The Mohammed the Bear story - Page 4

triggerhappy · 27th November 2007, 10:40pm

I reckon a primary teacher in a Catholic school would probably get told off if they let the class name a teddy bear Jesus.

It would be seen as trivialising religion in the same way, although they'd be unlikely to be lashed for it in Britain... probably just told to rename it and teach the class a lesson on reverence.

*Potatojunkie* · 27th November 2007, 10:42pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by triggerhappy

I reckon a primary teacher in a Catholic school would probably get told off if they let the class name a teddy bear Jesus.

What if it was pronounced "Heyzoos"?

Rev Scapegoat · 27th November 2007, 10:44pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by 0x21

Did you read all of my post, including addendums?

Yes, and the addendums were what I responded to just then.

Toast - the Python gag was what sprang to mind when I read this in the first place... And was the whole point of that sketch not to show the idiocy of people who think violence is an OK response to someone daring to utter a certain word?

The fact that the idea is common to two of the world's largest religions isn't really a surprise since they both came from the same root - And you know my feelings on what religion basically is anyway, so that argument doesn't hold too much weight when I consider religion to be an outdated concept in the age of reason.

I'm pretty sure you agree with me that stoning someone for saying Jehovah, or whipping someone for saying Mohammed IS bloody stupid, but I kinda do find myself at a loss when I try to come up with a reason other than "Well, it just bloody IS!"

You got anything better?
Or, better yet, does anyone have any logical argument for inflicting violence upon someone for saying a name?

triggerhappy · 27th November 2007, 10:49pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Potatojunkie

What if it was pronounced "Heyzoos"?

That's be alright. In fact, isn't that the main point of this story? The bear was named after the most popular boy in the class, Muhammad, who may have been named after the prophet, but not specifically the prophet. There was no intent, so was there really a crime?

*stir*

**djtoast** · 27th November 2007, 10:50pm

Yup, and they're well educated western liberals. Not recognising that everyone in the world isn't would be foolish.

I agree with you, but venting steam out of your ears doesn't by itself convince anyone of your position.

Perhaps finding scriptural evidence from within the religions in question as to why that's not acceptable would be a start in convincing someone from the other side of the fence so to speak. I'd know where to find it in a Christian bible; I wouldn't in the Quorn Koran but I expect it's there.

¡Punk! · 27th November 2007, 11:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtoast

Perhaps finding scriptural evidence from within the religions in question as to why that's not acceptable would be a start in convincing someone from the other side of the fence so to speak. I'd know where to find it in a Christian bible; I wouldn't in the Quorn Koran but I expect it's there.

Only half of muslims think that depictions of Mohammed are blasphemous. The other half think depictions that are insulting, deprecating or trivialise Mohammed is blasphemous. Naming a child after your lord and savior shows your love to the prophet.

Naming a bear after him doesn't.

I don't know the exact passage in the Koran that says sadly. The point being, however, this has nothing to do with religion and more to do with law. She broke a law and will be punished. The law's stupid, the punishment is far too harsh, but until we get rid of all the ridiculous laws we have here we have no right to judge other countries.

Rev Scapegoat · 27th November 2007, 11:11pm

We are kinda second-guessing the situation anyway - she may not be sentenced to the full extent of the law and the guys outside might just be gathering for, umm... some other reason?

But the implication is there that they are there with evil intent... If that is so, then that's the point of my argument.
If not... great! They're just rubberneckers and all is well with the world. Ish.

*Potatojunkie* · 28th November 2007, 6:24am

ADDENDA, for the love of Mohammed.

**djtoast** · 28th November 2007, 8:06am

Ah, no, but there was more than one, you see, so it's addendums

*watches PJ explode*

TSR · 28th November 2007, 10:32am

isn't addendum singular and addanda plural?

triggerhappy · 28th November 2007, 10:36am

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSR

isn't addendum singular and addanda plural?

That was the joke, yes.

TSR · 28th November 2007, 10:50am

i need more sleep
*hangs head in shame*

MarkMono · 28th November 2007, 11:21am

Hah, 'undeniably'

Gadafti Inc. · 28th November 2007, 11:50am

it's kinda like the outrage regards the well known "Jesus is a Cunt" Tshirts.

i'd have to say that western liberal democratic ideals are a pretty good way to measure the correctness / fairness of this law around blasphemy that the lady is being charged with. to just say, well that's what they believe and the lassie should get what's coming to her for breaking the law is a lot of mince. we have to have something to measure the actions of other regimes against and in the western world this approach was phased out many years ago.

on a practical point, if this lady is given the 40 lashes that can be dealt out to her, there is a slim possibility that it could actually kill her. it's not unknown that this sort of punishment can lead to serious complications and even death.

endless psych · 28th November 2007, 12:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev Scapegoat

You got anything better?
Or, better yet, does anyone have any logical argument for inflicting violence upon someone for saying a name?

Not quite, but we do in this country have laws that punish people for using certain words or saying certain things. (Defamation, libel, inciting racial hatred and the like) But clearly our reasons for restricting public speech are better founded and less ridiculous then another cultures.