You may have gathered that I'm no fan of fundamentalism and that I see moderate religion as a potential petri dish in which crazy religion can bloom faster than staphylococcus on steroids when conditions are right. Consequently when I read of things like Gillian Gibbons' arrest for allowing her students to name a teddy bear Mohammad, I don't feel superior, or feel that my country is superior to those where religion is protected from "insult" by law. It could happen here and many would welcome it. Even Rudy Giuliani the self proclaimed terrorist fighter, once attempted to shut down the Brooklyn Museum for "Blasphemy" and where I live "denying Christ" is seen by some as another form of treason.
Likewise I see laws against "hate crime" as a dangerous precedent. The promoters of hate crime legislation share the loathing I feel toward certain groups and certain actions, but does granting the Federal Government the power to tell us what constitutes hate crime protect us from a government gone wild, or worse a government infiltrated by religious crazies like that of Sudan? Would calling a stuffed animal by a racist or religiously cynical name constitute hate crime? The definition would be up to people you may not agree with.
No, we're not the Sudan. We don't consider calling a stuffed bear by one of that nation's most popular names either insulting to religion or a hate crime. Even though Ms. Gibbons was simply following the choice of her high school students in naming a class mascot something that half their brothers and uncles and fathers are named, the remote possibility that there was disrespect for religion was enough to get her arrested and she now faces the possibility of 40 lashes, a year in a hell hole jail and a fine. Thus demands their Sharia infested constitution. I'm betting that she will get off lightly and probably will be deported, but as I said, I'm not taking delight in illustrating the kind of horror state that every "faith" I can think of has perpetrated at one time or another.
I don't expect the Spanish Inquisition in America any time soon. I expect that all I would get for refusing to parrot the Eisenhower pledge is some social ostracism and if I were to attach a Jesus Sucks bumper sticker to my car, I'd better be sure my insurance was up to date, but let's be aware: It's not Islam; it's not Christianity; it's not any particular religion -- it's religion in general that has to protect itself by infiltrating government or becoming government.
Cross posted from The Impolitic
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I share your feelings on religion as you probably know. I also feel that people who want to worship should be able to worship freely and without fear from other religions or from the non religious. I've been victimized by the Johovahs Witnesses, the Mormon missionaries and even the Catholics, all trying to convert me to their particular strategy for salvation. They all failed.
But I must say, living among Buddhists and Muslims (moderate ones)neither group has ever tried that. While other, more western religions might need to validate themselves by converting others (not to mention enlarging their donation base)these eastern groups seem happy just to do their own thing.
The press has convinced Americans that all Muslims are radical suicide killers and Americans eat that shit up of course because they believe everything they read and everything politicians lie to them about. But the fact is, it just ain't so.
I agree. I believe in religious freedom in part because I want to be left alone and not be subject to someone's religious certainties. I have to grant others the same.
I am no fan of any religions "Fundies", however I don't fear the majority of them, but Islam is a different kettle of fish. It has the power to hurt other people, and use it more than any other religion.
There is no prohibition in Islam against using the name Mohammed. It's just the Sharia interpretation of the Quran, that says the name is sacred (except for mass murderers etc)... a bad religion made worse by so called Muslim scholars (isn't that an oxymoron?)
In the UK, Muslims used a teddy bear named Adam (another of the prophets) to raise relief funds (it was apeing a child charity icon) ... you may be interested to know that in the Quran Mohammed is only the latest of the prophets. He is not preeminent (at least in the Quran).
In fact some Muslims consider the religion to be in danger of becoming polytheist, because of the modern cult of Mohammed, where the hadiths overrule the Quran ... of course they largely keep this to themselves if they want to stay healthy LOL
With the news that the teacher has been jailed for 15 days in Sudan they prove what a detestable creed they are. We in the West are under grave threat (it wasn't so long ago that some Sharia courts were proposed in Canada for gods sake!) and it will be tried again ... probably in France or the UK.
Luckily the European Court of Human Rights has ruled in 2003 and 2004, that "that Sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy" (13/02/2003), because the Sharia rules on inheritance, women's rights and religious freedoms violate human rights, as established in the European Convention on Human Rights, but that won't stop an attempt to introduce it.
Personally I am happy when this evil religion exposes itself for what it is, it just removes a few more blinkers.
i don' get it. was teddy roosevelt offended when teddy bears got named after him? so why wd mohammad be?
wha u say bout hate crime interests me. way i see it, they result fro phobias. perps have anxiety disorders n oughta get therapy, not xtra punishment.
Post a Comment