Slashdot Mirror
Pakistan's PM Demands International Blasphemy Laws From UN
eldavojohn writes "An article published in Pakistan's Daily Times contains several quotes from Pakistan's Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf indicating his intent to push for international blasphemy laws in both the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Co-operation (57 countries). These comments came shortly after Pakistan's 'Day of Love for the Prophet' turned into riots that left 19 people dead and, of course, this all follows the extended trailers of 'Innocence of Muslims' being translated. Questionable circumstances surround who is prosecuted under these 'blasphemy laws' and what kind of fear they instill in Pakistan's minorities. The UN's Human Rights Charter mentions protection from 'religious intolerance' but also in the same sentence 'freedom of opinion and expression.'"
You can't legislate respect.
Your demand for "blasphemy laws" is, to us, blasphemy!
...is the perceived right to never be offended.
How about we finally rank freedom of expression firmly above freedom of religion? Freedom of expression already safeguards religious freedom in all the important ways (along with freedom of assembly). But freedom of religion should not include the right to be free from being insulted or offended. We all are offended by something from time to time, but us non-religious types just have to suck it up. And rightly so. In such cases, freedom of expression should trump religious sensitivities
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Thing is, such Muslims stand up and denounce such things all the time, but when the media give them attention the sites are bashed for being 'liberal media' since such denouements do not fit with a certain narrative... so there is a rather strong selection bias going on.
Saying "look it up" is not the same as citing a reference, even if it's in all-caps.
intolerance of intolerance is not the same thing as intolerance itself
"i oppose you because of your skin color" is not the same as "i oppose you because you oppose people simply because of their skin color"
but in that difference, is the confusion: some social conservatives view the left as the most intolerant. because the left won't respect their homophobia, for example. "how can you say you stand for tolerance when you don't respect my right to deny someone else's right to marry?"
did you see that trick? did you see how it gets turned around?
it's the same as "if some troll somewhere makes a bad youtube video about muhammad, the honor of islam must be restored with blood from someone else from your tribe, the west"
it all comes down to: how do you deal with people who demand respect for a worldview which is essentially disrespectful
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Islam also says that, if you bring someone into your house, you have to protect them from harm. One of it's central tenets(one of the Pillars) is charity. During the Middle ages, the Middle East under Islam was one of the safest places in the world to live in if you were Jewish, much more so than in Europe.
So, because Christians in Europe used to be violent to other religions you are saying its OK for the Muslims to do it now.
During the Crusades Muslims allowed Christians and Jews to practice their religions freely, paying only a small tax, while Christian crusaders generally enforced a convert or die approach.
Tell the whole truth. This payment was seen as acceptance of subjugation, and If someone had agreed to pay jizya, leaving Muslim territory for non-Muslim land was punishable by enslavement if they were ever captured. Also at times it was a heavy rather than light imposition. In addition to this Non Muslims were not allowed to practice their faith in the open, display religious symbols, or build or repair places of worship. They would also not be allowed to testify against Muslims, which is why today so many non-Muslim women raped by muslims have it thrown out as "no case to answer".
And for the record, the Old Testament of the Bible also condones and recommends killing to spread the religion, or even just to take land that you want, and it's ok as long as they don't believe.
And I would be as opposed to Christians or Jews doing this as I am to Muslims doing it. The fact is that they don't any more, whereas Muslims do,
And what if it is? It seems to me that Islam does condone (hell no, recommend) the use of violence to spread Islam.
Then you don't know anything about Islam other than what you think you've learned from news sites and CNN.
No, I've studies the Qur'an and listened to the dictates and fatwas of Imams and it certainly is what Islam decrees
You are defending the Qu'ran by comparing it to the Bible? You religious people are crazy.
Really, the Middle East wasn't too bad in the early part of the 20th century, either. They were joining the modern world at a decent pace, women's rights were strong, they had universities with open-minded debates, female students, and even female politicians and leaders. They had open discourse on politics and religion, and generally everyone in the region was reasonably tolerant of others' religions.
It's the *modern* Middle East that's the problem. The *modern* Islamist rule in the region turned everything upside down with a new interpretation of "fundamentalist" Islam and started enforcing it on their societies. There are still living (old) people in the Middle East who remember how it was before all of this, and they're ashamed of what their countries have become. Religion evolves, and it's fair to say that the plurality of the modern practitioners of Islam in the Middle East represent a very different religion than the more peaceful and progressive variant that preceded it.
There may be an interpretation of Islam that's peaceful, but there are clearly also interpretations that are not. As with Christianity, the important thing in the moment is: which side is winning Islam's internal debate and controlling the majority of its political actions on the world stage?
11*43+456^2
People like you amuse me. When someone criticizes a non-Christian religion you respond with "Well, the Bible is bad too..."
Why do you feel that everyone that criticizes a non-Judeo-Chrisitian religion must be a Judeo-Christian? Couldn't it be possible, for example, that a person who rejects Islam because of it's seemingly violent nature rejects Judeo-Christianity for the same reason?
The parent said "religions are always false". There was no need for me to hash through the possible definitions that may lend it credence, it was only necessary for me to provide a single definition which proved it inaccurate. That is why I chose that definition.
Ah, yes. Argument by dictionary. That's an excellent strategy: it allows you to avoid the substance of an argument by focusing instead on specific word-use.
Let's try this instead: no religion has been shown to be true. In fact, no religion has demonstrated a basis by which its truth-claims can be evaluated. Religion has no epistemic footing.
You indicate this yourself when you mentioned, "There are over 4,200 religions in the world." (This ignores the various nuanced schisms that exist in many of those 4,200 religions, but we'll let that slide for the moment.) This number indicates there is no real epistemic foundation on which to build a reliable religion. Basically, it's all just gut-feeling, social mechanisms for control, pareidolia, and a desire to know things that are effectively unknowable (or, without answer because the question is bad, such as, "Why are we here?")
So, yes, I think I can say that all religions are wrong, even if they are right in some details. It'd be like the claim, "The earth is warming." That is a correct statement of fact. However, one can be wrong in stating it: "The earth is warming because Hell is getting closer," would simply be wrong.
Religious statements are effectively without basis. Every religious statement that is not grounded in observation and logic (basically, science) can be summed up thusly: "I believe this thing, but I have no basis to assume this thing is true." Asserting a thing as true without a solid basis in observable reality is worse than being wrong. At best it is misleading. At worst, it papers over ignorance, effectively vetoing reason and inquiry.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
If you do not know much about Pakistan, the following story may of help ---
A Christian girl with mental retardation was accused of blasphemy to Islam, by her next door neighbor, coincidently, happened to be an Islamic Imam.
According to that Islamic Imam, that Christian girl had burned pages from the so-called "Holy Quran" - and because of that, the girl was jailed on the charge of "Blasphemy" - and if convicted, can be put to death.
Immediately the whole nation of Pakistan was up in arm. Muslims threatening to kill the minority Christians, Christian churches were attacked and burned, and entire Christian community had to be vacated due to the threats.
After much twists and turns, it was reported that the "burned pages of Quran" was the making of that so-called "Islamic Imam".
That "Islamic Imam" was the one who framed that Christian girl, by putting burnt pages of Quran into the girl's bag.
And because Pakistan is a nation filled with hatreds, the minority Christians are still being threatened, and that Christian girl is still under the official charge of "Blasphemy", although a court granted her a bail.
That Christian girl still face immense danger. She could still be killed by the angry Islamic mob, or the Pakistan authority itself.
A nation like that wants the world to follow suit?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !