Thursday, November 29, 2007

Why, yes, what a relevant observation.


Heh. Indeed:

A lot of the same people who back Harper’s Government not stepping up to the plate regarding death row prisoner (Canadian) Ronald Allen Smith are up in arms about a (British) teacher in the Sudan being punished for breaking [Sudanese] law - come on folks, ya can’t have it both ways.

Um ... yes, they can. They live to have it both ways. Or hadn't you noticed?

6 comments:

Crabgräss said...

I expect that someone like Kathy Shaidle who understands religious fervor would be more sympathetic to Sudan's position here.

Ti-Guy said...

Wouldn't it be mind-boggingly coherent to have a government that not only pleads for clemency for a Canadian citizen facing the death penalty but also condemns this barbaric application of Sharia?

Crabgräss said...

Yes, quite. Maybe too (eye become slits) coherent.

E in MD said...

I'm a little confused on this issue. I've been reading some of these articles and I seem to be missing one critical piece of information.

Is it actually a law on the books in this country that you are not allowed to name something Muhammad and that the penalty if you do is death?

If it's an actual LAW then fuck her. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. You don't roll over to Toronto, hold up a liquor store and say "Oops, my bad. I didn't realize it was illegal to hold up liquor stores in this country." and think you're not going to prison for it. I would think that the death penalty would be exceedingly excessive a penalty, but it ain't my damned country.

* Incidentally I'm one of those weirdos slightly left of center who actually supports the death penalty in some cases.

Anyway, if it's not a law and just a bunch of assholes getting entirely too pissed off about something that amounts to someone eating salad with a shrimp fork then I'd say the UK needs to get an ambassador over there pronto and start taking about getting her out of the country before she ends up getting lynched by a mob or something.

Lastly, whether it's a law or not...

If naming stuff after Muhammad is so bad. Why are so many kids named Muhammad? If having images of Muhammad is so bad, why is there a damned tile inlaid in a wall in a temple with his image on it? Why isn't anybody freaking out that?

Source: Muhammad - Wikipedia

Secondly, she didn't name the damned teddy bear. One of the kids did. So why not put the KID to death? Why is she suffering for the acts of someone else?

A lot of this doesn't really make sense to me at all. But that's not surprising. Hell I don't understand Christians most of the time either and I've spent my whole life around them. The mind of the religious segment of humanity is a mystery to me. So much bloodshed and suffering brought about over things that are supposed to bring peace and brotherhood it just does not compute.

E in MD said...

I can't really speak about Islam because I know very little about it. To my knowledge I have only met one Muslim ( a chick in my psych class and she seemed pretty cool )in my life time so to discuss it in a context I understand, I'd have to shift it to Christianity.

I mean like, if I was a devote Christian, and somebody made a picture of Jesus out of feces I'd be like "Ok whatever.". I wouldn't be banning it. Or throwing rocks at people. Or burning shit down. Or condemning all feces everywhere. Or attacking people. Or rioting.

Reasoning: Showing an image of Jesus made out of feces does absolutely nothing to the real Jesus. If Jesus is offended he can take care of himself. What it's all about is YOU as a person being offended. Does it matter if you're offended? Jesus told you that as a Christian you'd be ridiculed and persecuted right? Shouldn't you just LOVE the fecal picture of Jesus because it just reinforces that fact? He also told his follows to love their enemies, to turn the other cheek to not be angry, to pray in a closet and to not fight and so forth. So why bother being offended at all? It's a waste of energy and time that could be better spent actually doing the things Jesus told you to do. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit people in jail, tend to the sick, give all your money to the poor and so forth.

Now if somebody decides to draw a cartoon of Muhammad, what difference does it make? Islamic law doesn't apply to non Muslims. Yes it's disrespectful I suppose, but if Allah has a problem with it I'm pretty sure he (Allah is seen as a He right?) can lightning bolt the fucker himself.

Personally I'm of the mind that in order for a deity to be perfect he'd necessarily have to include a sense of humor. So drawing a cartoon, or naming a teddy bear Muhammad shouldn't be a problem for him. Deities are supposed to be above that petty shit aren't they? (Unless they're greek/roman gods)

Roundhead said...

Canadian cynic,

just who exactly are a "lot of the same people" who support frying Ronald Smith who are against the teddy bear lashing?

I mean you must be able to provide one link if there are a "lot"?

or is it really that you're just blowing smoke out of your ass?