How America Is Like An Islamic Republic

In pondering the case of Gillian Gibbons, the teacher in Sudan sentenced to jail because of a teddy bear named Mohammad, ask yourself a question. What do you think would happen to a public school teacher in America who named a doll Jesus in a public school class project?

Yes, I know the problem would be with the secular side, but do you really think it would be allowed, or that the teacher wouldn't somehow be disciplined, or sentenced to sensitivity training?

Of course I'm not suggesting we are like an Islamic Republic, but I still find it ironic. Just a thought.

Comments

[seekeronos]

"--- What do you think would happen to a public school teacher in America who named a doll Jesus in a public school class project? ---"

This would depend largely on the context of what doll was named Jesus.

For certain, you wouldn't see millions of Christians threatening to lynch the teacher.

In the context of naming a stuffed animal "Jesus", we would probably see a few editorials and maybe a speech or two from Pat Robertson or James Dobson about honoring the Lord or taking the name of the Lord in vain.

As Dan pointed out though... the ultra-secularists who hate the name of the Living and true God, the Lord Jesus Christ... (and strangely, the same ones that want to install Islamic foot-washing stations in our PUBLIC schools) would be whipped up into a most frightful froth.

[ze]

It is a stuffed toy.
Call it what you want to call it.

[Rick Caird]

Or you could call it "Jesus" as in the familiar Spanish first name. Wouldn't that be exactly analogous to the case at hand?

Rick

[seekeronos]

"--- It is a stuffed toy. Call it what you want to call it. ---"

Indeed.

But the thing to watch, as always... are the reactions:

- The majority of Americans: a stuffed animal nicknamed after a deity for some dumb reason.

- Aggressive Atheists/Secularists: a travesty and an offense if the Teddy Bear is named "Jesus", where the teacher should be sued into the poorhouse for proselytizing people to worship her mythical sky-daddy god... but a fine example of tolerance and multi-culti wonderfulness if it is called "Mohammed".

- Fundamentalist Muslim/Islamists: a travesty and a heinous sin if a toy is named after a Prophet of Allah, and a decapitating offense if it is called after THE Prophet of Islam (pbj on Rye).

- Fundamentalist Christians: a sad event as people fail to turn to Christ. The Teddy Bear is really not that important - winning the lost to Christ is.

Gee... I wonder which of the above three (Atheists/Secularists, Muslims, Christians) is the most compatible with a free society?

[ze]

seekeronos
Which is the most compatible with a free society?

I would answer, all of them in their own way.

Political correctness has a lot to answer for....and that is the western curse.

[JP]

"Or you could call it "Jesus" as in the familiar Spanish first name. Wouldn't that be exactly analogous to the case at hand?"
This is what it is in reality. If the most popular kid in class was named Jesus(hey-soos) and Pat Roberts or Phred Phelps were railing away, we'd all ignore it or point and laugh. Most likely, we'd never know it happened, because a bunch of kids gave the name to it.

If it was to happen here like they imply(naming it after Christ), it most likely would be in a parochial school, and not subject to ACLU ranting and raving, and be praised by Pat or Phred.

I should start calling the vietnamese pot belly here Allah or Muhammad.

[JP]

seekeronos:
as long as the atheist is not a religious fanatic ATHEIST(those who make a religion of being against religion) one has little to worry about.. Religion to me is, for the most part, not a concern. Unless they are either wanting to kill me for apostasy, or trying to restrict my rights. Those who work to remove religion from every bit of day to day life and especially government, are not serving society well. But then, extremists of any nature tend not to serve any cause well.
That is a reason I call myself a non-theist.

[Yoda]

Enraged Amish would storm the jail, behead her they would.

[Scrapiron]

The Jooos that vote democrat would help the Amish.

Never met a true Christian that wasn't a fine person.
Never met a true Jew that wasn't a fine person.
Never met a true Catholic that wasn't a fine person.

Any of the above that are 'pretend' religious (majority of democrats who pretend at election time) are dangerous.

Never met an Islamist you could trust in an outhouse with a muzzle on.

Any more questions.

[Scrapiron]

Missed the Atheist.
They follow the one passage in the bible that says anyone who denies god is a fool and have (by court rule) their own holiday. April 1st is fools day so they can't complain of the lack of a holiday. Other than that they are simply wasting oxygen on a fragile planet.

[dumbblonde]

Dan has made a good point. However, the difference that I believe is significant is that in the U.S. there wouldn't be tens of thousands of people demonstrating and calling for the death of the "offender". Christians and Jews and Mormons and Quakers and Amish and Atheists and Agnostics typically don't demand the death of those who we believe offend or insult us.

[seekeronos]

JP said:

"--- as long as the atheist is not a religious fanatic ATHEIST(those who make a religion of being against religion) one has little to worry about.. Religion to me is, for the most part, not a concern. Unless they are either wanting to kill me for apostasy, or trying to restrict my rights. Those who work to remove religion from every bit of day to day life and especially government, are not serving society well. But then, extremists of any nature tend not to serve any cause well.

That is a reason I call myself a non-theist ---"

I agree with that. It generally is the extremists who try to force others into their mold (either by gunpoint, or by bomb-tossing, or through use of high powered attorneys and tricky twists of judicial legislation.

For the most part, the USA does not suffer from a surfeit of extremists of the murderous ilk, but we do have plenty enough folks who want to box up the Constitution through the trickery of attorneys (ACLU) and a judiciary branch (federal courts, not necessarily the SCOTUS) that is reaching for the legislative branch's job.

Fortunately, this means that we don't have people getting martyred (either in th Islamist sense of blowing up yourself or others around you... or in the Christian sense of giving up only your life [not others] at the hands of a persecutor because of the testimony of Jesus) for the sake of a misnamed stuffed animal.

Of the three religious groups (Atheist, Islamist, Christian) however... I think that the Christians are least likely to demand the heads or even the imprisonment of those who challenge their faith's existence.

In all probability, the British teacher was probably calling the stuffed animal "Mohammed" as a proper name, much as the Hispanic rendering of "Jesus" (pronounced "Hey-soos") is a proper name.

For English speakers, this is roughly equivalent to naming someone or something "Joshua", as "Jesus" and "Joshua" as proper names derive from the Hebrew name "Yehoshua", literally meaning "the salvation of God".

That said - the fact that someone's faith is shaken on account of a stuffed animal or religious artifact steeped in a vile of excreta or similar sacrilegious display - means that either their faith is weak, or that their god is weak (or their non-belief in any god[s] as the case may be).

I didn't much care for the big deal made over the Miller advert used in the Folsom (sic) Street Fair event in San Francisco recently - the use of the Last Supper artwork redone in an S&M theme.

Rather crass and tasteless, I'd say.

But, it does not in any way affect my relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ; moreover, it makes me even more aware to the state of affairs we as a human race are in - lost, in our sins, and without any hope except for a Saviour.

[rwilymz]

"as long as the atheist is not a religious fanatic ATHEIST(those who make a religion of being against religion) one has little to worry about."

I've noticed that "atheists" in the west, particularly in the US, is not "against religion"; they are against christianity.

They support the native Amerind religions as an extension of their culture, considering harmless a belief system which has the practical effect of forestalling the same anthropological/archaeological investigation in the US that goes on everywhere else; they support the display and proliferation of Amerind religion in schools and on the streets.

These "atheists" have been cowed into silence by the ADL for fear of being labeled "anti-semite", and thus give nearly all displays of jewishness a wide berth.

These "atheists" sat quietly by while islamic activists demanded -- and got -- official school sanction for daily prayers [mats, time slots, etc]; it is, after all, *their* culture, and who are we to interfere? If all it takes is a few moments a day to promote inclusion and multi-culturalism ... only a tyrannical boor would stand in the way!

It is only when a religion belongs to a [putative] majority that "atheists" give a rat's ass about how *offensive* it is to be subjected to someone else's belief systems with its invisible gods and pixie dust and spooky chants. And, while they have a point that a majority phenomenon can [operative word: CAN] become oppressive if mandatory, even a trivial review of history shows that it is predominantly **minority** beliefs which become mandatory and therefore oppressive. Even religious beliefs, up to and including christianity, which was imposed upon the majority-pagan citizens of the Roman Empire by Constantine.

Mohammed [and, more specifically, his immediate followers in the first century after his death] forcibly converted the various pagans and zoroastrans they conquered unto islam. They allowed jews and christians to co-exist so long as they submitted to third-class status in a two-class society, only because they shared the same god [nominally].

Historically, we are more in danger of having a minority viewpoint promoted into a legal tyranny than we are a majority viewpoint; from a practical standpoint, we have long ago passed the "critical mass" stage of imposing christianity upon this society, partly because of other religions complaining, but mostly because christianity is not the monolithic entity its detractors non-discerningly claim it to be, and we are thus now -- from that practical view -- more in danger of minority viewpoints becoming obligatory.