The scriptures of all the major faiths are given respect in this way
Crawl crawl crawl crawl crawl.
[S]ome Muslims in Leicester had moved copies of the Koran to the top shelves of libraries, because they believe it is an insult to display it in a low position. The city’s librarians consulted the Federation of Muslim Organisations and were advised that all religious texts should be kept on the top shelf to ensure equality…“This meant that no offence is caused, as the scriptures of all the major faiths are given respect in this way, but none is higher than any other.”
So libraries shift from being secular public institutions that make books easily available to everyone, to ones that make displays of ‘respect’ to all of the ‘major faiths’ and whose officials creep around on their stomachs in the effort not to ‘insult’ anyone or anything including a book and not to ’cause offence’ to anyone including the most neurotically hypervigilant offence-sniffing hair-trigger mewling whining sniveling bed-wetters within the city limits.
So what are they going to say when the same people decide it would be a good wheeze to get offended and insulted about all the books written by atheists and apostates and unbelievers and women and gays? What are they going to say when it becomes apparent that once you let people dictate public policy by claiming to be religiously ‘offended’ and ‘insulted’ there is no place to stop? What are they going to say when a gang shows up and tells them to have the Koran on a high shelf and no other books at all?
I suppose they will say ‘Wait just a moment while we consult the Federation of Muslim Organisations.’
Isn’t the top shelf where the obscene publications are kept?
At all the libraries I’m acquainted with, it’s where the books are kept that have the numbers after the ones on the bottom shelf to the left. How Leicester library users are going to find books that are shelved out of sequence is not explained. Perhaps there will be special glowing reliousy signs pointing to them – respectfully, of course.
When will this idiocy stop?! It’s getting so oppressive that we’re soon going to have to have some real protests against religious idiocy and the suppression of freedoms implied in it. This is deeply offensive, as well as being simply ridiculous.
Libraries should simply say. We will keep your books in the library collection, and shelve them in the usual way. If that does not please you, we will respectfully decline to hold them. But this is really one step too far.
Quite, so, Tom Freeman! I laughed out loud on reading Same Old Dog’s ‘Put them on the roof’ comment @ Holy Smoke blog. There would have to be a lot of ‘crawling on high’ there to reach the bibles.
I thought the comment by Ibrahim on Holy Smoke was also very interesting.
Here is a wee snippet.
“A translated version of the Koran isn’t considered a Koran at all, simply because you cannot recite it in the Arabic original. A Koran with bilingual text is considered a learning medium and not true Koran either. To attribute to a written text an intrinsic holiness is not really Islamic and Muslims who exploit this are simply exploiting the ignorance of the liberals who have not bothered to find out for themselves what Muslims, in their variety, actually believe.
Regarding the position on the bookshelf, it is a mark of disrespect to place an Arabic only Koran on or near the unclean floor.”
Same Old Dog is at it again…’and with a bit of kismet, kill two beards with one tome’.
Some reader might correct me if I am in error on this, but I do not know of any religion which holds that its path to salvation/paradise/enlightenment etc is but one of many, and that some/many/all others are equally good.
All religions are in competition with one another for adherents, and like businesses out there in the market, know that the choice is between growing or shrinking. And so it comes to pass that they have many of the attributes of rival football teams. Hence it is also not surprising if their adherents at certain historic times and periods behave like hooligans.
For such, no concessions will ever be enough until they have beaten off all competition.
It seems many muslims have serious difficulty comprehending the fact that not everyone agrees with their religion.
I was reading the discussion page of the Mohammed Wikipedia article earlier, and there were 17 archives full of people demanding that the “blasphemous” images be removed. There was also an editor who seriously suggested that every mention of “Mohammed” on Wikipedia should be followed by “peace be upon him” and just couldn’t understand why the argument “Islam says you should do it” wasn’t sufficient.
Koranic enthusiasts would probably agree that their sacred book should be placed on the highest shelf of the highest floor of the library, and extremists would argue that it should be placed at the extreme right of the highest shelf, with that shelf sloping to the left, in the direction of the run of Arabic script, and preferably also in the geodesic direction of Mecca. The numbering should of course, run the same way, from right to left.
This would entail a certain reorganisation of libraries, but that would only stimulate the economy and so in these times, would be seen as a good thing.
There could be arguments as to the appropriate angle of the shelves, with purists saying the steeper the better, and so coming to favour the vertical – ie a stacked pile of books with the Koran on top. This would stimulate the economy further, as extra staff would have to be hired to keep restacking the piles after some reader pulled out a tome from further down. Everyone could only benefit.
The good old Dewey system would need a makeover, as either the Koran should be numbered 000.000000001, or else 111.111111111. Also, should it be placed in the position closest to Mecca, even if that put it out of numerical order in the Leicester library? (I would leave that to the Federation of Muslim Organisations to decide, after consultation with authorities in Mecca. Shouldn’t take too long.)
One problem is that the 000s are presently the ‘Generalities’, for books that are hard to fit anywhere else, such as encyclopaedias and the Guinness Book of Records, while religion is in the 200s, the 100s being reserved for philosophy. No doubt this would be cause for concern, and offence could easily be taken over disrespect shown, however unintentionally. But on the bright side, Heraclitus and Plato I am sure would have no objection to taking a step down on this Olympic podium of the world’s literature. To them and the rest, content would be seen as of greatest importance, and position of no consequence.
‘Put them where you like’, they would say; ‘it’s what’s in them that matters’.
Shouldn’t the Dewey Decimal number for it not be something more perfect and harmonious. Like 666, perhaps?
zeno, I can see a certain devilish logic in what you suggest.
Alternatively, the Dewey number could be 2 (the first prime number) raised to the power of infinity, which is itself infinity: the perfect congruence.
On this basis, each library would place its copy of the Koran on the far side of the Universe, for which it would likely need the help of NASA.
There would of course be problems of retrieval.
Note: because it is the lowest prime, 2 is also the only number of functional sexes known in biology. (This was a wise but understandable decision on the part of The Creator, by which I mean whatever source the Universe had.) I am quietly confident than any discovery of extraterrestrial life will confirm this rule. It provides additional support for this proposed call number for the Koran.
We can take Ian’s arguments farther.
Surely it brings dishonor to Islam to have the Koran in the SAME BUILDING as any other book, no? I mean, all those other books are NOT the Koran. Some of the people in there aren’t even BELIEVERS! Clearly the only solution is to not even put the Koran in the filthy, unholy, haraam library with all those other rotten books and unbelievers.
No, they’ll just have to build a special Koranibrary for that book, and that book alone. And then they can number it however they like, and point the entire Koranibrary at Mecca, or whatever.
-CM
Heeheehee, Ian. Very good.
As a cricket fan, my holy book is Wisden.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisden
So that too should go on the top shelf.
Any other candidates?
Going off on a bit of a tangent here but after reading the Telegraph article I browsed Damian Thompson’s Holy Smoke blog and eventually linked through to his counterknowledge.com website – what’s the deal there? A website countering conspiracy theories, pseudo-science and even being reasonable towards Dawkins run by a guy who is a really quite conservative Catholic fervently defending the Pope on his Telegraph blog? Does it not strike him as odd to espouse the virtues of clear and rational thought but still continue to be a Catholic…?!
Do you think the librarians and councillors of Leicester would benefit from reading Edmund Standing’s excellent article on understanding the Koran?
Perhaps not, it might be too difficult and technical for the poor dears…..
Dunno, Dave, I’ve wondered the same thing.
“whose officials creep around on their stomachs in the effort not to ‘insult’ anyone or anything including a book and not to ’cause offence’ to anyone including the most neurotically hypervigilant offence-sniffing hair-trigger mewling whining sniveling bed-wetters within the city limits.”
Come on – why don’t you tell is what you really think…
Come on – why don’t you, ian, tell is what you really think…seeing that you are an official with the West Wiltshire District Council.
What is that supposed to mean?
Ian MacDougall: Hinduism explicitly holds that there are many equally good paths to god (indeed there is arguably no coherent entity of “Hinduism” due to the particularly extreme diversity included under the label), and Hindus do not proselytize. Jainism, Buddhism and Taoism also have similar views. I *think* this is true of Sikhism as well. (This is partly why Buddhism has been able to peacefully coexist with many other religions in the many regions it spread to, including Shintoism in Japan and a multitude of belief systems in China, Vietnam and Cambodia.)
The idea of religions competing for adherents is a largely Western thing, most commonly found amongst the Abrahamic religions. Eastern and Western non-Abrahamic (i.e., varieties of pagan) religions generally are not competitive with each other.
What’s interesting to me is that the proselytizing type of Christian ought, theoretically, to be insulted by the mere presence of the Quran next to the Bible, as if they’re equally valid…so what if the Christians complain about that?
Jenavir. I’m not an expert in religions, but I think you’ll find that competition is a game that is played wherever you find religions.
Christianity, certainly, has been a prosylitising religion. However, it is noteworthy that European imperial power, unlike Islamic imperialism, seldom made conversion to Christianity a prerequisite for power or advantage.
The British in India arguably gave special rights to British missionaries to preach the gospel, to found schools and hospitals, etc. (though they were at the same time widely scorned by the officials of the Indian Civil Service and the Army), but becoming Christian was not necessary in order to hold places of influence and power within the Raj.
It was quite different with Islamic imperialism, where being Muslim was crucial to influence and power, and where being an infidel was a mark of disgrace and disqualification. Indeed, Muslim civil administration often depended upon the jizya tax imposed upon infidels.
So, it seems to me, competition amongst religions is pretty normal, and not a peculiarly western trait. Buddhism was a proselytising religion, and had missions throughout South East Asia. Shinto was a nationalist cult in Japan, and even Zen Buddhism was called into service during WW II as a nationalist ideology. And wherever Islam went it imposed burdens on other believers which often made conversion almost a requirement for social advancement and success. That’s why the Christian world of North Africa and the Levant, or Zoroastrianism in Persia, collapsed so completely and almost disappeared, except for small pockets, in such a short time.
Greg Tingey: in India, Hindu-Muslim conflict isn’t about an attempt by Hindus to convert Muslims to Hinduism (though Muslims do wish to convert Hindus to Muslims as a tenet of their faith). It’s about many things, but not that. So it doesn’t negate my point that Hinduism doesn’t proselytize.
Eric: yes, there are distinctions between Islamic and Christian proselytization. However,that does not negate the fact that they both share that trait: an explicit commitment to conversion. As for Buddhist “missions,” they were about spreading Buddhism, yes–but not really about replacing others’ religions with Buddhism. More like about adding Buddhism to the mix of those other cultures.
Ian: yeah, “generally” is an important caveat and there are subtle forms of competition (or, at least, one-upmanship) that frequently exist.
However, it is far from universal (and maybe not even truly common, historically) among religions to have a strong and articulated commitment to getting others to renounce their religions and take up yours.
Jenavir: Religions certainly differ in their levels of militancy. From what I know of them, both Judaism and Christianity arose as creeds of subjugated and oppressed peoples (well, for Judaism, the books of Moses certainly give that impression) while Islam was a creed that (more or less) united desert tribesmen into an empire. Islam and Sikhism are similar in having their origins as creeds of formidable warriors.
To my knowledge, the different historical circumstances in which they arose, rather than their sacred texts per se, explain the fact that Hinduism and Buddhism are somewhat different.
The proselytising aspect of Buddhism is subtle, but it is still there. Just like a business, any religion will expand, or it will contract. Adherents are not indifferent to this.
Thank you, Ian, that was rather subtly put.
The truth seems to be that adherents of most religions, but especially of those with more incredible belief systems (such as a man rising from the dead, flying on a winged horse, or being dictated to by Gibreel, especially when some of the dictations are so patently ad hoc) need converts in order to maintain their own sense and strength of conviction. And if you can actually punish someone for not believing, even kill him, well, it must be true, right?
This has been interestingly confirmed in the study, When Prophecy Fails, by Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken, and Stanley Schachter. It’s just been republished by Routledge, I think. The more insecure members become (because of failed prophecy, etc.), the more they seek to reduce dissonance by convincing others. And since the belief in belief meme is such a powerful one (sorry about the word OB!), it pushes the process of proselytising (or as the book calls it, as I recall, ‘proselyting’). Converts matter. Just look at the early years of Mohammed. Or how important repetitions of the resurrection appearances are in Paul.
I don’t mind meme, Eric! It was wosname – DGH? DHG? – who objected. I think it’s a useful metaphor for – well for a meme; we all know what it means.
I have met or have known many Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and Sikhs in my time, and classify all their belief systems as separate religions. This is precisely because none of them in my experience allows that any or all of the others are equally good.
I don’t think this follows. “Separate” doesn’t have to mean better or worse in some global, objective sense. And a Sikh thinking Catholicism is rubbish doesn’t necessarily mean the Sikh thinks any non-Sikh religion is rubbish…it’s more like self-defense, because after all Catholicism holds that Sikhism is rubbish!
Whether converts add to adherents’ faith probably depends on whether or not the faith identifies itself as a spreading-the-word kind of belief system, or a belief system specific to a particular people or culture. Judaism seems to thrive without conversions. In fact the “religious self-esteem” (to put a name to what we’re talking about) of Jewish people seems to come from pride in their minority status and the cultural specificity of their rituals, not a drive to universalize their religion or win a contest of numbers.
How any Jew can keep believing in God after the Holocaust is beyond me.
I believe I read somewhere that Holocaust survivors who were atheist before entering the camps had a tendency to become religious Jews afterward, and those who were religious before became die-hard atheists after. Not sure of the veracity of this, but if true, it’s interesting.
I think the insider/outsider psychology is inherent to all groups, whether based on a belief system or not. But the point I was trying to make is that not all belief systems encourage such a psychology, though it probably pops up anyway.
Oh dear. Memes. Useful metaphor? No.
Here’s a fun exercise, try to explain “Memes” in a paragraph. Don’t make a fool of yourself, now.