salman rushdie, the satanic verses and his knighthood

[Mandy]

Well, needless to say I don't agree with behroze, and neither would a few billion people round the world.

[faceless]

Same here Mandy - one of my uncles is a missionary in Eritrea. His religion isn't poisoning people, it's helping to save their lives and to educate their children. Nothing that religion may be blamed for can take away those simple human acts of kindness.

[nekokate]

That's true. But simple acts of kindness are just that; simple acts of kindness. A Christian can be kind, as can a Muslim or a Jew, or for that matter an atheist. I'd much prefer to think that a Christian missionary was out there helping people who are suffering because he or she wanted to help people who were suffering, and that their religion didn't have anything to do with it.

For instance, you mention your uncle's commendable work in Eritrea to counter the insinuation in Behroze's post (which I also don't agree with). The point you seem to be making here is this: My uncle is doing something wonderful, and is a religious man, ergo this is an example of religion doing good. But what I immediately thought was surely he is doing something good because he wants to do something good, due to the fact he is a good person. And if he is a good person then surely even if he wasn't religious, he would still be out there - perhaps not in exactly the same capacity, but still "out there" in the general sense of international charity and aid involvement. I can't believe that it could be merely because he feels some sort of religious duty that he is doing that kind of humanitarian work, therefore to what extent does his religion have anything to do with his altruism?

Religion can be great at promoting and keeping in check a set of positive moral values, but it can't be viewed as the originator of those values. As an atheist I feel just as strongly about global injustice and mass starvation. Infact, logically, as someone who does not accept that there is going to be an afterlife of any kind, surely it would upset me more, since I can't even take comfort from the thought that the millions of children who starve to death in the dust of Africa are possibly heading for a "better place"?

I have a deep respect for religion and those who practice, but it isn't actually a necessary part of the equation when it comes to helping people. It's very easy to highlight religious aid-workers as proof that religion is helping people, but actually it's people helping people, and they just happen to believe in God.

An atheist or agnostic could do exactly the same work, except they'd just give people food, education and shelter and then stop, rather than continuing with "and now we've sorted you out, ever heard of a fella called Jesus Christ?"

[faceless]

How long have there been secular groups which help people in that kind of situation though? And why did it take so long?

I've never actually met my uncle as he's been out there since I was a kid so I don't know what motivates him particularly. But I do know it takes belief that you are doing something good.

[Mandy]

I regard the neo-cons (who are part of the Military Industrial Complex [MIC]) as "secular".

All the MIC care about is money and control. The MIC have achieved more death and misery than probably all real "religious acts" put together. The MIC sometimes use religion as a "cover" for their acts, but their agenda is SECULAR.

Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Blair, Bush are part of the MIC.

[Mandy]

I read The Satanic Verses ... While reading the book, trying to be unbiased and keeping in mind the controversy over it, I honestly tried to find something in the book that I would think would raise the ire of Muslims. I found nothing!

To paraphrase someone "You must be having a laugh".

To say you like the book is a personal view (which is fine), but to say you can't even see why others would be upset when billions have been is taking the micky.

Maybe you should read the reviews if you haven't understood the message in the book.

[Mandy]

The committee that recommended Salman Rushdie for a knighthood did not discuss any possible political ramifications and never imagined that the award would provoke the furious response that it has done in parts of the Muslim world, the Guardian has learnt.

It also emerged yesterday that the writers' organisation that led the lobbying for the author of Midnight's Children and The Satanic Verses to be knighted had originally hoped that the honour would lead to better relations between Britain and Asia.

They must have been part of the group cheering on Blair by saying that the US/British will be greeted with flowers in Iraq, and not probably not a single shot would be fired by the British in Afghanistan [the latter was a view said by a british army officer or senior politician]

These people have to be either v. stupid or v. clever (i.e. real agenda is to create discord/warfare) .. and I suspect the latter since all the checks & balances in the system allowed the honour to be granted.

[popinjay]

I read The Satanic Verses ... While reading the book, trying to be unbiased and keeping in mind the controversy over it, I honestly tried to find something in the book that I would think would raise the ire of Muslims. I found nothing!

To paraphrase someone "You must be having a laugh".

To say you like the book is a personal view (which is fine), but to say you can't even see why others would be upset when billions have been is taking the micky.

Maybe you should read the reviews if you haven't understood the message in the book.

Frankly, I can't see how people believe such religious tripe in the first place. People have been put in straight jackets for less.

Khomeini's fatwa was as much a political move as Rushdie getting knighted was. It gave him a badly needed boost in popularity in the Middle East in the late 80s when he needed it.

[faceless]

Frankly, I can't see how people believe such religious tripe in the first place. People have been put in straight jackets for less.

If you want to insult people, do it somewhere else.

[popinjay]

Frankly, I can't see how people believe such religious tripe in the first place. People have been put in straight jackets for less.

If you want to insult people, do it somewhere else.

I don't mean to insult anybody, but that's a fact. The only reason things like heaven, hell, walking on water and feeding five thousand people with a single loaf aren't lumped in with things like fairies and elves is because the belief is so widely spread. They're every bit as far fetched.

[Mandy]

The issue at this critical time in the world is to promote HARMONY .. things like giving Rushdie an honour just reopens an old wound, and was bound to do so. It is the people who did it to say they didn't expect it, or WORSE, to say they sought it would "help" who should be put in straight jackets.

See the tip of the iceberg. Someone is working VERY HARD to get a clash of the civilisations .. where only the MIC wins.

[web]https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6229506.stm[/web]

[Mandy]

The only reason things like heaven, hell, walking on water and feeding five thousand people with a single loaf aren't lumped in with things like fairies and elves is because the belief is so widely spread. They're every bit as far fetched.

Not as far fetched (or depressing) as to believe the world universe and creation occurred totally random, without a purpose.

[popinjay]

The only reason things like heaven, hell, walking on water and feeding five thousand people with a single loaf aren't lumped in with things like fairies and elves is because the belief is so widely spread. They're every bit as far fetched.

Not as far fetched (or depressing) as to believe the world universe and creation occurred totally random, without a purpose.

The universe when it began was a very simple thing. You're either saying that a god (a very complicated thing) came out of nothing or that a god doesn't need a creator. If a god doesn't need a creator, why does the universe? Your position makes no sense.

If you take the pro-god point of view because science is too "depressing", that isn't much of a fact in your favour.

[faceless]

So the 'rules' governing the universe and its contents are far-fetched? No argument there - if they weren't so far beyond our ken then what would be the point in learning? Our understanding of them is in the same realm as trying to build a ladder to the moon.

[nekokate]

The problem with most discussions between religious people and non-religious people is that they both have unshakable belief.

I'm well aware that it would sound as absurd to them to hear me say "How can you possibly believe in a God?!" as it does for me to hear them say "How can you possibly not believe in a God?!" so it makes for a bit of a pointless argument.

What it boils down to is the simple need to find a balance between respecting each other's beliefs and tolerating each other's right to air those beliefs.