British Teacher guilty for naming Teddy Bear "Muhammad&

[Mr. P]

Irish
In the meantime, I'm not sure who you mean by "others" here:

I presume you mean Mr. P., and possibly Chris, though I'm hoping I'm wrong on both counts. But let me personally distance myself from those "others."

I'll say this; the apologist label was not my doing, even though I agree with it, but I will not speak for anyone else as far as giving names. More than a few people that I have chatted with agree that Mad is no moderate. Most of them have been around for quite a while now and have more experience with Mad's methods.

Later

Yeah I called Mad an apologist earlier on...but I was using words he used in this same thread. Mayb ehe is not an apologist like Lewis was or others, but I do agree that he defends and tried to reduce the role of religion in almost every instance that has ever come up in my expereince here. It is always more the fault or result of something else.

By Mad's own admission, he witholds his criticism of religion here because he feels that his contributions would heat up an already heated situation. That is kinda the problem as I see it. He witholds criticism and comes on in defense in the topics that do come up. That will naturally tend to make one look like someone defeding religion IMO. No?

If we want honest discussion, no one should hide how they feel or think on a topic. I sure as hell dont, no matter how much intensity that produces here on the forums.

Mr. P.

[Frank 013]

Irish
I really think this is where the hang-up is between Frank and Mad, whenever this issue comes up. Frank sees Mad as "defending" religion. And, I think anyway, Mad does not look at what he is doing in the same way. Rather his intention is to get a fuller understanding of the root causes of any issue-all of the causes he can possibly determine-and in trying to say that "it isn't just religion," Frank hears "it isn't ever or at all religion."

I suppose it's possible that I am reading more into Mad's arguments than he is suggesting, but we all already know that religion in situations like this is not solely to blame. The intertwining of religion and government causes too much of what you call gray area.

That is one point that we all agreed on long ago.

But it seems, from my perspective that Mad is continuously pushing for a more secular reason or abuse of religion by secular authorities in an apparent attempt to clear religion of most of the wrong.

And I do not think that those excuses, forgive religion of its role in the matter.

Later

[MadArchitect]

He witholds criticism and comes on in defense in the topics that do come up. That will naturally tend to make one look like someone defeding religion IMO. No?

In this particular context, I have no doubt that I come across as an apologist. That's because the level of discussion about religion is kept at a very simplistic, black-and-white level, as though religion were constantly on trial. If the horrors of religion weren't a constant discussion point on BookTalk, I'd probably vary my approach a great deal more.

If we want honest discussion, no one should hide how they feel or think on a topic.

It isn't a matter of hiding what I think or feel. It's a matter of responding to the topics raised here. And as I've pointed out hundreds of times, my "defense" of religion (which is really more a critique of politics) is always in response to attacks. It's a subject that I would talk about a lot less in general if it weren't constantly being reiterated by others. I think there's a hell of a lot worth talking about that doesn't have a whole lot to do with religious persecution. It's just all taking a backseat on this forum.

[MadArchitect]

And I do not think that those excuses, forgive religion of its role in the matter.

Nor do I -- a point I'm really tired of making. I just don't think it's terribly productive to point out every religious entanglement and leave it at that. Noting the gray area and moving on achieves nothing. A blanket approach like "destroy religion" is unrealistic and unreasonable. A more reasonable approach would be to discuss how to minimize the responsibility religion does play in instances like this, and to also talk about how politics is responsible as well. But you guys just keep linking to articles like this and bitching about the damage done by religion. I'm sure that'll turn out how you want it. The internet, after all, is magic.

[Frank 013]

Mad
Nor do I -- a point I'm really tired of making. I just don't think it's terribly productive to point out every religious entanglement and leave it at that. Noting the gray area and moving on achieves nothing.

Mad, I would think a moderate would be able to refrain from getting involved in threads like this. Especially since it causes you so much frustration, of course I would not expect this sort of thing to get a moderate all wound up in the first place.

Just my opinion.

Later

[MadArchitect]

And after reading it you still came to a bad conclusion and looked rather silly by the end of the debate.

I'll agree that I looked rather silly, but it's mostly because I insisted on giving the benefit of the doubt to a person who had no intention of reciprocating the favor. And not that you'd have noticed, but I actually modified my opinion through the course of the discussion. It wasn't your arguments that led to that modification, though -- rather, it was reading and discussing the actual evidence that made me rethink my position.

Why not admit, based off of the information available that the Muhammad teddy bear incident is the result of religious intolerance, that it was unjustified, silly and dangerous?

We haven't looked at the information available. We've limited ourselves to newspaper articles that give only the shallowest information about the culture, political and historical context that influence the situation. If I tell you that Ted's a Mormon and a certified public accountant, you could take that as evidence that Mormonism encourages accounting as a profession, but only because you haven't bothered to look for more information on the matter.

Yet he jumps in at every opportunity to defend religion, even when several other theists are already on the case.

The odd thing about it is, I've also defended atheism on several occasions. That doesn't help your case, though, so feel free to ignore it.

But my intention is to defend discourse—because without open, intelligent, considerate debate, we're all lost.

In large part, that's what I'm trying to defend. There's so little discussion going on in this forum, and particularly when it comes to this issue. Which is a genuine problem since this issue comes up more often than any other issue. If we're not discussing it, what are we doing with it?

Most of them have been around for quite a while now and have more experience with Mad's methods.

Those ominous methods! I will admit to occasionally having resorted to the strappado and thumb screws. And while the U.N. has recently designated taser use as a form of torture, I think it quite clear that the American position on that practice has reason to abet it. And yes, once I sent LanDroid to bed without his supper, but only once, and his behavior that evening had been atrocious. Beyond those, I'm not sure what methods you mean.

Mad, I would think a moderate would be able to refrain from getting involved in threads like this.

Actually, I had a very specific purpose, and it looks as though I've achieved it. Cheers!

[Frank 013]

Mad
I'll agree that I looked rather silly, but it's mostly because I insisted on giving the benefit of the doubt to a person who had no intention of reciprocating the favor.

Your argument in that thread was so awful and your defense of it so total, there was no possibility of giving any benefit to it.

Mad
And not that you'd have noticed, but I actually modified my opinion through the course of the discussion. It wasn't your arguments that led to that modification, though -- rather, it was reading and discussing the actual evidence that made me rethink my position.

Yes it took... what... several weeks of back and forth in that thread for you to accept what Mr. P. and I knew innately, so good for you!

Mad
Actually, I had a very specific purpose, and it looks as though I've achieved it. Cheers!

If you meant derailing the topic and acting like a jerk, you're correct, mission accomplished.

Later

[MadArchitect]

Yes it took... what... several weeks of back and forth in that thread for you to accept what Mr. P. and I knew innately, so good for you!

No, I never ended up agreeing with you. 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? What else could it mean to say that I "modified" my opinions, except that I conceded defeat to your instinctual wisdom? And do you really think your knowledge about the Witch Crazes is innate? Wild.

[MadArchitect]

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.

I meant to get to this earlier, but got sidetracked by all the talk of my supposed apologetics and underhanded "methods".

Thanks for pointing this report out, Evelyne. I doubt that British Muslims are anywhere near unanimous in their objections, but it does seem likely that there's a strong British Muslim contingent that disagrees with the Sudanese handling of the case. What I do wonder is how qualified the "Dateline London" journalist is to assess "the point of view of Islamic values". I'm not sure there's a definitive Islamic viewpoint that would provide a clear-cut judgment. But your paraphrase of the journalist's report does accord with what I've been saying at least to the extent that it demonstrates that people who profess the same religion will interpret and practice it differently according to the context (cultural, political, aesthetic) in which they live.

And, again, I do apologize for not addressing your reply earlier. Here I am arguing on and on about how rarely we actually discuss with one another, and I've almost managed to avoid responding to someone who wants just that.

[Chris OConnor]

Sometimes things aren't as complicated as people try to make them.

This current event story is all about a group of people that believe in complete nonsense. And their belief is so fanatical that they want to kill other people that don't believe in the same bullshit.

Too simplistic? I don't think so.

Was Mohammed a real prophet? Of course not.

Does God really exist? No.

Is there any harm in naming a Teddy Bear Mohammed? Certainly not.

Did the children or the teacher mean Islam any disrespect? I doubt.

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.

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.