Mohammed Bear

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article531449.ece

TERRIFIED teddy bear row teacher Gillian Gibbons was being held in a secret jail last night — after a 10,000-strong armed mob took to Sudan’s streets screaming: “Kill her, kill her.”

The Liverpool mum of two — convicted of insulting Islam by calling the bear Mohammed — was sneaked out of the capital Khartoum hours after being jailed for 15 days.

Fanatics demanding her execution by firing squad streamed out of mosques after prayers — grabbing machetes, knives and clubs.

Emails sent from the school to a sympathiser who was shocked at the teacher’s fate reveal a spiteful secretary was to blame. A senior member of staff said Unity High office assistant Sarah Khawad had meant to get HER into trouble.

They are an excitable people, aren't they? Teddy was a popular name at the turn of the last century. Calling the stuffed beast after Mohammed, a name used by many people from around the world, is a bit like calling it, um, Teddy Bear.

As a thought experiment and also in the interest in pouring oil on troubled waters, let's convene an ecumenical teddy bear picnic. How is this?


Mohammed Bear



Jesus Bear



Buddha Bear



Krishna Bear



But to complete our gala, why not have one more visitor, from Southern Sudan, who might be all too happy to have a Mohammed Bear?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict








villagevoice.com

Is Islam True?

Is Islam the correct faith? Is there any proof of its correctness?

The proof of Islam's correctness lies merely in the fact that Moslems regard it as correct. But I think what you were really asking as: is there an emperical foundation for justifing a belief in Islam? I think if the proposition was phrased that way, most Moslems would dismiss that as irrelevant or state that its emperical foundation is both a given and proven by their conduct and culture.

May I suggest a paradigm shift as it were in the categories we use. Rather than focusing on or justifying our belief in "liberalism" or "conservatism", "theism" or "atheism", wouldn't it make more sense to grapple with more relevant categories such as right or wrong, truth or falsehood? I would think once we discern that, those other categories will take care of themselves or become superfluous.

For me, Muhammad was his own Constantine, so I don't compartmentalize political beliefs from religious beliefs.

You pack a lot into a few words. But I'm trying to figure out if those words make any sense.

Muhammed was his own Constantine? Christians have never regarded Constantine as a messanger or prophet of God. Muhammed saw himself as the restorer of the uncorrupted faith of Adam and Abraham, whereas Constantine saw himself as the promoter of the faith and the uniter of Christendom, the first Christian Roman Emperor. However, both Muhammed and Constantine were men of the sword and put to the sword countless in the name of their faith. The Christians of the third century and the Moslems of the sixth century were able to justify that in the name of mutually complementary goals of political cohesion and religous propagation, much like the Italian Mafia have also done. They, like you, saw life as undifferentiated totality, with politics, faith, science, and law as integrated and non-compartmentalized. From this in Europe came such notions as the divine right of kings, the inquisition, and the subordination of human rights to a theocracy. From this in the deserts of Araby came such notions as the Sharia, the jihad, and the subordination of human rights to a theocracy. What's not to like?

You admire Muhammed and in a backhanded way you admire Constantine, and their lives inspire you to not compartmentalize politics from religion. But does this make sense either or ethical or practical grounds? I think the answer is an emphatic no. On ethical grounds, it's untenable as it opens the door to the rule of religious dogma in areas of life where there should not be dogma if there is to be progress both in matters of science and in matters of the conscience. The compartmentalization of politics from faith came to be out of the memory of our founding fathers in the religious wars that plagued Europe for hundreds of years. The Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, the protection of the rights of the minority, divided government, freedom of speach, assembly, and the press, and, indeed, the formation of the middle class in the west are integral to this compartmentalization of politics from religion.

The Islam that you define sounds incredibly ignorant and disgusting. I would not want to have anything to do with the Islam you define.

I don't define Islam or Christianity in that way and nor do I claim that you do. But enough do throughout the world to justify my statements.

How can religious politicians, when they go to Washington, check their religious beliefs at the door along with their coats and hats?

There is a difference between letting your ethical values which arise from your religious beliefs inform your political judgements in distinction to making political judgements that explictly reflect your creed. The Christian apocalyptics that are pushing for war between Islam and the West are doing just this, and are no less irrational and evil than the Jewish fanatics who butcher Palestineans in the name of Moses and the Moslem fanatics who blow themselves up while screaming "Allah is Great."

This is a popular myth among a lot of people, but the truth is that the Constitution does not prohibit states from having established religions. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire had colonial religious establishments and continued to retain those religious establishments after the First Amendment was added to the Constitution.

Be that as it may, the effect is to challenge pluralism if religionists seek to abridge the faith of others in the name of their own faith. The absolute convergance of politics and religion-- especially one brand of religion-- denies that which the constitution explicitly promotes-- minority rights. Another word for this is totaliterianism.