The discussion in the comments sections of the Teddy Bear Crisis posts ultimately boiled down to a smack down between angry atheists and religionists. I find it unfortunate and to a certain extent even despicable due to the derogatory remarks made by some commenters.
I also received an interesting related email by an atheist whom I found respectful in his approach. I share it here below as it’s worthy of attention:
Hi,
Sadly, this is the path chosen by all theists who rely on faith and the leadership of self appointed self interested clerics.
The position of the Sudanese government is justifiable to all those who have been indoctrinated by faith’s supposed ‘truths’.
Religion should be a personal belief system that people are free to belive if they so choose. People of different faiths, and those who do not believe in god at all, should be allowed to follow their own belief system without persecution. A religion has no right to dictate what people outside the religion do, just because they think it is offensive to their religion. So any non-Muslim should be free to name toys anything they wish. And indeed, they should be free to draw cartoons depicting anyone they wish. This is freedom of expression. To suffer offense at the naming of a toy, or the depiction of a prophet in a cartoon, no matter how offensive, is a small price to pay for the right to freedom of expression. In fact, to take offence at these things only belittles the faith - it is not strong enough to withstand criticism and ridicule.
These are the reasons why there should be a complete separation between faith and the state.
I very much agree with the parts I put in italics. However I’m not sure I fully agree with the first two sentences I highlighted in bold.
In the first sentence, if there’s a distinction between “theists who rely on faith and the leadership of self appointed self interested clerics” and others who don’t, then yes, I quite agree with the statement. Otherwise, I don’t simply because there are many theists who rely on reason and their own conscience rather than blindly following self-interested clerics.
The second sentence is a sweeping statement.
I believe the episode displayed in the comments section brings us to the point generally made by atheists, one which claims the impossibility of reconciling faith and reason, to which I disagree with of course. I find the views of the Muslim philosopher Averroes relevant in this case.
PS: Stick around for my upcoming observations on the teddy bear circus.
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
Many Sudanese people are the daily victims of extremist mentality that led to the imprisonment of Gibbons. The regime encourages this line of thought unfortunately. I and many Sudanese are displeased with what happened in The Sudan, and the matter could have been resolved amicably as it is a cultural misunderstanding. We strongly believe it was an innocent miscalculation from Ms. Gibbons side, and she been a non-muslim all doubt should have been accorded to her in utmost respect. Simply put Sudan has no place for extremism and fanaticism. It is a sad event that will be written in the history books against Sudan.
Regards,
Muaz M. Ataalsid
Webmaster/Moderator
Sudan.Net / SudanForum.Net
Hey, it’s pretty simple, the way I see it…
Believe (or disbelieve) whatever you want as long you’re not imposing it on others or hurting people purposefully because of your faith.
Why is that such a difficult concept to wrap their minds around for so many people?
I suspect it’s got something to do with absence of minds…
“Why is that such a difficult concept to wrap their minds around for so many people?”
It means admitting that those who seem to be smarter than oneself actually ARE smarter than oneself.
I think religious fundamentalism is simply a stupid man’s attempt to talk himself into believing that all the knowledge the smart people have is less important and easier to obtain than the “knowledge” the stupid man has of his “religion”.
Religion is a smart man’s admission that he cannot know everything. Religious fundamentalism is a stupid man’s admission that he thinks he knows enough.
I second the Raccoon here: A wise woman once said:
“you may believe in rocks, if you want to: just don’t throw them at me”
Please forgive me, Drima, for stretching your tolerance thus far… you _do_ know who I’m quoting ?
Drima,
I’m not buying. I’m not buying any of this at all. I do not believe that the teddy bear is the root of this nonsense. The teddy bear is an excuse.
No genuinely religious person would call for the death of anybody for naming a teddy bear!
Can you imagine the Pope, or al-Sistani, or the Grand Mufti of Egypt calling for the death of anybody for naming a teddy-bear?
I understand that there is a Muslim cleric in Sudan raising hell over this, but there is surely some other motive besides religion involved here.
There is some nasty, venal little game afoot here, and it has nothing to do with any kind of genuine religion. This is not Islam, any more than Zarqawi’s murder of the innocents in Iraq was Islam.
I read somewhere, Averroes believed religion contained philosophical truth in allegorical forms. As an atheist I can relate to that. A religious text (like other texts) can provide us with a common language needed for talking about our “inner worlds”.
I also read, that Averroes was condemned for heresy and his writings were banned and burnt. Maybe Averroes was primarily a free thinker of his time.
Belief is a tricky concept. We usually generalize under common labels, but in reality each one of us does have different believes than the others. It is like your finger tips. Even two muslims brothers can differ about things.
Overroes Islam differ from the average Muslims belief these days. Everyone is accusing the other of not being a ture Muslim, while in reality everyone has his own version of Islam.
Tolerance is what the world needs from Muslims these days. Those who have a different untolerable version of Islam need to adjust in order to fit in this world.
Valerie, you say this is not Islam. But how do you know that the peaceful, tolerant Muslims are the ‘true’ Muslims? Islam is as it’s followers do. If it’s followers will protest and call for death for any minor slight without an equal, no louder, protest against the ignorants calling for death then what are non-muslims supposed to think?
The observer: ‘Those who have a different untolerable version of Islam need to adjust in order to fit in this world.’
I don’t know about that. That may be what the world and even Islam needs but why should they change when they are not challenged?
Drima is a Muslim.
During the Cartoon Wars, when there was hysteria in the streets, Freedom for Egyptians and Sandmonkey showed us that the cartoons had been published months before in Cairo without comment by the local populace. Then we were treated to more and more information about rent-a-mobs.
In Afghanistan, what was supposed to be a peaceful protest over the cartoons got hijacked by the bad guys, shots got fired — and the mullas shut the demonstrations down.
In Iraq, one of the torn-up religious buildings in Baghdad that got rebuilt was a Christian church. And when the bishop held his first service, the local sheiks, all Muslims, showed up for the service, and asked to have their pictures taken, so that their Christian neighbors would know that they can come home, now.
When people start calling for murder in the name of God, then it is indeed time to challenge them. But don’t call them by their religion. That gives them status they don’t deserve, and slanders the innocent. Call them what they are: liars.
Lynn, who said they are not challenged? All the world is against them, even most of the Muslim population.
If I can clarify the quotes:
“Sadly, this is the path chosen by all theists who rely on faith and the leadership of self appointed self interested clerics.”
- By this I mean that the teaching of many faiths, and Islam in particular, is that the only people allowed to question and interpret the Qu’ran are an elite few, through exegesis. Islam, as practiced by most Islamic leaders, if not by all followers such as yourself, dictates that the masses are not qualified to question, and as such must accept what their spiritual leaders tell them. So, I meant, that if you choose to rely on this self appointed leadership to guide your whole life, you are inherently, or by default, choosing whatever path they dictate.
“The position of the Sudanese government is justifiable to all those who have been indoctrinated by faith’s supposed ‘truths’.”
- I mean this in the same vain. With the exception of people such as yourself, the Sudanese government, or its religious leadership, justifies itself to all followers, and they are expected to accept that. I agree that the real motives in the Teddigate may be more obscure, but you can’t question the fact that it is religious justification that has been employed, knowing the ‘truly faithful’ will accept that.
Drima, there’s another blog you might be interested in, on this theme of angry atheists v. religionists. It’s Stephen Law’s blog, which in the link below is discussing the dangers of religion with Ibrahim Lawson, head of an Islamic school in the UK. This topic came out of earlier blogs on the dangers of religion and faith schools. I’m sure contributors would value the views on a liberal Muslim, if you don’t mind me categorising you that way. The link is:
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/12/letter-from-ibrahim-lawson-head-of.html
“By this I mean that the teaching of many faiths, and Islam in particular, is that the only people allowed to question and interpret the Qu’ran are an elite few, through exegesis.”
Actually, no, Islam itself doesn’t teach this. It has, however, (erroneously) evolved into Muslim common practice these days.
“Actually, no, Islam itself doesn’t teach this. It has, however, (erroneously) evolved into Muslim common practice these days.”
That is exactly right.
Islam is a strictly monotheist faith which does not accept anything between man and G-d.
The mullahs and false prophets who pretend to speak for Allah are idols.
Idolatry is the greatest sin in all Abrahamic religions, and for good reason too.
Yesterday evening was the lighting of the Hannukia at the Lord Mayor’s mansion in the centre of Dublin.
About 100-150 people were there. There were doughnuts.
The guards were there too, presumably to protect Islamic fundamentalists, white supremacists, and liberals from the hateful Jews.
Happy Chanukah, Andrew.
Ditto, and everyone.
Leave a Comment