Angola accused of 'banning' Islam as mosques closed

[Eugene]

Source: The Guardian

Angola accused of 'banning' Islam as mosques closed

Aristides Cabeche and David Smith in Johannesburg
The Guardian, Thursday 28 November 2013 20.56 GMT

Angola has been accused of "banning" Islam after shutting down most of the country's mosques amid reports of violence and intimidation against women who wear the veil.

The Islamic Community of Angola (ICA) claims that eight mosques have been destroyed in the past two years and anyone who practises Islam risks being found guilty of disobeying Angola's penal code.

Human rights activists have condemned the wide-ranging crackdown. "From what I have heard, Angola is the first country in the world that has decided to ban Islam," said Elias Isaac, country director of the Open Society Initiative of Southern Africa (Osisa). "This is a crazy madness. The government is intolerant of any difference."

Officials in the largely Catholic southern African nation insist that worldwide media reports of a "ban" on Islam are exaggerated and no places of worship are being targeted.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/28/angola-accused-banning-islam-mosques

[NaturalHigh]

1. Persecuting any religion leads to unfortunate results.

I do not agree with many tenets of Islam, but I will never support an effort to persecute anyone based on religion. It upsets me greatly whenever anyone denigrates my beliefs, and I personally believe in the do unto others way of thinking.

[dimbear]

2. It's very hard to come by the truth behind these actions. The Internet is full of wildly

contradictory reports. 60 mosques burned, no mosques burned, everything normal, catastrophe.
Remarkable in this day and age that there's so much fog in any part of the news world.

[skepticscott]

3. In an Information Age

It is as easy to generate lies, half-truths and misinformation as it is to report the truth. Unfortunately, many people reject the notion of critically evaluating what they read and hear, because it involves telling some people that their deeply held beliefs are flat wrong, and we can't have that, now can we?

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. I would say it is easier to generate lies and half-truths and misinformation.

Someone must diligently seek out fact. Anyone can make shit up.

I think people have a right to their deep held beliefs, even if they are wrong.

[skepticscott]

5. I said report, not seek out

If you're a witness to an event, what's easier-to simply report what you actually saw, or to try to make up something false, but believable?

And yes, people have a right to hold beliefs that are silly, idiotic and deluded. But they do not have the right to have those beliefs taken seriously, exempted from criticism, or made equal to all others in validity just because of the fervency with which they are held.

[CJCRANE]

6. Your post indicates contradictory positions

and doesn't address the points made in the previous posts directly.

On the one hand you imply that it's easier to report facts. But then go on to imply that one should be willing to have one's beliefs criticized (which is not relevant to the point being made about news reports).

Which implies that you accept news reports at face value but dig into other people's religious beliefs.

IMO you (people in general) need to interrogate both news reports and religious beliefs and not accept them at face value.

[skepticscott]

7. Nice try

Answer the question:

If you're a witness to an event, what's easier-to simply report what you actually saw, or to try to make up something false, but believable?

And no, I don't accept news reports at face value..I neither said nor implied any such thing.

[CJCRANE]

8. Has the media in any country ever lied or exaggerated?

Do you see how easy it is to ask a reductive but not necessarily relevant question.

We are bombarded by propaganda on all sides every day so it obviously doesn't matter what's easier. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are paid fortunes to lie. Maybe lying is easier for them. Maybe it's easier for people to report what helps their cause.

Let's dig down into your question "what's easier-to simply report what you actually saw, or to try to make up something false, but believable?"

Does this apply to religious accounts to? Surely we should believe what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John tell us? Why would they make stuff up? It's easier to tell the whole truth.

[skepticscott]

9. Try actually answering the question first

I can see you're already dodging and dancing, to no one's surprise.

[CJCRANE]

10. I don't know what's easier for everyone. Lots of people lie for their cause.

Lots of people lie reflexively. Many people exaggerate. Still others report things incorrectly either through incompetence or negligence. So I don't think it's always easier to tell the truth.

Our world bears this out.

Now you can answer my question.

If you think it's easier to tell the truth, do you believe the accounts of the lives of religious founders, for example Jesus Christ, are truthful?