Most of the time, I have no problem with the things you post. But you get on this streaks where everything is proof of the villainy of religion, and then you're no longer willing to look at a case as something more complex than just people going off their rocker from having listened to one too many sermons.

Religion is NEVER wrong...only used by bad people for other reasons in your mind.

I could actually name a dozen cases where I would say religion is legitimately dangerous and wrong-minded... but I'm not gonna do it in here. That's because you guys would quickly seize on those examples as further proof, but never consider the other cases (like that of the indicted British-Sudanese school teacher) in any other light. I see no particular point in adding fuel to a fire that's already burning just fine on its own.

But I see that you, Mad, have conveniently ignored my statement that it was NOT the political body that called for the lashings and execution...it was the SHEEP that saw a religious slight.

Actually, I did address that above. I won't waste anyone's time by repeating what I said there.

The simple fact is that this is NOT about the history and politics of Sudan...it is a Muslim Religion wide thing we see here.

How are those two articles evidence sufficient to convince you of that? There's nothing in them that would discount the importance of Sudanese political history. Personally, I never read a news article and assume that I've gotten even a 10th of the full story.

...how about Theo Van Gogh, The cartoonist that drew the Muhammad picture a few years ago (do not remember the name) or Rushdie? All were threatened or killed for daring to go against the RELIGION of Islam.

Where were those threats coming from? Were a majority of, say, French Muslim's calling for his assassination? Or were countries with totalitarian theocracies mostly responsible?

The point is, taking an episode that we mostly only heard about in soundbytes and 5 paragraph news blurbs, subjecting it to almost zero analysis, and the proclaiming it evidence of the intrinsically violent and oppressive nature of religion proves nothing. You act as though you've exhausted every means available to reason to prove this point, but you've offered almost nothing but unanalyzed anecdote.

But nothing will ever satisfy you on this matter...when a culture's politics and religion are SO entwined, there can never be a clear case of separation on any instance.

The funny thing is, that's a matter that I had thought, at one point, we agreed on.

From a scientific point of view, what I'm arguing makes perfect sense. Scientist's are far more reluctant to draw conclusions based on instances where cause and effect are muddled. That's why they prefer laboratory experiments in many cases. It's called reducing noise. And in the case of nations where religion is applied and demanded by the government, that political involvement provides a kind of noise that makes it entirely too difficult to discern which effects link back to which causes.

Maybe their maltreatment of women is political too...but even if it was, why is not their wonderful religion able to help them overcome their antiquated ways?

Without giving it a much closer look than I have, I couldn't really say. Maybe their concern for the issue simply isn't that strong. That would be unfortunate. And it's entirely possible that their interpretation of Islam (which initially provided a series of protections that vastly improved the status of women in Arab society) has actually come to provide an impediment to such concern. But that's not a conclusion I'm willing to draw on the basis of so little evidence.

I do not know if she is a strict Muslim, Catholic or anything so secularism has nothing to do with it. I see religious beliefs making people suffer for EXTREMELY slight offenses.

And that's what I mean by a conflict between religion and secular liberalism. Secular liberalism, in this instance, is the position that religion should be left out of politics inasmuch as it limits the liberties of those governed by a state. And this particular case has gotten a great deal of attention in part because most people feel that the woman, as a European citizen, should be judged according to the standards of secular liberalism. Whether or not she would agree with that premise doesn't really have anything to do with the widespread perception that there is a conflict between the two.

Mad
Actually, we talked about that on the forums, and if I recall correctly, I both sympathized with the artist, defended a particular (positive) interpretation of the piece, and denounced those who took criticism to the extreme of threatening physical violence. Of course, it gets ignored that my position is actually pretty moderate, and certainly never more than when I take a position that is actually in line with what you guys are saying.

You were talking like there were no examples of religion run amok that did not involve some kind of political influence, I provided one.

And I still do not buy that you are a "moderate" (didn't it used to be neutral?) when it comes to religion. It seems to me that whenever issues like this arise you try to protect religion by clouding the religious intolerance behind some secular body or another.

And even if that were the case the fact that religion can be used in such a manner is still a serious problem, and does not clear religion from responsibility in the manner.

Mad
If the defendant were native Sudanese, I'm not sure that the case would a) be as volatile an issue, and b) receive the sort of international attention that would bring it to our notice. Buy most of the people who have commented on the case could give a damn that the Sudanese have an ongoing historical entanglement with the British.

So you're saying that their religious society is both fanatic and prejudice? Your really not defending religion very well here Mad.

Mad
All they see is the conflict between Islam and an apparently secular liberalism, and anyone who insists on a historical perspective is obviously a apologist with a vested interest in giving religion a pass. Dirty theists.

Actually what we see is what Mr P said... we see people getting punished for ridiculous laws inspired by religious text that we see as ultimately based off of make believe. Things that would not normally be offensive became offensive because of religion.

In addition, your defense of these religious injustices have inspired us to delve much deeper into cases like this in the past, you will note that despite this we maintain our view point. The reasoning is not because we are close minded (as I am sure you want to make it sound) but because there has never been an instance like this that religion did not play an important role in making things worse, in many cases much worse.

Later

Mad wrote:How are those two articles evidence sufficient to convince you of that? There's nothing in them that would discount the importance of Sudanese political history. Personally, I never read a news article and assume that I've gotten even a 10th of the full story.

I am NOT just talking about this article or this instance. I am talking about other instances of this I have read or heard about. Like the examples I gave of Rushdie and Van Gogh...and other smaller stories of how fanatical these people are about the minutia of their fairy tale. This goes for Christians and all other whackos as well.

MadArchitect wrote:

Mr. P. wrote:But nothing will ever satisfy you on this matter...when a culture's politics and religion are SO entwined, there can never be a clear case of separation on any instance.

The funny thing is, that's a matter that I had thought, at one point, we agreed on.

I do agree, but that does not mean that I give religion a pass when I see it causing real life pain based on it's imaginary foundations. In this case, holding a name of a faker so sacred that a real person is punished simply for using a name.

Mad wrote:I'm practically the only one who actually uses the politics forum to talk about political events that have no religion component -- despite your claim that I'm an apologist, plain and simple.

I'm sorry...is this not the "Politics, CURRENT EVENTS, and History" forum? This is a current event, which is why I chose to post it here.

Mr. P.

Frank 013 wrote:And I still do not buy that you are a "moderate" (didn't it used to be neutral?) when it comes to religion. It seems to me that whenever issues like this arise you try to protect religion by clouding the religious intolerance behind some secular body or another.

I could care less what you "buy" about my stance. The very fact that you're willing to judge my arguments on the presumption that my motivation is other than what I claim it to be reduces my regard for your opinion of me to practically nil. If you're incapable of trusting me enough to know and say what I'm really about, then there is no chance of us ever reaching an accord or even understanding, and the fault is yours.

And for the record, I haven't been talking about "some secular body or another". I've been talking specifically about political institutions. A great many of those institutions are theocracies, which would preclude them from the category of secular body, but that does not prevent them from acting on the principle that nearly all functioning political bodies act upon. The almost all seek to ensure their own preservation, and a theocracy is no less likely than a secular government to sacrifice its ideals in the hope of securing a broader appeal or stronger hold over the governed.

And even if that were the case the fact that religion can be used in such a manner is still a serious problem, and does not clear religion from responsibility in the manner.

I've never disagreed on that point. The only qualification I'd make is that religion is no different in that regard from any other cultural form. Art can be made into vicious propaganda; language can be made into double-speak and polemic; division of labor can be made into slavery and economic exploitation. Culture is always a coin with two sides, and you cannot enjoy the benefits of one side without incurring the risk that you'll also suffer the consequences of the other.

So you're saying that their religious society is both fanatic and prejudice? Your really not defending religion very well here Mad.

I'm saying that their society is deeply suspicious of European society, and the British in general, because their involvement with the English has historically been that of the exploited and oppressed to the exploiter and oppressor. So far as I can tell, the Koran says nothing about the British. But the British have made the Sudan a colony, as well as a theater of war. I'm not claiming that the teacher in this case is being tried for being British, but the fact that there is a long-standing undercurrent of animosity between the two cultures may go some distance towards explaining the ferociousness with which the public has denounced her.

And then again, that might not be the case. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I don't know enough about the case to make more of that suggestion than a reasonable conjecture. The point is that it's a possibility that makes sense given what little I know about the history and political circumstances of the Sudan, and to recognize as much is to recognize that there may be more to this situation than the clear-cut assertion that "this is all about religion". To suggest that religion is the only clear cut culprit here seems to me like seizing only only the most superficially obvious aspect of the case as the sole basis for a conclusion.

In addition, your defense of these religious injustices have inspired us to delve much deeper into cases like this in the past, you will note that despite this we maintain our view point.

"We"? When have you delved at my insistence into cases like this in the past? Mr. P was very generous in looking at a book I recommended on the Witch Crazes, but so far as I can tell the only delving you did was on Google, and then you seemed to be looking specifically for sources that would support your point of view.

The reasoning is not because we are close minded (as I am sure you want to make it sound) but because there has never been an instance like this that religion did not play an important role in making things worse, in many cases much worse.

In some of the most egregious modern instances, the role played by religion was that of victim. But you don't seem to like considering those all that much.

[quote="Mr. P]Like the examples I gave of Rushdie and Van Gogh...and other smaller stories of how fanatical these people are about the minutia of their fairy tale.[/quote]

Again, those are all instances of backlash from theocracies -- that is, political institutions with a vested interest in preserving a monolithic religious milieu. Rushdie certainly was in a great deal of mortal danger from specific groups, but if he had really had the billion+ adherents of Islam against him, I doubt he could have survived the fetwah, despite having gone into hiding.

(Incidentally, I'm addressing you in a separate post because I think you would do well to distance yourself from Frank's position, even if you agree on some specifics. You've been much more willing in the past to at least try to see the other point of view. I certainly don't want to treat the two of you as though your points of view and approaches to the subject were identical, because I think that does you less credit than you deserve.)

I'm sorry...is this not the "Politics, CURRENT EVENTS, and History" forum? This is a current event, which is why I chose to post it here.

Mmhmm. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't have posted it here. I'm just wondering why the majority of posts in this forum follow the same pattern. What's depressing is how few people use this forum to talk about any politics, current events or history that don't have to do with the atrocities and injustices perpetrated by religion. Are people on this board really so disinterested in the other things going on in the world? Why did you decide to post about this particular article and not, say, one like this or one like this or one like this or [urlhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071203/ts_afp/australiaclimatekyoto;_ylt=AjM2lM_ewqInkPMCXFRf_mdvaA8F]one like this[/url]. I'm not trying to say that we should only talk about topics that interest me (the above articles were chosen pretty much at random), or that we should steer clear of talking about religion in this forum. But why is that just about the only thing we talk about? And why do we always talk about it from the same perspective, and in the same way? It's tedious, and unproductive, and there are so many other things in the world that demand our attention.

And finally, why bring up a topic at all if you're just going to dismiss any disagreement you might get in reply? I don't post about a topic unless I expect disagreement. I'm looking for it, in fact, as a challenge to my position. But you post a snippet from an article, a link, and some short expression of disapproval, and are entirely uncharitable when someone voices an opposing opinion. That's a stupid way to behave, and not only because it ultimately reduces your thread to something trivial and pointless when it could be, god forbid, and actual discussion.

Mad
The very fact that you're willing to judge my arguments on the presumption that my motivation is other than what I claim it to be reduces my regard for your opinion of me to practically nil. If you're incapable of trusting me enough to know and say what I'm really about, then there is no chance of us ever reaching an accord or even understanding, and the fault is yours.

It's not a presumption... its history.

I will say this about fault, my opinion of you is based off of that history, so if I (and others) do not think of you as moderate you might want to consider the possibility that apologist is a label of your own making.

Mad
And for the record, I haven't been talking about "some secular body or another". I've been talking specifically about political institutions.

Ok.

Mad
I've never disagreed on that point. The only qualification I'd make is that religion is no different in that regard from any other cultural form. Art can be made into vicious propaganda; language can be made into double-speak and polemic; division of labor can be made into slavery and economic exploitation. Culture is always a coin with two sides, and you cannot enjoy the benefits of one side without incurring the risk that you'll also suffer the consequences of the other.

What I am saying (and I believe Mr. P as well) is that the more of these cultural forms that are intertwined the more problems arise, and that the ridiculous nature of religious beliefs only adds to the problem and causes its own problems as well.

Mad
I'm saying that their society is deeply suspicious of European society and the British in general, because their involvement with the English has historically been that of the exploited and oppressed to the exploiter and oppressor. So far as I can tell, the Koran says nothing about the British. But the British have made the Sudan a colony, as well as a theater of war. I'm not claiming that the teacher in this case is being tried for being British, but the fact that there is a long-standing undercurrent of animosity between the two cultures may go some distance towards explaining the ferociousness with which the public has denounced her.

Right... Prejudice.

Mad
"We"? When have you delved at my insistence into cases like this in the past? Mr. P was very generous in looking at a book I recommended on the Witch Crazes, but so far as I can tell the only delving you did was on Google, and then you seemed to be looking specifically for sources that would support your point of view.

Gee Mad. I'm sorry that I can't afford to buy a book on every subject that we discuss, and am forced to do my research in other ways. And for the record I do look at both sides of the argument, I just find yours to be lacking in most cases.

You seem to lack a fundamental knowledge of the way things work in the real world and in my opinion it hurts your arguments.

Later