|
Post by Gene E Usmann on Nov 29, 2007 19:25:10 GMT
I feel extreme sorrow for the teacher in Sudan, and her family, who has just received 15 days jail for breaking the religious law that Sudan adheres to, and afterwards will be deported.
That said, this is the Sudanese way - they have never claimed to be 'Multi-cultural', 'enlightened', 'progressive' in the way that we are supposedly expected to - they have a way of life and they demand that people who visit or live in their country adhere to that same code and standard or pay the penalty.
Whilst I deplore it based on the circumstances that I have read about, I have to say that from the other side of things, 'How refreshing'. The expectation that an individual or group would have to respect the host nations' beliefs and traditions or be removed.
|
|
|
Post by Gene E Usmann on Nov 29, 2007 19:56:12 GMT
Ah - hadn't seen a previous post as I stay well clear of the notive board - thanks for the update Carl
|
|
|
Post by Lou Briccant on Nov 29, 2007 20:10:15 GMT
I agree too Gene, it is just a pity that this country does'nt expect the same respect.
|
|
|
Post by choppy on Nov 29, 2007 22:16:26 GMT
In a way yes. We don't follow religious law though so we can't impose doctrine in the same way.
I have a deep distrust of any mindset that is founded on the notion that it's wrong to give a childs loved toy a name that just so happens to be shared by a large percent of the population. It's like us getting shirty about someone calling their teddy 'Joseph'. Kids here do nativity plays and it's custom to have a doll play the part of Jesus.
Any culture that can't flex it's mindset enough to allow for it's childrens play is one that can never hope to stand side by side with people of a different religion in a multicultural, and multifaith world.
It's fascism based on old verse.
|
|
|
Post by Elaine Closed on Nov 29, 2007 22:19:27 GMT
I feel that the imprisonment is harsh - after all, it wasn't her that named the teddy and the choice of name was meant in an affectionate way - but given the choice between 15 days inside and 40 lashes, I'd go for the 15 days of free board and lodging any day.
Having said that, I hope she gets out sooner as I'm sure she has already learned her lesson to be more aware of local culture when she travels.
|
|
|
Post by revmichael on Nov 30, 2007 8:01:11 GMT
Yes, this story has many facets to it. We can't go judging the standards of anther country by our own. It seems to me that this sentence is something that everyone (except the poor lady) can live with. As Elaine says, 'its much better than a longer sentence and/or many lashes.' It seems that extremists have been forcing this issue but also it seems that there has been a lot of lobbying going on in the background. Let's hope the lady can be back here soon and the whole thing will be smoothed over with a minimum of harm being done to her and the children in her class. I find it heartening that many British muslims are unhappy that the lady was arrested.
Let's also pray that good sense will prevail on the wider scheme of things and that the Sudanese government will start to act more fairly in the Dafur region so that those poor refugees will be protected.
|
|
|
Post by Uncle Bulgaria on Nov 30, 2007 8:37:19 GMT
I felt the penalty was pretty harsh, when all it would have taken (probably) was a quiet word. But the thing I really don't understand is how can naming a teddy be considered as inciting hatred?
|
|
|
Post by crystal on Nov 30, 2007 8:56:48 GMT
Unfortunately they regard this as an insult to their religion.
|
|
|
Post by carlott on Nov 30, 2007 9:09:24 GMT
That is but one (minority?) viewpoint.
However - when in Rome.
|
|
|
Post by choppy on Nov 30, 2007 10:48:20 GMT
That is but one (minority?) viewpoint. However - when in Rome. But in this case, the kids who owned the bear chose the name. She simply allowed it. Anyway, the world is a more open place to migrants and workers. I don't believe that there is a place in it for such rigid dogma. It doesn't help the muslim communities here either because it gets seen as more extremism from a religion that,rightly or wrongly, keeps showing itself to be founded on hate, intollerance and opression. The voice of moderation has to come from that faith as indeed it does in an interesting article from the beeb which includes the following: Ibrahim Mogra, chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain's interfaith relations committee and an imam in Leicester, says the name should be reserved for boys. "Some of us believe we are assured of heaven if we name our children Muhammad."
But he says it's ridiculous that Ms Gibbons is being punished for a "miscalculation".
Gillian Gibbons asked her class to name the bear "If someone clearly intends to insult and cause offence with a toy in the form of a pig, for example, and someone knowingly and intentionally names it Muhammad, we know exactly where they're going with it - the idea is to cause offence. If it's just a miscalculation, we don't need to go overboard."
Dilwar Hussain, of the Islamic Foundation, has no problem with a teddy bear called Muhammad. For some years, the Islamic Society sold a soft toy made for British Muslim children named Adam the Prayer Bear. "Adam is also the name of a Prophet."We should stop being tollerant of extremism because history tell sus that it never brings any good.
|
|
|
Post by carlott on Nov 30, 2007 11:17:42 GMT
Thanks for supporting my view that the attitude of the Muslims in Britain do not agree with what Sudan has done - stated on the original thread. I still feel that when working in another country people (particularly professionals) have a duty to better understand that countries customs. A defence based upon the wishes of 7 year old children is unlikely to carry much weight whichever country is involved.
|
|
|
Post by Fi on Nov 30, 2007 12:00:46 GMT
I agree, but we are not in a position to force other countries to do the same. The law in this cuntry now considers relgious hatred a crime, but the way in which it is interpreted is far removed from other countries' ideas. The pity of it is that our media highlight stories like this, but say little or nothing about the good side of Islam and I think that means we end up with a highly distorted view of what Islam is all about as far as moderate Muslims are concerned. It's insidious and leads to distrust or worse which is simply not warranted against the overwhelming majority of Muslims. For instance, the scrapping of Christmas for Winterval by a lot of politically correct, and almost invariably white, numpties is a good example - it hides the truth that many, and probably most, Muslims in the UK have no problem with the UK celebration of Christmas (and are happy to accept it. But they still get blamed for the actions of a few deranged white do-gooders. It's very good to see the Muslim Council of Great Britain criticise the actions in Sudan - it would be even better if the council included some women!
|
|
|
Post by choppy on Nov 30, 2007 12:32:02 GMT
I agree, but we are not in a position to force other countries to do the same. The law in this cuntry now considers relgious hatred a crime, but the way in which it is interpreted is far removed from other countries' ideas. The pity of it is that our media highlight stories like this, but say little or nothing about the good side of Islam and I think that means we end up with a highly distorted view of what Islam is all about as far as moderate Muslims are concerned. It's insidious and leads to distrust or worse which is simply not warranted against the overwhelming majority of Muslims. For instance, the scrapping of Christmas for Winterval by a lot of politically correct, and almost invariably white, numpties is a good example - it hides the truth that many, and probably most, Muslims in the UK have no problem with the UK celebration of Christmas (and are happy to accept it. But they still get blamed for the actions of a few deranged white do-gooders. It's very good to see the Muslim Council of Great Britain criticise the actions in Sudan - it would be even better if the council included some women!
You'll get no argument from me on that one.
|
|
|
Post by choppy on Nov 30, 2007 12:34:41 GMT
Thanks for supporting my view that the attitude of the Muslims in Britain do not agree with what Sudan has done - stated on the original thread. I still feel that when working in another country people (particularly professionals) have a duty to better understand that countries customs. A defence based upon the wishes of 7 year old children is unlikely to carry much weight whichever country is involved. Sorry Carl. Yes, simply reading my reply without seeing the full discussion has left the picture a little skewed as to who said what. I know what you said and meant but didn't carry that over. Sorry if I distorted things a little in the process.
|
|
|
Post by Gene E Usmann on Nov 30, 2007 17:44:26 GMT
I so totally object to this post being moved to the Rectory. No offence Michael (as I am sure there is an area for debate on the point from the theological view) but the point of the thread was nothing to do with any religious angle, and, if I had been asked, I could have highlighted that fact.
My initial post was targetting the fact that Sudan is a country that takes the stance of 'these are our laws and customs' - live by them or be punished by them. No prevarication, no wishy-washy nonsense. If you don't like or accept our laws and our way of life - do not come. The fact they they include religion in that one-view is irrelevant; that is just one facet.
|
|
|
Post by choppy on Nov 30, 2007 19:21:43 GMT
But by discussing it the topic of religion could not be avoided, thus justifying it's move.
|
|
|
Post by revmichael on Nov 30, 2007 20:09:26 GMT
But by discussing it the topic of religion could not be avoided, thus justifying it's move. All views are welcome here, so far as I am concerned - regardless of who posts them or their subject (so long as everything is stated in a polite way - without any undue unkindess)
|
|
|
Post by Fi on Dec 1, 2007 1:25:52 GMT
I so totally object to this post being moved to the Rectory. No offence Michael (as I am sure there is an area for debate on the point from the theological view) but the point of the thread was nothing to do with any religious angle, and, if I had been asked, I could have highlighted that fact. My initial post was targetting the fact that Sudan is a country that takes the stance of 'these are our laws and customs' - live by them or be punished by them. No prevarication, no wishy-washy nonsense. If you don't like or accept our laws and our way of life - do not come. The fact they they include religion in that one-view is irrelevant; that is just one facet. Object away, although it would have been preferable for you to do it in private - it makes no difference to the instruction that there is to be no discussion of religion on the Serious Board and given the subject of this thread it was inevitable that religion would be discussed. As far as the Sudanese governnment is concerned, they are no different to the government of the UK. If a foreigner breaks UK law, they will be punished too. The only difference is that in the Sudan, the law covers things like blasphemy, which, while they may still be on the statute books in the UK, they don't lead to prosecutions any more. So any discussion about differences is really a discussion about having laws that are upheld pertaining to religious observances. That isn't 'one facet'. It's central to your argument.
|
|
|
Post by Gene E Usmann on Dec 1, 2007 9:47:59 GMT
We can agree to disagree or not agree to disagree - not fussed either way. You have the controls to the board - I don't.
|
|
|
Post by Fi on Dec 1, 2007 11:07:05 GMT
We can agree to disagree or not agree to disagree - not fussed either way. You have the controls to the board - I don't. That's agreed then. The irony is that I'm behaving like the Sudanese government in expecting you to honour the rules and customs of this website, which I think are roughly analogous to the "beliefs and traditions" (which in itself implies religion!) to which you refer. That, to go back to your original post, is surely 'refreshing'. However, The point where I differ with the Sudanese government is that I don't think it's serious enough to "get rid" of you so perhaps it's not so "refreshing" after all.
|
|