The things they do in the name of religion

[Acecombat 0]

The Things They Do in the Name of Religion

Suraya Al-Shehry, suraya@asharqalawsat.com

I still cannot believe what happened to my e-mail account on Tuesday, March 16. An individual took it upon himself to spy on and violate the privacy of another. It is terrible to see someone rise up to defend his religion by whatever means, obsessively bent on righting what his warped judgment tells him is wrong.

Convinced that he is on the right path, he kills innocent people, he steals and defames. And all the time he is anticipating heaven, even though Heaven is innocent of such acts.

How can a person’s mind reach a point where he lets the most basic principle of religion, which forbids aggression in all its forms, simply fall by the wayside, and then continue to insist that God is on his side?

The story began early on that Tuesday morning, when I went to check my e-mail only to find that my password was rejected. I was surprised by an SMS on my mobile that read: “Don’t bother trying! We’ve taken your mail.†I remained calm in order to work out what to do.

First I had to reconcile myself to the fact that eight years’ worth of my e-mail was gone — but I would try to get it back. On that basis I quickly wrote to Microsoft informing them of my desire to recover my e-mail through them. Things are not that easy. Whoever reads the request will suspect that my aim was to steal that e-mail, rather than recovering it from thieves. But I am hopeful that after this article is published Microsoft will believe me; the loss of my address book has meant I have lost touch with certain people. Who will compensate me for this loss?

Then someone called to say that he was bringing together the Greater Middle East Initiative and my articles (I have no idea what one has to do with the other), and that since both are bad they must be fought — meaning these people had declared war against me.

Considering himself part of the “Ahl Al-Hizba,†he had decided to confront the enemies of religion. He therefore hacked my e-mail, looked through my letters and was threatening to post them on the Internet to be read by all unless I agreed to his terms.

The demands were the usual nonsense: Immediately remove the photograph that accompanies the article, cease writing altogether — for how can I write about matters of religion when it is not a subject I have studied? As though in-depth study of religion could only happen in Saudi universities.

Since I know that the messages in his possession contain nothing more than the confidential matters of any normal person, I explained to him that these were empty threats. But what saddened me was that a man like that was spouting verses from the Holy Qur’an but had forgotten the words: “...And spy not on each other nor speak ill of each other behind your back...†(Surah 59, Verse 12)

Nor was he a particularly knowledgeable individual, this scholar of religion, confusing Abu Bakra, of whom I wrote in an article, and the Caliph Abu Bakr, of whom I didn’t.

In the face of such a mind, I stood confounded. Could he not instead have occupied his time and effort with something more worthwhile?

Preventing disagreements from turning into conflict is a skill. It is a sure sign of intellectual bankruptcy when the debate becomes personal. Does everyone reading an article they don’t agree with need to resort to ideological terrorism? That they peg their contemptible behavior to religion makes it worse — how much of human foolishness must religion bear? We now have to pay the price for living in a world where immoderate thought is the norm. Anyone who is “religious†is in fact an extremist, and if you are not, you are a deviant. Is it my fault that someone didn’t understand my article?

Eloquence in my view is not about addressing everybody at a level they can comprehend, because that too often would sacrifice complexity. If an ignorant person is unable to understand what is meant by an article, should he take it out on the writer? And if he does understand it, well, let him argue it out with the sharp weapon that is his mind. But resorting to subterfuge and sabotage does not strike me as the characteristic of a superior mind.

I want to raise awareness of the polluted minds that exist out there, in the full knowledge that what happened to me is a mere shadow of the things others have to put up with on a regular basis. What would save the situation for me is if the backlash turns out to be stronger than the act itself and this time the criminal doesn’t get away with his crime.

So apart from this article I have also sent a complaint to the Ministry of Interior. My new e-mail address will be published with each article I write, and I will never be happier than on the day I receive your letters.

* * *

(Suraya Al-Shehry is a Saudi writer. She is based in Riyadh.)

[jankyballs 0]

WHAT

[Placebo 29]

Hmmkay, interesting read, perhaps you can fill in the background to flesh this out into a thread capable of sustaining discussion?

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ](Suraya Al-Shehry is a Saudi writer. She is based in Riyadh.)

Well i can understand that a woman publishing a pro-atheism article in Saudi-Arabia could be a contoversial thing in that society.So cleary some high school student or scholar hacked here e-mail and cellphone to force her to cease the publishment of such article's.

Her protest Imo is afcourse granted but then i'm a very liberal European wich stands far of Saudi Arabia's Religious socioligy.

[IceFire 0]

This is why I do not trust technology. Anything can happen to it. It is not "real" like paper is.

Noone is going to hack into MY addressbook.  Because I keep my friends and contact info on paper.

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]Saudi Arabia's Religious socioligy.

I believe sociology and it's studies doesn't work that well in Saudi Arabia. Do you mean theocracy?

[IceFire 0]

I think he means "Saudi Arabia's society".

[toadlife 3]

Speaking of "The things they do in the name of Religion"

I'm not a big fan of the insanity defense.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/03/children.slain/index.html

Quote[/b] ]

Mom who said she killed on God's orders acquitted

Jury rules she was insane when she bludgeoned her 3 children

(CNN) -- A jury acquitted a Texas mother of killing two of her sons and seriously injuring the third after determining she was insane at the time.

As the verdicts were read, Deanna Laney's face quivered, but the 39-year-old shed no tears.

Laney would have received an automatic life sentence had she been convicted of capital murder.

Instead, she will immediately be taken for evaluation to a maximum security state psychiatric hospital, where she could stay as long as 40 years.

Laney admitted bashing her three children in the heads with rocks. She said God told her to do so.

Laney was charged with two counts of murder in the deaths of 8-year-old Joshua and 6-year-old Luke, and a single count of injury to a child for 15-month old Aaron, who survived the attacks on Mother's Day 2003.

Prosecutor Matt Bingham has said Aaron's vision is impaired and he will never be able to live on his own.

Bingham chose not to seek the death penalty in the case.

"I don't think anybody in this room or anybody in that courtroom wasn't touched by the evidence in this case," the Smith County district attorney told reporters after the verdicts.

"For the rest of my life I'll remember Aaron, I'll remember Joshua, I'll remember Luke. I'll never forget what happened to them that day," he said.

Laney's court-appointed attorney, Buck Files, said he felt a sense of relief.

"We have believed as strongly as we could believe that our client was insane at the time of the events," Files said.

Files said in court that Laney believed God had told her the world was going to end and "she had to get her house in order," which included killing her children.

"The dilemma she faced is a terrible one for a mother," Files told the jury. "Does she follow what she believes to be God's will, or does she turn her back on God?"

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]"Does she follow what she believes to be God's will, or does she turn her back on God?"

Why is it that this excuse works here, but doesn't when someone shoots up an abortion clinic because they think that they're doing God's work?

Fundamentalist Christian "Science":

Quote[/b] ]Consider the present day Chinese Iguana that grows as large as 12 feet long. Suppose before the flood, in a near perfect environment, he lives 13 times longer and because he never stops growing gets 13 times bigger. That Chinese Iguana would be 156 feet long and about three stories tall. Dinosaur...terrible lizard...the dinosaur is simply a giant lizard which was created by God in the same six-day span as man.

Yes, these people believe that an iguana can magically become a seismosaurus.

Edit - According to this site, using flush toilets is a sin.

[Apollo 0]

You REALLY can't generalize christianity though.There are multiple form's of christianity like orthodoxy ,catholicism ,protestantism ,reformist ,... ,and the difference's between those branches can be pretty significant in theologic terms ,in addition there are different levels of religious devotion ,some people really go to church every week and pary every day and confess every so time etc. ,while others are more or less christians in name however decide for themselfs how far to follow this religion.T

The difference between the U.S and Europe for ex. on religion is hughe ,a recent international study showed that America has about the most religious people percentage wise in the world ,while Europe has most Atheists of the world.Have you ever seen someone say "God bless europe" or "God bless Canada"?

In europe Religion is politicly almost a non issue (though Spain and Italy is a case appart) ,in America Religion and the morrality of it are very important.In America a president can be impeached for private "immorality" ,something that i don't expect to ever see on this side of the ocean.

Personaly i'm atheist but i respect most religions ,though i protest on the fanatism of certain religions or branches of it.Take the witness of Jehova ,that's one religios sekt (i call it a sekt ,though not all sects are bad) that i just can't agree with.They scare people into their religion with their final judgement dogma and they force family members of people that won't to leave to break contact with those family and even antagonize them.

I really hate the hell/heaven dogma ,it's a very dangerous concept within every religion that uses it ,it leads very easy to religious fanatism.In this sense i have much more respect for Budhism and Hindoism where such dogma's do not exist and wich have rpoven to be much more humane religions that Islam or caholicism is IMO.

[toadlife 3]

In America a president can be impeached for private "immorality" ,something that i don't expect to ever see on this side of the ocean.

Not true. A president can only be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors", which mean he has to commit a serious crime while in office. You're thinking about Clinton - he was impeached for allegedly commiting purjury. Technically, it had nothing to do with his bedroom antics.

Quote[/b] ]Take the witness of Jehova ,that's one religios sekt (i call it a sekt ,though not all sects are bad) that i just can't agree with.They scare people into their religion with their final judgement dogma and they force family members of people that won't to leave to break contact with those family and even antagonize them.

Jehova's witness' can be a little weird, but not all of them are so extreme. One of my best friends when I was little was a Jehova. His family was very nice - a little weird, but nice.

[llauma 0]

I despise all kind off fanatism whether it's supporting a football club, workshiping a god or being a patriot. Those things makes people cross the line because all that matters is what they believe in.

Sure you can support a club, believe in god and being patriotic but the day you let your believes go before common sense you need a change.

USA has both religious and patriotic fanatism. Both of them often goes a step too far. Some schools wants to forbid the students from learning about the evolution which you can't deny is reality. That doesn't mean that God doesn't excist, but religious conservatism/fanatism won't let them see that.

Bands like Marilyn Manson are considered to be anti-christ in many states and he is accused for being responsible for some school shootings etc. This is just ridiculous.

The weapon laws needs to be adjusted but patriotism makes it impossible to change the constitution which would make it possible. Patriotism makes that as impossible as making the pope switch religion. Sure there are great deal of money involved in this but in the bottom it's patriotism that's the reason.

In europe there are fanatics who supports a club that much that killing a supporter of a rival club isn't unthinkable.

In middle east there are fanatics that would blow themselves up, killing civilians to reach what they believe in.

Israel has fanatics who are so determined to take the land that they considers to be theirs that nothing can stop them.

[Colossus 2]

I only use my computer to play and send messages on BI Forums. Nothing interesting on my computer  

Anyway, why do we need religion?

For me it's only couseing trouble on world basis.

On the other hand religion makes people happy in some way.

Jews and Muslims in the Middle East, Catolichs and Protistants

in Irland and so on.

Now I know that this is dangerous subject, but thats what I

think about religion. It's dangerous in some ways.

I still respect others belifes.

(Sorry my english)

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Hhmmm. I cant say that the Protestants and Catholics of Northern Ireland or the Jews and Muslims of the middle east strike me at this precise moment as great examples of places where religion has made people happy.

I think (perhaps perversely) it is vital to see most religions as distinct from the greater societies let alone the fringe crazies that profess to believe in them. Where is a country that rigidly follows the doctrines of its faith? Where is a faith that ridigly and monolithically agrees on what its doctrines are?

Religions are often similar to communism in that they are and have rarely been followed totally strictly, absolutely or to their apparent conclusions. Perhaps the only hardline followers are some monks (of all faiths), recluses, hermits, ascetic type people living in small groups with fewer temptations and certain kinds of religious zealot (not particularly the violent ones). Of course as Barons and such people are quick to point out, religions often tend towards self-contradiction (cause of much religious conflict in the past) and may be accused of  inconsistency by the non believer (well they would, wouldnt they).

As a part time atheist, (almost) the only lessons i am willing to pay attention to from any religion are those of toleration, unwillingness to do harm to our fellow humans and willingness to do good selflessly. Truly it is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong* and i dont care who your god is (if applicable).

toadlife-

Quote[/b] ]Not true. A president can only be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors", which mean he has to commit a serious crime while in office. You're thinking about Clinton - he was impeached for allegedly commiting purjury. Technically, it had nothing to do with his bedroom antics.

That is true but technicality has little to do with it. In (continental) europe a president would be much less likely to have been so pestered over a personal matter and thus the situation in which Clintons purjury occured would have been much less likely to have developed. A good example of this more relaxed attitude is France where incidentally you cannot technically even be interrogated under oath as a suspect (as i recall) and so such perjury charges would be impossible there anyway.

We British on the other hand love nothing more than a filthy, dirty, read all about it, sex scandal involving those in power. Apparently.

Well anyway, i wonder if it would be totally wrong to turn this into a thread about the 'Islamic world' and the role it must inevitably play in the present World Crisis or 'War on Terror' (definatly not a clash of civilisations, just a crusade against the evil muslim forces of darkness. I mean an attack on the rebel base of Bin Laden. As they say in Texas, all your base are belong to us, right Tony? the force is strong with this one. alleluiah**)

*Socrates some 400 years before the first christian.

** note to self. Dont post between 1:30 am- 7:00am GMT

[EiZei 0]

Jehova's witness' can be a little weird, but not all of them are so extreme. One of my best friends when I was little was a Jehova. His family was very nice - a little weird, but nice.

And one of my friends relatives was abandoned by her family at the age of 16-18 (can't remember precisely) because she did not accept their religion. Those cases are not uncommon amongst jehovas witnesses at least here.

Personally I think jehovas have a pretty good PR department.

[Kuja- 0]

Some Christians are just plain batshit insane:

Some?

As far as I'm concerned, any religious person must be batshit insane to default to religion, in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary or otherwise.

[EiZei 0]

Some Christians are just plain batshit insane:

Some?

As far as I'm concerned, any religious person must be batshit insane to default to religion, in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary or otherwise.

Now now, you don't want uncle placebo to bring in his riot gear now do you?

[Placebo 29]

Flaming/Flame Baiting contravenes forum rules as you're all aware, calling Christians insane is potentially flame baiting whether you say some or all, that kind of talk is not acceptable and not tolerated, if you are incapable of having a mature discussion about such topics then either find a forum more suited to your level of discussion or find topics less inflammatory.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]calling Christians insane is potentially flame baiting whether you say some or all

I say some, as in the people who run GodSaidManSaid.com. "Why is the black man black?"

Quote[/b] ]find a forum more suited to your level of discussion

Maybe ChristianForums.com? Just be careful, they can ban you for blasphemy .

[ozanzac 0]

Personally I think jehovas have a pretty good PR department.

As bad as doorknocking is. There is nothing I dislike more than being interupted by religious doorknockers, trying to convince me that there is something missing in my life.

The last time they tried, the woman presented me with a magazine, indicating that there was a golden retriever on the cover, (in a freaky, brainwashed way) and then proceeding to ask me if I was quote: 'A lover of animals?'......... I could not help but crack up laughing, as I was in the middle of watching 'Super Troopers' for the first time, and the bear humping scene had just started. The conversation ended abruptly, with me in hysterics, and had to walk away from the front door because I was laughing so hard, it hurt. They haven't come back since.  

Still cracks me up to this day.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Jehovas.

Scarry, when I was studying in Salamanca they knew my name after 3 days seeing me passing by their stand. Always dressed in black trench-coats!

[Veovis 0]

Wow. I have never seen a more ridiculous and hypocritical webite than godsaidmansaid. Nore have I laughed that hard in quite a long time, thanks for the link. I especially liked how he condemned anything not said in the bible and all who don't believe in the bible as 'works of the devil,' and then fell back on 'records of ancient civilizations' telling of a floating ocean (not in the bible) to prove that the earth is 6,000 years old. Then, whenever trying to disprove science, he went on his 'if it isn't in the bible it isn't true' tirade. Not trying to flame anybody, I'm a christian myself, but there just aren't words to describe that site. It's just ridiculous.

[Kuja- 0]

Flaming/Flame Baiting contravenes forum rules as you're all aware, calling Christians insane is potentially flame baiting whether you say some or all, that kind of talk is not acceptable and not tolerated, if you are incapable of having a mature discussion about such topics then either find a forum more suited to your level of discussion or find topics less inflammatory.

Does that mean that nothing contrary to the teachings Christianity can be said in this thread?  The elements of religion that give rise to fanatacism are wholly incompatible with science, and therefore there can only be one right answer.  Assuming that science is correct, the implication is that the religious are living under a fantasical delusion.

It isn't a flame, nor is it intended to be a flamebait.  It is just a statement of fact.

de·lu·sion    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (d-lzhn)

3)Psychiatry. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

In the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a delusion is defined as:

A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g. it is not an article of religious faith).

Again, religion clearly meets the definition, but for the qualifier that it should not be applied to religious faith.  Why religion differs from any other "incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what ... constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary" is beyond me. In fact, that they needed to make special exception for religious faith could be considered an acknowledgement that religious faith is a false belief regarding external reality, without evidence.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Have to agree with Kuja here.

Also, I'd like to point out that there is nothing special about religion that means it should be immune from criticism.

We can criticise other political parties, socialists can criticise capitalists and vice versa, but religion is somehow 'special' and any disparagement of it is called 'bashing.' its a useful feature for religion, however there is no reason for it beyond protecting an idea that cannot stand up on its own. Its part of the religion 'meme' - censor any opposing viewpoints and claim special immunity.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Yes, strongly agree Especially if it is the religion and its interpretation turns out to be racist. Now I am religious myself too, but with all things in life, criticism is a must. This is the difference between belief and church. Never dare to question a church or you are considered to be a sinner. But if you question your own belief you might actually get a bit closer to the truth, and the truth doesnt mean you are an antheist. I am not, but hell I criticise the church and most of the bible!

And this is why my screen-name is Albert Schweitzer. He was a religious man but still was the first to proof that the bible and jesus himself was simply wrong in many cases. His thesis has long been accepted by the church (took a while though), but it never changed anything about his belief in god. If you dont dare to criticse religion, if you just eat what you are given then you soon end up at Scientology. Better learn to defend your religion with arguments than with dont-speak rules! And trust me there are lots of arguments pro religion. The best is Louis Armstongs" what a wonderful world"