This is a rough draft for my high school ED/COMM newspaper, so don't chastise me for using "I." :)

 

 

 

News source (BBC good enough? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7112929.stm)

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

If I were to become rant-y and crabby about every single minute detail of my life that was out of line, how will I be labelled in school? Poked fun of just to set me off: definitely, fully alienated: maybe, and being called an obsessive compulsive idiot who should be better off for everyone by not coming to school? More than likely.

 

 

 

Which brings me to a report of an elementary schoolteacher in Sudan, Gillian Gibbons, who was arrested and subsequently interrogated in late November by the complaint of parents forÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

Good article, though a few grammatical errors.

 

 

 

letting her twenty-some schoolchildren voting and pick the name ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅMuhammadÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Great work; there are only a couple of words missing or in the wrong place, but overall, very nice work.

I only have two questions: Do you believe actually in the position to correct someone's faith in saying what 'defiles' the image of their most holiest prophet and what doesn't?

 

 

 

Or do you accept that, from an external perspective, it may appear sensational, whereas in a culture you have no experience of, it might be acceptable?

 

 

 

Now, this isn't to say your work is rubbish; you have a good control of the language to portray the point reasonably well. But the exclusionary comments you make will only count against you, especially on a topic such as this. You can still use the pronoun 'I' and avoid this.

 

 

 

You have every right to portray what it might mean to you, while realising (not necessarily agreeing or accepting with) how it could be different to people 'internal' to the event and other 'externals'.

 

 

 

The exclusive manner in which you direct the topic will, I say again, only count against you and perhaps show naivety and ignorance, which would be harsh on you, as it appears you have a good sense of knowledge.

 

 

 

Hope you see this as not a critique of your content, but your depiction :)

I only have two questions: Do you believe actually in the position to correct someone's faith in saying what 'defiles' the image of their most holiest prophet and what doesn't?

 

 

 

Or do you accept that, from an external perspective, it may appear sensational, whereas in a culture you have no experience of, it might be acceptable?

 

 

 

Yeah, now that I think of it, some conservative christians would have just the same reaction, they'd at least call for the expulsion of the students or the teacher.

 

 

 

What if a christian school named their classroom muppet "Jesus" and used it as a general toy to hang on walls and kick it like a football?

I don't care what the religion is, I don't care how much it means to them, I just wish people would wake up and realise that whipping someone, a fellow human being, a teacher who's educating our children, over calling a teddy bear a particular name isn't right. But they won't, people will still plead tolerance and respect because it's their religion. That would be fine, but this teacher isn't buying into it so why should she have to suffer for their faith? Disgusting.

I Can't believe they are actually going to charge her, up to 6 months in jail, its just way out of line

 

 

 

Im not normally Racist but they can go Piss off

I don't care what the religion is, I don't care how much it means to them, I just wish people would wake up and realise that whipping someone, a fellow human being, a teacher who's educating our children, over calling a teddy bear a particular name isn't right. But they won't, people will still plead tolerance and respect because it's their religion. That would be fine, but this teacher isn't buying into it so why should she have to suffer for their faith? Disgusting.

 

 

 

You begin to go on to a separate topic there, the one of lashing, which, in my eyes, is barbaric. No other way to explain it.

Some Religion is such [cabbage] especially Islam, it's unbelievable. Pat Condell says everything I think of about religion http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=h7iBoq_yC4k

 

 

 

check out his other videos as well.

I don't care what the religion is, I don't care how much it means to them, I just wish people would wake up and realise that whipping someone, a fellow human being, a teacher who's educating our children, over calling a teddy bear a particular name isn't right. But they won't, people will still plead tolerance and respect because it's their religion. That would be fine, but this teacher isn't buying into it so why should she have to suffer for their faith? Disgusting.

 

 

 

You begin to go on to a separate topic there, the one of lashing, which, in my eyes, is barbaric. No other way to explain it.

 

 

 

I think that whilst I take your points raised earlier about me being an external observer, irrelevant of the specific punishment charging a teacher for allowing her class to call a teddy bear a certain name is simply madness. It wasn't called The Prophet Muhammad, it's just an arbitary name, it could have been named after anybody called that. Even if she's just been arrested and then released it would have been frankly ridiculous.

Some Religion is such [cabbage] especially Islam, it's unbelievable. Pat Condell says everything I think of about religion http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=h7iBoq_yC4k

 

 

 

check out his other videos as well.

 

So you also believe that Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab at their own free will are "mentally ill", and that religion was "dorment" until Muslims arrived in the UK? Atheists like Pat Condell are the reason perfectly tolerant Atheists, such as myself, declare themselves Agnostic.

 

 

 

Of course my view, living in a Western Democracy, as that this is a little heavy handed. But let's be clear about this. If you go to another country, you do so agreeing to the laws of that country. If you choose to show contempt of those laws, it really makes no difference how sound your morals are behind those actions; you've broken their law, and should rightly be punished.

 

 

 

If this was a foreigner coming over here, and defying one of our laws, no matter how much support that person would have in his/her own country, you'd all be quite rightly asking for that person to be punished and face justice. Where's the difference here, except for the fact we claim to have the moral highground?

I don't care what the religion is, I don't care how much it means to them, I just wish people would wake up and realise that whipping someone, a fellow human being, a teacher who's educating our children, over calling a teddy bear a particular name isn't right. But they won't, people will still plead tolerance and respect because it's their religion. That would be fine, but this teacher isn't buying into it so why should she have to suffer for their faith? Disgusting.

 

 

 

You begin to go on to a separate topic there, the one of lashing, which, in my eyes, is barbaric. No other way to explain it.

 

 

 

I think that whilst I take your points raised earlier about me being an external observer, irrelevant of the specific punishment charging a teacher for allowing her class to call a teddy bear a certain name is simply madness. It wasn't called The Prophet Muhammad, it's just an arbitary name, it could have been named after anybody called that. Even if she's just been arrested and then released it would have been frankly ridiculous.

 

 

 

If it was as clear as that, I'd agree with you wholeheartedly. However, I have to hold reservations due to a) the lack of depth in the story to be revealed and B) my lack of any kind of experience in such a society.

Have some people completely lost the plot and just follow religious writings without any thought? I wonder what any 'higher being' would be thinking right now other than what plonkers we have

Sorry, but anyone being lashed with a whip with 9 tails with hooks on the end is discusting. Some guy had lashes once and he said the pain was alright at first, but after 3 or 4 whips it felt like his whole back was on fire.

If myhammed is a fairly common name there, like it says, shouldn;t they all be punished? :-k I would rather a teddy bear than a person be named after me, but, thats just me...

Guys, listen.

 

 

 

Islam means peace.

Guys, listen.

 

 

 

Islam means peace.

 

 

 

Can't tell whether or not you're being sarcastic, but that's a misnomer. It actually means "submission". I'll say no more.

Guys, listen.

 

 

 

Islam means peace.

 

 

 

Islam literally means "submission/total devotion to God" in Arabic.

Guys, listen.

 

 

 

Islam means peace.

 

 

 

Islam literally means "submission/total devotion to God" in Arabic.

 

 

 

Sounds more like blind devotion to me, the way this Sudanese government has acted. Why are these people not thinking for themselves what a human being should and should not be subjected to? I mean, com'on, lashes? Death by stoning? WHAT? We were blessed with free will, it doesn't matter where it came from, we've just got it. Besides, it's the human beings inflicting the punishments on the human being, not some higher deity inflicting punishments on a human being, therefore we should decide. I personally believe that sharia law is an example of this blind fundamentalism, and should be allowed to wither away.

 

 

 

I believe that Islam is a perfectly acceptable religion, which has only been unfortunately tainted by fundamentalists who seems to take the 'submission/total devotion to God' completely literally. Maybe there's an underlying test behind Islam, which the terrorists and other extremists completely fail. I think the idea is to maintain a devotion in some form, but think freely and value others. In fact, this is ultimately true in a whole multitude of faiths, spanning from Christianity to Buddhism, which I believe is the best way to live life. The fundamentalists tried to read between the lines of the Qu'ran, trying to forge false meanings.

 

 

 

Oh, and comparisons of naming a toy Muhammed and Jesus don't completely follow because Jesus is not a frequently used name for absolutely anything other than the Jesus. However, Muhammed is a very frequently used name, especially in Islamic countries such as Sudan, which is intended to directly refer to the prophet Muhammed, without actually being the prophet Muhammed. Simply put, the naming of anything as Jesus is generally (but even then it doesn't hold as a crime) not really appreciated because nothing else is called Jesus. However, it should be acceptable for something to be called Muhammed because it is acceptable for something else (in other words, a human being) to be called Muhammed other than the original.

 

 

 

And to answer the frequently mentioned post about how we agree to another country's laws if we travel to that country. Well, you're right. I'm not going to travel to a country under sharia law any time soon.

Some Religion is such [cabbage] especially Islam, it's unbelievable. Pat Condell says everything I think of about religion http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=h7iBoq_yC4k

 

 

 

check out his other videos as well.

 

So you also believe that Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab at their own free will are "mentally ill", and that religion was "dorment" until Muslims arrived in the UK? Atheists like Pat Condell are the reason perfectly tolerant Atheists, such as myself, declare themselves Agnostic.

 

Yes some Muslim women do wear it at their own free will, if you can even call it that as it sounds so ridiculous. I'm on more about Burka's I don't mind the Hijab..

 

 

 

It's not their free will to wear it they've been brought up to wear it, it's like me and you have been brought up to wear clothes. What you have to see is that in Muslim countries and in any family that has strong religious beliefs children don't get a choice, it's either you believe what your parents believe or you get disowned or honour killed.

 

 

 

And I cannot for the life of me see well I can but if I try hard, how a person would call it 'normal' to expect Muslim women to wear Burka.

 

 

 

And on the contrary Pat Condell opened my eyes to religion and its misfits and I former agnostic would consider myself an atheist now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7119399.stm

 

 

 

15 days in a Sudanese prison and then deportation, the realms of stupidity just hit a new high.

It's not their free will to wear it they've been brought up to wear it, it's like me and you have been brought up to wear clothes. What you have to see is that in Muslim countries and in any family that has strong religious beliefs children don't get a choice, it's either you believe what your parents believe or you get disowned or honour killed.

 

That's in Muslim countries and of course I don't support the forcing of religion onto people. However, did you ever consider that the vast majority of Muslim women who choose to wear such items of clothing (in this country at least) do so out of a genuine love for their religion, and not through this perceived fear you describe? Next you'll be telling me that a Christian cross is a sign of oppresion for those that have been raised in the most vehement Catholic families... or maybe they're just proud of being a Christian?

 

 

 

I'm not denying religion does have its problems, and is at the root of most modern-day political issues. However, there is a difference between holding that view, and taking it too far by being anti-religious, as Pat Condell does. I myself am not religious, but the faith and trust some religious people have in others in truely admirable. Being religious is not necessarily a weakness, so long as you actually question what you believe. That goes with any belief. I may refuse to believe in the existance of a divine force, and I wouldn't believe anyone who told me the contrary without proof, but that doesn't mean I have to revert to the opposite extreme and hate religion itself.

 

 

 

Back on-topic, whilst the sentance could have been a lot worse and lot more humiliating, this is simply an embarassment; not only for the Sudanese government, but for Muslims across the world. Muslims in this country have enough trouble convincing others their religion does not promote violence without short-sighted idiots calling for an innocent mistake to be punished by a lashing.

 

 

 

It makes me wonder why we help this government with aid for its people, when it seems more focused on this case than it does lifting the millions of poverty-stricken refugees across Sudan off their knees.

It's not their free will to wear it they've been brought up to wear it, it's like me and you have been brought up to wear clothes. What you have to see is that in Muslim countries and in any family that has strong religious beliefs children don't get a choice, it's either you believe what your parents believe or you get disowned or honour killed.

 

That's in Muslim countries and of course I don't support the forcing of religion onto people. However, did you ever consider that the vast majority of Muslim women who choose to wear such items of clothing (in this country at least) do so out of a genuine love for their religion, and not through this perceived fear you describe? Next you'll be telling me that a Christian cross is a sign of oppresion for those that have been raised in the most vehement Catholic families... or maybe they're just proud of being a Christian?

 

 

 

I'm not denying religion does have its problems, and is at the root of most modern-day political issues. However, there is a difference between holding that view, and taking it too far by being anti-religious, as Pat Condell does. I myself am not religious, but the faith and trust some religious people have in others in truely admirable. Being religious is not necessarily a weakness, so long as you actually question what you believe. That goes with any belief. I may refuse to believe in the existance of a divine force, and I wouldn't believe anyone who told me the contrary without proof, but that doesn't mean I have to revert to the opposite extreme and hate religion itself.

 

 

 

Back on-topic, whilst the sentance could have been a lot worse and lot more humiliating, this is simply an embarassment; not only for the Sudanese government, but for Muslims across the world. Muslims in this country have enough trouble convincing others their religion does not promote violence without short-sighted idiots calling for an innocent mistake to be punished by a lashing.

 

 

 

It makes me wonder why we help this government with aid for its people, when it seems more focused on this case than it does lifting the millions of poverty-stricken refugees across Sudan off their knees.

Maybe they do love it, but I can't see why. I mean how degrading is it to the female gender when they're considered second best and are told to cover up because the men can't conduct themselves in front of a woman wearing 'normal' clothes. I know this is going OT but the Christian cross thing is odd as well, nowhere in the new testament does it say that Christians should wear a crucified figure of Jesus around their neck, I mean Jesus rose, but they still wear him crucified on the cross.

 

 

 

Oh and I've got nothing against religion, but when it sticks its nose in good peoples business and puts them behind bars that's when it crosses the line and pisses me off. Condell makes the same point; be as religious as you like, just don't get me or people that don't agree with it involved.

 

 

 

Another point is that people always seem to want to stick up for God, why not let God stick up for himself during judgement day, why do they feel the need to persecute other humans on earth to protect God? Well for their own narrow minded selfish cause probably...

These people are just outrageous thousands are protesting that the sentence was too short, and that she should be 'shot' I say we stop giving aid and let them fend for themselves like the true brainwashed animals they are.

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7121025.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7119399.stm

 

 

 

15 days in a Sudanese prison and then deportation, the realms of stupidity just hit a new high.

 

 

 

I was watching BBC on TV a few minutes ago, I'm shocked to find out the people went to protest in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, to demand her execution (by shooting).

 

 

 

That's barbaric, no culture or religion should justify that... :?

 

 

 

And the islamic council said something along the lines of her being a "part of a conspiracy against islam, along with the offending drawings of Muhammad and the iranian writer's book about Islam"... That sounds like my father when he's rambling about his irrational conspiracy theories at which even I know to just laugh at...

 

 

 

Don't these people have intelligence capacity? Not even in a totally islamic state such as Saudi Arabia would the public refuse to even the attempt to understand it was a honest mistake, AND demand her death..?