By now some of you have doubtless heard the one about the teddy bear who was called “Paddington” because his owners didn’t want to end up being beheaded for calling him “St. Pancras”. (You probably have to be a Brit. to get that joke, so don’t worry if its cultural references pass you by. It isn’t worth worrying about - honest.)
Readers outside the UK may be unaware of the teddy bear incident that has been one of the headline stories the UK press this week. Initially, I tried to stay away from it in this blog. It was too tempting, too predictable that I would write about it, and I occasionally (very, very occasionally) hate giving into temptation, and loathe being predictable, so I avoided it. However, my middle-class, liberal anger which had been quietly seething all week, finally erupted today, moving me to put fingers to keyboard. I was reading an essay by the philosopher A.C. Grayling on “Are religions respectable?” (as you do on a quiet Saturday afternoon wanting to avoid the seasonal shopping) when the arguments made such good sense and seemed so relevant to the teddy bear debacle that I just had to get the thoughts onto the screen. Sorry, it was too compelling to resist.
For those of you who don’t know, Gillian Gibbons, a primary teacher from Liverpool, recently went to Sudan to work. She asked her class for ideas for what to call the class teddy bear. One pupil, named Muhammad, suggested “Muhammad”. Someone on the school’s administration staff reported the incident and Gillian was charged with insulting Islam - a crime which could have resulted in 40 lashes, a six month prison sentence, or a fine. Gillian, who protested that no insult was intended, was found guilty and given a 15 day prison sentence. Because of public demonstrations against the leniency of the sentence she is being kept in close police custody for her own protection.
Grayling argues that no religious person is automatically worthy any more respect than any other person. In fact, if anything, the opposite is the case. Faith is a commitment to belief, contrary to evidence and reason. Therefore to believe something against evidence and against reason is irresponsible and ignorant and merits the opposite of respect.
Muhammad (and his millions of followers) and Gillian Gibbons are automatically worthy of respect, first and foremost as significant, creative, talented human beings. Respect for individuals has to be based on their humanity, irrespective of things that they have no choice over - ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, natural gifts, presence or absence of disability. Secondly, they can be afforded respect for the things they choose. These choices will influence the kind of person they are - kind, considerate, peace-loving, loyal, truthful, aspiring to knowledge, seeking after the good of humankind, or ungenerous, wilfully stupid, narrowly moralistic, superstitious, and violent. These choices will influence their belief systems, political affiliations, and lifestyle. They have respect because of their humanity. They may gain more because of the choices they make.
And just out of curiosity, who do you think is more worthy of respect - a woman who gives up a comfortable lifestyle and job to go to a third world country to teach children, or a man screaming that he wants another human being whipped for calling a teddy bear Muhammad?
Personally, I do respect the decisions taken by Muslim associations in Britain and in Canada, to appeal to the Sudanese government to release Gillian immediately.
Religious founders and their followers do not merit respect simply because they are religious. No-one would dream of arguing that political parties (and their founders and members) should be afforded respect simply because they are political. Why shouldn’t politicians and their followers be subject to the views and skills of satirical cartoonists and puppet makers? Why shouldn’t presidents be likened to teddy bears and vice-versa? Why shouldn’t leaders be written into soap-operas with Jerry Springer? I don’t suppose for a minute that Gillian Gibbons wanted to insult the prophet Muhammad, but why shouldn’t she be allowed to if she wants to?
I leave A.C. Grayling to conclude:
… all who have secure grounds for their views should not be afraid of robust challenge and criticism ; if they are confident in their views they should be able to shrug off satire and mockery. The more insecure people are, the less confident they feel, the less mature their outlook is, the angrier they are made by what they label as ‘offence’ to their religious sensitivities - even to the point of violence. They undermine and refute themselves thus. (p.9 in Grayling, A.C. (2007) Against All Gods. London: Oberon Books.)
__________
Update: 03/12/07 Gillian Gibbons has been pardoned by the Sudanese President al-Bashir after a meeting with two British Muslim peers.
The Incident of the Bear Called Muhammad has caused huge interest, at least in this country, and possibly also abroad. In terms of the stress, fright, vituperation and, ultimately, the prison sentence, suffered by Gillian Gibbons this has been a very sorry affair indeed. It has also made the Sudanese government and justice system look not only grotesquely harsh but exceedingly silly as well.
I would like to think, however, that some good will come of it. Every time a piece of stupidity perpetrated by someone in the name of religion is given the glare of publicity, more people will come to realize how pernicious religious belief ultimately is.
As many have pointed out, the name Muhammad was chosen when it was suggested by a boy in the class whose name was… Muhammad. Calling a teddy bear Muhammad is a flogging offence; calling a child Muhammad is not. Go figure, as our American cousins would say.
As a final sour note (I am good at sour notes as you have probably already noticed), I have to deplore the amateurishness of whatever organization it was under whose auspices Stella Gibbons went to the Sudan. What on earth are they playing at sending people so ill prepared that they make this kind of faux pas?
Very good post. I’ll have to read Grayling’s essay. I like your distinction between respect for persons and respect for their choices. Christians should be able to accept that. After all, they go on and on about loving the sinner and hating the sin.
You said, “…choices will influence the kind of person they are - kind, considerate, peace-loving, loyal, truthful, aspiring to knowledge, seeking after the good of humankind, or ungenerous, wilfully stupid, narrowly moralistic, superstitious, and violent. These choices will influence their belief systems, political affiliations, and lifestyle….”
Do the choices influence the beliefs, or do the beliefs influence the choices? I thought the whole point of Christianity was that one’s beliefs are supposed to lead one to making good choices? More to the point, perhaps, should choices influence belief or vice versa? I believe the latter, that belief should inform my behavior.
I know that I’ve generally tried to live my life in such a way that my behavior coincided with what I believed it should be. I think choosing a behavior, then retrospectively casting about for a belief that justifies my choice is a recipe for moral disaster.
What are your thoughts about this?
Excellent, excellent blog. I also feel the chaplain makes some excellent points too, particulary his last paragraph.
I too particulary like the point about choice and respect.
The only point I would question is where you have written:
“Faith is a commitment to belief, contrary to evidence and reason. Therefore to believe something against evidence and against reason is irresponsible and ignorant and merits the opposite of respect.”
All I would say about that is yes, it may seem irresponsible and ignorant, but in Christ’s case, say as an example, when we talked about the trilogy analogy; where is there the evidence for or against? I am not saying it is not out there. I would really appreciate you telling me in concrete where the evidence, not opinion, or thoughts but hard evidence to tell me he did not exist and evidence to state he was not the person he claimed he was. I have not seen any.
Getting back to this blog subject.
I do think the organisation sending her out to Sudan should have prepared her better. I would have asked the schools thoughts before any name was given. However, this women is quilty only of naivety about the hardline country she is in and a very dangerous one. You have to ask what institution she is up against when you have only to think of what is happening in Darfur.
I saw the scenes of unrest, all men out on the streets. Women are barely seen let alone heard out there. Interestingly, I was surprised to hear that had she been flogged the sentence would have been carried out by a woman and in private, not in public. How jolly decent of them. (satire).
I was excited to see you had decided to write this blog after all, and I know my asking would not have in any way influenced your decision but it is good to see it all the same.
I would also be interested in seeing A.C Grayling’s book sometime, if you would kindly show me.
Thanks all for your comments.
SilverTiger: I agree wholeheartedly with your sour note. Something was fundamentally wrong with the preparation. However, I do not know whether she had preparation and it was inadequate, or inadequately understood, or whether she was thrown to the lions cold.
the chaplain: Interesting question about causality. I suppose when I was in the theist camp I would have said that my beliefs determined my choices (Romans 12:1,2 and all that). While that is undoubtedly true in many cases, I also think that other factors often play a part (sometimes subconsciously), so that we sometimes select the behaviour and feelings and find the beliefs to justify them.
I think that human beings are walking triangles. We think. We feel. We act. Those three points are interrelated, with change in one affecting the other two. Feelings cannot be manipulated directly, but respond to changes in thinking and/or changes in behaviour.
Classically, we change our thinking and then change our behaviour as a result. However, I think it sometimes happens that we change our behaviour and that influences a change in thinking.
I think I agree with you that in a rational world (to which I aspire to live in), cognition should influence behaviour. I am also painfully aware that sociology and psychology often influence philosophy rather than the other way round.
Thanks for questioning the quoted passage from my original posting. I hadn’t thought through what I was writing there in enough detail.
onethoughtfulwoman: Your request for information about the validity of Christ is too big a question to handle in detail here. I am reasonably sure that he existed and that he was a radical teacher, but I, personally, am reasonably sure that the Jesus of the New Testament is not the same as the one who existed.
A lot of Christians put there faith in the person revealed in the Bible. The big question is: “How reliable is the Bible?” A very readable book which explains how the variations in the New Testament came about and some of the reasons for that is Misquoting Jesus. Others may be able to recommend other reading to you.
Something else to think about in relation to this. Where is the evidence that the supernatural that you believe in is real? If God answers prayer, why does (s)he never heal amputees?
I thought I had already given the answer to the last question. Obviously not. Thank you for taking the time to reply. I have been particulary interested in your post to the chaplain. I suppose answers to prayers are hard to quantify, it is more of a personal experience which is hard to measure.
Getting back to the teacher though, I hope she returns soon to the UK and safely. My prayers will be with her.
[...] first example of change was Teddybeargate. Despite initially being convicted in Sudan for insulting Islam (she allowed a member of her [...]
[...] 4, 2007 by athinkingman I thought it was bad enough with Teddybeargate. Now this. The humourless irony police are at it [...]
[...] the light of both the widespread outrage at the conviction of the British teacher for blasphemy in Sudan over the name of a teddy bear and of the Government’s criticism of those blasphemy laws, it [...]
[...] have argued elsewhere that religion, like politics, is a matter of personal choice and therefore should not have [...]