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 ✨
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
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."
Inconsistancies will always exist in 'morality', be you an atheist or religious.
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.
And 'irrationality' is not unique to religion. It is also relative.
So what?
People will always find excuses for the way they behave. Religion is no different than any other excuse for intolerence.
What got you interested in Sudan?
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.
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.
I know, I've said that a billion times in this thread.
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.