The things they do in the name of religion

[Acecombat]

The Things They Do in the Name of Religion
Suraya Al-Shehry,

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]

WHAT

[Placebo]

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

[Apollo]

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]

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]

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]

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

[toadlife]

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/ch...ain/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]

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]

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.