Some good news!

I just bought a Teddy and named it, "Mohammed sucks my wang."

I deeply hope no one is offended...

Yeah, to call a teddy bear Mohammed is really insulting, to all teddy bears. What a screwed up religion.

Thats all she has to say?

I mean who cares if a muslim woman in the same situation might have been silently executed or stoned with no international outcry. This woman got a bed.

Damn Chad, did you ever think it might have been a very nice bed with a flower print or something?

This has been in the news constantly for the past week. Generally accompanied by the phrase, "Well they made their point, but enough is enough."

W.T.F.?

What point? That they are thin-skinned, fundamentalist nutjobs? Since when has it been ok to 'make a point' out of a primary school teacher? One who is thousands of miles from home doing good work in a country that needs help? She named this teddy in September but it took over a month for someone to get offended, obviously a slow day.

And all she can do is say thanks for them giving her a bed? I would be so ANGRY if I were her! Not least because it was those children that named it, they should be the ones getting lashed. Honestly!

Clearly, if they weren't religious they wold have made her sleep on the floor without a mattress, so this is yet another example of the way religion improves people's behavior! Wait, what's that you say? Without religion she wouldn't have been jailed for an imaginary "crime" in the first place? Oh.

She was sentenced to prison for naming a teddy bear?

She didn't even name the %#@&*@ bear: She only allowed her students -- who, as local Muslims, should have known better than she what was or was not insulting -- to name the bear.

I'm with you, PZ. When I read her undeservedly gracious comments, I was actively angry. If I were her, I'd be suing the government of Sudan for roughly the country's gross national product. Not that she'd collect a single pound sterling, of course, but somebody needs to stand up and shout to the world that imprisoning (and threatening with flogging and execution) someone for being an innocent bystander to somebody else's accidental blasphemy is outside every norm of acceptable human behavior!

Lago, from what I've heard, this Mohammed guy was into little girls. He must've really hated women - look at the misogyny that his religion practices, that's done in his name. Islam seems to be even worse than Christianity three hundred years ago.

I think she's a bit deranged, actually.

Possibly. Or she might be thinking about the safety of her colleagues at the school, and making damn sure she doesn't give ammunition to anyone to retaliate against the ones still there--not that they apparently need a reason or anything, though.

The sad thing is that incidents like this, and like the Tripoli Six, deter (and rightly so) others from going in to work afterwards. So the people who need health care and teachers the most are that much less likely to get them, as a result.

There's another way to interpret this. For "I wouldn't like to put anyone off going to Sudan", read "there are other foreign teachers in the country, and I wouldn't like to put them at risk by saying anything which could set off the hair-trigger nutjob element of the population".

If Sudan supported the right to arm bears, none of this would have happened.

Sure, she should better publicly criticise the Sudanese Laws. Because we have no reason to think that in such a democratic country there would be no reprisals for the whole school including the kids.

Wrong chosen target. Shame on the Sudanese dictatorship, not on the English teacher. We can criticise them, she cannot.

Presumably she was told to keep her mouth shut about the subhuman barbarism she has just been rescued from as part of the terms of her release?

Lago, Maxi, I think that Chad's point was that a Muslim woman would have been treated worse, and worse yet, no one would've known about it, there would've been no international outrage, the Sudanese government wouldn't have seen to her being kept alive, and so on.

In short, as outrageous as this was, it would've been worse for someone of a different religion. In my opinion her race and socio-economic group spared her worse treatment that, again, was horribile enough to begin with.

Yes, I would've liked to see her directly speak out against the government and the lunatic mobs that wanted her executed. As I think would most of Pharyngula's readers. She's not us.

Oh, and PZ, doesn't this sound more like a heaven for lunatics and a hellhole for the rest of us?

Brian

Lets not get this one too much out of perspective. Most muslims I've seen commentating on this matter considered it as ludicrous as the rest of us. The teacher was reported to the religious authorities by a disgruntled secretary who had just lost her job at the school and had threatened to get the whole place closed down. None of the childrens parents or the muslim teachers in the school thought it to be a problem until the religious police turned up. There is a political rift currently between the UK and Sudan over the Darfur issue - the radical muslims want the west to disengage - and it looks like this was at least partly behind the street protests. There were some muslims protesting outside the Sudanese embassy in London asking for the teacher to be released - although the protests were tiny compared to those against the Danish cartoons or Salman Rushdie. Most western muslems seem to be of the opinion that this matter is dangerous for Islam because it causes everyone to laugh at it (a bit like the creationists idea of T-Rex eating coconuts).

Richard, are you saying something was wrong with Mohammed? I mean really now, what normal guy looks at a 9 year ol' girl and doesn't say, "I need to get me some of that!"

I mean, that is not like creepy or anything like that, right?

I'm not just angry at her, I'm angry at all the fellow liberals who won't criticize Islam, no matter what, out of some misguided reverence for multiculturalism: E.g., apparently Fox News asked the National Organization for Women what their official line was on all this, and they said that they weren't "taking a position." How can any rational person not take the position that this is all lunacy?

I'm experiencing a severe case of cognitive dissonance when I find myself agreeing with right-wing nutjobs who seem to be the only ones outraged by the lunacy of Islam -- yes, yes, I know very well that their agenda is strictly political and that they'd support the same sort of lunacy if it came from Christian or Jewish sources. But still...
___________________________

Brian @14

I am under no allusion that a Muslim woman would have been treated far worse than a western woman. I also realise that this has been blown out of all proportions as it also brings the Darfur issue to the surface again.

But the fact remains, one single disgruntled secretary can call the religious police about the possible misnaming of a stuffed toy and be taken seriously. There is no excuse for something like that. And it does cause a lot of people to laugh at Islam, which causes even more trouble.

There is a political rift currently between the UK and Sudan over the Darfur issue

Yes, the point has been made by various people that this was merely a diversionary tactic to cover up the fact that the Sudanese are slaughtering many innocent people in Darfur. But of course they are poor black Sudanese people and not a rich white UK person, so everyone is supposed to pay less attention to them.

http://www.miafarrow.org/

Lago, just think of all the trouble, death, rape, & torture caused by that illiterate camel trader, Mohammed, piss be upon him, & you ask, "are you saying something was wrong with Mohammed?". A heck of a lot worse than creepy.

The solution to all these tensions is to let Sudan and the rest of the Islamic countries continue to import their excess populations over here and in every other western country - then we'd all be muslum and happy! Except for the women of course!

"I wouldn't like to put anyone off going to Sudan."

Everyone know this is Britspeak for "DO NOT GO THERE, EVER!"

The Brits are famous for understatement, don't you know.

She's probably just being overly polite for politeness sake.

"Lago, from what I've heard, this Mohammed guy was into little girls. He must've really hated women - look at the misogyny that his religion practices, that's done in his name. Islam seems to be even worse than Christianity three hundred years ago."

300 years ago, Christians were burning thousands of people at the stake (including women accused of witchcraft) and murdering each other in the millions in the wars of religion which at that time were probably the bloodiest conflict in human history.

But we're much more civilised and advanced now, unless, for example, you consider the Christians in South Africa who continue to murder women accused of witchcraft.

Gee, it's almost as if poverty and ignorance had more to do with people being savage moronic arseholes than the particular version of religion they ascribe to.

But that can't be right. After all, it's the specific and exceptional barbarism of Islam that makes it okay for the US to slaughter Muslims by the hundreds of thousand.

i agree with aris. islam is seriously whack. you know she may be afraid of some fatwa coming her way in britain. will she ever be safe again. these people are nuts.

Christ, PZ, maybe this woman (unlike me, or you -- I assume) actually knows people in Sudan, and the lunacy of the Sudanese government notwithstanding, she actually sees those people as individuals and not some monolith of lunacy. I sure wouldn't want anyone to judge all Americans by George Bush's actions. The prosecution and sentence were monstrous, and sure there were some lunatics calling for her execution, but to condemn all the Sudanese people for that is, among other things, just illogical and not worthy of a scientist.

All the Christians who pretend there's just the one god being worshipped by believers should immediately convert to Islam in order to facilitate that muslim take-over and consequent "peace" (and suffering for all, especially women).

Or they could start being honest for a change. Nah - that'll never happen. Not without them first ceasing to be Christians and, at most, reducing their religiosity to the weakest modern form of Unitarian (wanting to believe but knowing full well they haven't got a shred of evidence and thus no right to claim any) if they can't manage to go the whole way to being atheistic.

"Richard, are you saying something was wrong with Mohammed? I mean really now, what normal guy looks at a 9 year ol' girl and doesn't say, "I need to get me some of that!""

Right because he obviously wans;t thinking "She's the daughter of a powerful leader and I need to cement an alliance with her family."

Sure all the thousands of European nobles who were betrothed at that age or earlier over the centuries were thinking that but if we don't constantly repeat that Muslims are verminm, scum and perverts we're guilty of "misplaced multiculturalism".

So let's nuke those fucking camel jockeys then take a big old shit on the rubble where the Kaaba used to stand and wipe our arses with the last copy of the Koran - in the name of peace and tolerance.

Just goes to highlight the ridiculousness of laws which make it illegal to insult someone (be it a religious leader, the founder of a country, the royal family, etc.) - it comes out making people look silly.

In any case, if (Cthulhu forbid) I ever become some great leader, let me have it on record now that I would be far more deeply offended for being known as that humourless bastard who'd have you executed for naming your teddy bear after me, than having the teddy bear named after me.

Sure, she should better publicly criticise the Sudanese Laws. Because we have no reason to think that in such a democratic country there would be no reprisals for the whole school including the kids.

I understand there would be innocents at risk; not only the kids but also other international aid workers and volunteers. But the thing is, the utter capriciousness of this case demonstrates that those people are already at risk, in ways that are essentially impossible to forecast or mitigate. If the government of Sudan were behaving even marginally acceptably, there might be some point in not poking them in the eye... but they're acting like freaking lunatics, and it's not clear to me that the rest of the world would be making anything worse by calling them on it. Frankly, I think every other country ought to pull their nationals out of Sudan (which is to say, encourage them to leave in the strongest terms allowed by each country's law). If the rest of the world concludes that such action would precipitate renewed/increased genocide, I say that would justify international military action against Sudan.

It's one thing for aid workers to take some calculated risk in support of their humanitarian missions; it's another thing entirely when the choice is between subjecting yourself to arbitrary imprisonment, flogging, or summary execution or leaving the locals to famine and genocide. And it's yet another thing when that horrifying choice is created/propped up by a localized theism so nutty that even its nominal coreligionists around the world can only shake their heads in wonder.

One of the saddest of the many very sad legacies of the current U.S. administration is the way their behavior has totally discredited and undermined military force as a tool of international relations. There really are times (e.g., genocide) when the international community can legitimately decide that a particular regime cannot be permitted to remain unchastened.

Wrong chosen target. Shame on the Sudanese dictatorship, not on the English teacher. We can criticise them, she cannot.

Yes, I agree that the shame properly belongs to the government of Sudan, but it's hard to "prosecute" the case if the victim refuses to testify. Your prescription here is equivalent to saying a rape victim or someone being extorted by the mob should keep quiet, in case the bad guys do more bad stuff. The bad guys are going to do more bad stuff anyway; the only hope for the good guys is to stand up to them... even when that entails a risk.

PS: I realize that the above appears easy for me to say because I don't have any actual "skin in the game," but it's how I honestly feel. I hope I would have the courage to say the same thing even if I were a 22 year old British infantryman, and thus first in line to be a member of any multinational force.

@22

LOL

I had forgotten about Britspeak.

Re comment #22

Almost right. The correct translation is;

I'm afraid to say openly that you should not go to the Sudan.

BTW I posted this to RD.net but feel no shame in repeating it here. I know it's a serious topic but this amused me;

The travails of this poor woman just get worse; first she's arrested and charged in a foreign country, then tried and sentenced to jail and finally they are threatening to deport her to Liverpool!

Where is the outrage over the flagrant hatred of women in Islamic countries like Sudan? It's so clear that all the marching in the streets calling for death is just sexism hiding behind a cloak of hateful, murderous religious dogma. When will we stop "respecting" and "tolerating" religion which so clearly helps people rationalize their sexism, racism, classism and homophobia? I'm sure this teacher is just relieved to be home with her family, but I would start thinking of ways to take action against an ideology that showed nothing but contempt for someone who was helping educate the children of a war-torn country like Sudan.

I'm not just angry at her, I'm angry at all the fellow liberals who won't criticize Islam, no matter what, out of some misguided reverence for multiculturalism:

Amen, Aris. I'm all for multiculturalism, but how in the world can a person be liberal and not believe human rights trump culture? If you applied the logic of apologists consistently across cultures you'd have to believe liberals were on the wrong side of the civil rights movement for Christ's sake.

I sure wouldn't want anyone to judge all Americans by George Bush's actions.

Yah, but if (when?) it gets to the point where W can sweep us up off the street and threaten us with public flogging over what we name our Teddy bears, I hope people will speak the fuck up about it, and not keep mum in the vain hope that it'll get better by itself!

@32

Newsflash: MOST religions persecute women, and the worst thing is that women let them.

While flying into 'save' Muslim women would be ideal, I doubt half of them would take kindly to it. Change from the inside is needed. Not some ballistic attack on Islam and the women thereof.

Reminds me of the bit from "Life of Brian" where they're stoning the old guy for blasphemy:

"All I did was say "This meal's good enough for Jehovah"!"

Someone please tell me why religion is viewed as a positive?

my personal opinion of islam is that they will fight tooth and nail to keep their women in bondage. as soon as they let control slip just a little bit by modernization they will lose the fight. muslim men have such an inferiority complex it is unreal. and huge chips on their shoulders.

Arrested for allowing Teddy Bears to be named?
Sentenced to lashing after being raped?
People being stoned for being gay or sleeping with someone?

WARNING! DO NOT watch the videos on youtube of people being stoned. They are very, very, very, disturbing.

Suck it mohammed.

i mean what woman would want to stay with an abuser if she learned she could be with a nice guy who would treat her like an equal human being. that's what they are afraid of -abandonment.

Are they now going to round up everyone who named their kid Muhammed? How about Muhammed Ali? Really, this is beyond preposterous.

Moi: There are many reasons why abused women stay with the men that abuse them. It is not a simple issue, and not one limited to Islam.

yes maxi i know that however islam has ingrained it into their religion and society. it is so pervasive that it is virtually inescapable.

Clarification: In my previous post (@29), I did not mean to be saying the world should invade Sudan over the Teddy bear incident, per se. Rather, I think the proper response to that is for all outside aid workers (and foreign visitors generally) shoudl leave, both because they are not safe and because they are propping up an awful regime by "helping."

Anticipating, however, the argument that pulling out aid workers would be immoral because it would subject innocent people to starvation and genocide (those who aren't already subject to starvation and genocide, that is)... well I was simply saying that if that is in fact true, it amounts to an argument that the government is both illegitimate and so evil that the rest of the world ought to consider removing it by force.

I'll deftly sidestep the Godwin pitfall by referring to Pol Pot instead of that other fellow, but the point is the same: There are some governments whose actions are so far outside acceptable human norms that they must not be permitted to remain among the community of nations (i.e., they are orders of magnitude worse than garden-variety dictators). I don't personally know the Sudan situation well enough to make that judgment... but the suggestions here that someone as ill-used as this teacher dare not speak even mildly unkindly about her abusers, for fear of the consequences to the innocent masses, strongly hint in that direction.

They are a bit touchy of western interventions, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Omdurman

"I am under no allusion that a Muslim woman would have been treated far worse than a western woman. "

You know I just searched through several years worth of HRW and Amnesty reports on Sudan and couldn't find evidence of ANYONE being executed for blasphemy.

But that's obviously just proof that those freedom-hating Dhimmi appeasers at those organsiations are out to cover up the truth: all Muslims are the spawn of Satan and hsoudl be killed.

Surely they reported on the atrocities in Darfur but that's obviously just a cover for their true agenda.

fun fact: Sudan (population ca, 40,000,000) executesslightly more people per year than the United states (population 300,000,000).

But, you know, the people executed in the United States were all guilty, well mostly guilty. Well mostly poor, black and probably guilty of something?

The government of Somalia are bastards and murderers.

That's a fact.

"The government of Somalia are inhuman monsters without matching in human history and its all because they're Muslim".

That's crap.

The majority of Muslims (and the most populous Muslim countries by the way all lie outside the Middle East - Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Turkey)are no more responsible for the actions of a few hundred idiot demonstrators in Khartoum than the average Americans is responsible for the actions of the Westboro Baptist church.

"my personal opinion of islam is that they will fight tooth and nail to keep their women in bondage."

Tel that to a Javanese Santri woman some time.

Arrgh! @44, "the proper response to that is for all outside aid workers ... shoudl leave" ought, of course, be "the proper response to that is for all outside aid workers ... to leave"@!

Oh, for an "edit" button on these comments!

ian you are forgetting those 400,000 unfortunate souls in darfur

an ideology that showed nothing but contempt for someone who was helping educate the children

But that's nothing unique to Sudan. It's common to religious power freaks all over. The education of children is one of the things they are most seeking to prevent - because better educated people become less religious and also less prone to falling for similar ideologies and thus less easy to control through fear and ignorance. Hence Texas and other large tracts of the US. Hence also the religious nutters in the UK damaging education whenever they are in positions of power (eg Tony Blair and Ruth Kelly and their pal Peter Vardy).

Ian, in Merka, "mostly poor, black" IS guilty of something.

"ian you are forgetting those 400,000 unfortunate souls in darfur"

No, I'm not. Nor am I forgetting the estimated 650,000 estimated additional deaths in Iraq since the US invasion of that country.

Let me clarify something: I don't think every person in Sudan is an Islamic fanatic. I do think that as an American, I am responsible for the actions of my country, and that includes the election of George W. Bush and the lunatics of Westboro Baptist Church.

If I want to take credit for the good that is done by the community of which I am part, I also have to accept responsibility for its evils.

"Christ, PZ, maybe this woman (unlike me, or you -- I assume) actually knows people in Sudan, and the lunacy of the Sudanese government notwithstanding, she actually sees those people as individuals and not some monolith of lunacy."

I dunno. I know a few people in the U.S., mostly because I've lived here my whole life... and when I see people from elsewhere say they are avoiding coming to the United States now, I can totally see their point. A part of me wishes I could avoid the U.S. too.

"I do think that as an American, I am responsible for the actions of my country"

wish more people felt that way...

Having lived and worked in several muslim countries (Malaysia and Morocco), I can only say that Islamic fundamentalism has gotten much worse in the last 7 years. Wonder why ?

fun fact: Sudan (population ca, 40,000,000) executesslightly more people per year than the United states (population 300,000,000).

But, you know, the people executed in the United States were all guilty, well mostly guilty. Well mostly poor, black and probably guilty of something?

Sure, I'm painfully aware of the U.S.'s many hypocrisies, and I can't even blame all of them on Republican wingnuts. One of the worst things about my own country's bad behavior is that it robs us of moral force that might otherwise be used to help the plight of others around the world.

I'm a fan of the TV show The West Wing, and there's a moment in the first season that has always resonated with me: Josh (Bradley Whitford) and Sam (Rob Lowe) are briefly tempted to resort to political dirty tricks to help a beloved mentor who's in trouble, and they go to a call girl of Sam's acquaintance to solicit dirt on the "bad guys." Her response is indignant: "You're the good guys; you ought to act like it!"

Without meaning to trivialize a serious discussion with a pop-culture reference, that's how I feel about my country: We're the good guys, and we ought to act like it... but I'm painfully clear about the fact that we often don't (especially recently). It doesn't mean, however, that we ought to give up trying. As you and others have pointed out, there's a difference between a people and its government or its religious leaders. That is as true of the U.S. as it is of Sudan or Iran.

The government of Somalia are bastards and murderers.

That's a fact.

"The government of Somalia are inhuman monsters without matching in human history and its all because they're Muslim".

That's crap.

For the record, I am not making the latter argument. I condemn them because of their behavior (to wit, they are "bastards and murderers"), not their religion. I think it's possible that they use fundamentalist theism to bolster their murderous bastardy, but to say that religious fundamentalism may make it easier for them to get away with their behavior is not the same as saying "its all because they're Muslim."

As to whether they are historically evil, I've already said I don't know. I only mean to say that if they rise to that standard of evil, the world has a right to do something about it, just as any human community has a right to police itself.

PZ: I think that that responsibility is somewhat moderated when your the citizen of a country where dissenters are routinely murdered by the government.

To clarify my position:

1. The people calling for the teacher's death are either very, very, stupid; mentally disturbed; violently bigoted; grossly misinformed or soem combination of the above. Whichever way: fuck 'em.

2. The government of Sudan are a bunch of criminal thugs. Had the US invaded Sudan rather than Iraq in 2003 I would probably have applauded their action.

3. Neither the actions of the protesters or the Sudanese government are specific to Islam and implying some form of collective guilt to all Muslims for their actions is grossly unfair.

Question: what have individual Christian posters here done to prevent the atrocities carried out by the Ugandan Lord's Resistance Army in the name of Christ?

Question: Do individual atheist posters here feel any responsibility for the crimes committed by the avowedly atheist governments of China, Vietnam and North Korea?

Moi, I hope like hell you're being sarcastic, because otherwise, that's the most stunningly ignorant thing I've read on the subject of domestic violence in a long, long time.

I certainly understand why she wasn't as critical as she could have been -- she doesn't want to endanger everyone else who's there, and she's probably feeling quite grateful that she got out of prison without being raped, rape being one of the major forms of systematic oppression used over there.

For those of you tuning in late, the reason Sudanese women, like other women, don't "just leave," why it appears that they "go along" with horrific abuse, is because the system's rigged. How do you leave if you have no resources, no skills, and nowhere to go? How do you leave if leaving means having to entirely depend on the kindness of strangers, especially in the middle of a civil war, when you can't.

If you try to flee, if you're lucky maybe you'll wind up locked in the house and raped three or four times. If not, maybe angry relatives of yours will stone you or set you on fire. Put up or shut up -- if those were your alternatives, you wouldn't be so quick on the draw about leaving.

i think you are misunderstanding me interrobang. IF muslim women didn't have misogynism so deeply ingrained in their culture then they would not be in abusive situations in the first place(eg not be with muslim men). like i said there is no way out for them.

and she's probably feeling quite grateful that she got out of prison without being raped

Aren't you merely assuming that she did? Isn't that yet another thing it probably wouldn't have been safe for her to mention?

if those were your alternatives, you wouldn't be so quick on the draw about leaving.

And that has also applied to many women and children in Western countries, where the police and other authorities would traditionally return them to their abusers (certainly for most of the last century and the ones before that).

She didn't want to be tortured, raped and killed by many- flew-over-the-koo-koo's-nest...so she thanked them for the bed.

I think it's about time we come up with a name for a trolish behavior that's employed more and more frequently in discussions that criticize the prevailing attitude, ideology or culture within a group: Make any negative remark that identify the group as part of a nation (e.g. Sudan) or religious group (e.g. Muslims) or geographical area (e.g. the American South) and a couple of people will always show up and sidetrack the discussion by arguing that the criticism is nothing but an unfair and mean generalization. Then PZ and anyone who agreed and expanded on the criticism has to make sure that caveats are posted explaining that, No, not every person in Sudan is an Islamic fanatic, No, not every Muslim is a potential suicide bomber, No, not everybody who lives in the South is a Bush-voting redneck, etc. etc.

I suggest DicKto Simpliciter
___________________________

Maxi@ #35, #42:

You are right to point out that sexism, etc. are also perpetrated and perpetuated by women in the community. Certainly "MOST religions persecute women". I'm sure we can agree that sexism is where other forms of discrimination and oppression stem from. Maybe we can agree that religious indoctrination is at the root, persuading us to suppress ourselves and oppress each other?

There are a lot of comments here about problems with Islam. I'd like to say my son set me straight recently when I was complaining about Islam: he pointed out the actions of Muslims in Rwanda during the massacres of the Tutsis. Muslim Rwandans absolutely refused to participate in the massacres, and probably prevented many deaths. This is in contrast to many Christian Rwandans (including clergy), who seemed to have no problem slaughtering their neighbors.

I think she's a bit deranged, actually.

... because she's been through a hell of an ordeal. Give her time to recover, PZ.

2. The government of Sudan are a bunch of criminal thugs. Had the US invaded Sudan rather than Iraq in 2003 I would probably have applauded their action.

Ahh, on this point, at least, you and I are in what my engineer coworkers would call "violent agreement." ;^)

Though even there, I would prefer we work with true international consensus, rather than the virtually unilateral approach we took WRT Iraq. It's necessary but not sufficient to invade the right country for the right reasons; you must also do it the right way... which means (exepct in the case of direst national emergency) with at least the consent, if not the assistance, of your like-minded neighbors.

Question: what have individual Christian posters here done to prevent the atrocities carried out by the Ugandan Lord's Resistance Army in the name of Christ?

Question: Do individual atheist posters here feel any responsibility for the crimes committed by the avowedly atheist governments of China, Vietnam and North Korea?

Speaking as a recent Catholic and newly minted atheist, perhaps I can address both of these: Nothing and no.

People are morally accountable for the actions of democratic governments that are at least nominally representative of their collective will; they are not responsible for the actions of a church hierarchy that claims absolute authority over them (or any local expression thereof). They are emphatically not responsible for the actions of other people who happen to not believe in the same things they don't believe in. There is no "command structure" within atheism (AFAIK, that is; maybe as a new recruit, I just haven't been briefed yet!).

A couple of points. (1) There is a wide diversity within Islam. Differences are as great as those between, say, Holy Roller baptists and Unitarians. Don't put them all in one pot. (2) "Mohammed" is the most common first name in the world. It is easy to understand why Muslim kids might want to give that name to a favorite teddy bear. It is hard to understand why a Muslim adult would object to it. (3) The teacher's comments are perfectly understandable. Captives, especially those treated badly, often identify with their captors. Hard to explain, but happens often. Remember Patty Hearst?

"Aren't you merely assuming that she did? Isn't that yet another thing it probably wouldn't have been safe for her to mention?"

A friend of mine whose 1/4 Arab and has the surname "Nasser" visited the United states recently. He was stopped at Customs and questioned.

He CLAIMS he wasn't held illegally incommunicado; waterboarded; sodomised with various foreign instruments and subjected to electrical torture to his genitals but maybe it wouldn't have been safe to mention?

Bill Dauphin, you make some thoughtful, articulate points, from which I infer that you are not just a knee-jerk militarist idiot.

So, I have to ask just how you think that US military intervention in the Sudan - especially in light of the results of American invasion of two other Muslim nations - would improve the conditions of women (or other oppressed groups), or "chasten" the leadership, there?

Aris (#62): I assume my post (#25) was one of the "trolish" [sic] ones to which you refer. I think you're being a bit disingenuous here. This wasn't a matter of taking PZ to task for failing to include caveats about overgeneralization. I don't care about that. But it was the British schoolteacher who refused to condemn all Sudanese for the actions of a few, and PZ's post suggested that she was "deranged" for taking that attitude. PZ has now clarified that's not what he meant, so fine.

"I think it's about time we come up with a name for a trolish behavior that's employed more and more frequently in discussions that criticize the prevailing attitude, ideology or culture within a group"

Yes, it was obviously unfair of me to treat these posts as attacking Islam or Muslims in general:

"...this Mohammed guy was into little girls...."

"...that illiterate camel trader, Mohammed, piss be upon him,.."

what normal guy looks at a 9 year ol' girl and doesn't say, "I need to get me some of that!"

"I mean, that is not like creepy or anything like that, right?"

Bext thing you know "trolls" will be objecting to the description of Martin Luther King as an uppity nigger buck in the pay of Moscow and the New York Jews who couldn't keep it in his pants around white women.

Well, of course she's deranged. It's called "Stockholm Syndrome". It could be years before she comes to grips with the fact that she was imprisoned for nothing at all by a stone-age kleptocracy trying to appease a mob of savages.

-jcr

Had the US invaded Sudan rather than Iraq in 2003 I would probably have applauded their action.

Sure, because the oppressed always benefit when their oppressors are attacked by a foreign power. There is no instance in history where such an attack has triggered a firestorm of brutality and repression against the already-oppressed. Nobody ever uses such occurrences as an excuse to go on the rampage. Nobody ever accuses the oppressed groups in question of being traitors, of forming a "fifth column", or of "stabbing our boys in the back", and then uses all the other circumstances that inevitably go with being on the sharp end of an invasion (troops in the streets, martial law, the "fog of war", etc) as an opportunity for a pogrom.

Furthermore, people who feel under attack by an overwhelmingly superior enemy always become more politically and socially liberal, and they never look to the strongest, most authoritarian leader available to save them.

Well, I guess I'm all snarked out now...

Using a military invasion to improve human rights is somewhat like using a sledgehammer to fix a watch. Not only is it not going to work, it's almost certainly going to make the situation so much worse as to be effectively irreparable.

I promise I will never own another pet that isn't named after a Muslim prophet or imam. I need to write the Sudanese embassy and let them know.

Who else has good teddy bear names? I named mine Mohammed McFuckwad, and he's dressed up in BDSM.

So is it a symptom of the region/religion/etc that we see such freaking ridiculous stories (teddy bear, cartoon) leading to violence and death, or a symptom of the media reporting it?

"Question: Do individual atheist posters here feel any responsibility for the crimes committed by the avowedly atheist governments of China, Vietnam and North Korea?"

Then by that logic we should feel responsibility for every crime EVER committed by anyone ANYWHERE, because we share with the perpetrators a disbelief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Yo Ian, Non-sequitur much?

Bill Dauphin, you make some thoughtful, articulate points, from which I infer that you are not just a knee-jerk militarist idiot.

Thanks... I think? I hope I'm not a jerk or an idiot... but people's self-evaluations on those points are notoriously unreliable. I am certainly not a militarist: I'm about as far from it as you can be without being an outright pacifist. OTOH, I'm not a pacifist, either, as I admit there are (hopefully very rare) occasions when the use of military force is not only morally acceptable but obligatory.

So, I have to ask just how you think that US military intervention in the Sudan - especially in light of the results of American invasion of two other Muslim nations - would improve the conditions of women (or other oppressed groups), or "chasten" the leadership, there?

Sadly, I think U.S. military intervention in Sudan or anywhere else for any purpose other than clear-cut national defense has been rendered useless and counterproductive by our stupid and arguably criminal actions in Iraq. (Afghanistan is a whole 'nother -- and much more complex -- issue, IMHO.) There may or may not be a general case for military intervention in Sudan, but any U.S. participation would immediately de-legitimize the effort, for the very reason you point out. When you have power and use it badly, or for evil purposes, you forfeit any hope of using that power for good. I opposed these bastards in every way I could, but nevertheless, I must bear the guilt of their actions... and that includes the "opportunity cost" of the good things we might otherwise have done on the world stage.

Mind you, I don't advocate invading sovereign states to "improve the conditions of women (or other oppressed groups)" unless said conditions sink to the direst sort of violations of human rights. I say the world has the right to intervene -- with force if necessary -- to stop mass slaughter, deliberate starvation, systematic rape or enslavement, etc., but I'm not calling for the tanks to roll in support of women's right to drive cars or show their ankles in public.

Ian: nice try tying this into MLK. I think that the prevailing attitude towards religion is pretty obvious here, and if you can't handle people badmouthing it you should probably find somewhere else to hang out. I don't think MLK was any of the racist terms you're baiting people with, but I do think his religious conviction was delusional. Whatever else he did he had the flaw of talking to invisible men in the sky that don't exist, just like Mohammed and every other charlatan religious snake-oil salesman.
If you can't handle "attacks" on religion, get the hell out. Piss on Islam, piss on Mohammed, piss on Jesus, and piss on you.

Or she could just be staying quiet until she sells her story to the Daily Mail.

Using a military invasion to improve human rights is somewhat like using a sledgehammer to fix a watch. Not only is it not going to work, it's almost certainly going to make the situation so much worse as to be effectively irreparable.

For the most part, I'd agree; a notable exception is the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia that deposed the Khmer Rouge. Not that I'm a big fan of the Vietnamese army, but the rest of the world wasn't doing enough of anything about the situation, so Vietnam's power grab actually did somewhat serve the humanitarian goal it claimed to be operating under. It's notable as an exception, though; in general, you're right.

but maybe it wouldn't have been safe to mention?

Perhaps it wouldn't! Investigations have shown that far too many countries have been letting the US abduct and illegally detain citizens and will also comply with extremely one-sided extradition laws (ie the US typically refuses to reciprocate in handing over people that other countries want to prosecute). So your friend really wouldn't necessarily be safe once he'd escaped US custody on that occasion (though I think it's possibly slightly less likely the US authorities would take it out on any relatives and friends etc still in the US).

As it happens though, I suspect the Sudanese authorities were pretty scared of damaging the UK teacher and it's not particularly likely that they risked raping her.

(ie the US typically refuses to reciprocate in handing over people that other countries want to prosecute)

Interesting developments lately. Our Merkin Administration now claims the right to kidnap people we want, even if they are resident in our allies' countries. I can't wait to see the reciprocity on that BS.

The whole story of the teddy bear has most Westerners feeling enlightened and morally superior. I wonder though what would happen if kids in the American heartland named the class ferret or guinea pig "The Blessed Virgin Mary" or if some young 4Her came to the stock show with his prize Berkshire hog "Jesus Christ" or even "Billy Graham". (In Britain substitute Her Royal Highness, Elizabeth II and Diana, Princess of Wales in any of these examples)

Given that some see it as permissible to raise "crimes" like conducting legal abortions. or being gay to capital offenses, I would not be surprised to hear cries of "String 'em up!"

And now for something completely different:

As I read this, I'm listening to the podcast of this weekend's Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me, and one of the questions was based on a news story about a gun that shoots Teddy bears (for the purpose of distributing them to the guests at weddings in Japan, where there's reportedly a tradition of distributing stuffed animals). Not for nothin', but if this unfortunate teacher had been sentenced to execution, perhaps it would've been carried out by Teddy-bear firing squad?

(C'mon folks; sometimes you have to laugh to keep from crying!)

In Britain substitute Her Royal Highness, Elizabeth II and Diana, Princess of Wales in any of these examples

No, we'd mostly laugh. There are already TV (and radio?) programmes dedicated to doing exactly that sort of thing. :-D (It is claimed by various insiders that the royal family even watch, allegedly approvingly, some of that sort of stuff poking fun at them.)

However, I can imagine that if enough of the current crop of idiots took over, the UK really could get as bad as you imagine (and presumably parts of America already are, given that you believe your account to be plausible).

I love when people try and compare the fanatics of the US to those of most Middle Eastern Islamic Nations. For those who suggest this comparison, let's do a small test. You run down the street in an Islamic nation yelling, "Mohammed sucks donkey ass!"..."And I'll run down in the US yelling, "Jesus sucks donkey ass!"

We can see how long you live as compared to how long I do,,Mmm K?

Lago, since I only speak American English, I think my survival chances are actually better in the Middle East than yours are in East Bible Thump.

I prefer to look at this another way. What if a bunch of schoolchildren in the US named their teddy bear "Jesus"? Just because many Hispanic kids have that name doesn't mean that it's a good idea.

SG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPCHN0ZQl2Y

Blasphemy !!!

Bill -

Thanks for confirming my hunch that you weren't advocating moral edification by cluster bomb.

Though I must admit a small part of me was looking forward to an explanation as to how a US attack would contribute to greater chastity in the Sudanese regime...

I think she's a bit deranged, actually.

I think she's thinking "Just smile, say nothing, act contrite, leave your body, and when you get on land and are in your own apartment and the cameras are gone, then it alllllll be over.... what the fuck! They were going to fucking kill me! ... no, no, shushhhhhh, do go there... just smile, now little steps sideways anddddddd... out of the camera eye.... good job, that was good..."

What if a bunch of schoolchildren in the US named their teddy bear "Jesus"?

Non-Christians would think it was silly but harmless; Christians would think it was cute, and a sign of religious devotion; Hispanics would think it was just a name.

Nobody, not even the citizens of East Bible Thump, would call for public floggings of anyone, let alone executions. It's bad over here, but not that bad... not yet.

As to the issue that not all the muslims agreed that the teacher should be executed, I can only point out that there was no counter-demonstration demanding her release.

Or did I miss something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KucxA27AyuE

In this series we see God telling Jesus he is sorry and that he was too busy at the moment to have Jesus move in, when, in reality, God was just trying to get laid...

there was no counter-demonstration demanding her release.

There were some few Sudanese muslims interviewed who were saying it was probably a mistake etc etc (that journalistic balance thing for all the ones demanding ever harsher treatment and making even more ridiculous claims of it being part of some huge anti-Islamic conspiracy) but if there was any actual organised counter-demonstration in Sudan itself then I missed it too. Which doesn't mean there wasn't one of course. I don't claim perfect knowledge of all activity in Sudan (or anywhere else much).

Though I must admit a small part of me was looking forward to an explanation as to how a US attack would contribute to greater chastity in the Sudanese regime...

OK, so "chasten" wasn't the best word choice. Apparently sometimes I get a bit too "thoughtful" and "articulate" for my own good, eh? ;^)

I love when people try and compare the fanatics of the US to those of most Middle Eastern Islamic Nations. For those who suggest this comparison, let's do a small test. You run down the street in an Islamic nation yelling, "Mohammed sucks donkey ass!"..."And I'll run down in the US yelling, "Jesus sucks donkey ass!"

We can see how long you live as compared to how long I do,,Mmm K?

I recently saw an episode of Top Gear where they tried to drive from Miami to New Orleans in cars that cost less than a plane ticket. Through Alabama, their challenge was to paint something one each others cars that would get them either arrested or shot at. I think it was the car with "NASCAR sucks" on it that nearly got them beaten up when they had to stop for gas. It wasn't just that one gas station, they got pretty harassed by passing cars the whole way.

So, the US has its religious zealots also, just have to attack their real religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kllacpg_OfA&feature=related

top gear video. yes we have assholes here.

I think you are mixing up the Manchester United types (as we all know how they suck ass as well) with a religious theocracy endorsed by the masses.

per capita GDP of US:

$43,000

per capita GDP of Sudan:

$2,400

Literacy rate in Sudan is only around 60%.

Pardon my elitist white liberal guilt here. But you have to admit that it's pretty easy for me to be civilized and behave in an intelligent fashion when I grew up with frivolous amenities like, you know, food.

When I read stories like this I mostly feel grateful for having grown up with basic public education and 3 meals a day. Rather than hating the idiots who did this, I mostly feel sorry for them.

OK, we still seem to have people who think poverty is driving fundamentalist thinking. Have we not been down this road a billion times now?

Every time someone claims poverty as the root of fanaticism, the Baby Sam Harris weeps...

Poverty may not be the root of fanaticism, but it certainly makes an excellent manure.

Amazed that only one commenter brought up the notion of Stockholm syndrome to explain the teacher's weirdly gracious response to being locked up and threatened with death over a blasphemous plush toy. Give her a couple months to leave this whole crazy mess behind her, then see what she thinks about the Sudanese. I don't know how I'd act in her situation, but I imagine I wouldn't be thinking too clearly for a while afterwards.

(Maybe if she'd named the bear Muhammad Ali? Put a couple boxing gloves on it?)

But you have to admit that it's pretty easy for me to be civilized and behave in an intelligent fashion when I grew up with frivolous amenities like, you know, food.

Nice sentiment, unsupported by evidence. Plenty of people who get three squares a day are uncivilized* irrational raving loonies (no offense, canucks), and plenty who go hungry are rational and civilized.

*whatever that means

Every time someone claims poverty as the root of fanaticism

I don't imagine poverty is the root of fanatacism, but I don't think it's unreasonable to hypothesize that poverty contributes to ignorance and hopelessness, which in turn help make ordinary people more vulnerable to fanatics.

It's no excuse for fanatical behavior, of course, but to Chris's point, it seems likely that it's easier to be rational and civilized if one is at least somewhat educated and one's material needs are at least minimally met... and poverty tends to mitigate against those conditions.

How many people that flew planes into the Twin Towers that fateful day were hungry and undereducated again? When are people going to stop grasping at non-sequiturs to explain away crap? Seriously, Mr. Harris is cutting a vein as we speak. Please stop this before he bleeds to death!

Oh, tell Sam to get a tourniquet and sit down!

When are people going to stop grasping at non-sequiturs to explain away crap?

I'm not trying to "explain away crap," I'm trying to suggest that human behavior is more complex that a neat binary division of the world into fanatics and not-fanatics can account for. I'm not denying that there are people who are just born fanatics (though I'd be hard pressed to prove that assertion, either)... but the world is not significantly populated with them. The signature characteristic of successful fanatics is that they're able to create popular movements by recruiting and "turning" ordinary people who were not previously fanatics. How? What are the factors that lead people to follow fanatical leaders, fill their coffers with donations, and fill the streets with mobs?

Well, no doubt some part of it is sheer charisma on the part of the fanatical leaders... but why are some people and some populations more susceptible than others? I don't claim to have done a study on the question, but is it really that outlandish to imagine that ignorance (owing to poorly funded or nonexistent schools) is a factor here? Or that it's easier to convince people to throw the rest of their lives away if they don't perceive the rest of their lives as having any value anyway? Or that people living in economically deprived countries harbor perfectly natural feelings of envy toward richer nations that fanatics can exploit for their own purposes? Which of these notions stikes you (or bleeding Sam over there) as implausible on its face?

Frankly, I think people who brush off all questions about root causes with a "they're just crazy fanatics" position are the ones who are really trying to "explain away crap." It's Bush-quality thinking: The president tells us the terrorists "hate us for our freedom," but if anyone asks why they chose us to attack, instead of any of the other Western democracies with essentially the same freedoms and social liberties, he accuses them of "making excuses for terrorism" or being part of the "blame America first crowd."

NO! Nobody's making excuses for terrorism (or crime or religious oppression). Evil behavior is evil, regardless of its causes. But if you refuse to even look at causes and motivations, if you won't consider any explanations other than that they're just born lunatics, you leave yourself no remedy other than to kill 'em all!
And that, my friend, is precisely how we got our collective balls caught in the wringer that is Iraq.

You'll pardon me, I hope, if I look for a better way.

but if anyone asks why they chose us to attack, instead of any of the other Western democracies with essentially the same freedoms and social liberties

oh, yeah, because other Western democracies are never ever attacked by loony muslim fanatics. drrrr. Try reading a newspaper?

@107, Bill Dauphin:

Thank you for your excellent post! That's exactly my reaction but I couldn't have expressed it as well as you did.

oh, yeah, because other Western democracies are never ever attacked by loony muslim fanatics. drrrr. Try reading a newspaper?

Oh, c'mon; don't be stupid. You know I didn't mean to suggest nobody but the U.S. had ever been attacked. (As an aside, the two largest recent "loony muslim fanatic" attacks in Europe -- the 2004 Madrid train bombings and the 2005 London tube bombings -- put together only killed roughly 1/10 as many as 9/11, and the London attack was likely motivated at least in part because Britain followed our lead into Iraq.) But the "they hate us for our freedom" comment I was addressing was specifically about al Quaeda's self-proclaimed campaign against the U.S.

What freedom was Bush talking about? The open acceptance of sexuality and/or intoxication in American culture? Then why not attack Amsterdam instead of New York? Modernism? Then why not Tokyo? Political freedom? Then why not London (back in 2001, I mean) or pretty much any other major city in Western Europe? Our wealth? Why not Zurich?

It couldn't possibly be that they were pissed at us for something more specific to us than just "freedom," could it? Like maybe our foreign policy or our behavior in the Middle East? But if I even ask that question, I get accused of being an apologist for terrorism.

If somebody hits me in the face, I can decide he's crazy and hit him back... but unless I kill him, he's probably going to hit me again someday. If I try to figure out why he hit me, and mitigate that cause, maybe I'm better off... and neither asking that question nor acting on the answer in any way exonerates the other guy for hitting me in the first place: He's still a jerk and a bully. Even if he had some legitimate grievance against me, hitting me was illegitimate behavior. But either way, I'd rather act to remove the root cause of getting hit than engage in an endless fistfight.

Similarly, I'd rather see us figure out what the factors are that galvanize the odd religious fanatic into a global movement devoted to our destruction... that convert fanatical rhetoric into targeted action... I'd rather see us at least try to answer those questions than devote all our blood and treasure for the foreseeable future to the reflexive slaughter of every "fanatic" we can find. What part of that is really all that objectionable?

here are some beautiful teachings for women and men from islam

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=freedom4expression&p=r

The UK's still got blasphemy laws, which occasionally resurface and create a bit of a kerfuffle. They only apply to the Church of England - and thus may lead to our own teddy bear scandal - but nobody's been successfully prosecuted under them for many years (there's still a case outstanding over Jerry Springer - The Opera, but only because a small bunch of nutters is appealing the fact that their prosecution has been thrown out).

Most informed commentators on the Sudan business seem to think that it was elements within the Sudanese government trying to rabble-rouse in order to embarrass the UK government, but finding that they didn't get the support they expected. In other words, they were hoping for an Islamic reaction akin to the Danish cartoon incident - but it was too silly even for that. I think that's mildly heartening.

R

""Frankly, I think people who brush off all questions about root causes with a "they're just crazy fanatics" position are the ones who are really trying to "explain away crap." ""

Hahaha..

How can people keep making connections that simply are not there? How can people make claims that another said something when they have never said such things, ever?

Dishonest much?

oh, yeah, because other Western democracies are never ever attacked by loony muslim fanatics. drrrr. Try reading a newspaper?

You ignorant tool, both Spain and Britain had troops in Muslim countries, the exact reason that was given for attacking the U.S. Clearly saying "drrrr" and telling someone to read a newspaper is the best way to refute an argument.

How can people keep making connections that simply are not there? How can people make claims that another said something when they have never said such things, ever?

Dishonest much?

Dishonest? Like your uninformed ramblings? If you look at census data from the U.S., church attendance is highly tied to economic performance. Yes, people who are poor are more likely to go to church, and, generally speaking, as poverty increases so does violent crime and church attendance. Your "argument" is pathetically weak. Claiming that the fact that the people who perpetrated the attacks were rich means that poverty and low social condition has no affect on the likelihood of someone turning out fundamentalist is like showing me a bat to disprove that all birds fly.

If I want to take credit for the good that is done by the community of which I am part

But why would you want to do that?

but if there was any actual organised counter-demonstration in Sudan itself then I missed it too.

There is no reason to think that the concentration of good people with a martyr complex is greater in Sudan than elsewhere. So, I don't think there was a counter-demonstration.

oh, yeah, because other Western democracies are never ever attacked by loony muslim fanatics. drrrr. Try reading a newspaper?

Which ones have had terrorist assaults?

UK
Spain
...I think Italy, too...

What did these have in common with each other and with the USA at the time in question?

Or, in bin Laden's own words, why not Sweden?

I sympathize with Bill Dauphin and the others trying to conceive a constructive reaction to this minicrisis - but there's little point in any (American) effort in the absence of intelligent policies regarding Africa & the Islamic world, no reason to expect same in less than 14 months, and hardly any prospect of such after then.

Let's be glad that Gillian Gibbons is safely home, both for her sake and that she won't become an inappropriate wingnut martyr. Imagine the situation if she had been an American whose rescue depended on Rice diplomacy & the 82nd Airborne...

"Dishonest? Like your uninformed ramblings? If you look at census data from the U.S., church attendance is highly tied to economic performance. Yes, people who are poor are more likely to go to church, and, generally speaking, as poverty increases so does violent crime and church attendance. Your "argument" is pathetically weak. Claiming that the fact that the people who perpetrated the attacks were rich means that poverty and low social condition has no affect on the likelihood of someone turning out fundamentalist is like showing me a bat to disprove that all birds fly."

I said what awhoawhatwhere? Ramblings? How does any of the responses I gave come under the definition of Rambling?

Are you on medication I should be aware of?

There's a whole cottage industry trying to explain why Africa is such a socioeconomic-sociopolitical hellhole. This incident, however, really explains everything in a nutshell.

Africa is such a hellhole because it's full of superstitious, ignorant, violent, religious extremist, lunatics.

Africa isn't going to improve until its people manage to grow up.

No further explanations necessary.

I said what awhoawhatwhere? Ramblings? How does any of the responses I gave come under the definition of Rambling?

Well, there was the comment where you asked "How many people that flew planes into the Twin Towers that fateful day were hungry and undereducated again?" The point you were responding to was that poverty and poor living conditions have more of a role than the specific ideology. Which clearly means that you think the fact that there are non-poor, non-hungry fanatics plays into the question somehow. Unless you just like to say stuff at random that has nothing to do with the question at hand.

The thing that bothers me most about this blasphemy case is that although religion is a big part of the unfolding problem (obviously), the beginnings of this case spring out of spite. A sacked school worker deliberately involved the religious authorites - out of spite.

This appears to be a human failing which shows up (or perhaps is only effective) in any big ticket belief system. People being falsely accused of being witches, people accused of being aristos in the French Revolution, people being accused of being communists in McCarthy's America, people being accused of homosexuality (when homosexuality was criminal), people being accused of collaboration during WW2 and so on, and on, and on.

Just another reason to argue against fundamentalism of any kind - it gives mean spirited people too much opportunity to indulge their baser instincts.

Mrs Gibbons said she was treated the same as other Sudanese prisoners and that the Ministry of Interior sent her a bed, which was "the best present".

Hm. I suspect that this is more encoded subtext.

"Do NOT get arrested in Sudan. The minimum standard of treatment of prisoners does not include a place to sleep other than the floor. I got a bed as specific and special treatment for a UK national from a somewhat embarrassed government. Damn straight I was grateful, given the certain alternative."

And another thing...

There was a crowd of people demanding the teacher's head. And yeah, they were a minority. But they were instigated by their imams, who decided that this accusation and conviction was a good pretext. And there was a judge somewhere in there; some scumbag of a cadi who decided that this bear-naming business could be called "insulting Islam", and did so within a day of the case being brought to trial.

And I recall that the Mohammed cartoons were deliberately shown to Muslims in various places, and some images that had nothing to do with the Mohammed cartoons were added to the mix, because they made the whole thing look more offensive.

The people who were rioting weren't blameless. But they are being whipped up and harangued into rioting by manipulative and cynical leaders who love playing "Let's you and them fight", where "you" means their own people, and "them" means the oh-so-convenient scapegoats of the powerful and wealthy Western nations.

Africa is such a hellhole because it's full of superstitious, ignorant, violent, religious extremist, lunatics.

Yah. Is it really so crazy to suggest that at least two of the adjectives above -- I'm thinking specifically of "superstitious" and "ignorant" -- might be related to economic deprivation, and therefore that...

Africa isn't going to improve until its people manage to grow up.

...working to reduce poverty and increase education might help them "grow up" a bit sooner?

"""Well, there was the comment where you asked "How many people that flew planes into the Twin Towers that fateful day were hungry and undereducated again?" The point you were responding to was that poverty and poor living conditions have more of a role than the specific ideology. Which clearly means that you think the fact that there are non-poor, non-hungry fanatics plays into the question somehow. Unless you just like to say stuff at random that has nothing to do with the question at hand."""

However, my wife does not understand this necessary limitation of the conversion of a proposition. Consequently, she does not understand me. For how can a woman expect to appreciate a professor of logic if the simplest cloth-eared syllogism causes her to flounder.

For example: given the premise, "All fish live underwater" and "All mackerel are fish", my wife will conclude, not that "All mackerel live underwater", but that "If she buys kippers it will not rain" or that "Trout live in trees" or even that "I do not love her any more.

This she calls "using her intuition". I call it "crap" and it gets me very IRRITATED because it is not logical!

"There will be no supper tonight," she will sometimes cry upon my return home.

"Why not?" I will ask.

"Because I have been screwing the milkman all day," she will say, quite oblivious of the howling error she has made.

So you do enjoy rambling, and a nice side helping of sexism. Thanks for clearing that up.

""So you do enjoy rambling, and a nice side helping of sexism. Thanks for clearing that up.""

Like shootin' fish in a barrel.

Dumb fish that is...

Like shootin' fish in a barrel.

Dumb fish that is...

Oh, sorry, I guess I missed the deeply biting wit of your story. Or perhaps it wasn't really witty.

Monty Python?

And that makes a difference how?

As far as I can recall, about the only good thing to happen to the Sudan, and its excuse for a government was on and after 2nd September 1898, at Omdurman.

See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Omdurman

A good account can be found in "The River War", by one W. S. Churchill .....
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=4943

[My last word on this thread...]

Lago:

How can people keep making connections that simply are not there? How can people make claims that another said something when they have never said such things, ever?

Dishonest much?

Dishonesty has nothing to do with it (but thanks for asking); rather, it's about the fact that this is a public (or at least semi-public) conversation, and not just a private chat between the two of us. You expressed indignation (couched amusingly as faux concern for Sam Harris' wellbeing) at the notion that there might be any connection between regional poverty in Africa and fanaticism ("Every time someone claims poverty as the root of fanaticism, the Baby Sam Harris weeps..."). Since you didn't really explain why you found the connection ludricrous, either in that post or your subsequent ones, I couldn't really address your position specifically... but I thought it was appropriate to broaden this public conversation to include some notions commonly held (at least in U.S. politics) by others who similarly deny any connection between poverty and bad behavior. My deliberate mention of Bush's comments should've been your first clue the I wasn't just talking to you anymore.

Look, there is this underlying philosophical position prevalent in conservative politics here that bad behavior -- whether it be terrorism or crime or drug abuse or illiteracy or (horrors!) having unapproved sex -- is entirely attributable to the personal shortcomings of the individuals behaving badly. The consequence of this belief is that many think the only proper corrective action is to enforce "personal accountability"... which is code for punishing "them" for their failings (keeping in mind that "they" are almost never rich white men!).

Now, no doubt some people really are just bad, and no doubt some bad social behavior is attributable to that personal badness... but it's too easy to simply assume that all social problems are attributable solely to individual evil. Note that I'm not saying you, personally, make that assumption... but many in U.S. politics do, and those who do end up saying things very similar to what you have said in this thread, and that's how I got to this point.

Terrorism and crime and other nettlesome problems are behaviors, not states of being, and they have causes (note the plural). Some, including our knucklehead president, can't seem to recognize any other cause than "those people are bad!" Personally, I hope we can find a better model than a world full of Black Hats and White Hats in which the only solutions are for the White Hats to shoot the Black Hats... but I think finding such a better model requires us to understand there are multiple potential reasons the Black Hats chose their hat color.

Honest enough for you?

Bill...

Though I am not so sure anyone is born bad (Though my feelings on this have been tested many times) I do agree with your position, and I am glad to see you were not inferring my belief in simple answers to complex questions, despite my designed simple responses...

As far as I can recall, about the only good thing to happen to the Sudan, and its excuse for a government was on and after 2nd September 1898, at Omdurman.

Yeah, colonialism was totally awesome.

Cectic.com explains what was so bad about the teddy bear's name.

If I want to take credit for the good that is done by the community of which I am part

But why would you want to do that?

but if there was any actual organised counter-demonstration in Sudan itself then I missed it too.

There is no reason to think that the concentration of good people with a martyr complex is greater in Sudan than elsewhere. So, I don't think there was a counter-demonstration.

oh, yeah, because other Western democracies are never ever attacked by loony muslim fanatics. drrrr. Try reading a newspaper?

Which ones have had terrorist assaults?

UK
Spain
...I think Italy, too...

What did these have in common with each other and with the USA at the time in question?

Or, in bin Laden's own words, why not Sweden?