Cyprus-Forum.com

[cypezokyli]

i think the matter has gone out off date...
we managed to solve it in a very clever way.

sunnis and shias are killing each other at worrying rates - no time for them to think about carttoons.

[unique_earthling]

I think Lauren O'hara of the Cyprus mail sums up my views on the subject perfectly.


Should one defend intolerant religions?
By Lauren O’Hara

SALMAN Rushdie is among a dozen writers to have put their names to a statement in a French weekly paper warning against Islamic "totalitarianism". As a recipient of the "fatwa" against him for his book The Satanic Verses, and having had to be guarded against the ensuing death threat, he is well placed to comment.

I read The Satanic Verses and the supposedly offending lines, which are part of a dream sequence in the novel. I imagine very few of those people who demonstrated so violently against him had read the book. In fact, I doubt whether many people who take to the streets in many mass demonstrations about authors and writers have read the texts.

The truth is that much of the anger about the cartoons is nothing to do with the images. It is to do with a rising tide of conflicting ideologies, driven by religion but at heart much more fundamental, to do with how societies are structured and controlled; to do with power and politics. There are many societies in the world that I would not like to live in as a woman. I would not like to live anywhere that had fundamental religious domination, that gave men power over women, that kept me veiled or unable to vote or drive a car or own property. I would not like to bring my children up in a society that could not discuss science rationally, where Darwin was taken off the shelves, where abortion and contraception were illegal.

It seems that we have fought hard for freedoms, not just freedom of expression but the freedom to live in a society where reason and rational debate can reign. Where people can express views without fear of intimidation or violence. The writer Arthur C Clarke once said, "Isn't killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of insanity?" I agree.

Many famous intellectuals have been atheists. Benjamin Frankin wrote, "Lighthouses are more useful than churches." But atheism and agnoticism seem to create more anger than belief in some crazy doctrine. A friend of mine told me they thought that it caused less antagonism if they said they believed in Martians than if they were an atheist. Perhaps because rational argument is seen to undermine faith. Perhaps because it is a powerful tool against dogma, it causes fear. The Indian statesman Nehru argued against religion by saying, "No country or people who are slaves to dogma and dogmatic mentality can progress."

Too often, religion is used to justify behaviour that is intolerant and oppressive. How many societies in the world are using religious dogma to defend inequalities between men and women, between believers and non-believers, to advocate violence against their neighbour? Betrand Russell, that famous atheist philosopher, wrote, "Religion is based… mainly on fear… fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand."

Rushdie is arguing for secularism. To give humans the freedom to choose a religion or to reject it. In many societies in the world, that freedom does not exist, to deny God is to end up in jail. When Voltaire wrote, "Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense," he was taking a great risk; to admit to atheism at the time carried the death sentence. Galileo was imprisoned for daring to suggest that the earth orbited the sun and that contrary to religious doctrine we were not at the centre of the universe. Do we really want to return to the world of the Spanish Inquisition where religion is coupled to treason?

The main freedom we should fight for is the freedom to be able to choose; we should not defend religions that are imposed through state sanctions. We should not defend religions that do not allow dissent. We should not defend religions that reign by fear. We should not defend intolerant religions.

[cypezokyli]

welcome unique_earthling

[maewing]

Welcome unique_earthling,

I think O'Hara is a bit overly simplistic and once again skirts the real issue. By condemning the problem as emanating from a blanket source of "religions", she misses the point. Furthermore, she is unconvincing if she wants us to believe that she is saying something intelligent and knowledgeable about Islam or any of the religions she so bundles.

If someone has not plunged his or herself (I am not referring to you per se, but anyone) into a belief beyond say, feeding themselves, covering themselves, relieving themselves (which is what most humanist (i.e., "free") culture is about) they view religion as a direct threat because it seeks to speak to something higher. That higher thing is the spirit. I have often told humanist and science-loving friends alike that what they do and say makes little sense if one has a family. None of what they believe in as a way of viewing life explains why we love, hate, get angry or depressed, let alone long for direction in our lives. What sort of life view does not address these things?

In any case, if O'Hara wants to address the issue she must consider tackling it head on. She must acknowledge that Islam is uniquely violent in terms of both its history and dogma among the world's major religions--starting from the time Mohammed himself pillaged his own home of Medina to the more recent episodes of individually-declared fatah (of which the Satanic Verses episode is just part). She cannot blame every person who rationally believes that there is something more to life than simply dirt, water and the sun as having taken part in the violence that comprises Islam.

[unique_earthling]

I agree maewing, that those that believe in a higher power are not a problem, the problem stems from those that have an inability to accept others for what they believe, that become elitists and codemn all that do not think there way, do they believe that killing and maiming is God's way to draw His wayward children to His Kingdom.
This way of thinking is not just muslim fanatics this also applies to all religions that are intolerant of how other think feel and believe. I personally feel that fanaticism stems not only from indoctrination but those that are attracted to it have mental problems to start with. No rational thinking, caring, loving soul is going to be interested in blowing up and torturing, maiming others to start with.. Its peoples anger that makes them do these things and makes them feel its acceptable. How else can you explain british boys with parents who love them and who are not fanatics, have carried out the atrocities in london, and justified it to themselves. Not all fanatics are fearful, starving, poor and uneducated.