Christian teacher in Egypt faces trial

[Ashotep]

This is the offense.

According to London-based rights watchdog Amnesty International, the complaints arose after some students alleged the teacher in the southern city of Luxor said she “loved Father Shenuda”, the late Coptic Pope Shenuda III.

She was also alleged to have “touched her knee or her stomach when she spoke about the Prophet Mohammed in class,” Amnesty said in a statement that demanded her release.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/14/christian-teacher-in-egypt-faces-trial-for-insulting-religion/

Way to strict and touchy. Disobeying religious law shouldn't get you arrested.

[libstaK]

Why is touching one's stomach or knee when speaking of the Prophet Mohammed an issue? Any muslims here have some insight on that?

Edit to add:

Laws need to be secular to protect people from this sort of witch hunting mentality and religious folk need to learn to give others the same rights they expect to have themselves - which is to live their lives as they see fit so long as they are not breaking secular laws of the land and/or hurting others (physically).

Edited May 15, 2013 by libstaK

[SHaYap]

Its a witch hunt ... and the media is playing advocate ..... its a mess there now ... everyone wants a piece of the heaven/paradise pie

[Ashotep]

I don't know what the big deal is with touching your stomach or your knee. Never heard that one before. Sometimes I think they make it up as they go along just to have an excuse to arrest someone they don't like.

Egypt is so messed up since the Arab Spring.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Hilander

[Yamato]

We monkey around with these people for two generations and then we wonder why they're clinging to their guns and religion? Americans, really? The southern evangelical conservative christian Americans? Really? Can we really be so selfish and one-way minded? I think these statists who insist on a world controlled by Washington DC would be the first to drop their pikes and run at the first sign of trouble after the chickens come back home to roost.

Our foreign policy in the Middle East plus Israel encourages results just like the OP of this thread. Hundreds of them and then thousands of them. "Why is this happening to us?" they cry. "Because we're not following our religion exactly enough!" they're answered. Fire and brimstone Imams can draw a huge audience when the Middle East region is being tickled, kicked and scraped by foreigners the way it is. We have reactionary policies that kill people on our target lists and we're too clueless to understand that the reason these people are on our target list is because of our foreign policy. If causing the problems just to claim credit for solving them, like government bureaucrats always do, is the game we're playing here then this is a very good racket. Going to war against a foreign religion is a surest sign of a dying Republic, but it greases the golden parachutes of its protagonists with the blood of others.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Yamato

[Corp]

It's sad that radical Islamists seem to have no faith in their religion. If they did they would know their religion is strong enough to survive a few "insults". They might also clue in that the only ones attacking Islam is them.

[Sweetpumper]

Never mind.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Sweetpumper

[GoldenWolf]

It's sad that radical Islamists seem to have no faith in their religion. If they did they would know their religion is strong enough to survive a few "insults". They might also clue in that the only ones attacking Islam is them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_narcissism

Christianity is also.

[+and-then]

http://en.wikipedia....tive_narcissism

Christianity is also.

Freud? Guess I'd better rethink my faith if HE thinks it's a bad idea.

[SHaYap]

Maybe this is coming back to haunt us all :

Amalric supposedly answered (in French): “Kill them all. God will recognize his own.”

link

[Ashotep]

Maybe this is coming back to haunt us all :

link

Glad Christians don't do stuff like that now and if they did they would be arrested. Now if Islam would grow up and stop killing people over Islam.

[Ashotep]

http://en.wikipedia....tive_narcissism

Christianity is also.

I agree religions do seem to have a inflated view of their ingroup. That's fine as long as its not being shoved down my throat or I'm being arrested because I think they are wrong and don't want to practice what they preach.

[SHaYap]

Glad Christians don't do stuff like that now and if they did they would be arrested. Now if Islam would grow up and stop killing people over Islam.

You didn't read the linked page ...

~edit : Oh I get it now ... sorry ... I'm half sober and half asleep

apologies

Edited May 15, 2013 by third_eye

[Ashotep]

You didn't read the linked page ...

~edit : Oh I get it now ... sorry ... I'm half sober and half asleep

apologies

That's okay, I do the same thing.

[Ashotep]

We monkey around with these people for two generations and then we wonder why they're clinging to their guns and religion? Americans, really? The southern evangelical conservative christian Americans? Really? Can we really be so selfish and one-way minded? I think these statists who insist on a world controlled by Washington DC would be the first to drop their pikes and run at the first sign of trouble after the chickens come back home to roost.

Our foreign policy in the Middle East plus Israel encourages results just like the OP of this thread. Hundreds of them and then thousands of them. "Why is this happening to us?" they cry. "Because we're not following our religion exactly enough!" they're answered. Fire and brimstone Imams can draw a huge audience when the Middle East region is being tickled, kicked and scraped by foreigners the way it is. We have reactionary policies that kill people on our target lists and we're too clueless to understand that the reason these people are on our target list is because of our foreign policy. If causing the problems just to claim credit for solving them, like government bureaucrats always do, is the game we're playing here then this is a very good racket. Going to war against a foreign religion is a surest sign of a dying Republic, but it greases the golden parachutes of its protagonists with the blood of others.

So your saying its the US and Israels fault Islamist will arrest you or kill you for doing anything against Islam. I thought that was just Islamic law.

I agree our foreign policy for the middle east isn't great but you can't blame their barbaric laws on anyone but them.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Hilander

[meryt-tetisheri]

I don't know what the big deal is with touching your stomach or your knee. Never heard that one before. Sometimes I think they make it up as they go along just to have an excuse to arrest someone they don't like.

Egypt is so messed up since the Arab Spring.

Even I, an Egyptian, am totally clueless about this 'touching the stomach/knee' offence. Haven't got the faintest idea how could such a gesture be interpreted as an insult or have any meaning at all, good or bad! I agree with you, someone didn't like her; and Egypt now is a depressive mess.

[+and-then]

If they manage to retain power, the MB is going to make Egypt a hellish place for non-conformists of any stripe. Sad - but worst for Christians

[+and-then]

So your saying its the US and Israels fault Islamist will arrest you or kill you for doing anything against Islam. I thought that was just Islamic law.

I agree our foreign policy for the middle east isn't great but you can't blame their barbaric laws on anyone but them.

Some folks will blame America for everything - and blame them first. You're correct Hilander - our policies in the M.E. are awful but that isn't what causes the Muslims to hate. They were hating each other Sunni and Shia LONG before oil caused us to join the fun...

[Black Red Devil]

Some folks will blame America for everything - and blame them first. You're correct Hilander - our policies in the M.E. are awful but that isn't what causes the Muslims to hate. They were hating each other Sunni and Shia LONG before oil caused us to join the fun...

There's a paradox if I've ever seen one.

[+and-then]

There's a paradox if I've ever seen one.

What I say is true. The internecine nature of the conflict within Islam did not need western interests to make it bloody. Did we make it worse? Oh yeah....

But blaming it all on the west - particularly the US is more about personal political biases than reality, I think.

[freetoroam]

The muslims will fight against each other, so other religions do not stand a chance.

For this reason, islam should not be allowed to flourish in western countries. We are already seeing the affects in places like Luton, they want their own laws, their own communities and anyone who does not convert to islam is classed as an enemy.

What we see now in the muslim countries, their fighting against each other, will be our biggest problem one day, but instead of just fighting against other muslims, they will be fighting against all the other religions too, just like this case in Egypt.

[+and-then]

The muslims will fight against each other, so other religions do not stand a chance.

For this reason, islam should not be allowed to flourish in western countries. We are already seeing the affects in places like Luton, they want their own laws, their own communities and anyone who does not convert to islam is classed as an enemy.

What we see now in the muslim countries, their fighting against each other, will be our biggest problem one day, but instead of just fighting against other muslims, they will be fighting against all the other religions too, just like this case in Egypt.

And in the west these days it appears that we have become so bloody PC that we will not even acknowledge the truth of what you say - and it IS TRUE.

[SHaYap]

It's all the madness from the back lash of that "Clash of Civilisations" nonsense ...

[+and-then]

It's all the madness from the back lash of that "Clash of Civilisations" nonsense ...

Why do you consider it nonsense, third eye? It seems pretty clear that this is exactly what the problem is.

[SHaYap]

Why do you consider it nonsense, third eye? It seems pretty clear that this is exactly what the problem is.

Its a misused sound bite taken out of context and abused by parties with vested interests to further their own ambitions :

The theory has been broadly criticised for oversimplification, ignoring indigenous conflicts and for incorrectly predicting what has happened in the decade since its publication. The claim made by many that September the 11th has vindicated Huntington is simply not supported by the evidence. Published while a post Cold War world was searching for a new prism to view international relations through ensured it has however proved influential.

..... His escape from a Eurocentric bias is however only temporary. He completely fails to account for indigenous cultures even though one can argue they collectively comprise a separate civilization (Fox 2002:430). The article also predicts future conflicts will be started by non-Western civilizations reacting to Western power and values ignoring the equally plausible situation where Western states use their military superiority to maintain their superior positions. The policy prescriptions he suggests to counter this perceived threat equate to increasing the power of the West to forestall any loss of the West's pre-eminence. Thus he suggests the Latin American and Orthodox-Slavic civilizations be drawn further into the Western orbit and the maintenance of Western military superiority (Huntington 1993:47).

link

This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

Relativism has made liberal openness appear weak, empty and repugnant compared with the clarity of dogma

Put the two together and you have a worrying prognosis. The clash of civilisations is happening not between Islam and the west, as we are often led to believe, but between pragmatic relativism and dogmatic certainty. On this analysis, it is easy to see liberal democracy not as the crowning achievement of civilisation but a manifestation of a laissez-faire, morally bankrupt modernity. "Relativism appears to be the philosophical foundation of democracy," said Ratzinger in 1996. "Democracy in fact is supposedly built on the basis that no one can presume to know the true way."

link

A Clash of Orthodoxies

Robert P. George

A few years ago, the eminent Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington published in Foreign Affairs a widely noted article called "The Clash of Civilizations." Looking at contemporary international relations from a geopolitical vantage point, he predicted a clash of the world's major civilizations: the West, the Islamic world, and the Confucian East. Huntington's article provoked a response from one of his own most brilliant former students-Swarthmore's James Kurth. In an article in the National Interest entitled "The Real Clash," Kurth argued persuasively that the clash that is coming-and has, indeed, already begun-is not so much among the world's great civilizations as it is within the civilization of the West, between those who claim the Judeo-Christian worldview and those who have abandoned that worldview in favor of the "isms" of contemporary American life-feminism, multiculturalism, gay liberationism, lifestyle liberalism-what I here lump together as a family called "the secularist orthodoxy."

link

Critics (for example articles in Le Monde Diplomatique) call The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order the theoretical legitimization of American-led Western aggression against China and the world's Islamic and Orthodox cultures. Other critics argue that Huntington's taxonomy is simplistic and arbitrary, and does not take account of the internal dynamics and partisan tensions within civilizations. Furthermore, critics argue that Huntington neglects ideological mobilization by elites and unfulfilled socioeconomic needs of the population as the real causal factors driving conflict, that he ignores conflicts that do not fit well with the civilizational fault lines identified by him, and they charge that his new paradigm is nothing but realist thinking in which "states" became replaced by "civilizations".^[11] Huntington's influence upon U.S. policy has been likened to that of British historian A.J. Toynbee's controversial religious theories about Asian leaders in the early twentieth century.

wiki

the response but no one wants to look at :

The page dedicated to the United Nations Year of Dialog Among Civilizations introduces the idea as follows:^[1] “ What is diversity? What can people do to open the lines of communication and redefine the meaning of diversity? How can we better understand diversity? What is the overall perception of diversity? These were the questions the General Assembly grappled with in 1998, when the year 2001 was announced as the United Nations Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations.

What does a dialogue among civilizations mean? One could argue that in the world there are two groups of civilizations – one which perceives diversity as a threat and the other which sees it as an opportunity and an integral component for growth. The Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations was established to redefine diversity and to improve dialogue between these two groups. Hence, the goal of the Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations is to nurture a dialogue which is both preventive of conflicts – when possible – and inclusive in nature.

To do this, Governments, the United Nations system and other relevant international and non-governmental organizations were invited by the United Nations General Assembly to plan and implement cultural, educational and social programmes to promote the concept of the dialogue among civilizations.

wiki

Articles available online for Dialogue Among Civilizations : google links