My wife and I were both feeling under the weather this past week, but one of us had to go to the grocery store for essentials. Since I was feeling marginally better than she was, I was the more sensible choice, so off I went.
I picked up the things I needed and was in line at the register, being rung out. I was facing the girl at the register, so the next person in line was coming toward my left side. Since I wasn't feeling well, I have to admit that I wasn't as aware of my surroundings as usual and didn't see who it was, other than registering that there was a person approaching from that side.
As I was standing there, I suddenly felt a hard impact on my left thigh. Fortunately, I had my weight solidly distributed, so I didn't lose my balance, but the impact was hard enough to hurt. So I looked up to my left to see an upscale woman, probably in her late 60's, wearing a lot of make-up and clearly artificial red hair coloring, who had just pushed her cart into my leg with as much strength as she could muster. She was still glaring down at her grocery cart after having placed her items on the conveyor belt that moves stuff up to the register. She looked a bit more irritated than when I first looked at her, then pushed her cart into my leg again as hard as she could. She wasn't able to build up as much momentum this time, so it didn't really hurt, but it was annoying. She repeated this several times, still glaring down at her cart as though it was responsible for her not moving forward, while I tried to clear my head enough to decide what to say to her, if anything. The girl at the register was busy taking my money and getting my change, so she didn't notice what was happening. I tried to think of what I could say to her to make her stop, but since I wasn't feeling well, I was in a bad mood and most of what came to mind wasn't very pleasant. I realized that saying any of the things I had in mind was unlikely to improve the situation in any way. She continued to push during the entire time I was considering my options, never once looking up from the cart.
By this time, I was more amused by her complete obliviousness than annoyed by it, so I said nothing, took my change and my groceries, and left. I took one last look back at her to see what she'd do when the resistance stopped. Her expression changed to one of satisfaction as she moved forward, still not so much as glancing at me.
I'd love to know what was going on in her mind during the whole process. I don't know if she was genuinely clueless that I was there, or if she didn't know what to say after realizing what she'd done and thought it most socially graceful to continue to appear to be unaware. My best guess is that she was focused on her holiday grocery shopping and really had no idea what she was doing. The holidays sometimes have that effect on people.
Enjoy the seasonal festival of your choice, and don't forget that however busy you are, other people are people, too!
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Monday, December 17, 2007
"Fear Itself" - Progress at Last
I've finally gotten back to making progress on my newest In Nomine scenario. This scenario follows what happens to some NPCs after the conclusion of a prior story ("Angels on the Edge"), so I was counting on using those NPCs as PCs for this one. Unfortunately for me, those characters weren't as fleshed out as I'd thought, and it's taking some serious time to bring them up to snuff as player characters. They're finally taking shape as intended. The stats are done now for about half of them, so I have to finish the others and do some character write-ups, which I usually enjoy, then I'll be ready for a playtest.
After that, I'll move on to the scenario I'd started for Don't Rest Your Head, which shouldn't take too long.
Brace yourselves, playtesters, early 2008 may be busy!
After that, I'll move on to the scenario I'd started for Don't Rest Your Head, which shouldn't take too long.
Brace yourselves, playtesters, early 2008 may be busy!
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
I was looking at the list of upcoming inductees to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and have to ask if these are really deserving to be there. I haven't blogged much about music, but those of you who know me well enough know that I used to play, and know a lot more about the history of rock and roll than the average person.
Madonna - I have a real problem with this one. While she's had a powerful cultural influence, I don't think anybody can reasonably argue that she's had any significant musical influence on rock and roll. How many up and coming musical acts would cite Madonna as someone they want to emulate in anything other than a commercial sense? This is not the Marketing Hall of Fame. Maybe the argument would be that the presentation of her live shows influenced others.
John Mellancamp - It's true that he's had a lot of hits, but again, I don't see anyone citing him as a significant musical influence. My own opinion is that his music is, at best, catchy but derivative. Yes, he's been around for a long time now, but longevity alone is not a reason to put someone in the Hall of Fame.
Leonard Cohen - To be honest, I don't know much about him. What I've heard has at least been creative and unique, and I know that other more famous performers have cited him as an influence. I hadn't known that he was a Buddhist until I read his Wikipedia entry just a moment ago. Based on that entry, he's certainly had some success, but he's not someone who'd be likely to be at the top of any given individual's list of people who have to be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I don't have a problem with his selection, even though he seems like a bit of an odd choice to me.
The Dave Clark Five - They had a lot of hits in a short time, but I don't see any lasting influence on music on their part.
The Ventures - There's definitely some lasting influence here on a number of well known (and more influential) musicians from the 60's. Seems like a good choice to me, though a lot of younger people wouldn't recognize them.
Am I correctly seeing a pattern here, in that the people who have actual musical influence are being balanced out by performers with more commercial power? It's almost as though they're afraid that a less commercial set of selections won't have enough star power to keep the attention of the public. Acts with high sales have to be considered, since they've demonstrated a certain appeal, but the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame should be about more than numbers. Weren't there any better options here?
Madonna - I have a real problem with this one. While she's had a powerful cultural influence, I don't think anybody can reasonably argue that she's had any significant musical influence on rock and roll. How many up and coming musical acts would cite Madonna as someone they want to emulate in anything other than a commercial sense? This is not the Marketing Hall of Fame. Maybe the argument would be that the presentation of her live shows influenced others.
John Mellancamp - It's true that he's had a lot of hits, but again, I don't see anyone citing him as a significant musical influence. My own opinion is that his music is, at best, catchy but derivative. Yes, he's been around for a long time now, but longevity alone is not a reason to put someone in the Hall of Fame.
Leonard Cohen - To be honest, I don't know much about him. What I've heard has at least been creative and unique, and I know that other more famous performers have cited him as an influence. I hadn't known that he was a Buddhist until I read his Wikipedia entry just a moment ago. Based on that entry, he's certainly had some success, but he's not someone who'd be likely to be at the top of any given individual's list of people who have to be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I don't have a problem with his selection, even though he seems like a bit of an odd choice to me.
The Dave Clark Five - They had a lot of hits in a short time, but I don't see any lasting influence on music on their part.
The Ventures - There's definitely some lasting influence here on a number of well known (and more influential) musicians from the 60's. Seems like a good choice to me, though a lot of younger people wouldn't recognize them.
Am I correctly seeing a pattern here, in that the people who have actual musical influence are being balanced out by performers with more commercial power? It's almost as though they're afraid that a less commercial set of selections won't have enough star power to keep the attention of the public. Acts with high sales have to be considered, since they've demonstrated a certain appeal, but the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame should be about more than numbers. Weren't there any better options here?
Friday, December 14, 2007
Veronica Mars - Season One
I finished watching this yesterday, and had a few thoughts on it. As I'd said before, the quality writing is the best reason to watch it. I found the ending satisfying without necessarily tying up everything (since a TV series has to have somewhere to go next season). I'll probably watch the second season at some point, but for now I need a break, and the Netflix review consensus seems to be that later seasons weren't as good as the first, anyway.
One thing that didn't make sense to me is Veronica's taste in men. Most women will be attracted to men who are very much like their father in some respects, while a minority will look for men as different from their father as they can manage. Either way, it's a reaction to their father, which is understandable, since he's the first man that's important in her life (assuming he's present to raise her). Since Veronica's father is a main character on the series, we get to know him fairly well, so we can accurately judge whether or not this is true for Veronica, and it's not even close.
Why does she seem to be attracted to men with a serious psychotic streak? I don't just mean men who have quirks or "bad boys", but men who suddenly become loud and sometimes violent with little provocation. I understand that these are teen characters, and therefore less stable than adults, but they seemed over the top to me, even by teen standards. The police deputy is obviously an exception, but I can't see why he'd hold any attraction for Veronica, either, apart from the fact that he works in law enforcement and is a little older than her. That doesn't seem like much, and she's clearly less attracted to him than she is to the psychotics, in any case. I could understand one strange guy happening to appeal to her for some reason, but the fact that it happens more than once makes it a pattern, and that bothers me. I prefer to see romantic relationships that make some kind of sense, even when they're not what you'd call healthy relationships.
Creative work inevitably tells you something about the point of view of the person (or people) creating it, so what does this tell us about Rob Thomas, the guy behind this series? I don't know anything about him, so I don't even have a basis from which to speculate. I just know that it doesn't square with the more accurate perceptions of human behavior otherwise seen in the series. Don't get me wrong here. I enjoyed this series, and would recommend it to almost anyone. I just don't understand that particular aspect of it.
One thing that didn't make sense to me is Veronica's taste in men. Most women will be attracted to men who are very much like their father in some respects, while a minority will look for men as different from their father as they can manage. Either way, it's a reaction to their father, which is understandable, since he's the first man that's important in her life (assuming he's present to raise her). Since Veronica's father is a main character on the series, we get to know him fairly well, so we can accurately judge whether or not this is true for Veronica, and it's not even close.
Why does she seem to be attracted to men with a serious psychotic streak? I don't just mean men who have quirks or "bad boys", but men who suddenly become loud and sometimes violent with little provocation. I understand that these are teen characters, and therefore less stable than adults, but they seemed over the top to me, even by teen standards. The police deputy is obviously an exception, but I can't see why he'd hold any attraction for Veronica, either, apart from the fact that he works in law enforcement and is a little older than her. That doesn't seem like much, and she's clearly less attracted to him than she is to the psychotics, in any case. I could understand one strange guy happening to appeal to her for some reason, but the fact that it happens more than once makes it a pattern, and that bothers me. I prefer to see romantic relationships that make some kind of sense, even when they're not what you'd call healthy relationships.
Creative work inevitably tells you something about the point of view of the person (or people) creating it, so what does this tell us about Rob Thomas, the guy behind this series? I don't know anything about him, so I don't even have a basis from which to speculate. I just know that it doesn't square with the more accurate perceptions of human behavior otherwise seen in the series. Don't get me wrong here. I enjoyed this series, and would recommend it to almost anyone. I just don't understand that particular aspect of it.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The Differences
I've been finding it hard to get motivated to do much more than the essentials for the last two weeks or so. So in accord with Buddhist thought, rather than forcing things and metaphorically banging my head against a wall, I decided to let go and observe the process of my own mind's working to see if I could figure out what was happening. It turned out to be a sort of pre-holiday mental housecleaning, and seems to have passed. I feel a lot less cluttered now, in spite of still having a lot of holiday stuff to do, and maybe that was the purpose. Now I'm ready to move on.
This train of thought led me to consider how Buddhism has changed me over the past year or so. I've already talked about some of those differences, but there have been some surprises along the way as well. Please bear with a little self-indulgence here; I still have enough ego to need it on occasion.
I'm more observant now. It's a lot easier to see what's going on when you're not as preoccupied with your own thoughts. I'm working on really listening to people, well enough to hear through the clutter of words to the actual meanings they're trying to convey (which don't always correspond much with the words they've chosen), as well as underlying information that they may not realize they're giving you.
My energy level is better. The main reason for this is that I'm not tying up my energy maintaining my anger any more. The simple understanding that anger is a choice (once you get past the initial emotional reaction) was all that I needed. It sounds so simple, but each person has to assimilate life's lessons in their own way, and Buddhism was the way that worked for me in this case. I used to believe that you needed to vent to release anger, lest it tear you apart inside, but it turns out that venting becomes self-perpetuating after a while. It took quite a while for that one to sink in in my case.
I don't resent the things I have to do to maintain my life the way I used to. I used to feel as though anything that took me away from creativity was a side track, rather than my creativity being something I did in my spare time. Yes, I know that's backwards, but I have to be honest that that's the way I felt about it. I used to define myself by my creativity, but I don't need that to prop up my ego anymore. The cool thing about that is that I can just enjoy my creative work for what it is without feeling so much is at stake.
I'm more kind to the people I have incidental contact with. I'm referring to the waiters, store clerks, etc. of the world. I don't think I was ever that bad in dealing with them, but I'll admit that I'd often think about them more in terms of function than in terms of them being human beings, for the most part. I think most people are guilty of that to some degree, which is why those jobs usually aren't much fun.
I don't swear as much as I used to. I generally reserve it now for that initial burst of anger that I'll feel on occasion, then I let it go, which means that I don't need to continue to use the harsh language. It used to be more important to me at times to express myself than to take into account that people had to listen to it.
My job is easier. I'd expected that to come along with better anger management (which was my main goal when I started reading Buddhist material), but the surprise to me was how much easier people are to deal with if you begin dealing with them by showing a fundamental human interest in their well being beyond the matter at hand. There are people who can fake that well enough to fool an awful lot of people, but I'm not one of them. I had to genuinely feel it, or it came off badly, which required a serious change of mind set on my part. My problem had been that I was frequently overwhelmed by the impossible time constraints of my job, and was trying to deal with people so quickly that they had the feeling that I didn't care about them. It wasn't that I didn't care about them; it was that I didn't have the time to spend on them, but the message they were receiving was that I wanted to be rid of them as soon as possible, and they didn't appreciate that. When I started taking more time with them up front, I found that I had fewer difficult situations and saved much more time in later conversations.
I have very little interest in alcohol now, which was a big surprise. I was quite a drinker in my early 20's, and even in more recent years it wasn't unusual for me to respond to a tough working day by going home and having a drink. I can still enjoy alcoholic drinks for taste, but I have no desire to get even slightly drunk anymore. When I'd first read that alcohol was considered a Bad Thing in Buddhist thought because of the impact it has on clear thinking, I'd thought I'd never be able to give it up, and now I've largely lost interest as a natural result of meditating. I'm enjoying my clarity of thought and don't want to give that up.
My default setting now is to be happy, unless I have reason to be otherwise. Like the anger issue, I realized that happiness is an available choice, and why wouldn't I choose it if I can? That's a real revolution for me, after years of battling depression. I doubt that most people will understand the full impact of that unless they've known me through those depressions.
I find that I'm less patient when people get angry than I used to be, which is hilarious, if you think about it. I used to be more willing to accept anger in others when I believed it was inevitable under the circumstances. Now, I have to consciously remind myself that, while that person is effectively choosing to stay angry after the initial event, it wasn't that long ago that I'd be doing exactly the same thing, and that I need to be helpful to that person if I can.
I don't think I've changed this much in a single year in a very long time, and I'm glad it seems to be for the better. The trick now is to make sure the lessons stick, apply them more consistently and continue to build on them. If you've bothered to read this far, thanks for reading, and I hope you got something out of it.
This train of thought led me to consider how Buddhism has changed me over the past year or so. I've already talked about some of those differences, but there have been some surprises along the way as well. Please bear with a little self-indulgence here; I still have enough ego to need it on occasion.
I'm more observant now. It's a lot easier to see what's going on when you're not as preoccupied with your own thoughts. I'm working on really listening to people, well enough to hear through the clutter of words to the actual meanings they're trying to convey (which don't always correspond much with the words they've chosen), as well as underlying information that they may not realize they're giving you.
My energy level is better. The main reason for this is that I'm not tying up my energy maintaining my anger any more. The simple understanding that anger is a choice (once you get past the initial emotional reaction) was all that I needed. It sounds so simple, but each person has to assimilate life's lessons in their own way, and Buddhism was the way that worked for me in this case. I used to believe that you needed to vent to release anger, lest it tear you apart inside, but it turns out that venting becomes self-perpetuating after a while. It took quite a while for that one to sink in in my case.
I don't resent the things I have to do to maintain my life the way I used to. I used to feel as though anything that took me away from creativity was a side track, rather than my creativity being something I did in my spare time. Yes, I know that's backwards, but I have to be honest that that's the way I felt about it. I used to define myself by my creativity, but I don't need that to prop up my ego anymore. The cool thing about that is that I can just enjoy my creative work for what it is without feeling so much is at stake.
I'm more kind to the people I have incidental contact with. I'm referring to the waiters, store clerks, etc. of the world. I don't think I was ever that bad in dealing with them, but I'll admit that I'd often think about them more in terms of function than in terms of them being human beings, for the most part. I think most people are guilty of that to some degree, which is why those jobs usually aren't much fun.
I don't swear as much as I used to. I generally reserve it now for that initial burst of anger that I'll feel on occasion, then I let it go, which means that I don't need to continue to use the harsh language. It used to be more important to me at times to express myself than to take into account that people had to listen to it.
My job is easier. I'd expected that to come along with better anger management (which was my main goal when I started reading Buddhist material), but the surprise to me was how much easier people are to deal with if you begin dealing with them by showing a fundamental human interest in their well being beyond the matter at hand. There are people who can fake that well enough to fool an awful lot of people, but I'm not one of them. I had to genuinely feel it, or it came off badly, which required a serious change of mind set on my part. My problem had been that I was frequently overwhelmed by the impossible time constraints of my job, and was trying to deal with people so quickly that they had the feeling that I didn't care about them. It wasn't that I didn't care about them; it was that I didn't have the time to spend on them, but the message they were receiving was that I wanted to be rid of them as soon as possible, and they didn't appreciate that. When I started taking more time with them up front, I found that I had fewer difficult situations and saved much more time in later conversations.
I have very little interest in alcohol now, which was a big surprise. I was quite a drinker in my early 20's, and even in more recent years it wasn't unusual for me to respond to a tough working day by going home and having a drink. I can still enjoy alcoholic drinks for taste, but I have no desire to get even slightly drunk anymore. When I'd first read that alcohol was considered a Bad Thing in Buddhist thought because of the impact it has on clear thinking, I'd thought I'd never be able to give it up, and now I've largely lost interest as a natural result of meditating. I'm enjoying my clarity of thought and don't want to give that up.
My default setting now is to be happy, unless I have reason to be otherwise. Like the anger issue, I realized that happiness is an available choice, and why wouldn't I choose it if I can? That's a real revolution for me, after years of battling depression. I doubt that most people will understand the full impact of that unless they've known me through those depressions.
I find that I'm less patient when people get angry than I used to be, which is hilarious, if you think about it. I used to be more willing to accept anger in others when I believed it was inevitable under the circumstances. Now, I have to consciously remind myself that, while that person is effectively choosing to stay angry after the initial event, it wasn't that long ago that I'd be doing exactly the same thing, and that I need to be helpful to that person if I can.
I don't think I've changed this much in a single year in a very long time, and I'm glad it seems to be for the better. The trick now is to make sure the lessons stick, apply them more consistently and continue to build on them. If you've bothered to read this far, thanks for reading, and I hope you got something out of it.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Hidden Gems
Well, hidden from me, up until now, anyway.
I somehow missed the Veronica Mars TV series while it was originally on the air, but heard so much about it that I've picked it up through Netflix. I haven't finished it yet (I'm most of the way through the first season), but what I've seen so far is excellent. It's well plotted, well acted, and creates an engaging over arcing mystery even though individual episodes still hold up well on their own, for the most part. Unfortunately, the Netflix reviews suggest that the second and third seasons were disappointing compared to the first, but I'll need a break after binging on this one for the last couple of weeks anyway. The one thing that bothers me is how Veronica constantly tweaks local law enforcement without being taken away from her father's care. It just stands to reason that when someone takes as many chances as she does, it should catch up with her sooner or later. There's also a character thing bothering me about one of the supporting characters that I'm going to wait out and see if it's eventually explained before commenting on it. Highly recommended.
The British series "Jekyll" was also a pleasant surprise. This is a powerful modern take on "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde". I don't even remember how I found it, though I think I spotted it in a catalog of British TV series DVDs. It was written by one of the people behind recent seasons of Doctor Who, Steven Moffatt. The writing is sharp, scary where it should be and occasionally funny to break the tension, but the strongest reason to rent this one is James Nesbitt as the lead character. You can really believe this one actor is two entirely different people in the blink of an eye. I won't spoil it by telling you anything more, other than that there are several differences from prior versions, and every one of them is there for an entertaining reason. If you like horror as much as I do, rent this one as soon as you can.
I somehow missed the Veronica Mars TV series while it was originally on the air, but heard so much about it that I've picked it up through Netflix. I haven't finished it yet (I'm most of the way through the first season), but what I've seen so far is excellent. It's well plotted, well acted, and creates an engaging over arcing mystery even though individual episodes still hold up well on their own, for the most part. Unfortunately, the Netflix reviews suggest that the second and third seasons were disappointing compared to the first, but I'll need a break after binging on this one for the last couple of weeks anyway. The one thing that bothers me is how Veronica constantly tweaks local law enforcement without being taken away from her father's care. It just stands to reason that when someone takes as many chances as she does, it should catch up with her sooner or later. There's also a character thing bothering me about one of the supporting characters that I'm going to wait out and see if it's eventually explained before commenting on it. Highly recommended.
The British series "Jekyll" was also a pleasant surprise. This is a powerful modern take on "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde". I don't even remember how I found it, though I think I spotted it in a catalog of British TV series DVDs. It was written by one of the people behind recent seasons of Doctor Who, Steven Moffatt. The writing is sharp, scary where it should be and occasionally funny to break the tension, but the strongest reason to rent this one is James Nesbitt as the lead character. You can really believe this one actor is two entirely different people in the blink of an eye. I won't spoil it by telling you anything more, other than that there are several differences from prior versions, and every one of them is there for an entertaining reason. If you like horror as much as I do, rent this one as soon as you can.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Compassion
I was just reading an article on beliefnet.com about a study done in 2000 regarding the effects of meditation on emotional health, and came across a telling observation made by the Dalai Lama in the course of that study. He'd noticed that in the Tibetan language, the word for compassion means compassion for yourself as well as other people, but in English it only means compassion for other people. He said "You're missing a very important word."
That's quite an insight. Here in the United States, we don't have the exposure to other languages that people do in many other parts of the world, so we seldom see that type of observation. It's fascinating that there are words or phrases in almost every language for which there is no direct translation in another, and those linguistic holes often tell you something about one of the cultures or the other, if not both. What does this particular omission tell us about our culture?
How often do you show compassion for yourself? I've spent a lot of time in my life mentally beating myself up over one mistake or another, sometimes years after the original mistake. It's one thing to learn from your mistakes, and another thing entirely to repeatedly and unnecessarily punish yourself for those mistakes. Any pain beyond that necessary for the lesson is pointless additional suffering. Learning to forgive yourself is a good start to learning to forgive others, so this is a concept well worth incorporating into your life.
That's quite an insight. Here in the United States, we don't have the exposure to other languages that people do in many other parts of the world, so we seldom see that type of observation. It's fascinating that there are words or phrases in almost every language for which there is no direct translation in another, and those linguistic holes often tell you something about one of the cultures or the other, if not both. What does this particular omission tell us about our culture?
How often do you show compassion for yourself? I've spent a lot of time in my life mentally beating myself up over one mistake or another, sometimes years after the original mistake. It's one thing to learn from your mistakes, and another thing entirely to repeatedly and unnecessarily punish yourself for those mistakes. Any pain beyond that necessary for the lesson is pointless additional suffering. Learning to forgive yourself is a good start to learning to forgive others, so this is a concept well worth incorporating into your life.
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Mohammed the Friendly Bear
For those who haven't heard about it, a British teacher working in the Sudan brought a teddy bear into a class of seven year old children and allowed the children to vote on what to name it. She intended to use the bear as the focus for a series of projects for the kids, asking them to do things like take it home for the day and write about what they did with it, for example. Some of the children were Christians, but as I understand it, most of them were Muslims. She asked the children for a selection of possible names for the bear, and they ultimately voted to name the bear Mohammed. It's a significant point that the Muslim children selected the name. The teacher didn't even choose the list of choices.
Some local Muslim adults protested when they heard about it, as using the name Mohammed for an animal could be perceived as insulting to the Muslim faith. The teacher has been charged with the crimes of insulting religion and inciting hatred. She could've been sentenced to 40 lashes, a year in prison, or a fine. She was sentenced to 15 days in prison and will be deported. Crowds of Muslims armed with clubs and knives reportedly showed up trying to find the prison in which she was being kept so they could kill her.
So let me make sure I've got this right. The teacher allowed a predominantly Muslim group of children to give a toy a potentially offensive name (assuming that she was even aware that naming an animal Mohammed could be offensive). The local people who went looking for her intended nothing less than premeditated murder. Who is insulting religion and inciting hatred?
I've tried to see this through Muslim eyes as best I can, and it still doesn't make sense to me. I understand that insulting Mohammed is one of the most blasphemous things that a person can do in the eyes of a Muslim, but isn't there any consideration of the intent of the person doing it? There's a world of difference between a person being accidentally offensive and a person intentionally insulting the local culture's most highly regarded values.
As I understand it, Muslim groups in various countries have come forward to show that not all Muslims believe this treatment of the teacher has been fair. Good! This shows us that most Muslims are decent, compassionate people, and those who were trying to kill this teacher are a misguided minority. When Muslims in Sudan are trying to kill someone over what appears to nothing more than an error made entirely in ignorance, is it any wonder that many people in the West have trouble seeing Muslims in a positive light?
Some local Muslim adults protested when they heard about it, as using the name Mohammed for an animal could be perceived as insulting to the Muslim faith. The teacher has been charged with the crimes of insulting religion and inciting hatred. She could've been sentenced to 40 lashes, a year in prison, or a fine. She was sentenced to 15 days in prison and will be deported. Crowds of Muslims armed with clubs and knives reportedly showed up trying to find the prison in which she was being kept so they could kill her.
So let me make sure I've got this right. The teacher allowed a predominantly Muslim group of children to give a toy a potentially offensive name (assuming that she was even aware that naming an animal Mohammed could be offensive). The local people who went looking for her intended nothing less than premeditated murder. Who is insulting religion and inciting hatred?
I've tried to see this through Muslim eyes as best I can, and it still doesn't make sense to me. I understand that insulting Mohammed is one of the most blasphemous things that a person can do in the eyes of a Muslim, but isn't there any consideration of the intent of the person doing it? There's a world of difference between a person being accidentally offensive and a person intentionally insulting the local culture's most highly regarded values.
As I understand it, Muslim groups in various countries have come forward to show that not all Muslims believe this treatment of the teacher has been fair. Good! This shows us that most Muslims are decent, compassionate people, and those who were trying to kill this teacher are a misguided minority. When Muslims in Sudan are trying to kill someone over what appears to nothing more than an error made entirely in ignorance, is it any wonder that many people in the West have trouble seeing Muslims in a positive light?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)