British fear of Islamists and Saudi fears about atheists are two sides of the same coin

[rug]

Saudi Arabia's aim of 'instilling the Islamic faith in the younger generation' (is) in principle not very different from Michael Gove’s idea of instilling "British values".' Photograph: Paul Rogers/AFP/Getty Images

Monday 24 November 2014 04.00 EST
Brian Whitaker
Brian Whitaker is a former Middle East editor of the Guardian. He is the author of several books about the region, most recently Arabs Without God: Atheism and Freedom of Belief in the Middle East

“Extremism in whatever form it takes has no place in our society, especially not in our schools,” the London diocesan board for schools said last week, referring to a Church of England school where sixth-formers had set up an Islamic society without approval from teachers or governors. Making use of the school’s virtual learning centre, the Islamic society had reportedly made a YouTube video and held meetings addressed by radical preachers.

In Saudi Arabia there are similar concerns about “extremist” ideas taking hold in the minds of the young. Newspaper articles agonise about this much as they do in Britain, though in Saudi Arabia the ideology they fear is atheism.

“We must fight the phenomenon of atheism with initiatives that will nip it in the bud before it takes roots in the hearts of our young men and women,” an article in al-Watan newspaper began. It went on to call for a national strategy “to protect our religion”, with participation by all sections of society. “It is easier to treat cancer in its initial stage before it seeps deep into the body cells,” the article added.

The treatment chosen by the Saudi government was to amend its anti-terrorism law to classify “calling for atheist thought in any form or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion” as a terrorist act.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/24/british-fear-islamists-saudi-fear-atheists-jihadism-schools

[djean111]

1. Substitute "American" for "Saudi" add "Islamic" to atheist thought, substitute "Christianity" for

"Islamic religion" - and you have what some Christians would love to do right here.

The treatment chosen by the (Saudi) American government was to amend its anti-terrorism law to classify “calling for atheist and Islamic thought in any form or calling into question the fundamentals of the (Islamic religion) Christianity” as a terrorist act.

Have seen that expressed by some, and, ironically, this is why I consider nut-jobs like Dominionists - Palin, Cruz - as actual terrorists.

“We must fight the phenomenon of atheism with initiatives that will nip it in the bud before it takes roots in the hearts of our young men and women,” an article in al-Watan newspaper began. It went on to call for a national strategy “to protect our religion”, with participation by all sections of society. “It is easier to treat cancer in its initial stage before it seeps deep into the body cells,” the article added.

Thus the grim determination to get creationism into schools, to get considering Moses as the Founding Father into schools.

[rug]

2. No doubt.

Every ruling class perpetuates itself by its own ideology.

My son brought a friend of his home from college for Thanksgiving. His mother teaches at a university in in China. One of her courses is in Marxism-Lenininsm and Mao Tse-Tung Thought. He said it's a prerequisite to enter graduate school. He also said no one takes the class seriously.

[djean111]

3. Yikes. The thought of having Christians as the official ruling class is frightening indeed.

I know some believe they are, or should be. Shudder.

I explained the Christian beliefs - started out with Christmas lore - to my son and grandson as "some people believe, there is no actual proof".
My son is Christian, my grandson and I firmly atheist. We don't argue about that sort of thing at all, we see no need to even discuss it, just have all accepted it and moved on.

I have seen my sister go from almost rabid Mormon convert to leaving Mormonism to quoting the bible at length to saying she feels as if there is something there but not sure what. We are both good with that!

[rug]

4. (Contrary to some opinions) I think the insidious nature of religious privilege should be checked.

There's no need for explicit ideology to be adopted if it is implicitly understood, and enforced.

I like your approach. I've always explained my Catholics beliefs by preceding it with, "if this is true, the Church teaches . . . .". It's important we all know exactly what it's all about so we don't end up attacking cartoon notions of religion or going in the other direction and slipping into a religion based on enthisiasm and personal interactions.

[djean111]

7. Um, "enforced"? That sounds ominous!

[rug]

8. That's what all the lawsuits are about, to prevent that.

Most of them prevail because there is no explicit legal basis to allow. I'm referring to the various lawsuits to stup religious displays on governmental property, school sanctioned prayer, etc. They are the result of privilege and not codified law.

[djean111]

9. Thanks for the explanation!

[stone space]

5. I've heard arguements like this before.

When one Saudi woman – a teacher in her 20s – attempted to discuss her religious doubts with a scholar he informed her that she was mentally sick and should seek treatment.

[rug]

6. And Soviet dissidents were placed in pschiatric wards.

[edhopper]

10. One is concerned

with radical Islam, the type that posters here insists does not represent the vast majority of Muslims, using public schools to teach their form of religion.

The other has laws in which you can't even discuss the possibility of doubt about Islam, let alone God. And the consequences are severe.

Do you really think they are the same?

[Cartoonist]

11. I concur

One government frowns on the practice, the other labels them terrorists.

[edhopper]

12. And one government doesn't forbid the teaching

just says it shouldn't be in public schools.

The other uses public schools to teach the very same thing and outlaws any contrary thought on it.

so no, they are not sides of the same coins, not even the same currency.

[Humanist_Activist]

13. Holy fucking shit, this is such an inaccurate comparison, its not even funny....

"two sides of the same coin?"

Really?

You have, on one side, a significant minority of Muslims who think it is appropriate to, at the very least, physically punish apostates, adulterers, blasphemers, etc. not to mentions that members of this group have committed various actions within the UK from FGM to assault to murder.

On the other side, you have a nutcase Islamic theocratic state that is afraid of doubters and disbelief, and wishes to criminalize that doubt and disbelief.

There is NOTHING here, absolutely NOTHING, that is remotely comparable between the two.