Mad
No, I never ended up agreeing with you.

I never said you agreed with me. I said you finally accepted the flaw that we saw from the beginning.

Hear are your own words on the matter.

Mad
Frank, my "position" on what caused and sustained the witch crazes is a less solid matter than you've made it out to be, and one of the things that I've found most frustrating about this discussion is that I've succumbed on too many occasions to the tendency to respond as though my opinions on the matter were both final and fully worked out. That has a lot to do with the terms in which you've couched discussion; if you look back at the exchanges between myself and Rose, or myself and Mr. P, you'll see a much greater willingness on the part of both sides to consider the possibilities. You've consistently invited me to defend positions that were far more entrenched and definite than my own, and to my dismay, I realize that I've come out looking as though I really did subscribe to those positions.

For the record Mad you were the one who made it out to be your position, you could have just said that you were still working on the questions at hand and accepted some of the criticism in the first place; instead you went with your knee jerk reaction to resist anything that I and Mr. P. said.

Mad
And what it actually took was reading more information on the topic. But then, you would assume that the only options are black and white, wouldn't you?

No actually, but in this case you argument was so bad that exposing the weakness in it became a priority. You did eventually see the flaw in your theory... weather or not you came to the same conclusion as I did is irrelevant to me.

Mad
What else could it mean to say that I "modified" my opinions, except that I conceded defeat to your instinctual wisdom?

Just what I said above.

Mad
And do you really think your knowledge about the Witch Crazes is innate? Wild.

here you go putting words into my mouth again...

Not the witch crazes, but people, the way they act and the effect of religion has on those people... yes.

Your secular argument in that thread would mean that every one of the accusers was willing to be a part in the murder of another person for personal gain, in some cases very minor gain, or none at all.

They were also taking a big chance as well; many accusers were later accused themselves and were also executed. The people knew this, so for them to act in the manner you claimed it would take far more than some misfits acting troublesome.

But fear, zealotry and delusion readily cause that behavior.

I don't know if this was something that you failed to realize when you came up with your "mostly secular reasoning" theory but that is what your argument suggested.

And that's why I opposed it so strongly.

Later

Chris
Over analyze this all you want. The bottom line is religion is the real problem and not politics. I think Frank and Nick have done a fine job in showing this rather obvious truth.

Thank you Chris!

It's nice to have another voice of reason thrown in from time to time.

Later

This discussion has become a ridiculous disaster.

Over analyze this all you want. The bottom line is religion is the real problem and not politics. I think Frank and Nick have done a fine job in showing this rather obvious truth.

The notion that you can separate religion from politics in this situation is crazy. The woman was placed in prison because she offended the religious sensibilities of some people. There are some questions that I think need to be asked. 1. Does that mean that religion was the sole cause? 2. Does it mean that religion was the main cause? 3. Does it mean that in the absence of religion, such a situation could have arisen?

1. The odd thing about this situation is that the naming of the toy happened months ago. Colleagues knew about it. Parents knew about it. In spite of the fact that these Muslim colleagues and parents encountered the toy, they did not fly into fits of rage. In fact, none of these people even thought the name remarkable as far as I can tell. Mere belief in Islam was not enough to cause anger, and certainly, belief in a god of any form was not sufficient either. If mere belief was not sufficient then religion cannot be the sole cause.

2. Establishing the main cause of this episode is difficult. Certainly, without Islam, this specific charge would never have been brought for obvious reasons. But similarly, I doubt that if the woman had been a native the charges would have been brought. As I pointed out above, her colleagues did not think that this situation would arise. I suspect that the overly-zealous individual that brought the "crime" to the attention of the authorities was looking for offense because he knew the teacher's background.

3. Regarding if this situation could have arisen in the absence of religion, obviously this particular situation could not have happened, but this particular situation has many non-religious parallels in both western countries and communist countries.

For instance, a Rastafarian was arrested in a British court because of his mode of dress. In the States, a man was forced to resign and apologise because he used the word "niggardly." David Irving was sent to prison for three years because he denied the Jewish Holocaust. In China it is possible to be jailed for being a member of Falun Gong, or indeed for praying with the wrong people. In Turkey, the crime of insulting the state can land you in prison. Headscarves are banned from government buildings. Then of course, there are the internment policies adopted in recent times by the British and US governments which don't even require convictions and where innocent people are imprisoned indefinitely. In France, crosses and burkas are banned from public schools. In Albania, possession of a cross or bible was punished with a ten year prison sentence.

So yeah, in the absence of Sharia Law, this situation would not have arisen. However, in the presence of religion or even Islam in particular, there was no need for the situation to arise, and the absence of religion, Islam is no assurance that people would not be convicted for offending local sensibilities.

The fact is throughout Africa, and indeed throughout the world, people are arrested and sentenced to much harsher sentences for even more trivial crimes on poor evidence, but it doesn't get the same attention.

Chris wrote:I think Frank and Nick have done a fine job in showing this rather obvious truth.

Chris, could you kindly direct me to where the proof is that demonstrates the "truth" of Frank's position? I mean being the clear-thinker that you are, I'm sure you have collected up a few nuggets outside the blanket assertion that a person incarcerated for naming a bear after a religious figure is the victim of religion, to the extent that all other causes are void. And, as I said in my post, I'm having a hard time finding good primary documents that could shed any actual light on this topic. I even asked my city's law librarian how I could find even a complaint, to no avail. But I'm headed back to the library today and figured if I could bring her a couple of these "truth" you speak of, we might get a bit further. Anyway, I could really use the help, because after reading your statement here, I reread the thread, and have found nothing more being bandied about than a couple relatively unrevealing news stories, some equally unrevealing speculation and a whole lot of unsupported, vitriolic assertions.

In the meantime, I've always found it comical that Mad's continually able to trip up what are supposed to be skeptics and freethinkers using the thoroughly antiquated notion that all we know is that we don't know. Here, the supposedly indoctrinated theist has done nothing more than speculate that there might be more than one underlying cause to an issue within a country with some of the worst civil and imperial turmoil of the past century. While the supposed freethinker has set-down as truth a thoroughly extraordinary notion, which has only been speculated and guessed at.

Irish
Chris, could you kindly direct me to where the proof is that demonstrates the "truth" of Frank's position?

Wow how did this suddenly become Frank's position? The last time I checked I was supporting someone else's points.

I have hardly really posted on the issue.

Let's sum up my position on this topic to date shall we...

I offered up the chocolate Jesus occurrence as an incident of religious intolerance without political influence, in response to Mad's request.

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.

Mad Agreed that my example fit his criteria but jumped right to the defensive instead of shutting up.

I then said that religion combined with government is complicating this issue and the fact that religion might not be the entire cause does not clear religion in this situation.

Again Mad agreed.

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.

I did mention that I agreed with Mr. P. about Mad not being a moderate... as far as I know I am entitled to my opinion... No?

Moving on...

Mad must not like being called an apologist (not my doing) because he then tried to attack my credibility.

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.

Not true so, whatever...

This was followed up with a not to subtle slight against me in an effort to distance Mr. P. and myself on the topic.

Mad
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 called him on that...

Me
Divide and conquer huh Mad?

Nice try.

I especially like the little slight you threw in at the end there.

Most unkind.

Later

He admitted it...

Mad
Divide, yes. But conquer is your M.O.

We moved along...

I then said that combining cultural forms (religion and government specifically) cause problems and religion brings its own unique problems to the table.

In a response to Niall I also asked why a moderate (a label Mad has given himself) could not admit, that from the facts available the Muhammad teddy bear incident is the result of religious intolerance, that it was unjustified, silly and dangerous.

Mad did not respond to this right away, he instead went off on the "witch craze" tangent in a further attempt to discredit my statements and those posts have dominated this thread ever since.

Later I did agree with Chris... without the religious element in this case I find it doubtful that naming a teddy bear would be offensive to anyone.

That pretty much sums up my posts on the topic at hand most of which Mad and I actually agree on. What we do not agree on is Mad's agenda when he posts on these threads.

There is also this...

Mad
In this particular context, I have no doubt that I come across as an apologist.

Mad (in his own way) is admitting that he often appears to play the role of apologist.

I personally believe that he is doing more than playing, but that belief has been formed by years of listening to Mad defend religion, the things he finds offensive, the way he attempts to cloud issues, the way he attempts to place the bulk of the blame somewhere other than the religion.

Mad's approach is constant, fervent and he always gets involved, in my opinion this is not a moderate.

So before naming me the villain in this little scenario please look at the whole picture. I think you will find that my posts so far are not as unreasonable as you somehow have been led to believe.

Later

So now I'm not a freethinker and Mad is.

Chris, could you kindly direct me to where the proof is that demonstrates the "truth" of Frank's position?

Frank is asserting that this is a religious problem. The problem is Islam. Neither Frank nor I have argued that this case should be analyzed in a vacuum where political and social factors can be held constant and ignored. It is just that the real core problem is the biggest factor and the one that gets our Underoos in a bunch.

Addressing the political climate in Sudan isn't going to solve the underlying problem. As long as the Sudanese believe that Mohammed was an actual prophet selected by God and that every word in the Koran should be honored to the letter we have a dangerous problem on our hands. We'd have the same nightmare in the US if Christians actually read and honored the teachings of the Bible word for word.

From The Times of London

A British primary school teacher arrested in Sudan faces up to 40 lashes for blasphemy after letting her class of 7-year-olds name a teddy bear Muhammad.

Gillian Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, was arrested at her lodgings at Khartoum's Unity High School yesterday, accused of insulting the Prophet of Islam.

Her colleagues said that they feared for her safety after reports that groups of young men had gathered outside the Khartoum police station where she was taken and were shouting death threats...

...Teachers at the school, in central Khartoum only a mile from the River Nile, said that Ms Gibbons had made an innocent mistake by letting her pupils choose their favourite name for the toy as part of a school project.

Robert Boulos, the Unity director, said that Mrs Gibbons was following a British National Curriculum course designed to teach young pupils about animals and their habitats. This year's animal was the bear.

In September, she asked a girl to bring in her teddy bear to help the Year 2 class to focus and then asked the class to name the toy.

"They came up with eight names including Abdullah, Hassan and Muhammad. Then she explained what it meant to vote and asked them to choose the name," Mr Boulos said.

Twenty out of the 23 children chose Muhammad. Each child was allowed to take the bear home at weekends and asked to write a diary about what they did with the toy. Each entry was collected in a book with a picture of the bear on the cover, next to the message "My name is Muhammad".

Mr Boulos said that the bear itself was not marked or labelled with the name in any way, he added, saying Sudanese police had now seized the book and had asked to interview the 7-year-old girl.

Does this really sound like a political issue? Or could it be that the politics of Sudan are dictated by the religious climate?

I mean being the clear-thinker that you are, I'm sure you have collected up a few nuggets outside the blanket assertion that a person incarcerated for naming a bear after a religious figure is the victim of religion, to the extent that all other causes are void.

Who said all other causes are void? The politics of Sudan naturally come into play, but they are in themselves effects of other causes, namely irrational and nonsensical religion.

And, as I said in my post, I'm having a hard time finding good primary documents that could shed any actual light on this topic.

This is what I meant by over-analyzing. We all do it at times, but the answer just might be right below your nose as you diligently scan the horizon for something more complex and academic. Read the newspapers and watch the news. Thousands of people were calling for a school teachers EXECUTION for BLASPHEMY. This is about their religious beliefs.

I even asked my city's law librarian how I could find even a complaint, to no avail. But I'm headed back to the library today and figured if I could bring her a couple of these "truth" you speak of, we might get a bit further.

How about the truth that thousands of Muslims throughout Sudan were calling for her execution? Or are you really expecting me to document and prove this assertion? Do I need to fly to Sudan and do a survey of the entire Muslim population to be able to comfortably argue that they are upset about their prophet being insulted? I sure hope not as I venture to say I would be beheaded by the very same people for being an infidel.

Anyway, I could really use the help, because after reading your statement here, I reread the thread, and have found nothing more being bandied about than a couple relatively unrevealing news stories, some equally unrevealing speculation and a whole lot of unsupported, vitriolic assertions.

Please, tell me, what do you want? What do any of us mere mortals have at our disposal for documenting, supporting and refuting claims? I don't pay for a subscription to Nexus Lexus and I don't have a Gulfstream IV to fly to Sudan to investigate this further. I'm left to read news articles, watch the news, and listen to direct translations of what THOUSANDS of Muslims are screaming in the streets.

In the meantime, I've always found it comical that Mad's continually able to trip up what are supposed to be skeptics and freethinkers using the thoroughly antiquated notion that all we know is that we don't know.

I find it comical that you consider Mad tripping up anyone. Heck, this is what pulled me into this thread. Mad continually attempts to get people to ignore the effects of religion and search elsewhere for the "root" causes of problems. Yeah, other factors come into play, but what about finally addressing the cancer of religion? And sorry that some of us here tend to pull the conversation back to religion -- what we consider the real root cause of much of the subjects we're discussing.

Here, the supposedly indoctrinated theist has done nothing more than speculate that there might be more than one underlying cause to an issue within a country with some of the worst civil and imperial turmoil of the past century.

But he does it each and every time religion is under attack. Mad is indeed an indoctrinated theist. Since I don't hold a PhD in Sudanese history, politics and culture, and because I have yet to live amongst the peoples of Sudan for 25+ years I recognize that my interpretation of news stories and reports and editorials is clearly worthless.

While the supposed freethinker has set-down as truth a thoroughly extraordinary notion, which has only been speculated and guessed at.

Extraordinary? Jesus, Rose. Read the papers. Watch the news. What is so extraordinary about AGREEING with the Muslims? We are in AGREEMENT! The Muslims that are demanding she be executed would probably laugh (right before they cut your head off) at your desire to link politics with this issue. They aren't teetering back and forth on this. Gillian Gibbons committed blasphemy by using the name Mohammed in vain. Ask them!

Chris wrote:If Muslims weren't convinced that the Koran is true would they be calling for the execution of a school teacher that named a Teddy Bear Mohammed? No chance.

If that's the case, then we're two left with two curious problems. Firstly, why is it that some Muslims (like the British Muslims who, apparently with great success, argued that the teacher should be pardoned) are convinced that the Koran is true but don't think the decision reflects that truth? And secondly, if this so simple an example of a people taking a religious text as both true and absolute, why has the Sudanese government reversed its decision? Presumably, they haven't apostacized in the last week. Do we have any evidence that they've since ceased to function as a theocracy?

What I would suggest is that the situation got out of hand, and what initially seemed like a politically expedient situation quickly turned into something that threatened their political situation more than it helped.

Over analyze this all you want. The bottom line is religion is the real problem and not politics. I think Frank and Nick have done a fine job in showing this rather obvious truth.

Chris, I would really be interested to know how you think they've done that. Can you paraphrase the arguments for me. Point out the evidence that's been cited, and tell me why it suits one interpretation better than another. Your reply to this request doesn't have to be huge, but I am interested as to what you think the specifics of this argument have been, since it looks to me that Frank and Mr. P have been offering mostly assertions and little in the way of detailed arguments.

Frank wrote:I never said you agreed with me. I said you finally accepted the flaw that we saw from the beginning.

Just so we're clear on the matter, can you tell me what flaw it was that you saw from the beginning and that I finally got around to accepting? All I see in the quotation you've given me is the assertion that I erred in allowing you to set the terms of that discussion, but that quotation says nothing about my have accepted any flaw in my reasoning.

I wrote:And do you really think your knowledge about the Witch Crazes is innate? Wild.

Frank wrote:here you go putting words into my mouth again...

You're the one who said that I had finally accepted what you and Mr. P knew "innately". Maybe you meant to type something other than "innately", but I'm certainly not putting words into your mouth.

Your secular argument in that thread would mean that every one of the accusers was willing to be a part in the murder of another person for personal gain, in some cases very minor gain, or none at all.

That isn't what I meant at all, and the fact that you think that's my meaning demonstrates to me that you took a very simplified and distorted view of the arguments I made.

Niall wrote:The notion that you can separate religion from politics in this situation is crazy.

And for the record, what I've tried to argue is not that politics is the obvious culprit and religion an innocent bystander, but merely that the two are so intertwined that it's unrealistic to assign total and solitary blame to religion without far more evidence that has been presented in this thread. My suggestion that the proportionate role played by each might be easier to discern if we looked for more evidence was dismissed, and my argument has mostly been interpreted as an unqualified attempt to exonerate religion.

1. The odd thing about this situation is that the naming of the toy happened months ago. Colleagues knew about it. Parents knew about it. In spite of the fact that these Muslim colleagues and parents encountered the toy, they did not fly into fits of rage.

That's a point I hadn't noticed before. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

I suspect that the overly-zealous individual that brought the "crime" to the attention of the authorities was looking for offense because he knew the teacher's background.

That's another issue that we've mostly overlooked -- who was the accuser? I assumed that it was simply a governmental action, but now that you mention it, it does seem entirely likely that the plaintiff was a mere citizen. Which divides the question into two phases: 1) why was she accused? and 2) why did the Sudanese legal system take that accusation seriously?

Re: the chocolate Jesus issue:

Frank wrote:Mad Agreed that my example fit his criteria but jumped right to the defensive instead of shutting up.

Jumped to defensive? I responded, yes, because I didn't want to be accused of ignoring your point, but if you'll look back at what I said, I was actually agreeing with you on that one -- the people who took offended religious sensibilities as justification for sending in death threats were acting wrongly. Nor do I think saying as much contradicts anything else I've argued in this thread.

Mad must not like being called an apologist (not my doing) because he then tried to attack my credibility followed up with a not to subtle slight against me in an effort to distance Mr. P. and myself on the topic.

I think of it as a criticism rather than a slight, but have it your way. If it was too subtle for your taste, let me by precise: You bring the level of discussion down a notch every time the topic turns to religion. You refuse to apply the same standards of evidence and inquiry that you demand. You're perfectly content to argue from an entrenched position and you refuse to put in the effort that other people are making to re-examine a topic from a fresh, informed perspective. I don't always like the way Mr. P handles topics, and he and I rarely see eye to eye, but I do recognize that he is at least willing to join in on inquiry, and until his time got taken up by more pressing matters, we were cooperating (which is not to say drawing the same conclusions) quite well. He may not be the ideal freethinker (who here is?) but he at least makes an effort. He deserves a great deal of credit for that, and for that reason I don't think he fits the criteria when you talk of the two of you as "we".

In a response to Niall I also asked why a moderate (a label Mad has given himself) could not admit...

Mad did not respond to this right away...

It wasn't addressed to me, as you just noted. If you want me to reply to it, address it to me. Otherwise, I pick and choose.

I think you will find that my posts so far are not as unreasonable as you somehow have been led to believe.

Give Rose a little credit. She has routinely demonstrated that she's perfectly capable of forming her own conclusions, and it's disrespectful to suggest that someone else (me, I assume) has been coaching her on how to interpret what she can plainly read for herself.

And incidentally, your little recap left out numerous examples of you judging my arguments according to past encounters, your de facto assertions that Sudanese history, culture and politics had nothing to do with the case, snide remarks to the effect that I'm incapable of understanding the "real world" because my "head is too clouded by philosophy" (and though you left out all of your personal comments about me, I did notice that you concentrated a great deal on my "slight" about you), and your excuse for not really considering my arguments in the Witch Craze thread. Those were all gems, I thought, and I was disappointed to not see them in the highlight reel you made.

Mad
Firstly, why is it that some Muslims (like the British Muslims who, apparently with great success, argued that the teacher should be pardoned) are convinced that the Koran is true but don't think the decision reflects that truth?

This question has some merit... is Islam slowly being defanged in western countries where cultural differences change the importance of some of the religious laws?

But just as it is important to note that not all Muslims are crying out for death I think it is equally important to note that only Muslims are calling out for death.

Mad
And secondly, if this so simple an example of a people taking a religious text as both true and absolute, why has the Sudanese government reversed its decision?

This could simply be a result of political pressure, after all a government has to answer to other authorities, and as you have noted before a governmental entity will drop idealism to ensure its own survival.

A pardon is a good way to show that the law still stands but avoids the ugly political mess that would result from a prolonged sentence.

Mad
Just so we're clear on the matter, can you tell me what flaw it was that you saw from the beginning and that I finally got around to accepting?

You were trying to analyze the motivations of the accusers, but you totally left out the influence of religion because it is immeasurable focusing solely on secular reasoning. Your conclusion (as I remember it) was that religion played a minor role at best.

My assertion was and is that that is a mistake, especially considering the level of influence religion had during the period.

You wanted to continue the discussion from the perspective that religion played little to no role in the decision making of those people and I would go along with it.

Later you attempted to downplay the level of religious influence of that era, but there is far too much evidence against that idea for it to hold any weight.

Mad
You're the one who said that I had finally accepted what you and Mr. P knew "innately". Maybe you meant to type something other than "innately", but I'm certainly not putting words into your mouth.

No, innately was a good word but as I stated earlier that was not directed at knowledge of the witch craze phenomena It was directed at the hole in your theory. The problem with your theory is what we saw immeaditly.

I thought you would have been smart enough to recognize the distinction... my mistake.

Mad
That isn't what I meant at all, and the fact that you think that's my meaning demonstrates to me that you took a very simplified and distorted view of the arguments I made.

I know that is not what you meant, but it is the conclusion that is drawn from a purely secular motive, One you seemed to have missed.

Mad
That's a point I hadn't noticed before. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Remember a lot has happened since she was accused... she has already been convicted so it's possible that there has been some sort of trial, that might have taken some time.

Mad
That's another issue that we've mostly overlooked -- who was the accuser?

According to the article "another staff member at the school complained about the bear's name, leading to Gibbons' arrest."

Mad
Jumped to defensive?

your words
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.

Here you are already defending your "moderate" viewpoint. Now I do not totally blame you... you were under attack, but it was not from me.

Mad
You bring the level of discussion down a notch every time the topic turns to religion. You refuse to apply the same standards of evidence and inquiry that you demand.

What evidence can there possibly be that makes it acceptable to arrest or execute someone over the naming of a teddy bear? Find some Ill look at it.

Mad
You're perfectly content to argue from an entrenched position and you refuse to put in the effort that other people are making to re-examine a topic from a fresh, informed perspective.

I find your perspective neither fresh nor informed; it is the same old argument again and again, poor religion has been used and abused it's really the secular authority causing the bulk of the problem.

As I have stated before, even if this is the case it makes no difference, the religious element is still adding to the problem, and does not clear it of responsibility. You say that you agree with this. Yet you still seem intent to show that secular motivations are the real culprit.

Mad
And incidentally, your little recap left out numerous examples of you judging my arguments according to past encounters

Well since you were spewing the same old crud I felt that that I was dealing with the same old Mad, thus the history was justified.

Mad
Give Rose a little credit.

I give rose plenty of credit but in this case she seems to be focusing in on certain points and not seeing the whole picture.

Mad
Your de facto assertions that Sudanese history, culture and politics had nothing to do with the case,

I would like you to show me where I made that claim.

Mad
snide remarks to the effect that I'm incapable of understanding the "real world" because my "head is too clouded by philosophy"

Does the truth hurt?

Mad
I did notice that you concentrated a great deal on my "slight" about you.

Yea I did, because it's what inspired the backlash. Everything you are complaining about here is a direct result of that.

Don't push me and I won't push you.

Mad
And your excuse for not really considering my arguments in the Witch Craze thread. Those were all gems, I thought, and I was disappointed to not see them in the highlight reel you made.

I am glad you like it, but there is no highlight reel I don't have Director loaded on to my computer currently.

Later

I think reducing this issue to mere religion or simply politics is a mistake: and misunderstands how both phenomena influence each other and most human enterprise. Some Muslims are incensed to the point of murder, others are wanting to protect the teacher, others wish it would all go away. Once a tipping point towards violence is reached, it seems very difficult for the more moderate and less volatile to sway opinion...and the violence is contagious, sparking latent animosities in otherwise neutral parties. Before long, it seems the only position is radicalized violence.

I think this specific tipping point is not because of a particular version of Islam, although there are plenty of latent Muslim ideas and practices easily catalyzed into full-blown popular movements. What is at issue here is: what is the catalyst? I think the Teddy Bear incident ignited a much deeper disatisfaction with Western influence on Muslim life: an influence that is widely seen as negative and harmful, not because of the West wants to bring democracy and freedom to the Muslim world...but because of Western hubris and its drive for hegemony in the Middle East and the rest of the world. The Teddy Bear incident is just one more example of how the West demeans, denigrates and disregards Muslim values.

Now, obviously the Teacher and her Students were not working to further Western Hegemony or demean Muhammed: but they unwittingly provided the tinder for the tipping point. Who struck the match?

OK guys, I'm off my fucking off my face here but quite frankly, even in this state, I think I'll be as likely to add to this "debate" as anybody else.

This is pretty close to a pissing match. I've got my own opinions on the matter, and I've got my own opinions on the approaches of those involved. But the fact is that the second we turn our attention away from the arguments presented to the person presenting the arguments we find ourselves turning into a goddam flaming forum.

You guys got a problem with a person as opposed to an argument? Take it to PM or take it the Chamber. If you don't want to do that, then ignore the person in question. I really don't want to have to read another thread filled with ad hominem attacks and misrepresentations of people's arguments. I'm pretty sure any newcomers will feel the same.

The original thread subject is interesting. It could have made for an enlightening discussion of the issue. But that opportunity seems to have passed. Time to cut our losses.