Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

You can't make this shit up

123457»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Because people might get the impression we consider the wellbeing (not even the life) of 1 British subject be worth more than the lives of tens of thousands of foreigners in dire need.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What does this episode signify? Mrs. Gibbons and her imprisonment in Sudan over the case of the toy bear named 'Muhammad'. Granted, Muslims in Sudan take their religion seriously, and 'Muhammad' is more an honorific, not a common or garden name as understood in the west.

    We must note in passing that - in former days in Western Europe - anything that reeked of blasphemy was once quite severely punished. Even during the age of steam and machinery, the restored Bourbon monarchy in France introduced the death penalty for sacrilege.

    But the wealthier classes of the West have other gods to worship now, and so they are unable to have any empathy with those who put their faith first.

    Though maybe in reality the average Westerner is less content than the average Sudanese peasant. As British politician and diarist Alan Clark wearily commented : 'I've got £700,000 in my Abbey National Crazy-High Interest account. But what's the use? Lay not up for thyself treasures on earth.'

    A seemingly trivial event was the trigger that activated and re-awakened deeper discontents. The arrest and brief imprisonment of Gillian Gibbons needs to be seen in a much wider context.

    Mrs. Gibbons became a symbol of the distant but omnipresent enemy that has looted, degraded and bombed Sudan. World Bank, IMF, NATO - a litany of control. But who in Britain, who in the USA, even remembers the cruise missile raids on Sudan? The major pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum was destroyed by thirteen Tomahawk missiles, for no reason whatever, except possibly to distract attention from the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. Operation Infinite Reach they called it, a name that sounds like hubris, as the Greeks would say.

    There has never even been a simple apology for the destruction of the Al-Shifa plant, which therefore joins an extremely long list of ignored crimes. Here we are beginning to see some context for the, er, over-reaction of Sudanese officials. Such as they feel that their country, culture and religion are under threat. Who is to say that they are totally wrong?

    It goes without saying that the plight of Mrs. Gibbons received twenty, nay a hundred times, the coverage in the media than was allotted to the fate of Iain Hook. Iain Hook, who, huh - as the victims of the establishment media might say! As a UN official, Iain Hook would ordinarily have been considered to be more 'important' than a junior schoolteacher, but not when the agenda is concerned.

    What does the mainstream media dish up? A sludge of trivia here, a spice of propaganda there, and a whiff of war fever permeating the whole stinking broth. It is some sort of awful commentary on the state of the mass media when you consider that reading Sir Richard Burton or Sir John Glubb provides more sensible and sensitive comment on the Arab world than the contentious junk poured out today.

    Not to forget historian Alan Moorehead, who said this, ironically enough in reference to Sudan in the 1880s :

    "If this state had been governed entirely by greed, by inhumanity and by crude emotions it would not have continued as long as it did; the bulk of the people were not crying out for liberation as the Europeans liked to imagine they were.

    This was the atmosphere of war, when all things become exaggerated and touched by propaganda. It was scarcely possible for any man, particularly if he was a public figure, to take a detached view, or to argue the case for the Arabs : to have done that would have meant being branded not as a liberal, not as a realist, but as a traitor."
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Don't be disingenious, I suggested no such thing. All you've done is simply give me another reason why Sudan does not deserve a single penny in British money or aid.
    You make it sound like giving aid to countries isn't a way to infantilise them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yep, but religion is a pretty good facilitator for it, especially when it comes to indoctronating children. It's much harder to indoctronate your children into your political beliefs, when the discussion is free, open, and not included in the school syllabus.
    Evidence?
    I'm just saying that it's only with faith that you end up with a fair number of people with such conflicting viewpoints as giving money to combat aids, but not wanting contraception to be mentioned as part of the solution, for example.
    :confused:
    It leads to inconsitancies in morality, and an idea of morality that is in no way linked to real world suffering (if you think that hell exists, the you'd do anything to avoid your kids going there, even if it meant causing them immense suffering in this life, for example).
    Inconsistancies will always exist in 'morality', be you an atheist or religious.
    But a further argument. If your argument so far has been that people will do good and bad things whether religion is involved or not, then how can you cite religion as "inspiration" for these acts? You can't say that it's inspiration for the good acts, but the bad acts are just human nature. I know my argument sounds similar but opposite, but what I'm arguing is that it creates inconsistancies in moral judgement that would otherwise not occur (e.g. no-one would be against stem cell research if they didn't believe in the teaching that human life is holy/sacred).
    You probably have ore faith in human nature than I do.

    I believe all acts are of human nature, but that all acts are inspired or motivated by human emotion, fears and aspiration. I didn't say that only good acts are inspired and bad acts are 'human nature'. I find it pretty arrogant if you believe that religious morality is always inconsistant and yours is superior... If that is what you are implying.
    Again, you're pointing to a secular government despite the fact that I've already argued the point that it's not a religion vs. secular thing, it's a rationality vs. irrationality thing.
    And 'irrationality' is not unique to religion. It is also relative.
    Plenty of people said that we shouldn't force people to do something which is "against their religious beliefs," effectively supporting their right to discriminate based purely on their religious beliefs. This was the argument of quite a few people in the media, not the "their hotel, their rules" argument (though that one was also common).
    So what?

    People will always find excuses for the way they behave. Religion is no different than any other excuse for intolerence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Vialls wrote: »
    What does this episode signify? Mrs. Gibbons and her imprisonment in Sudan over the case of the toy bear named 'Muhammad'. Granted, Muslims in Sudan take their religion seriously, and 'Muhammad' is more an honorific, not a common or garden name as understood in the west.

    We must note in passing that - in former days in Western Europe - anything that reeked of blasphemy was once quite severely punished. Even during the age of steam and machinery, the restored Bourbon monarchy in France introduced the death penalty for sacrilege.

    But the wealthier classes of the West have other gods to worship now, and so they are unable to have any empathy with those who put their faith first.

    Though maybe in reality the average Westerner is less content than the average Sudanese peasant. As British politician and diarist Alan Clark wearily commented : 'I've got £700,000 in my Abbey National Crazy-High Interest account. But what's the use? Lay not up for thyself treasures on earth.'

    A seemingly trivial event was the trigger that activated and re-awakened deeper discontents. The arrest and brief imprisonment of Gillian Gibbons needs to be seen in a much wider context.

    Mrs. Gibbons became a symbol of the distant but omnipresent enemy that has looted, degraded and bombed Sudan. World Bank, IMF, NATO - a litany of control. But who in Britain, who in the USA, even remembers the cruise missile raids on Sudan? The major pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum was destroyed by thirteen Tomahawk missiles, for no reason whatever, except possibly to distract attention from the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. Operation Infinite Reach they called it, a name that sounds like hubris, as the Greeks would say.

    There has never even been a simple apology for the destruction of the Al-Shifa plant, which therefore joins an extremely long list of ignored crimes. Here we are beginning to see some context for the, er, over-reaction of Sudanese officials. Such as they feel that their country, culture and religion are under threat. Who is to say that they are totally wrong?

    It goes without saying that the plight of Mrs. Gibbons received twenty, nay a hundred times, the coverage in the media than was allotted to the fate of Iain Hook. Iain Hook, who, huh - as the victims of the establishment media might say! As a UN official, Iain Hook would ordinarily have been considered to be more 'important' than a junior schoolteacher, but not when the agenda is concerned.

    What does the mainstream media dish up? A sludge of trivia here, a spice of propaganda there, and a whiff of war fever permeating the whole stinking broth. It is some sort of awful commentary on the state of the mass media when you consider that reading Sir Richard Burton or Sir John Glubb provides more sensible and sensitive comment on the Arab world than the contentious junk poured out today.

    Not to forget historian Alan Moorehead, who said this, ironically enough in reference to Sudan in the 1880s :

    "If this state had been governed entirely by greed, by inhumanity and by crude emotions it would not have continued as long as it did; the bulk of the people were not crying out for liberation as the Europeans liked to imagine they were.

    This was the atmosphere of war, when all things become exaggerated and touched by propaganda. It was scarcely possible for any man, particularly if he was a public figure, to take a detached view, or to argue the case for the Arabs : to have done that would have meant being branded not as a liberal, not as a realist, but as a traitor."
    This is really interesting.

    What got you interested in Sudan?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Evidence?
    Seriously? How about the widespread support of the nazi or Stalin regimes coming in part from years of indoctronation in schools and telling on parents as an example. Or the Hasidic Jewish school in London, who according to the bloke that runs it, the vast majority of children leave not believing in evolution, because it clashes with the creation story, which they put more emphasis on in schools (judging by evolution education even in mainstream schools, it wouldn't surprise me if they also teach it incorrectly). Or the increasing trend for conservative Christian Americans to home school their children, because many are turning away from the religion of their parents? Religious people have known this to be true for a long time, which is why things like "Intelligent Design" have appeared, in order to sneak religious ideas into schools as scientific facts. Religions and political dictatorships have always tried to keep people away from "corrupting sources" (read: alternative viewpoints). But why are you even arguing this point? I mean do you actually support a society where all viewpoints aren't equal targets for criticism by anyone, without risk of threats of violence? I think it's better for our children's education, but even if I'm wrong, what possible harm could it do to have children growing up in a society where ideas are questioned? Would you prefer a society where only certain things could be talked about? Do you think this would lead to the most civilised and moral society? To me, all you need to do is the little contest of Scandanavia vs. America vs. The Middle East. The most secular countries have fewer numbers of almost every social problem on the planet, perform better in education and social welfare, and ironically, give more per capita to charity too. These are the countries that constantly come top of leagues measure freedom of speech, freedom of the press and so on. To me, it's not a coincidence. Not a lack of religion, just the ability and freedom to criticise all ideas.
    Namaste wrote: »
    Inconsistancies will always exist in 'morality', be you an atheist or religious.
    Yes, but generally caused by conflicting desires and needs. Let's at least make sure that we only include desires and needs based in this universe. To the non-believer, "do I help the person, or do I please God" would never be a question, and isn't that a moral "dilemma" we could really do without in the world? That's the question that leads to lies being spread about contraception.
    Namaste wrote: »
    I believe all acts are of human nature, but that all acts are inspired or motivated by human emotion, fears and aspiration. I didn't say that only good acts are inspired and bad acts are 'human nature'. I find it pretty arrogant if you believe that religious morality is always inconsistant and yours is superior... If that is what you are implying.
    I'm saying that basing your morals on reason, logic and evidence rather than faith leads to an improvement, yes. I don't care if that sounds arrogant. I don't see how it could. I've never stated that religious people don't base their morals on reason and logic (how do the moderate majority know which bits to filter out of their holy books without it?), or that I always do.
    Namaste wrote: »
    And 'irrationality' is not unique to religion. It is also relative.
    I know, I've said that a billion times in this thread.
    Namaste wrote: »
    So what?

    People will always find excuses for the way they behave. Religion is no different than any other excuse for intolerence.
    And so what? We should tolerate it as part of their religion, as a lot of people think we should? We don't tolerate any other intolerance just because it's "part of their nature." And yet with religion, from some we're expected to sit down and shut up, not publish our satirical cartoons, not give our opinion. And the majority of muslims at least support the viewpoint that there should be legislation to protect them from criticism. I'm not sure the figures from other religions, but the Christianaphobia thread shows that there is at least some support for this viewpoint within Christianity too. Why is the question of special treatment for religion even entertained, if as you say, it's all part of nature anyway.
Sign In or Register to comment.