Boy defends teacher in teddy 'insult to Islam'

[Oddjob]

This is so stupid you couldn't make it up. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/28/2103210.htm

What is it about islam that makes people, believers and non-believers alike, stark raving lunatics?

[thecat]

When the forum link said "Boy defends teacher in teddy...." I was so thinking something else....

[Matt H]

If charged and convicted of insulting Islam, Ms Gibbons could be sentenced to 40 lashes, six months in prison or a fine, lawyers said

Remind me never to go to Sudan... :eek:

[Binaural]

Remind me never to go to Sudan... :eek:

Seconded. That place has turned into a hotbed of cross-eyed, bedwetting religious fanantics in the last 20 years. Having an English teacher flogged for naming a teddy bear after a boy who happened to be called Mohommed? The people accusing her should get 15 strokes of the knout for their epic failure to comprehend that not everything is about their stupid religion.

[BrumbyJack]

When the forum link said "Boy defends teacher in teddy...." I was so thinking something else....


Believe it or not, so was I :eek: LOL.

What a sad world...:(

[flying high dh killer]

I certainly hope that the British government will do something to intervene in this backward bullshit. If I had to elect a worst religion it would be Islam. Mohammad isn't just a teddybear, he's a cock for inventing such a violent, selfish, domineering, mysoginistic pack of lies.

[Techno Destructo]

I think all religion is sucks. But I try to be understanding of most people and their beliefs. But when I hear about stuff like that, my tolerance/opinion of that particular religion drops sharply. That is SOOO stupid.

Religion is bullshit. When we people wake up and realize there is no god but what we make, and there are as many "one true" gods around the world as there are cultures. Stupid, stupid, stupid...:mad:

[morto1980]

I'm fine with people defending their God / Prophet / Holy figures if that's what they believe in. I don't agree with the magnitude of the defence in this case...

The part I really don't understand is that you can name a snot-nosed kid Mohammad (and millions of other imperfect people) but not a teddy bear. Why is it OK for humans to assume they are able to be named after their prophet but not other things?

BTW - by defending I don't mean turning into stark raving lunatics and locking up teachers either. Perhaps it would have been better to let her know that it is inappropriate in their view to call the bear by that name and to change it or lose her job.

This quote blows me away: "Unity director Robert Boulos had said the school would be closed until January because he was afraid of reprisals in mainly Muslim Khartoum."

Obviously a well balanced and civilized part of the world.....

[Carlin]

Come on, it is not so much the religion as the laws.

Back in the middle ages Islam was one of the most progressive/cosmopolitan/enlightened religions in the world. Many of the texts from the 'Ancient' world used by 'Enlightenment' philosophers were originally translated by Islamic scholars if my memory serves me correctly.

This is back when 'we' were burning witches. And I have not mentioned the Crusades.

[scblack]

Come on, it is not so much the religion as the laws.

Back in the middle ages Islam was one of the most progressive/cosmopolitan/enlightened religions in the world. Many of the texts from the 'Ancient' world used by 'Enlightenment' philosophers were originally translated by Islamic scholars if my memory serves me correctly.

This is back when 'we' were burning witches. And I have not mentioned the Crusades.
"We" moved forward from the Middle Ages - it would seem Islam has not.......;)

[flying high dh killer]

Come on, it is not so much the religion as the laws.



It's both. It just goes to show how shitty it is to live in a non-secular country.

[Carlin]

"We" moved forward from the Middle Ages - it would seem Islam has not.......;)

That is debatable. :D

Still it is good to get a little bit of perspective when we are throwing stones. I have a problem with the laws and legal systems. Not so much the religion.

[red death]

Lumping all of Islam in with this stuff is like saying all Christians are Jerry Fallwell. I have several friends who are devout Muslims.

None of my friends are unable to bear criticism of their prophet. None of them advocate violence.

Throughout history, the problem with religion has not been the religion itself but its use as a tool by evil people.

This century we're featuring Islam. :rolleyes: Does the fact it can be used as a tool for evil outweigh it's potential for good? On balance I say no.

[TheBofh]

That is debatable. :D

Still it is good to get a little bit of perspective when we are throwing stones. I have a problem with the laws and legal systems. Not so much the religion.In its original form Islam was a fairly benevolent religion, not all that dissimilar to Judaism or Christianity. It is the way it has been interpreted and manipulated to further the ends of its leaders, (not unlike Christianity), that has resulted in the skewed view it has today.

Fun fact: Catholic Priests were originally required to be celibate so they didn't produce heirs to the Church's wealth, it had nothing to do with Piety.

Many Asian countries have quite extreme punishments for minor infractions & they don't have religion for an excuse.

[Tristan23]

'Mohammed' is down in the record books as being the most popular name of the 20th Century (and probably many before it too). How such a large-scale dummy-spit over such a trivial matter (referring to the bear) is acceptable has me stunned.

[Macr]

Maybe religion should be outlawed. Look at all the things committed under the name of religion.
There would be a lot less wars to start off with and a lot less prejudiced behaviour. Also politics would be less effected or controlled.
It is not the perfect answer, but it would go a long way towards a perfect answer IMHO.
Less fanaticism, less sexual predation as well.

[flying high dh killer]

In its original form Islam was a fairly benevolent religion, not all that dissimilar to Judaism or Christianity. It is the way it has been interpreted and manipulated to further the ends of its leaders, (not unlike Christianity), that has resulted in the skewed view it has today.



You wouldn't know it if you read the Qur'an. It's a really shite piece of literature and is chock-a-block full of references like these:

048.013
YUSUFALI: And if any believe not in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!
008.012
YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."
004.015
YUSUFALI: If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.

That's not to say that the Old testement doesn't contain similar horrific commandments. There are plenty of apologists at the moment saying that Islam is a peaceful religion but the simple fact is that it's just like any other faith, domineering and violent.

When educated young men and women blow up innocent people in the name of their faith, that faith can not be justified as peaceful.

[TheBofh]

Unfortunately charismatic men with leadership qualities who are drawn to religion are usually raving lunatics. When you pair that with the extreme devotion of Islam followers you get suicide bombers who believe that they are going to Paradise because they believe everything their leaders tell them.

[PINT of Stella, mate!]

When educated young men and women blow up innocent people in the name of their faith, that faith can not be justified as peaceful.

For the record, I'm becoming further and further prejudiced against Islam every day - whilst I realise that you can't tar everyone with the same brush, the fundamentalist aspect is becoming louder and more popular every day and it shits me to tears.

Having said that I'll play devils advocate here and point out that it takes a hell of a lot of education to fly attack jets ...

[Macr]

Having said that I'll play devils advocate here and point out that it takes a hell of a lot of education to fly attack jets ...
I disagree, it takes education to fly an attack jet. Basic flight education and systems operation is pretty much all you need. Computers do a lot for the pilot now. Now flying a jet well and surviving a dog fight and then landing the machine takes more education.

If you don't need to land the aircraft, the course can be abbreviated and you can use a tower or two, to help you stop.

[PINT of Stella, mate!]

I disagree, it takes education to fly an attack jet. Basic flight education and systems operation is pretty much all you need. Computers do a lot for the pilot now. Now flying a jet well and surviving a dog fight and then landing the machine takes more education.

If you don't need to land the aircraft, the course can be abbreviated and you can use a tower or two, to help you stop.

and your point is?
:confused:

[MasterOfReality]

Surely though that teacher would have known how apeshit Muslims go when Islam is insulted?

Remember those huge protests about the cartoons depicting their prophet?

I thought one would have been well aware of this when deciding to work in a muslim country.

[Macr]

It doesn't take a lot of education to fly an attack jet, but it does to fly it effectively. You can train anyone to fly, the education required is to be a battlefield tactician, to outsmart the opponent or to make that fateful decision of whether to release the ordnance.
Australia has a high education standard required to be a fighter pilot, USA does not have as high of a standard. Saudi pretty much requires you to be rich or one of the royal family.
The people that crashed into the twin towers only learnt what was required to keep the plane in the air.
USA has had some serious judgment errors on releasing ordnance on allies and themselves. This is where the education is required to aid in making the right decisions.

Does that make sense? Or were you alluding to something else?

[flying high dh killer]

It doesn't take a lot of education to fly an attack jet, but it does to fly it effectively. You can train anyone to fly, the education required is to be a battlefield tactician, to outsmart the opponent or to make that fateful decision of whether to release the ordnance.
Australia has a high education standard required to be a fighter pilot, USA does not have as high of a standard. Saudi pretty much requires you to be rich or one of the royal family.
The people that crashed into the twin towers only learnt what was required to keep the plane in the air.
USA has had some serious judgment errors on releasing ordnance on allies and themselves. This is where the education is required to aid in making the right decisions.

Does that make sense? Or were you alluding to something else?

You seem to know a lot about the science of military piloting but don't you think you're straying a little from the central theme of the thread?

[Macr]

Yes I am, sorry about that.

[johnny]

"We" moved forward from the Middle Ages - it would seem Islam has not.......;)Yep and you can thank us for a major part of that. WE either came to their country a few hundred years ago and took all their leaders, intellectuals, strong, healthy men and boys and made them slaves. Doing this for a few generations pretty much cripples a country for a few more generations afterwards.

Secondly, how many of these countries have WE gone into and re-arranged to suit our purposes? Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan, etc. WE gave teh Mullahs of Iran the opportunity and motivation to become who they are. WE gave the Taliban the skills and admin to become who they are. WE trained and supported Al Qaeda to become who they are and spread their hate. WE installed the royalty and Wahabists in Saudi Arabia.

WE decided on the borders of the Middle East and Africa, we raped their countries of people and resources, WE have a lot of responsibility to bare here.

Sure, we didn't tell them, force them or encourage them to become loonies, but we SURE AS HELL did a good job of keeping them all tribal, under-educated and in the Middle Ages!

Lumping all of Islam in with this stuff is like saying all Christians are Jerry Fallwell. I have several friends who are devout Muslims.
Yes, and what about the Westbro Baptist Church and all the religious members of the Ku Klux Klan? What about the right to lifers who blow up abortion clinnics, what about the loonies who kill people in exorcisms..., I do believe a woman had her eyes gauged out just the other day because she was a demon....

In its original form Islam was a fairly benevolent religion, not all that dissimilar to Judaism or Christianity. It is the way it has been interpreted and manipulated to further the ends of its leaders, (not unlike Christianity), that has resulted in the skewed view it has today.

Fun fact: Catholic Priests were originally required to be celibate so they didn't produce heirs to the Church's wealth, it had nothing to do with Piety.

Many Asian countries have quite extreme punishments for minor infractions & they don't have religion for an excuse.Hmmm, Singapore, they kill, whip and torture people. America, executes people with electricity..., not to mention keeping many locked up in cages for no real reason. China executes thousands and alegedly harvests their body parts. Australia locks women and children indesert prison camps for just trying to live in safety.

Perspective people.

Maybe religion should be outlawed. Look at all the things committed under the name of religion.
There would be a lot less wars to start off with and a lot less prejudiced behaviour. Also politics would be less effected or controlled.
It is not the perfect answer, but it would go a long way towards a perfect answer IMHO.
Less fanaticism, less sexual predation as well.Yes, and less charity, less aid work, less care for the old people, less shelters for the homeless, less programs for addicts of all persuasions, less help for those with illnesses...., not all religion is bad.

You wouldn't know it if you read the Qur'an. It's a really shite piece of literature and is chock-a-block full of references like these:

048.013
YUSUFALI: And if any believe not in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!
008.012
YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."
004.015
YUSUFALI: If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.

That's not to say that the Old testement doesn't contain similar horrific commandments. There are plenty of apologists at the moment saying that Islam is a peaceful religion but the simple fact is that it's just like any other faith, domineering and violent.

When educated young men and women blow up innocent people in the name of their faith, that faith can not be justified as peaceful.Well, that pretty much rules out all religions right there mate!

Christianity is still blowing people up in the Philippines and many could argue wherever the US is. The Jews are blowing people up in Palestine/Lebanon. Actually, the first recorded instances of terrorism was by the JEws (the Zealot Sicarri)..., they killed Jews with knives in the town square because they did not agree with the government of the day. The first suicide bombers were teh Tamils in Sri Lanka, they were also the first to use women suicide bombers. Well, that pretty much rules out four of the largest religions in the world. Maybe we should all become Bhuddists!


Anyway, I'm off to eat some puppies and dance naked int he blood of a virgin goat whilst I scratc pentegrams into my forehead.

[Macr]

Yes, and less charity, less aid work, less care for the old people, less shelters for the homeless, less programs for addicts of all persuasions, less help for those with illnesses...., not all religion is bad.

You don't need to be a religion to front these. When you come down to it, it is the good will of people that run these, religion is just the name they work under.
I believe you are sort of right about not all religion being bad. Buddhists seem IMHO the only ones not two faced though.

[flying high dh killer]

Yes, and less charity, less aid work, less care for the old people, less shelters for the homeless, less programs for addicts of all persuasions, less help for those with illnesses...., not all religion is bad.



Why can't we do that for the good of our fellow people, without it being a pious quest to convert the picaninnies and earn a ticket to the pearly gates whilst we're at it?

[johnny]

You don't need to be a religion to front these. When you come down to it, it is the good will of people that run these, religion is just the name they work under.
I believe you are sort of right about not all religion being bad. Buddhists seem IMHO the only ones not two faced though.Maybe you don't need religion for it, but it is undeniable that religious groups provide MASSIVE amounts of social benefits that no other groups are providing in society today. Sure, maybe if there was no religion these people might still do that stuff. But the fact is, they are religious and they are following the benevolent factors of their religion and making life better for all of us.

As for the Bhuddists, don't worry, they don't mind a scrap either. They are currently killing Muslims in the south of Thailand.

[johnny]

Why can't we do that for the good of our fellow people, without it being a pious quest to convert the picaninnies and earn a ticket to the pearly gates whilst you're at it?

I don't know, ask some non-religious people who aren't involved in any charity work why they don't do it. Plus, to claim that all Christan charities are only trying to spread their beliefs is ignorant beyond reproach. Go to the Stuart house and ask the junkies there how much the Salvation Army tries to press religion on them. Go to the homeless people and ask how many bibles they've been handed lately.

Seriously, I've been involved in a lot of charity work before and a lot of it has been run by Christian based organisations and let me tell you, there has been absolutely ZERO evangelicising going on where I was.

[flying high dh killer]

I don't know, ask some non-religious people who aren't involved in any charity work why they don't do it. Plus, to claim that all Christan charities are only trying to spread their beliefs is ignorant beyond reproach. Go to the Stuart house and ask the junkies there how much the Salvation Army tries to press religion on them. Go to the homeless people and ask how many bibles they've been handed lately.

Seriously, I've been involved in a lot of charity work before and a lot of it has been run by Christian based organisations and let me tell you, there has been absolutely ZERO evangelicising going on where I was.

As for my particular quote I was being deliberately facetious. What I am saying though is that religious charities perform their duties "in the name of God" rather than in the name of human kindness. Whilst their actions are welcome I'm always going to be suspicious about their motives.

Maybe a lot of non-religous people don't do it because when it comes to true morality humans don't give a shit about each other. Or maybe there are other reasons.

[thecat]

As for the Bhuddists, don't worry, they don't mind a scrap either. They are currently killing Muslims in the south of Thailand.

But Buddhism is not a religion.

Who was it that said with out religion you would have good people still doing good things and bad people still doing bad things. But it is only religion can convince otherwise people to do bad things.

[Macr]

Seriously, I've been involved in a lot of charity work before and a lot of it has been run by Christian based organisations and let me tell you, there has been absolutely ZERO evangelicising going on where I was.
I don't think you would be the type to tolerate evangelistic charities :)

[johnny]

As for my particular quote I was being deliberately facetious. What I am saying though is that religious charities perform their duties "in the name of God" rather than in the name of human kindness. Whilst their actions are welcome I'm always going to be suspicious about their motives.

Maybe a lot of non-religous people don't do it because when it comes to true morality humans don't give a shit about each other. Or maybe there are other reasons.

Yeah, well, next time use the the facetious emoticon! :p

If they do it in the name of their god, then that makes that particular religion a good thing doesn't it? I wouldn't be overly suspicious of quite a few religious groups. I grew up in a loosely christian family and most of the people at our church were simply good people who liked helping others. Without the church, they probably would have done the same thing, but birds of a feather and all that.

[Macr]

. What I am saying though is that religious charities perform their duties "in the name of God" rather than in the name of human kindness. Whilst their actions are welcome I'm always going to be suspicious about their motives.
Good point. You don't have to be evangelistic to recruit. Kindness can do the same.

[Macr]

If they do it in the name of their god
Now there is a two edged sword, if ever I have held one.

[johnny]

Good point. You don't have to be evangelistic to recruit. Kindness can do the same.
Kindness begetting kindness; that's a good thing isn't it???

[PINT of Stella, mate!]

Does that make sense? Or were you alluding to something else?

I was referring to the fact that it takes a hell of a lot of education to be qualified to fly an F-15 and drop a cluster bomb near a small village or fly an Apache gunship and use it to launch a Hellfire cruise missile into a crowded street. This was playing devil's advocate to the earlier comment about educated people blowing up civilians in the name of their faith (i.e 'middle class' suicide bombers)

But Buddhism is not a religion.

Who was it that said with out religion you would have good people still doing good things and bad people still doing bad things. But it is only religion can convince otherwise people to do bad things.

Hmm, that's really just semantics. At the end of the day it involves following set teachings from over hundreds of years, a hierarchy of rigourous devotion that commands respect from the greater public (Monks, The Dalai Llama etc.) and a strong belief in the supernatural and the presence of an afterlife.

It walks like a duck, has feathers like a duck and quacks like a duck therefore it (to all intents and purposes) must be a duck (or somebody's re-incarnation)

As Johnny's pointed out there are buddhists involved in religious trouble in the south of Thailand (with -surprise, surprise- muslims :rolleyes:). Also the Japanese who are heavily into Shinto and Zen Buddhism were often fond of a bit of a scrap now and again during the last couple of centuries...

Finally, to take this back OT. If naming a teddy bear after the holy prophet is blasphemous then surely naming anybody after the holy prophet should be seen as belittling His name especially if they go on to live a less than devout lifestyle (this covers everyone from Mohammed Ali to Dr Matahir Mohammed to Mohammed Atta)

[Macr]

Kindness begetting kindness; that's a good thing isn't it???

Yes, but kindness to recruit may be not. I wonder how that fits in the cult or the extremist recruiting model?
Lets hypothesize. Your town gets bombed by X group. Y group comes along and gives you shelter, food, warmth (Basic necessities) and a shoulder to cry/lean on. This show of sympathy/kindness could convince you that these people are not so bad, but what if Y group were an extremist or a cult organisation?
But what if Y group had no links to religion and were just a group doing benevolent charity work?

[PINT of Stella, mate!]

But what if Y group had no links to religion and were just a group doing benevolent charity work?

what, like McDonalds donating money to build playparks?

[Macr]

I was referring to the fact that it takes a hell of a lot of education to be qualified to fly an F-15 and drop a cluster bomb near a small village or fly an Apache gunship and use it to launch a Hellfire cruise missile into a crowded street. This was playing devil's advocate to the earlier comment about educated people blowing up civilians in the name of their faith (i.e 'middle class' suicide bombers)
If I was allowed to, I would take you to the hornet flight sim at work and teach you to bomb a village in under an hour. Hey I even flew under the harbour bridge. But I see where you are coming from. Education can be just as dangerous as no education.

[Macr]

what, like McDonalds donating money to build playparks?

I guess so, as long as didn't plaster the park with McDonald's emblems, as that would be selling their religion (Consumerism). Probably more like McDonald House.

[PINT of Stella, mate!]

If I was allowed to, I would take you to the hornet flight sim at work and teach you to bomb a village in under an hour. Hey I even flew under the harbour bridge. But I see where you are coming from. Education can be just as dangerous as no education.

I dunno if you're getting the point. If it was that easy I wouldn't be typing this right now. I'd be flying my arse off but unfortunately when I was growing up to even be considered for RAF flying officer training in the UK you had to be a straight A student and even then the chances of qualifying after flight school were astronomical.

It's just not like the good old days where all you required to go have a crack at Jerry was a double-barrelled surname, a sheepskin jacket and a cool moustache...

[johnny]

Macr: What you are describing is a way that Hamas works in the occupied territories. Of course that is insidious. But I'm referring to kindness begetting kindness as many religious groups do, not unlike the Red Cresent/Cross. If it works to encourage helping your fellow (wo)man then to me it's a good thing.

[PINT of Stella, mate!]

Macr: What you are describing is a way that Hamas works in the occupied territories. Of course that is insidious. But I'm referring to kindness begetting kindness as many religious groups do, not unlike the Red Cresent/Cross. If it works to encourage helping your fellow (wo)man then to me it's a good thing.

This raises an interesting question: Could a 'Hearts and Minds' campaign be considered to be charitable?

Now the obvious answer is no as there is the ulterior motive of winning a war but as has been mentioned before many other organizations have hidden agendas behind their charitable donations...

[slip]

There are a bunch of Sudanese that have started coming to my gym, and I tell you what - I wouldn't want to be in jail there, especially as a white female. If their behaviour is at all indicative of Sudanese in general, not good at all. Good luck to her.

Johnny - thanks for adding some perspective in threads like this.

[Tristan23]

To follow up (http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/sudanese-court-jails-hate-teacher/2007/11/30/1196037107078.html) the teacher has now been given 15 days in gaol on the grounds that she "was found guilty (sic) of insulting religion".

Fark off.

[harry.indy]

How pathetic that apologies have to be made for religious nuts.
This is as bad as the Danish comic strip debacle, where even so called modern countries (UK for example) wouldn't defend free speech for fear of reprisal. Theese religious leaders (particularly monotheisms) have too much influence over policy that affects everybody. Reason and rational thought is surely one of the most critical needs for the world today.
Fundamentalist or conservative, religions breed ignorance and are hateful toward people who question their belief. Life haters looking forward to the"paradise that awaits them" are dangerous indeed.

Marvin the Martion said "It makes me sooo angry"

Johnny-- As I do not believe any motives are altruistic (non selfish), I don't see that charity or good deeds are without self reward. The fact that religious charities (ie salvos etc) do their (good) work in uniforms or under banners shows blatant advertising for reward and recognition (let alone tax exemption) No better than McDonalds, just more likley to be offended.

[mtb1611]

Ah, religion......the world's most prolific mass-murderer.....

[TonyG]

I purchased a Teddy Bear this morning for the princely sum of $10.


I named him Mohammed.


This afternoon I sold him on E-Bay for $30.


My question is, "Have I made a prophet?"

[PINT of Stella, mate!]

I purchased a Teddy Bear this morning for the princely sum of $10.


I named him Mohammed.


This afternoon I sold him on E-Bay for $30.


My question is, "Have I made a prophet?"

That joke makes Teddy Bear Mohammed cry...
;)

[TonyG]

That joke makes Teddy Bear Mohammed cry...
;)

I posted this joke on the Al-Qaeda website under the name POSM. I hope you dont mind!

[red death]

happily at least some other religions have a more robust position (http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/artist-turns-religious-figures-into-cuddly-dolls/2007/12/16/1197740082273.html) regarding blasphemy.

[axertes]

Back in the middle ages Islam was one of the most progressive/cosmopolitan/enlightened religions in the world. Many of the texts from the 'Ancient' world used by 'Enlightenment' philosophers were originally translated by Islamic scholars if my memory serves me correctly.

This is back when 'we' were burning witches. And I have not mentioned the Crusades.

Correct. On all three counts.

The Reconquista is an excellent example of your first and third points. The Moors lived in a pluralist society with Sephardic Jews, but when the Catholics came they massacred all of them.

The Ottoman Empire was also famously tolerant pretty well until it fell (until the British started getting involved in that neck of the woods, as it happens), and you can't exactly say they were in the middle ages.

Edit: and as for people who are mentioning the Sudanese in Australia - you will find that they are Christians, and I suspect that they have been sponsored by Christian organisations. One Sudanese guy I worked with was quite a zealot in fact: he told me that the Hindus and Sikhs I worked with did "evil magic".

[Binaural]

Come on, it is not so much the religion as the laws.

Back in the middle ages Islam was one of the most progressive/cosmopolitan/enlightened religions in the world. Many of the texts from the 'Ancient' world used by 'Enlightenment' philosophers were originally translated by Islamic scholars if my memory serves me correctly.

This is back when 'we' were burning witches. And I have not mentioned the Crusades.

I understand that you are probably playing devil's advocate here, but using past glories of any civilization to justify current failings does not wash. Using the same principles you could argue that because the ancient Chinese developed some key technologies such as gunpowder and paper that were adopted by the west, modern Chinese are justified in stealing IP from modern western companies in return.

The main problem is that that many countries now use Sharia law which _is_based on the religion. In Iran, for instance (I spent a month out in the country there a few weeks ago), Sharia law and its derivatives is used to justify counting a woman's value in court as half than of a man and numerous other discrimination. This is by no means a stretching of the Koran's intent either, and there are many other passages that are used to justify laws that are oppressive and often barbaric.

[Macr]

That joke is so 2 weeks ago! I did laugh at it though. There is some quick witted people out there.

[Trevor_S]

"We" moved forward from the Middle Ages - it would seem Islam has not.......;)

"Islam" has.

I have no beef with God, it's "his" followers that piss me off !

God, protect me from your FOLLOWERS ! :rolleyes:

[Hamsta]

...............

[Hamsta]

..................

[Hamsta]

...............

[Hamsta]

If you go down to the airport today
Your in for a big suprise
If you are planning to fly on plane
Not boarding would be wise
For every bear that ever there was
Will be secretly stuffed with C4 because
today is the day
the teddybears launch
their Jihad:eek:

[Hamsta]

Double posting?

[Hamsta]

Triple posting? Damn crumbs on keyboard

[Nerf Herder]

Maybe religion should be outlawed. Look at all the things committed under the name of religion.
There would be a lot less wars to start off with and a lot less prejudiced behaviour. Also politics would be less effected or controlled.
It is not the perfect answer, but it would go a long way towards a perfect answer IMHO.
Less fanaticism, less sexual predation as well.

Other causes of War, just off the top of my head.

- Oil,
- Land,
- Non alignment to a supreme being (the US president) ... uhmmm supreme country
- WMDs ... or lack of.
- Regime Change
- Resources other than Oil ... include people.
- Economics,
- Political ideology
- Political Power (The Balkans ended in religious cleansing, but the power vacum caused by the Soviet Collapse was the trigger to the war, pardon the pun).
- Vanity / Ego,
- Fear

All the above are examples, obviously every war is a mix of the above, including religion ... however religion was used predominantly to demonise the enemy, as this was easier to understand for the masses required to fight.

Also, a little off war, but in line with your comments ... pretty sure Aussie Paedophiles thru out Asia and else where are not motivated by religion. Then again, I could be wrong.

[dcrofty]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/unusual-tales/bid-to-turn-muhammad-into-a-profit/2007/12/12/1197135522525.html

Don't know whether to applaud this guy or cringe.

[johnny]

Cringe.

Yeah, you get stung by a bee so you find the nest and start poking it with a stick.

Real smart.

[Drizz]

Making money is the ultimate religion! Nothing gets in the way of that!

C'mon Johnny, your time in China must have taught you something by now! :rolleyes:

[scblack]

Cringe.

Yeah, you get stung by a bee so you find the nest and start poking it with a stick.

Real smart.
Why should anyone on this planet feel the need NOT to release something due to this Sudanese decision?:confused:

The court ruling has been condemned by all who have anything to say about it? Should their Sudanese nation's intolerance dictate the actions of people who live in the FREE world? I think not.

Dcrofty, I applaud him.

Johnny, while I appreciate his Muhammed teddy bear sales could be seen as provocative, it is not offensive to ANYONE except the Sudanese. Thus don't sell it there. USA laws allow him to do whatever he wishes.

Why would he kow-tow to an intolerant regime about a decision that has been widely condemned?

[PINT of Stella, mate!]

Johnny, while I appreciate his Muhammed teddy bear sales could be seen as provocative, it is not offensive to ANYONE except the Sudanese. Thus don't sell it there. USA laws allow him to do whatever he wishes.


Err, anyone remember the Danish cartoon debacle? Literally hundreds of people were killed across the globe as a direct result of that little controversy

Now I'm all for free speech and have an incredible dislike (I'd go as far as to say a hatred) of fundamentalist Islam but sometimes the good thing about free speech is that it ultimately it's optional. Just because you have it, it doesn't mean you should use it at every available instance.

Now personally, if I'm in a bar and I see somebody in there who's widely known to be a psychopathic violent nutcase and they're acting like a bit of a dick (nothing real bad, just a bit of a twat - shit jokes, talking too loud etc) I've got the choice of ignoring it and perhaps drinking elsewhere or going up to him and calling him a c**t to his face.

What's the sensible option?

[nizai]

Dcrofty, I applaud him.

it is not offensive to ANYONE except the Sudanese.

Don't know much about Islam do you? What you have to bear in mind SC is that this sort of thing IS OFFENSIVE to the wider muslim community, BUT it is a small (sudanese) minority who find it so offensive they deem it to be worthy of hanging someone. Most muslims you would find would disagree with it, just as we might disagree over the ALP's fiscal policy, but both of us realise its not the end of the world.

While the specific incident of a teddy bear named Muhammed would have been forgivable for many muslims, "propheting" (haha!) off it would be seen as the greater transgression.

To me, this is another individual case of people in the western world failing to understand the values of a society so vastly different to our own.

If you want a good book to read on the origins and history of Islam, try Reza Aslan's, No God But God.

N

[scblack]

Basically what I am saying is, why should WE be the only people to adjust our behaviour, to try and satisfy their religion?

Why are we not saying: "How come they are not changing their decisions to satisfy OUR sensibilities?"

Just because Islam seems to attract the nutbags ( I know very well the average Muslim is moderate like you and me) who feel the need to kill for the sake of a word, why does that mean our behaviours should change?

This decision was offensive to many people around the world, and their King(?) realised this and pardoned her.

Offence is not a one-way street.


***Edit - But I accept applauding him may be going too far.***

[PINT of Stella, mate!]

Basically what I am saying is, why should WE be the only people to adjust our behaviour, to try and satisfy their religion?

Why are we not saying: "How come they are not changing their decisions to satisfy OUR sensibilities?"





Fair point and one that's also used by Islamic clerics throughout the world when confronted by the evil influences of Pop music, feminism, Coca-Cola, Gillette razor blades, Bacon sangas, Alcohol, Athiesm, Judaism, Christianity, Danish comics and uncovered heads.

(Although I do find the most devout fundamentalists - The Taleban's hatred of technology quite at odds with their love for Toyota Hilux's, RPG's and C4)

[axertes]

The main problem is that that many countries now use Sharia law which _is_based on the religion.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

This has quite a strong scriptural basis too.

[Binaural]

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

This has quite a strong scriptural basis too.

www.godhatesshrimp.com

;)

[axertes]

Oh boy, the Torah is just a bundle of dynamite isn't it?

[Drizz]

Oh boy, the Torah is just a bundle of dynamite isn't it?

Wait do you mean Torah or the Qur'an? I just have to make double sure.

Either way, with that statement please explain your point of view

I am expecting no less than a 100 page double sided thesis printed on Arial size 8 font...............

[arpit]

Did you know that in NSW we still have an offence of Blashpemy?

If you publish or disclose material which constitutes an attack on the central tenets of Christianity, which is scoffing, reviling, or offending public decency, which has a tendency to cause a breach of the peace, and you intend to publish the material (intending to scoff, revile, cause a breach of the peace is unnecessary), then you are liable to prosecution for the offence of blasphemous libel.


And you think we moved on from the middle ages?

[axertes]

Wait do you mean Torah or the Qur'an? I just have to make double sure.

Either way, with that statement please explain your point of view

I am expecting no less than a 100 page double sided thesis printed on Arial size 8 font...............

Torah. As in Leviticus and shrimp and godhatesshrimp.com and stuff.