Hold onto your hats...

[agilebrit]

I'm about to say something controversial again.

Most of you who know me, know that I'm a fairly fundy fundamentalist. Why, yes, I'm one of those people who thinks that the Creation Museum is actually a pretty cool idea, contributed money to help them build it, and plan on a visit (halfway across the country from me) within the next year or so.

This is just to give a perspective on where I'm coming from. It's not the controversy, or, at least, not meant to be.

Most of you, by now, have heard the news story about the British teacher in Sudan who allowed her students to name the class teddy bear "Mohammed"--and the hullaballo that's ensued. Now people are calling for her death via firing squad. She's been sentenced to 45 15 days (thanks to bookishwench for the correction) in jail and deportation. She could have been sentenced to forty lashes, six months in prison, and a fine. For "insulting Islam."

These kids are seven...about the age of Da Boy. Also, Teddy Bear = Comfort Object. And "Mohammed" is one of the most common given names in Islam, much like "John" is here. And, dude...John was a prophet too!

Remember what I said above, the fundy thing? Yeah. If Da Boy wanted to name one of his stuffed cats "Jesus," I'd think it was a little odd...but I'd probably die of cute. Keep in mind that, to me, Jesus = God Himself, and not just a prophet. The actual Christian equivalent to naming his cat "Mohammed" would be naming it "John," or "Moses," or "Isaiah." Which I would find even less offensive. If those kids had named the bear "Allah," there might be a case...if you wanted to stretch it.

It seems to me that the Fred Phelps Contingent of Islam is the one making the rules right now. They're hunting offense and finding it where none is intended or even exists. In fact, they're professionals at it. So, where does the line get drawn, and who do we allow to draw it? Does He Who Gets the Most Offended win? Or does he just win if he threatens to blow up a bus full of people?

Where are the reasonable Islamic people, shouting from the rooftops that this isn't their religion, that it's been hijacked by these batshit insane wackos? Or have they been silenced by threats and intimidation?

I suppose that expecting reason from a nation that still embraces slavery is a bit much. My bad.

Comments

[curiouswombat.livejournal.com]

I agree - no way I'd go there.

Although it seems that the Sudanese government are not encouraging the demonstrations, nor were they pushing for her to be tried. I think they might be a bit embarrassed by it but, as one of the Sudanese lawyers pointed out, their legal system is based on the British one where the judiciary cannot be instructed by the politicians but are independant, only deciding on whether a case does or does not break the word of the law, and then passing sentence. So once someone decided there was a case to answer the government could not intervene.

I don't know whether to be disgusted that she was found guilty, or impressed that the judge found her guilty of only the minor charge, and passed the minimum sentence. Mainly the former I think, with a touch of the latter.

For a reasonable current news report see this BBC one.

I think her lawyer is probably right too - the appeal process could take more time, and the longer it lingers the more chance that the calls for her to be retried by a 'tougher' court will get louder compared with any reasonable ones. This is the way with most fundamentalists of any sort - shout loud enough and the still small voice of reason will be stifled. And I do include Christian fundamentalists in this sweeping statement - but I really do not mean any personal offence to you.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

Well, there's "fundamentalist," and there's "batshit insane." I think you can be the one without being the other. :)

But then, I'm probably the most un-religious Christian fundamentalist you'll ever meet...