This is how the Sudanese people wish to live. I can't tell you how relieved I am right now that none of you naysayers have the influence required to force your imperialist dogma down their throats.
Oh heck no! I'm all for mass genocide in the whole country if she ends up being put to death. I'm just saying it'd be rude to try to change their beliefs.
Oh heck no! I'm all for mass genocide in the whole country if she ends up being put to death. I'm just saying it'd be rude to try to change their beliefs.
For one, nobody is trying to change their beliefs. It's a change of government that is at discussion. For two, just whose beliefs are you talking about us trying to change? you lay out a mighty big net when you say "their beliefs" and include every citizen of Sudan.
The government/religous organization of Sudan has shown that it has brainwashed at least some of its people enough to turn them into zealots who would call for a persons death over something very small and petty that likely wouldn't even be considered an offense on the grounds of the religion in question.
I think the update to this situation, however grim, only solidifies my statements. I appreciate that you are playing the other half of this argument, but simply put religion and government do not mix. History has taught us that over and over again. The founders of America were bright enough to see that and try something else. Now if you really wanted to argue against me, you should be pointing out that religion in this country is perhaps a little too weak. But then, we aren't going around exectuing people for naming a pet snake "Jesus" or some silly thing like that now are we?
Hard-line clerics who hold considerable influence with Sudan's Islamic government, have sought to whip up public anger over the Gibbons' case, calling her actions part of a Western plot to damage Islam.
Now that's just plain paranoia. I believe in allowing others to live their lives as they see fit. It's true that trying to force others to be more tolerant is itself an intolerant move. But when things get this severe, we are morally obligated to do something. Our government and the British government should cut-off all ties with Muslim nations immediately (not primarily Muslim nations, nations with Muslim theocracies). If they can't play nice, then we shouldn't play with them anymore.
Exactly exactly, Behemoth! It's as simple as ignoring them.
Look, X, would you want someone to be punished if they murdered a family member of yours? I'm not even going as extreme as capital punishment. Would you agree that an act such as murder deserves at least jail time?
I hope you answered, "Yes." If you did not, let's assume you did, because I think it's safe to say most people would want some retribution for the death of a family member. Now imagine a society where murder happens all the time and the one who committed the "crime" is not chastised; perhaps they are even revered for murder. You can bet your bottom dollar that they'd look at us and expressly query, "What the fuck?"
What would you say to one of them coming over to America to teach us their language? (Because in this world it's economically beneficial to communicate with them. Their country produces the best tourists.) Okay, now imagine a class project where their teacher tells the students to murder somebody they love as an act of love, because honestly, who wouldn't want a loved one to become a hero? Now, all of a sudden, we're calling for this person's death! They are jailed! They are denounced and misunderstood! The prisoner's home culture is in an uproar!
"Why are they getting so upset about such a tiny faux-pas?" is the resounded message from that country. "Those people are savages and prone to religious ideology! They claim Jesus preached against killing but he murdered his fair share of Jewish clergy!"
What if this foreign country then tried to impose their beliefs on us? "Murder isn't wrong! Get over it!"
I mean...do you see what I'm saying? Just because another culture's views are confusing to us doesn't mean that they're wrong. You're coming off as ignorant. Just because you were taught that a single human life is more important than religious ideology doesn't mean that's the universal law.
The Universe doesn't care if we die. The Universe doesn't care if we have religion. I hope you can read between the lines of my metaphor up there. If you take it literally, I just won't know what to say.
First of all (I know this will sound a little too literal for you) there is a difference between murder and killing. If it's socially accepted, then it isn't murder, it's a legal killing. "Murder" is, by definition, wrong in every society.
Second, I never said simply ignore them. I said that we cut off all ties. That means we don't give them any more money, we don't buy their shit, we don't allow their people to come here and we don't allow ours to go there. If they want to live in their own little world, I would allow them too.
Third, you're missing the main point. There is no written Islamic teaching that says people who name teddy bears after Muhammad must be put to death. Even their own laws only called for some whipping. These people are not acting according to some higher religious belief, they are acting on political brainwashing. Like I said, the idea of pushing tolerance on others is itself an intolerant act, but we're talking about people who want to kill someone for not stopping the children of their own kind from "insulting" their religion. There is no way you can look at that and see it as being a fair punishment.
EDIT: also, I just love that whole "if you don't accept someone else's lifestyle it's because you're ignorant" argument. Why must we assume that if I don't like something I don't understand it, or I don't know enough about it? Why can't it be that I've studied and experienced it, I have plenty of first-hand experience, and after a great deal of consideration, I've realized that that other person's way of living is not only distasteful to me, but hypocritical of their own proclaimed values and morals? I've noticed throughout my life that the people who try to give you advice or learned wisdom, are doing so because they've only recently come across this wisdom themselves. Then when you don't share their enthusiasm for this wonderful idea, they get all pissy and assume you just can't comprehend what they're saying. Telling us we are ignorant and need to learn more about this foreign culture before we start passing judgment is something often said by people who are, themselves, ignorant of the matter at hand. Just because we don't share your view doesn't mean we are too far below your level to understand what you're saying. It may just mean that we have already passed your current level and you'll one day move and share our view.
So there is no right and wrong?! Ron Paul certainly wouldn't say that. His entire campaign is based on the assumption that everything America has done ever is wrong.
You say that just because we believe executing someone for perceived blasphemy is wrong means that we shouldn't hold that same ethical standard to another culture. I respond that just because another culture embraces execution as a means of punishment for blasphemy doesn't automatically free them from criticism. Simply because there is something "different" or "unique" or "contrary" about a culture certainly doesn't mean it is intrinsically wrong, of course, but that doesn't mean that it is perfect or without fault. And I don't believe being angry, upset, and frankly sickened by the idea that a lot of people want to put this woman to death over something this trivial is a knee-jerk reaction to cultural differences.
I'm also getting tired of this self-righteous demeanor, John. It would be one thing if I actually thought you believed this idiocy, but it's just hyper-irony. Meta humor is fun for a while, but now you're just being obstinate.
I'm not asking you to understand them at all! Just don't say they're wrong!
Alrighty. SO, now you're saying that if I don't understand something I should assume that it isn't wrong. If something isn't wrong, it's right, right? Please correct me if there is some third option here. So what you're basically telling me is, if I don't understand it, i should assume it's right.
NOW, if we say it's wrong, we're ignorant. And if we're ignorant, it means we don't understand, so we should be assuming it's right. I'm afraid I can't agree with the idea of thinking it's right or else it means I'm wrong or don't understand.
I believe that people should always be as informed as possible. If you don't understand something, learn about it. Then you can sit back and fully understand why it is wrong. Don't just say it's not wrong because you don't understand it.
First, I'll give John a little support here, since he's all alone in this, and for some strange unknown reason to me I find myself agreeing with at least a little of what he is saying. He's taking a stance which I have always shared when I've gone to another country. That is that when you go to another culture different from your own, you accept that things are going to be different. Not inherently right, not inherently wrong, just different. I'm not talking about politics or government, yet, I'm just talking about culture in general.
Since China has been on my mind lately, let's draw some parallels to there. China is communist. Quite communist. There was a time in US history when sympathizing with or trying to understand communist ideology was almost equivalent to treason. Now China plays a very heavy hand into our country's trade, and Chinese culture and language is taught at a substantial number of educational institutions across the country.
Communism works for these people. They embrace it, and the majority of them believe in it. During the Cultural Revolution, many people were hurt, yes, but that time has passed. The majority of the Chinese believe in their government. There are some that don't, and there are some that have issues, but hell, every country has that.
Back when communism was taboo, everyone in the Western world believed that communism wouldn't work. Right now China is doing a fantastic job of proving that notion wrong.
The point which I believe he is trying to make is that the Sudanese form of government works for the Sudanese people, and he believes in the sovereignty of each nation to make their own decisions, no matter how fucking stupid they may be.
I do not agree with what most people have said about the separation of church and state never working together. It will never work for us. Nobody expected China 50 years ago to be where it is today. Barring extremists from taking over the government, it is possible that a strong alliance between religion and government can work together well. I haven't heard of riots against the Sudanese government (recent events ignored), so I am under the impression that they prefer this.
However, if they go so far as to kill her, then that is a completely different story. I agree with Adam, that we have a moral obligation to protect our own and to prevent these things from happening again. If they actually made the effort to kill her, then we would have to completely shut off all ties against them (assuming we did indeed rescue her), until such a time when our cultures might align a little better.
2) Her sentence
As far as I know, her sentence is NOT death. She got like two weeks in prison, which apparently could have been a lot worse. The people demanding her death are just protesters. In recent times, Muslim extremism gets a lot of time on the news. They are quite capable of making themselves heard, and our media is eager to turn their ears to them. Most Muslims are much more loving and forgiving than the protesters.
We have plenty of people in the US who make a lot of fucking noise. Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, the list can go on. I'm not trying to say that these people are the same as the protesters, but people who take extreme views on a political spectrum get heard more often. They're quite good at it.
Back to her sentence, two weeks is manageable. They're not torturing her. I'm certain that it's probably not where she wants to be, and I sure as hell would not want to be there, but she's going to get to go home. Chances are she won't want to go back to Sudan anyways. Chances are a lot of people who might've gone to Sudan in the near future won't be going at all. That hurts Sudan, but they brought that on themselves.
The government made a decision to make sure that nobody was too pissed off (obviously, not many people are actually happy with her conviction, on either side of the issue). They convicted her of something, to appeal to the population that wanted something done to her, not necessarily murder. But it's mostly a shallow victory, because she didn't get the possible 6 months in jail or the usual lashes that accompany charges of blasphemy.
3) Culture
Open-mindedness is good for cultural understanding between nations, but too much is dangerous. There are values held by different cultures that are inherently wrong. Religious extremism is a culture in itself which condones violent tactics, including murder, to further their own ideals. This is wrong. Not the "it's not wrong or right, it's different" axiom I live by in other countries to explain alien or confusing values of a culture. It's just plain wrong by the standards of every civilized culture in the world.
The culture of the average Sudanese, the average Muslim, is different from the culture of these protesters. It would be wise not to confuse these two. The protesters are paranoid to the degree of believing that affixing a name to a stuffed animal is the beginning of a long plot to have their religion discredited and their people destroyed by Western culture.
Back when communism was taboo, everyone in the Western world believed that communism wouldn't work. Right now China is doing a fantastic job of proving that notion wrong.
I agree with everything you've said, but I just want to point out that while China calls itself communist, it's seems to resemble more of a run-of-the-mill authoritarian government now rather than the hardliner Maoist government of the past. China's doing great right now because of the free market, which is quite uncommunistic in the general understanding of what communism is. It certainly isn't Marxist-Leninist Communism that's being practiced in China.
I'd just like to add that this is, a tiny tiny bit, partially the teacher's fault. I'm not saying that any of this is right, but hear me out.
I would think that, before heading over to a theocracy to live and teach, one would throughly investigate what not to say and do. To me, a theocratic government would be extremely frightening to try and navigate, and I would try to tread as lightly as possible, including researching all the really blatant taboos. For example, if my girlfriend was going to go to a Muslim country that required its women to wear a burkha in public, how should she, a foreign tourist, dress? What would happen if she wore a low-cut shirt and didn't cover her hair? You don't just go into the country and see what happens. You figure out how to act to avoid a big fuss.
So, perhaps a little more care on this teacher's part might have avoided the whole mess.
Not that I think that she SHOULD have to tread so lightly, but reality is what it is, and you have to take the necessary precautions.
The lesson learned here is that Westerners should never use the name Mohammad, ever. Don't even call Muslims named Mohammad Mohammad. Call them "hey you."
NAIROBI, Kenya, Dec. 3 — The British schoolteacher jailed in Sudan for allowing her 7-year-old pupils to name a teddy bear Muhammad was pardoned today by Sudan’s president and released to British authorities. She was later reported to have left the country.
The British Embassy said the schoolteacher, Gillian Gibbons, was in the custody of its officials but refused to say where she was and when she would leave Sudan. However, a British Embassy spokesman was later quoted by the Associated Press as saying that the teacher had left Sudan on a flight back to Britain.
The president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, made the decision to pardon Ms. Gibbons after a meeting this morning in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, with two Muslim peers from Britain’s House of Lords, the upper house of Parliament.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain said he was “delighted and relieved” at the news and that “common sense had prevailed,” according to the BBC. Despite the pardon, she was still required to leave the country.
Ms. Gibbons was sentenced to 15 days in jail last week for insulting Islam and was to be released Dec. 10. On Friday, hundreds of angry Sudanese in Khartoum protested what they considered to be a lenient punishment. Under Sudanese law, Ms. Gibbons could have received 40 lashes and been jailed for six months.
British officials put heavy pressure on Sudan to release Ms. Gibbons, 54, saying that she had made an innocent mistake in allowing her students to give a class teddy bear the same name as Islam’s holy prophet. Muhammad also is one of the most common names in the Muslim world.
Mr. Bashir was caught in the middle. By cutting short the time that Ms. Gibbons would serve in jail, the president risks provoking Muslim hard-liners in his country, who are among his key supporters. But the case hit his desk at a time when United Nations officials and Western governments are increasingly complaining that Sudan is obstructing an expanded peacekeeping force for Darfur, the war-torn region in the west of the country.
Apparently, Mr. Bashir calculated that he did not need to isolate his government any further.
“This was all political,” said Kamal al-Gizouli, Ms. Gibbons’ defense attorney. “The government did this to show they are tolerant. They don’t need any more problems with the world and the international media.”
According to the BBC, Ms. Gibbons issued a statement today saying she was sorry for offending Muslims.
“I have been in Sudan for only four months but I have enjoyed myself immensely,” the statement said. “I have encountered nothing but kindness and generosity from the Sudanese people. I have great respect for the Islamic religion and would not knowingly offend anyone and I am sorry if I caused any distress.”
The teddy bear affair started in September when Ms. Gibbons, who taught at one of Sudan’s most exclusive private schools, began a project on animals and asked her class to suggest a name for a teddy bear. The class voted resoundingly for Muhammad.
As part of the exercise, Ms. Gibbons told her pupils to take the bear home, photograph it and write a diary entry about it. The entries were collected in a book, “My Name Is Muhammad.” Most of her students were Muslim and the children of wealthy Sudanese families.
The government said that when some parents saw the book, they complained to the authorities. Ms. Gibbons was arrested, and she went to trial on Thursday. After an all-day trial, the judge seemed to reach for a compromise by finding her guilty of insulting Islam but handing her a relatively light sentence.
That compromise seemed to please neither the Sudanese hard-liners, nor the British. But Mr. Gizouli said he did not expect further demonstrations.
“If the government doesn’t want people to go into the streets,” he said today, “they won’t go into the streets. That’s how it works here.”
I'm not sure how I feel about her response. Doesn't it seem overly optimistic? I feel like this is another example of a person who only sees in black and white. But then again, maybe this is just her media statement. Maybe I'm wrong, what do you think?
Oh, maybe I should have indicated what I was talking about.
I have been in Sudan for only four months but I have enjoyed myself immensely,” the statement said. “I have encountered nothing but kindness and generosity from the Sudanese people.
Comments
For one, nobody is trying to change their beliefs. It's a change of government that is at discussion. For two, just whose beliefs are you talking about us trying to change? you lay out a mighty big net when you say "their beliefs" and include every citizen of Sudan.
The government/religous organization of Sudan has shown that it has brainwashed at least some of its people enough to turn them into zealots who would call for a persons death over something very small and petty that likely wouldn't even be considered an offense on the grounds of the religion in question.
I think the update to this situation, however grim, only solidifies my statements. I appreciate that you are playing the other half of this argument, but simply put religion and government do not mix. History has taught us that over and over again. The founders of America were bright enough to see that and try something else. Now if you really wanted to argue against me, you should be pointing out that religion in this country is perhaps a little too weak. But then, we aren't going around exectuing people for naming a pet snake "Jesus" or some silly thing like that now are we?
Look, X, would you want someone to be punished if they murdered a family member of yours? I'm not even going as extreme as capital punishment. Would you agree that an act such as murder deserves at least jail time?
I hope you answered, "Yes." If you did not, let's assume you did, because I think it's safe to say most people would want some retribution for the death of a family member. Now imagine a society where murder happens all the time and the one who committed the "crime" is not chastised; perhaps they are even revered for murder. You can bet your bottom dollar that they'd look at us and expressly query, "What the fuck?"
What would you say to one of them coming over to America to teach us their language? (Because in this world it's economically beneficial to communicate with them. Their country produces the best tourists.) Okay, now imagine a class project where their teacher tells the students to murder somebody they love as an act of love, because honestly, who wouldn't want a loved one to become a hero? Now, all of a sudden, we're calling for this person's death! They are jailed! They are denounced and misunderstood! The prisoner's home culture is in an uproar!
"Why are they getting so upset about such a tiny faux-pas?" is the resounded message from that country. "Those people are savages and prone to religious ideology! They claim Jesus preached against killing but he murdered his fair share of Jewish clergy!"
What if this foreign country then tried to impose their beliefs on us? "Murder isn't wrong! Get over it!"
I mean...do you see what I'm saying? Just because another culture's views are confusing to us doesn't mean that they're wrong. You're coming off as ignorant. Just because you were taught that a single human life is more important than religious ideology doesn't mean that's the universal law.
The Universe doesn't care if we die. The Universe doesn't care if we have religion. I hope you can read between the lines of my metaphor up there. If you take it literally, I just won't know what to say.
Second, I never said simply ignore them. I said that we cut off all ties. That means we don't give them any more money, we don't buy their shit, we don't allow their people to come here and we don't allow ours to go there. If they want to live in their own little world, I would allow them too.
Third, you're missing the main point. There is no written Islamic teaching that says people who name teddy bears after Muhammad must be put to death. Even their own laws only called for some whipping. These people are not acting according to some higher religious belief, they are acting on political brainwashing. Like I said, the idea of pushing tolerance on others is itself an intolerant act, but we're talking about people who want to kill someone for not stopping the children of their own kind from "insulting" their religion. There is no way you can look at that and see it as being a fair punishment.
EDIT: also, I just love that whole "if you don't accept someone else's lifestyle it's because you're ignorant" argument. Why must we assume that if I don't like something I don't understand it, or I don't know enough about it? Why can't it be that I've studied and experienced it, I have plenty of first-hand experience, and after a great deal of consideration, I've realized that that other person's way of living is not only distasteful to me, but hypocritical of their own proclaimed values and morals? I've noticed throughout my life that the people who try to give you advice or learned wisdom, are doing so because they've only recently come across this wisdom themselves. Then when you don't share their enthusiasm for this wonderful idea, they get all pissy and assume you just can't comprehend what they're saying. Telling us we are ignorant and need to learn more about this foreign culture before we start passing judgment is something often said by people who are, themselves, ignorant of the matter at hand. Just because we don't share your view doesn't mean we are too far below your level to understand what you're saying. It may just mean that we have already passed your current level and you'll one day move and share our view.
You say that just because we believe executing someone for perceived blasphemy is wrong means that we shouldn't hold that same ethical standard to another culture. I respond that just because another culture embraces execution as a means of punishment for blasphemy doesn't automatically free them from criticism. Simply because there is something "different" or "unique" or "contrary" about a culture certainly doesn't mean it is intrinsically wrong, of course, but that doesn't mean that it is perfect or without fault. And I don't believe being angry, upset, and frankly sickened by the idea that a lot of people want to put this woman to death over something this trivial is a knee-jerk reaction to cultural differences.
I'm also getting tired of this self-righteous demeanor, John. It would be one thing if I actually thought you believed this idiocy, but it's just hyper-irony. Meta humor is fun for a while, but now you're just being obstinate.
Don't vote for fascism!
Alrighty. SO, now you're saying that if I don't understand something I should assume that it isn't wrong. If something isn't wrong, it's right, right? Please correct me if there is some third option here. So what you're basically telling me is, if I don't understand it, i should assume it's right.
NOW, if we say it's wrong, we're ignorant. And if we're ignorant, it means we don't understand, so we should be assuming it's right. I'm afraid I can't agree with the idea of thinking it's right or else it means I'm wrong or don't understand.
I believe that people should always be as informed as possible. If you don't understand something, learn about it. Then you can sit back and fully understand why it is wrong. Don't just say it's not wrong because you don't understand it.
First, I'll give John a little support here, since he's all alone in this, and for some strange unknown reason to me I find myself agreeing with at least a little of what he is saying. He's taking a stance which I have always shared when I've gone to another country. That is that when you go to another culture different from your own, you accept that things are going to be different. Not inherently right, not inherently wrong, just different. I'm not talking about politics or government, yet, I'm just talking about culture in general.
Since China has been on my mind lately, let's draw some parallels to there. China is communist. Quite communist. There was a time in US history when sympathizing with or trying to understand communist ideology was almost equivalent to treason. Now China plays a very heavy hand into our country's trade, and Chinese culture and language is taught at a substantial number of educational institutions across the country.
Communism works for these people. They embrace it, and the majority of them believe in it. During the Cultural Revolution, many people were hurt, yes, but that time has passed. The majority of the Chinese believe in their government. There are some that don't, and there are some that have issues, but hell, every country has that.
Back when communism was taboo, everyone in the Western world believed that communism wouldn't work. Right now China is doing a fantastic job of proving that notion wrong.
The point which I believe he is trying to make is that the Sudanese form of government works for the Sudanese people, and he believes in the sovereignty of each nation to make their own decisions, no matter how fucking stupid they may be.
I do not agree with what most people have said about the separation of church and state never working together. It will never work for us. Nobody expected China 50 years ago to be where it is today. Barring extremists from taking over the government, it is possible that a strong alliance between religion and government can work together well. I haven't heard of riots against the Sudanese government (recent events ignored), so I am under the impression that they prefer this.
However, if they go so far as to kill her, then that is a completely different story. I agree with Adam, that we have a moral obligation to protect our own and to prevent these things from happening again. If they actually made the effort to kill her, then we would have to completely shut off all ties against them (assuming we did indeed rescue her), until such a time when our cultures might align a little better.
2) Her sentence
As far as I know, her sentence is NOT death. She got like two weeks in prison, which apparently could have been a lot worse. The people demanding her death are just protesters. In recent times, Muslim extremism gets a lot of time on the news. They are quite capable of making themselves heard, and our media is eager to turn their ears to them. Most Muslims are much more loving and forgiving than the protesters.
We have plenty of people in the US who make a lot of fucking noise. Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, the list can go on. I'm not trying to say that these people are the same as the protesters, but people who take extreme views on a political spectrum get heard more often. They're quite good at it.
Back to her sentence, two weeks is manageable. They're not torturing her. I'm certain that it's probably not where she wants to be, and I sure as hell would not want to be there, but she's going to get to go home. Chances are she won't want to go back to Sudan anyways. Chances are a lot of people who might've gone to Sudan in the near future won't be going at all. That hurts Sudan, but they brought that on themselves.
The government made a decision to make sure that nobody was too pissed off (obviously, not many people are actually happy with her conviction, on either side of the issue). They convicted her of something, to appeal to the population that wanted something done to her, not necessarily murder. But it's mostly a shallow victory, because she didn't get the possible 6 months in jail or the usual lashes that accompany charges of blasphemy.
3) Culture
Open-mindedness is good for cultural understanding between nations, but too much is dangerous. There are values held by different cultures that are inherently wrong. Religious extremism is a culture in itself which condones violent tactics, including murder, to further their own ideals. This is wrong. Not the "it's not wrong or right, it's different" axiom I live by in other countries to explain alien or confusing values of a culture. It's just plain wrong by the standards of every civilized culture in the world.
The culture of the average Sudanese, the average Muslim, is different from the culture of these protesters. It would be wise not to confuse these two. The protesters are paranoid to the degree of believing that affixing a name to a stuffed animal is the beginning of a long plot to have their religion discredited and their people destroyed by Western culture.
I agree with everything you've said, but I just want to point out that while China calls itself communist, it's seems to resemble more of a run-of-the-mill authoritarian government now rather than the hardliner Maoist government of the past. China's doing great right now because of the free market, which is quite uncommunistic in the general understanding of what communism is. It certainly isn't Marxist-Leninist Communism that's being practiced in China.
*brainasplode*
I would think that, before heading over to a theocracy to live and teach, one would throughly investigate what not to say and do. To me, a theocratic government would be extremely frightening to try and navigate, and I would try to tread as lightly as possible, including researching all the really blatant taboos. For example, if my girlfriend was going to go to a Muslim country that required its women to wear a burkha in public, how should she, a foreign tourist, dress? What would happen if she wore a low-cut shirt and didn't cover her hair? You don't just go into the country and see what happens. You figure out how to act to avoid a big fuss.
So, perhaps a little more care on this teacher's part might have avoided the whole mess.
Not that I think that she SHOULD have to tread so lightly, but reality is what it is, and you have to take the necessary precautions.
Jake, seriously dude, I'm not being sarcastic. At least...I don't think I am? I don't even know anymore. :[
I hope we all learned something about everyone else's beliefs here! I know I did.
Sudanese President Pardons British Teacher
This time.
That's media talk for "murdered by people who don't want you to know."
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/35119/118/
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/05/engadget-rips-open-the-vii/