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!
Please, will the sensible and non-crazy muslims please stand up already and disown these lunatics?
This is not religious intolerance, but rather intolerance against extremely disproportionate acts. According to the muslims who riot, it is absolutely appropriate for people to stand up and violently destroy property, and take people lives. Surely this is not what Islam and the Koran truly stands for?
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
...is the perceived right to never be offended.
http://spamusement.com/index.php/comics/view/137
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Before all this nonsense I didn't give a damn about islam or muhammed one way or the other, considered myself a fairly tolerant human being. Live and let live and all that shit.
Now I'm wondering how and why Rule 34 hasn't been judiciously applied to islam. Over and over again.
Motherfuckers need to grow the fuck up.
"The UN's Human Rights Charter mentions protection from "religious intolerance" but also in the same sentence "freedom of opinion and expression." "
They're not contradictory -- promoting blasphemy laws is a clear example of "religious intolerance" in my book, because it's not tolerant of someone's right to politely say that they think a given religion is incorrect.
No. Well...maybe. Actually, yes. It really just depends.
Oh wait your serious, let me laugh even harder! - Bender
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
Blasphemy is used to Pakistan to settle scores between feuding parties: http://www.economist.com/node/21562262
He should maybe clean that up first, before trying to impose that on the rest of the world.
Oh, and by the way, being left-handed is also blasphemous in Islam: http://islamqa.info/en/ref/82120
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
All these comments and requests for "blasphemy" etc, somehow remind me of "Fahrenheit 451" - I'm afraid, because of all these demands, we're really on the wrong track and move towards the world described in Fahrenheit 451...
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...
Sure, we can have international blasphemy laws... just as soon as someone figures out how to live in a way that never offends anyone anywhere in the world. Everyone that pushes for this sort of thing always seems to think it's perfectly natural for everyone to think they way they do and so criminalization would be easy to enforce. Nevermind that that their very way of life may be blasphemous to others in the international community. You want to criminalize blasphemy in your own nation? Have at it. Bash your own populace until they're a homogeneous mass. Don't expect the rest of the globe to fall in line so easily.
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
The UN should (if it could) pass an international "don't foist your religion on me" law, forbidding proselytizing, causing injury to others for religious reasons, or religious discrimination of any sort. Passing an anti-blasphemy law is just so wrong, and stifling to just about all free speech!
For top synergy, also be sure to push for transferring more control over the internet out of the USA jurisdiction and into UN jurisdiction.
Certainly! we will gladly put those laws in effect.
As soon as you respect all laws and aspects of other religions, pass and aggressively enforce laws to stop the repression of women in your OWN country, Stop repressing freedom and start hunting down and putting in prison all radical sects of Islam that preach that it's holy to murder people in the name of Allah. Oh and stop the oppression of education, embrace that knowledge is freedom.
as soon as you guys do all of that and get your house clean and in order, we will have a special meeting to do exactly what you ask.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
This is what happens when you try to give equal weight to two goals that conflict with one another so often: in this case, freedom of expression versus what advocates of curtailing free expression in this way call "human dignity." Sooner or later, one must prioritize. We need to stop pretending that we can have our metaphorical cake and eat it too.
For the record, when faced with such conflicts, I find the right choice to be the one that maximizes human agency: the ability for people to, through their choices and actions, make a difference in their own lives. Applied here, that means prioritizing the act of expression over passive reaction: in other words, free expression wins.
We would go to the UN and OIC and get a law passed to stop anti-Islam activities, including blasphemy, for-ever,
So burning bibles will be fine, as will be the destroying artefacts of other faiths. Of course it will not interfere with their right to kill anyone who converts from Islam (apostasy has the death penalty in Pakistan and many other Muslim countries, or allow non-Muslims to worship in the open. I suggest that the UN ought to think about preventing the death penalty for changing religion rather than make it illegal to say "Muhammad was violent".
I'd just like to say that Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf's mother wears combat boots in the shower.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Christianity is blasphemy to a Muslim. Islam is blasphemy to a Jew. Mormonism is blasphemy to a Christian. And us atheists, well no religion thinks that ain't blasphemy. So, would this mean that everybody just shuts up about their particular brand of religion or does the world have to pick just one? Because, otherwise it is a joke of an idea.
No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
Blasphemy isn't 'religious intolerance'; but banning blasphemy is fairly obviously contrary to 'freedom of expression and opinion'. There, that was easy.
Incidentally, since most religions contain significant incompatibilities(on occasion, you get organizational splits purely because of personality spats or disputes over who gets the earthly loot; but all the really good schisms are over doctrine), the practice of almost any religion is necessarily blasphemous(at least by implication, often quite overtly) toward almost all the others.
In practice, of course, anti-blasphemy laws are usually just an excuse to suppress the minorities and the dissidents; but it would be (morbidly) amusing to watch the epic pileup that would occur if one were actually applied rigorously... There would also be some fun around statements that are simultaneously likely to arouse ire and are confirmed by assorted holy texts, the denial of which would also cause ire(Anything concerning the fact that the god of the old testament is kind of a genocidal psycho, or that Mohammed fucked a nine year old, would qualify, as would, no doubt, an endless number of subtler doctrinal quibbles between more enthusiastic sects).
Hell, fuck all invisible men in the sky.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
This 'religious tolerance' thing is exactly what these rioting mobs are not demonstrating. Religious tolerance does not mean that you don't have to hear anything you don't like about your religion. It means that you do not suffer political or economic repression for your religious beliefs. That's it.
So I'm sorry (well, no, I'm not really) but no. This absolutely will not fly. I don't care what kind of weaponry people who think rioting over an insult to their religion acquire. They must never be allowed control under any circumstances. This kind of behavior is flat out unacceptable and intolerable. I will never in any way support it and nobody else should either.
Fix your own worldview, because you will not get to impose it on everybody else. I will never agree to it.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
'Cultural sensitivities' notwithstanding, it seems to me that there's a fairly clear line between speech which is harmful and speech which is just annoying. If my speech purposely incites others to cause harm, then perhaps that speech should be proscribed. If my speech simply expresses an opinion, or makes fun of a person, a group, a religion, etc., then the person, group, or religion just needs to develop a thicker skin and/or turn a deaf ear to what I'm saying.
So to all of you fundamentalists of any stripe who have your knickers in a twist over people dissing your sacred whatever, GET OVER IT AND GET YOUR SHITTY LITTLE SENSE OF 'SACRED' ENTITLEMENT THE FUCK OUT OF MY FACE! No, the world does not owe you special treatment no matter how hard you pray, nor how fervently and sacredly and preciously you believe in your prophet, your god, your saviour, or your belly button lint. Grow up, and stop turning minor insults into end-of-the-world scenarios. Your fanaticism causes nothing but harm, and I am utterly sick of it.
A quote from the Sydney Morning Herald piece puts it best: ''Human rights are not about protecting religions; human rights are to protect humans." Personally, the closest I come to religion is to say 'Amen to that!'
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
The situation in Pakistan is very similar to what is happening within the GOP, namely that through a process of political decay, they have gradually become beholden to the fringe elements of the community. At some point you pass a threshold where events conspire to turn everything into a self-fulfiling prophecy, especially when it becomes an "us versum them" scenario. So instead of reject the fringe elements and reevaluating their position (the healthy choice), they double down.
of course, it doesn't work. but it creates a lot of suffering for a long time
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
perverting religion to gain power is done by christians and jews as well.
Mohammed was a warmongering, misogynistic, bigoted pedophile, and Allah is a lie. Islam is a religion bent on destruction, murder, and world conquest. Fuck Islam.
Muslims, read the above. Know it's not a religion of peace because Mohammed taught the principle of abrogation, where the newer writings overrule the older writings where they conflict, and while in the beginning he was peaceful and had good relations with the Jews he grew up with, he later became warlike, hateful, bigoted, and a massive megalomaniac on the scale of Stalin, Hitler, and pretty much every other evil historical figure you can think of, and his writings changed to match his philosophy, hence the jihad changed from one's internal struggle of conquering human nature's evil characteristics to world conquest, He wrote of converting people by the sword if they won't accept his stupid book, and he also preached that Muslims should kill the Saturday people (Jews) and the Sunday people (Christians) since they were friends to the Jews.
Again: Mohammed was flat-out wrong. Allah is a myth. Islam is a religion of hate.
Take that, Pakistan! I just blasphemed your ass to next Tuesday.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
who gets to define it? who gets to say 'no' when I want to bring my own definition and seek to outlaw those who speak against my view of 'god'.
what's that you say? no new applications are being accepted?
damn. late to yet another party.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
For this to work they would have to accept all gods of all religions, and acts against a christian god would also be blasphemous, not just against a muslim prophet because your country is mostly islamic... Recognition of other religions is a problem in most religions... so good luck there....
A) valid criticism must always be possible
- can you imagine a society where valid criticism is not allowd ?
B) religions are non verifiable
- still waiting
- which basically means all criticism, investigation, and parody of religions must be possible
look guys: not only do we not want your stupid 'blasphemy' laws, but we INSIST YOU CHANGE YOUR STUPID WAYS, now that you mention it.
the world is not compatible with your bullshit ideas. truly, you are a backward believing culture and this resistance to join the modern age is growing rather tiring on the rest of the civilized world.
please grow up and get your own home in order before trying to 'fix' the rest of us.
oh, and fuck mohammed.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
1. someone insults islam. could be erudite high culture, like salman rushdie, could be a useless troll, like the "innocence of the muslims" hatemonger. doesn't matter
2. the muslim world goes apeshit. moderate muslims say the muslims going apeshit do more damage to islam than the insult to islam. they're right. doesn't matter
3. someone from the west, or in the west, gets killed. this matters
see, it doesn't matter if you believe that you should be able to say anything you want and it doesn't give anyone else the right to kill you. because there's a large group of extremists who believe that if you insult their religion, this gives them the right, no, the duty, to kill someone, ANYONE from the west. because if some low iq asocial reject who hasn't washed in a week draws a lame cartoon or writes a bad play about muhammad in his mom's basement, this represents the entire west. the reject's basement could be in hamburg. could be in sydney. could be in vancouver. doesn't matter: the entire western "tribe" attacked the honor of the entire muslim "tribe". that's the way it works in their head. now it is ok to kill someone from that tribe, anywhere, anytime. to restore honor. that's the "logic"
yes, this is some ignorant medieval shit, i agree. but that doesn't matter. what matters is that there is a large group of medieval ignorants who can not be reasoned with who will firmly and dependably adhere to this dynamic
this will go on and on for decades. what i fear is that it accelerates and destabilizes a country into the hands of a muslim version of hitler
i try to be an optimistic person in life. that you can solve problems nonviolently. but this is a small planet, getting smaller, because of jet air travel and the internet. and not that we shouldn't aim for peace, but that peace is not possible, due to the determination of a fringe, but a fringe of enough financial backings, sympathies across large enough of a population, and over a dynamic of many decades, whereby large scale bloodshed comes, despite the best efforts of everyone sane otherwise
muslim moderates, in the muslim world and the west: you can not hide from these fools. you have to fight for your lands. this will make you targets, and a lot of you will be targeted and killed for not being properly devout. but the alternative is these dipshits come to power, and then it is large scale conflict with the west, and it will make wwii look like a tea party. please: take your lands away from these assholes. it will be very difficult. you understand the alternative is worse
what i fear is simple: fortune favors the bold
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Sorry, but if one of the government ministers of Pakistan is offering a $100K bounty for the lives of these people, then he's a terrorist.
If Pakistan and other Muslim countries can't do anything but act as terrorists, it's time we treated them as such. That includes their government as Pakistan seems to go a long way to supporting terrorists.
There's no right to not be offended, and despite claims to the contrary, Islam doesn't exactly demonstrate itself to be a religion of peace and tolerance.
It may be peaceful at its core, but largely been co-opted by intolerant, ignorant, and violent assholes. If this is truly what Mohammed taught, then he was a false prophet.
Muslims are supposed to respect the peoples of the book. Instead, they've decided that Christians and Jews pray to a different god (it's the same one) and should be exterminated.
Islam doesn't deserve respect as we see it from around the world. Instead it presents itself as a cancer.
By religious intolerance they generally meant state sponsored religious persecutions. Not individuals saying mean stuff.
The USA has strong religious tolerance and strong freedom of expression laws.
Funny, so you mention the crusades but not the Otoman empire? Wonder why you tell only one side of a story.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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
Of course - anyone who gets offended by blasphemy only gets offended if THEIR religion is on the receiving end. You don't think that these people want to protect some animist sects in the Brazilian jungle from missionaries, do you?
Conversely, any Christian who wants to put God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit under legal protection ought to be laughed out of court the same way. Unfortunately, that's not happening either.
I'm pretty sure we're heading down the road towards a global Culture/Religious War. It won't be fun.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
It's not necessarily flamebait. This can be discussed based on the merit of the message without idiocy if you have more than 2 brain cells. Being AC is probably unhelpful though. At any rate, this quote is in context.
Let's give the Sikhs Pakistan.
Problem aggravated. But we can use it to show the fundie Muslims if they don't keep their yaps shut, we'll do unto them as they've done unto us.
Respect is a 2 way street bitches.
Captcha was: 'chided'
That sounds like a good punative measure.
Of course - anyone who gets offended by blasphemy only gets offended if THEIR religion is on the receiving end. You don't think that these people want to protect some animist sects in the Brazilian jungle from missionaries, do you?
True, though there are a few people who want a law that outlaws deliberate insulting of any religions, based on the fact they can understand that others feel about their religion as they do about their own. Though I have some sympathy with this view (which is very different from what the Muslims want) I don't think its workable - to many people an expression of one faith is a direct and deliberate insult to another.
So that when those muslims blaspheme other religions, they too can be put to death.
Oh, but NOOOO. Islam is a SPECIAL religion, so they deserve SPECIAL TREATMENT, because all other religions are FALSE.
Seriously, I think that we should have UN laws that specifically condone all kinds of free speech, ESPECIALLY those that are critical of these crackpot religions. If Christians and Hindus and everyone have to put up with criticism and blasphemy against their gods, then the muslims damn well better accept the same equal and fair treatment.
That being said, it doesn't mean they have to shut up about it. COMPLAINING about blasphemy would ALSO be free speech. (I just don't have to give a crap about listening to it.)
I am an Episkoposes of the POEE. Please give me a law so I can prosecute everyone who defiles our sacred number 5.
Please?
Also, anyone who eats hot dogs.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Let me tell the PM to go f*ck himself.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
Osama wasnt a civilian. He took up arms against a nation-state. That is a soldier.
Good-bye
proselytizing
A sign reading "private property - no trespassing" should take care of that. Anyone fanatic enough to ignore such a clear directive opens themselves up to being dealt with forcibly.
sux to be a renter.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Freedom Of Religion, for me, means I can worship Allah, Jehovah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc., without you interfering in my worship.
Freedom Of Religion, for you, means you can worship Allah, Jehovah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc., without me interfering in your worship.
Freedom Of Speech, for me, means I can say (almost*) anything, including insulting your religion.
Freedom Of Speech, for you, means you can say (almost*) anything, including insulting my religion.
* Exceptions for things like yelling "fire" in a theater that isn't on fire.
When I insult your religion, I am using my freedom of speech, but I am not preventing you from practicing your religion. That is why the guy who made that anti-muslim video can make a video like that. He is exercising his freedom of speech. This does not prevent any follower of Islam from practicing their religion. Your freedom of religion affects your actions, not mine. I can stand out front of a mosque with a sign saying 'Islam is wrong,' because I am exercising my freedom of speech but I am not preventing you from entering the mosque and exercising your freedom of religion. If, on the other hand, I block the entrance to the mosque, then I would be preventing you from exercising your freedom of religion, and I would be in the wrong.
Allah/Jehovah/etc. is not so weak that the words of a person can harm them. I think that, whatever the nature of the deity, they are probably more upset with all of the hate and pain done in their name than with the words of a person as a direct attack on them. This is what these rioters are, in effect, saying when they riot: "My god and my faith in my god are so weak that he can't take care of himself, so I have to go around killing people."
On the other hand, if you believe that god wants you to run around rioting, killing, etc., and it's okay to do these things, then you don't get to also expect not to have your ass kicked by a superior military power. If violence is the way, then you're going to get your ass kicked and you shouldn't complain about it. If peace is the way, then you shouldn't be running around killing people. I'm not talking about whether any particular conflict is justified or not; just the internal logic of the rioters.
All rambling aside, if there's one message I would like the muslim world to get, it would be this:
Allah is great. He doesn't need you to run around killing people for him. He put jerks in the world to test you. Get over it, pass His test, and get on with your lives.
So I haven't read the article from Pakistan's Daily Times but the idea of telling people of other faiths or no faith at all that they aren't allowed to say something about another persons faith is just a ridiculous idea. Why doesn't the Pakistan Prime Minster instead try to pass laws in Pakistan that would punish extremists who are causing the trouble in his country.
Jesus giving a reacharound to Mohammed, who is providing 'linguistic services' to Abrahim?
Seems like a good way to rile up the extremists from all three groups at once.
Maybe add in some blue multi-armed guy and a fat dude stroking his pud for good measure.
We're all in real trouble the day the space elephants[1] from Sirius come down and insist we strictly adhere to all our silly rules.
[1] stet, hail Eris!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
silly, you thought they saved all that money for you? They spent it all, they used it to buy your vote with your own money and then some more to bomb the shit out of beige people in various parts of the world in the name of pax americana.
or from another angle: ok, dishonest politicians cheated you. Does that mean that next generations should be screwed even harder and forced into the govt mandated ponzi scheme, so you can have your 'justice'? It's your children and grandchildren who you are willing to screw.
You belong to the generation that experienced the standard of living no other generation will experience ever again so don't whine.
there are a lot of moderate muslims. there is also a heck of a lot of extremist muslims. it's hard for the moderates to exercise restraint and power when they aren't actually fully in power
it's also hard to say "calm down" when the other guy feels fully justified in putting a bullet in your head because you are not adequately devout, of the wrong sect, too western sounding/ looking, etc.
if you want to talk media spin, here it is: when a muslim extremist kills a westerner, the western media goes apeshit. when a muslim extremist kills a moderate muslim, you don't hear about it. but eh latter happens 10-100x more than the former. because the simple truth, by orders of magnitude, is that the greatest victim of muslim extremist terrorism, is other muslims. moderate muslims. they are literally being killed off if not cowed by fear
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If they implemented this would the muslim countries enforce it on their people? All those statements about christianity they love to make.
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
I'm unclear on how there can be an international law on this. International law governs the relationships between countries and what happens in international waters and territories; it has no bearing on individuals within a country. It's not as if the UN can pass a law making it illegal to commit blasphemy, have me arrested in the United States, and try me in an International Court. (And yes, I'm aware of the International Criminal Court--but that court only comes into play for acts such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Unless blasphemy is about to be raised to that level, this court is a very different beast.)
So I'm not sure what it is that the Pakistani PM is really asking for here and I didn't find it in the article. A resolution condemning blasphemy? A change in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Some actual but non-binding international law? It's either showboating or there seems to be some nuance of International law in play that I don't understand.
that basically boil down to "you have to respect me but i don't have to respect you"
for example, the muslim world has tons of hate against judaism and christianity which isn't punished. nevermind that mobs of jews and christians aren't threatening death and destruction because of it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Does that actually rhyme somewhere? Fuck, aussies are weird.
Some people have a hard time wrapping their heads around the idea that religion or the gods within the religion might simply be evil by human standards. If you suggest this, they'll shrug it off saying the God works in mysterious ways and it's not for them to understand it. And yet, they are human and practice that religion. God works in mysterious ways so therefore you must work in mysterious ways too? You must practice what you know to be evil, having faith that in some demented way that human brains can't understand, it's actually secretly good?
Maybe so. Once you open the door to faith, anything is possible. If you can believe in a god without there being any evidence, then why not believe that murder is ok, because some celestial accountant is putting into the "good" column for reasons that no jury would ever accept?
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Not in the USA pal.
Why did the Senate reject a bill by Rand Paul to suspend foreign aid to these knuckleheads?
Promote intelligence and logic and reason and religion will vanish...
what kind of fucking turncoat pope are you?!!
Consumption of hotdogs is acceptable at any time. It's the eating of hot dog buns that's proscribed.
Personally, if I have to go, I elect for the the Pastafarian Heaven.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
End of retarded discussion.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
FFS... as sensible, reasonable, and rational as I try to be, things like this make it very hard to come across that way when I offer any response.
Regardless of what anyone in their particualr faith may say, 'true' Muslim followers are hate filled warmongers because their religion dictates as much. All these moderate and peaceful Muslims... aren't Muslim. If anything, they're closer to Catholics who call their god Allah, and preach Mohammad over Jesus.
They're all too bound up in what their book says about who was special, and so on, and so forth... how about living a peaceful and moral life based on common sense ideologies? Hell, I hate to referrence Dogma (the movie)... but hell, that movie has it just about right on how religion should be treated! We don't KNOW anything about religion besides books that have been written.. by men, not God (et al.for names...). Therefore, all religious texts are fallable unless they were brought into spontaneous existence through divine will. Even if some did trully convey the 'Word of God'... it's a conveyance.. a 2nd hand account... subject to interpretation.
I am devoutly Agnostic... I have some good ideas, but admit to knowing nothing about the truth of existence. I live because I do. I do right and good as I see right and good to be. I hold beliefs from a broad assortment of belief systems/religions as they suit to be sensible to me. Out of all of this research and rationale I apply in my reading... I find the Muslims to be the hardest hit by an obviously oppressive and violent religion. If I were to make a conjecture about it's "true" origins, I would say it was a means to establish central power under the guise of Divine Right as perpetrated by Mohammed. Honestly... about the same as most other major religions. If God were as the Catholics/Christians/Jewish say God is... why is an organized religion even necessary? Wouldn't all sensible and good people end up following out of a desire to see good in the world... not because a book says so?
Though the anti-Muslim movie in question was undoubtedly nothing more than 'flamebait'... the response it has elicited hardly does anything to help support their faith being 'peaceful'.
Pakistan Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf can go and fuck him self in the ass. No, I am being serious. This cunt and others like him have no right on forcing others to obey by there religious rules. While the Koran forbids Muslims to draw pictures of Mohammed prophet (and warmonger of his time). It says nothing about others not being able to do so.
Submission by fear is not something I agree with. Nobody should in fact. So PM of Pakistan can go fuck him self in the ass. Preferred on live television world wide.
Are you suggesting that since in the Middle ages Christians killed in the name of God, it's ok now for Muslims to kill in the name of God? Is this your idea of religion? Is it ok for these to be the Midlle ages of Islam?
Let's just try to do what's best for humanity already. Let's try to evolve from the dark past. Let's stop preaching ourselves ideas meant to bring order into chaos and let's try to move forward, not to grow roots in a place someone said it's good enough.
I'm afraid that as violence becomes the common answer for suck offenses, the UN will attempt to enact something like this to stem this violence. From there, how long until the words "I'm an atheist" see actually prosecution under this law and the "christian majority" in the US extradites you to a Muslim country to face charges, because obviously they don't care if an atheist dies, they were going to hell anyway. Do I think this will happen, I would hope not, but I also thought that there was no way the US would suspend Habeas Corpus (again). I would never have thought we would re-elect GW. I am no long deluded enough to think that any stupid law would be denied on the grounds of reason. We are just as likely to back Pakistan on this as a means to go after terrorists (because they believe differently than we do.) I'm not really going all conspiracy theory here, I'm just not going to be suprised if this supidity does become a law.
Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll.
From the "Concise Oxford"
Blasphemy: profane or sacrilegious talk about God or sacred things.
As you cannot define what's sacred for everyone, you cannot place any "world wide" law.
Unless you create an "international registry for sacred things" to be kept up to date.
Then you'd need to resolve disputes, espcially those calling as sacred two opposite concepts/things.
Personally I keep "intelligence" and "freedom" as sacred, so that call for an international law is ... a blasphemy to me!
You insensitive and blaspheme clod!
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
OK. Lets do it. The Koran says that Jesus was a prophet (abliet rather a special one) and not the Son of God. That is blasphemy, so the Koran should be banned in all Christian countries. I may be an aetheist, but I know double standard where I see them.
Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime. It's blasphemous! Crimes of blasphemy were invented by the religious to defend holy doctrines and dogmas of their religion that were incapable of standing up to scrutiny. Besides, you can't offend what doesn't exist
Yeah, because Chrstians aren't real! Good thinkin', brainiac.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
I'm the Prophet Mohammed. I fuck camels!
/
\O/
|
/ \
is pass the "Whaaambulance!" resolution, which states that if someone complains of blasphemy, then other members of the UN hand them a phone and tell them to call said whaaaa!mbulance.
As an atheist, every expression of religion is blasphemous to me. Propagating meme infections of the religious kind to children and others is blasphemous and a serious crime, like spreading the plague.
So, yes, I am all for it and I want it strictly enforced. Stop the cancer that is religion! (Wops, not what he wanted? Too bad!)
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
... to the rest of the world.
Check out this brief article & interview : http://www.npr.org/2012/09/19/161439562/held-dear-in-u-s-free-speech-perplexing-abroad
The summary of the above link brings up an interesting blind spot: the rest of the world does not have free speech, not in any way. I'm not just talking about countries where you could be executed for praying to the wrong god. I'm talking about 'Western Nations,' like the UK and members of the EU. For example in France - where many of our ideals of personal liberty spring from - you can be jailed for 6 months (and fined) for being seen as insulting the country, flag, anthem, or any public worker. Imagine not being able to speak negatively about a politician or the police, on threat of jail time. This is standard almost everywhere else in the world.
Heck, you can even be jailed in Canada for writing hate speech.
The US is one of a small handful that really places freedom of speech at the top of the list, and doesn't just pay lip service to it.
I would summarize it like this: Socialism promotes the welfare of society over that of the individual, and rather than protecting 'the right to not be offended,' they simply focus on the improvement of society as a whole. It just looks like 'the right to not be offended' on the individual level. The most socialist your country gets, the more likely they are to trade the privileges of the individual for the betterment of society, and free speech is one of those.
So, they may see racism as bad (which it is), and so they outlaw it in both deed AND word. They may consider Nazis to be awful, and so they forbid anyone to claim to be a Nazi, or even learn about them, or listen to any of their speeches - just in case they might accidentally like it: better to bury it all and pretend it never happened.
It's also not unrelated that most of these laws were birthed from strongly fascist or oppressive monarchy governments. They had different motivations, but they also did not value personal liberty. At extremes, there's little difference between strong socialism or strong fascism - they use the same means and have the same goals.
Government of Sri Lanka begged the Taliban government to let them carve and carry off the whole statue if they did not want it in their Islamic land. Japan offered to cover the whole statue behind a wall of concrete if they did not want to see it.
The Taliban refused all such overtures, and dynamited those historical figures. Where were all these Muslims who demand the world respect their prophet? Would this new blasphemy law prevent Saudi Government from disfiguring images of Hindu/Buddist/Sikh/Jain Gods or holymen found in books and magazines carried by workers traveling into Saudi Arabia?
The double standards from the fanatics is understandable. But the double standards from those claiming to be moderates is infuriating. I am with Bill Maher in this. All religions are not the same. No other religion demands the right impose its rules on people who do not belong to their religion. All the moderates talk in English to the west explaining why the fanatics are outraged. Yes, the fanatics will be always outraged. It is the job of the moderates to control the damned fanatics. If you can't, stop demanding to be treated like other religions.
Well, the Bamian Buddha is powerful. He got rid of Taliban within a year of His statute being demolished. Buddha will rid Afghanistan of Islam in due course.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
under these conditions (a) you outlaw public displays of religion in all countries so I do not have to hear or have your religion forced upon me (2) you outlaw Jihad in all countries and any activity linked to terrorism and (3) all counties must respect and treat all religions equally as well as Atheism otherwise my blasphemy rates will rise with this law
Comment removed based on user account deletion
PREAMBLE TO THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONA
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/preamble.shtml
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
Of all the strange crimes that humanity has legislated out of nothing, blasphemy is the most amazing - with obscenity and indecent exposure fighting it out for second and third place. [Robert Heinlein, Notebooks of Lazarus Long]
Pakistan, just because you enshrine pig ignorance and superstition into your national laws doesn't mean everyone else should.
I wonder if people in the middle east realize how steadily their image as pre-enlightenment zealots with no interest in modernization is solidifying in the West. There was once a valid critique that said the West just didn't understand the Mid-East and that it was judging it in a relativistic way. But now that the West has been paying attention for a while, those early truisms seem downright sage-like.
"Experts" continue to offer somber explanations for such violent outbursts, saying that their youth is feeling a profound humiliation and that they are simply taking it out on the Western boogieman their parents and grandparents were taught to fear. This may be true on some level. But at what point do they take the responsibility for their own development. How long before they realize that whether or not you believe someone else is holding you back, you have to move forward on your own.
The "Arab Spring" seemed to offer a tantalizing bit of hope for a change from within, but if the religious right in the US is any indication, there is no reasoning with a zealot. And when the government of such a large and strategically important nation like Pakistan calls for worldwide censorship to avoid further offending an already humiliated culture, where is the path to change?
Functionally he was a soldier, but per the 3rd Geneva Convention article 4 he wasn't as he didn't fulfill all the requirements to meet the definition.
Life is not for the lazy.
Religions cannot coexist. It is impossible. Eventually the leaders of each religion will realize that the only way to make more money or control more people is to destroy the other religions. There is no religion without the greedy and intolerant wanting to be in control of everything they see.
Even the bible itself is a great example of this; why did god throw the devil into hell? Because god didn't want to share his toys. Greed is the foundation of religion and the very reason that these people want intolerance enforced on all; so that no one can question their domination.
Without greed being the entire equation, there would be no need for intolerance.
Qybixxx
Qybix ----- I do not have a belief system; I'm an Anti-theist and proud of it! Saying that not believing in anything i
when the global muslim community pass a definitive fatwa on global terrorism.
Fair is fair.
We'll illegalize *all* religious intolerance, period. That means a Catholic church and a synagogue are free to be built in Mecca, people of those faiths free to enter the city, live there and attend their services. That means evangelical Christians are free to roam throughout Muslims countries and try to convert Muslims. They and converted Muslims will be without fear of legal or extra-legal punishment. Jews get to rebuild their first Temple, the likely location of which is right next to the Al-Aqsa Mosque on Temple Mount in a currently empty area.
But you know this won't happen, the tolerance goes only one way.
At the risk of repeating something that may have already been said here...
Pakistan's PM can get bent.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Modern Islam has become the new Nazi'ism. Its 57 states have unified into a wholly evil conglomerate. Its distorted and twisted human rights law at the UN in diabolically awful ways with a prime directive of distorting the human rights laws to make them compatable with islam (impossible).
Many people in the world keep trying to peddle the idea of islam being peaceful and trying to make an equality between it and everything else. These people, and the 57 states managed to get on the UN books the cretinous 'Islamophobia' stupidity.
Eventually, everyone in the world is going to have to face down this lunacy, or allow it to get out of control and then be forced to face it down. Neither is good.
As for the Pakistani's - an arrest warrant needs issuing for the Railway minister, and it needs to be made clear in our lands - insightment to murder backed by money is a crime. And if he sets foot in the west let him be arrested.
We`re all equal
It's not like he's not allowed to express his opinion.
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.
Is that the UN passes legislation that supports freedom of speech even when it offends some religious group. How else will autocratic governments and religions have the necessary critical review that would allow them to stand or fall on their own merits, which is the necessity and power of free speech to maintain free societies.
'Hey, you gotta respect their beliefs...' "No you don't. I have an uncle that believes in Sasquatch; we do not believe him, nor do we respect him!"
It is blasphamey to say that Christ was only a profit. Now how are they going to resolve that. The key point here is an authoritarian group that claimes to have the (disputed) undesputed truth and wants to deny anyone from the disuptation.
I think it is very wrong headed. Now for a Muslem I think it fine that if one that lives by that faith dies by that faith if that be the punishment for blasphamy, but then if we live by that rule, they should live by our rules, like freedom of speech. So I think the answer is live by your rules (those in the faith) and leave the rest of us alone, including those in your countries that are not of your religion.
I've sometimes wondered if the US Constitution's First Amendment groups together freedom of religious practice (in part by _prohibiting_ Congress from passing a law respecting an establishment of religion) and freedom of speech because of the Founding Fathers' awareness of the scourge of blasphemy laws which were in effect in much of Europe at that time.
There is a real purpose in this. Back then all Muslim men were required to fight. Jews were not required to fight, so in lieu of service they pay a tax. Many societies have done something like this.
The rest is correct though. Sorry, they need to grow the hell up if they don't want to be nuked from orbit by really pissing off someone eventually.
I think it would be fairer to say that it's long been expedient to pretend that Pakistan is not what it is, which is to say an absolute enemy of Western nations. It was all a part of the greater game (cold war, then indian-subcontinent regional stability reasons, then later the need for some sort of play regarding Afghanistan.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
One point these so called religious leaders fail to explain is why I should revere the persona of their prophet, if A) I do not believe he is a prophet, and B) Even if he is important in any other way, politically, I have no desire to respect the person nor those who follow that persons teachings Otherwise arrest me now for stating that, Karl Marx is a pig, eating flea dirt in the bottom of a barrel, because a statement like that would be on a par with any statement I would have to make about any religious cult of any type and their so called prophets. If they cannot prove there is a god they cannot prove he is a prophet. I certainly have no respect for islam whatsoever, and further more I would make a case in court that it is only blasphemous to say so if these people can bring me absolute unequivocal proof of the existence of a god! The same goes to christians and any other religion
Can we get a Kickstarter going to fund this writ large in geosynchronous orbit, please?
Hey PM dude...like you know this shit aint going to happen.
The same way our congress will never pass a bill instating performance based pay of themselves or the president (Specifically prohibited by constitution).
Perhaps if you ...you...know...... LEAD.. actually did something positive to improve the lives of your citizens in your own country you would not have found yourself in a position of having to scrape and claw for legitimacy by means of anti-west/whatever rants designed exclusivly for local consumption.
This film thing is a pathetic excuse to cover for your own abysmal lack of gumption.
Cyrus the Great let everybody of any religion live in peace in his kingdom. He even paid respect to the minority religions, including ordering the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple. Islam had nothing on Cyrus when it came to religious tolerance.
Just the opposite of your first conjecture: Since Buddhism is a non-theistic religion there is no deity to be offended and Buddhists cannot claim anyone's actions to be blasphemous. Further, as a non-theistic religion Buddhism denies the existence of the god common to the Abrahamic religions and therefore offends all of them. Other Buddhists may disagree with me, but I feel the value of Buddha statues like those demolished in Bamiyan was as cultural or archaeological artifacts. A great loss to humanity, but not a personal affront that must be avenged.
Time to wall off the Islamic world from the rest of it.
Mis-quoting an off the cuff remark by Ronald Reagan...
U.N. Spokesperson: "We have just passed the first international blasphemy regulations. It is now illegal for any nations to engage in blasphemy at the national level. As our first act under this legislation, any offending nation that has officially referred to any other nation as 'The Great Satan' is now outlawed... We begin bombing the offending nations in 5 minutes."
Thank you, I'll be here all week. Remember to tip your waitresses.
A proper application of Shari'a law would allow the one who felt harmed by an action to respond by doing equal harm by the same methods.
I would like to invite every offended moslem to make a bad film about something Nakoulah or whatever his name cares about, then post it on Youtube. Troll back the troll!! And go away secure in the approval of your lord. And stop fucking whining.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
..was the old word for it.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
That few percent is willing to go violent easily for their cause. The problem is a few percent of 1.5 billion is an awful lot of people. Given that almost every country that has a Muslim majority has implemented some form "politicla Islamism", I'd say a majority of Muslims would support it.
The number of Christians in America who would support a Christian version of that is very small, and the number willing to get violent is extremely small. If it weren't, we'd have had deadly riots over Piss Christ and a dead artist. But the most we got was the standard hate mail you get from anything that pisses people off (remember, people who opposed gay marriage in California got death threats too), and an effort to keep the government from paying for it. Nobody killed him for it as happened to Van Gogh. As it is, the worst we've had is a couple lone rangers killing abortion doctors, and they believed they were directly saving babies from being murdered by executing serial killers.
As far as general attitude, look at how we treat most extreme. Jihadists are admired by many Muslims. We laugh at the Westboro Baptists, and most people fighting against them are Christians.
.. is that don't have the same meaning for everyone, everywhere, and thats the field where UN plays. What is blasphemy for ones could be holy word for others, what is "common sense" for ones could be a sin for others. Even claiming owning the truth, what is right or wrong (as most religions do) could be blasphemy for others, and binding governments with religions is a dangerous mix for that reason too.
It's interesting to see how perspectives get skewed by those perpetrating the crimes. How is blasphemy considered so evil it needs an international law but killing people and chopping off their heads isn't? Why aren't radical muslims and those who tolerate them arrested?
IIRC, this is part of the master plan; use the West's legal system to promote islam...
Further, as a non-theistic religion Buddhism denies the existence of the god common to the Abrahamic religions and therefore offends all of them.
This last part isn't actually intrinsic to Buddhism, which in some regions has long shown a propensity to adopt figures from other faiths as enlightened beings of various sorts. To a Buddhist such beings are certainly not on the order of a "One True God" or anything like that, but they may indeed exist. If so, while they may be misunderstood by followers of the religions dedicated to them, they would still be worthy of respect as enlightened beings.
Eating pork is not a tenet of any religion that I am aware of. The New Testement specifically addressed it by NOT imposing Jewish dietary law on Gentiles. Whether Jews were still bound or not is a bit vague. So, its kind of "do what you want".
Christianity as described by the New Testiment has a lot of that. Slavery is mentioned a couple times - once "Servants obey your masters..." used as a justification by the Old South as a justification. OTOH the book of Philemon is one long plea for a particular slave owner to free a particular slave (Philemon). However, it is not a COMMAND, rather, a rational and very emotional plea. Paul, the author, offers to pay any compensation in order to free Philemon. But, Paul apparently sent the letter back to the owner in the hands of the aformentioned Philemon. Make of it what you will. It can be hard to interpet a foriegn culture from only snippets of writing.
Oh yeah, and if China and India want to draw their borders all the way to the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea, that'd be OK with me, too. Looking at you, Iran! If you just kept your bitch-ass mouth shut like your neighbor, Turkmenistan, we wouldn't be having this little talk right now. When was the last time you heard anything about Turkmenistan in the news? NEVER, is when!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
He gave a reasonable interpretation that is by no means a stretch from the plain text and context. Likewise, "thou shalt not kill" in context can't be understood to be an absolute prohibition on killing or few Christians or Jews ever would have gone to war, or defended their homelands against the invading Muslims. Context is important.
This is not the mental gymnastics you get when trying to say that the Bible didn't condone slavery, or doesn't condemn homosexuality (even in the NT).
In case you missed the point... you're not asking us to stand with you. Where is the massive Western people's protest in favor of free speech? Where are the Westenr leaders. Exactly... you won't stand up for your own values.
The only people standing up for free speech are the crazy white people... people I'd rather not be associated with.
I don't even know what values you have anymore.
About the only thing you stand against is violence.
Just recently there was a protect in Toronto by Muslims demanding the government classify the video as hate speech. Plenty of you Western people just dismiss it as... oh well... they're not being violence... so it's okay. You don't find it offensive that they are demanding the government give up freedom of speech?
So screw it. I don't see the crazy Muslims as the problem anymore. It's the Western government and Western citizens that are the problem. And if I can't even get Western people to recognize the problem, what hope in hell do I have of convincing Muslims?
Clinton managed to balance jack and shit. His epic economic achievements are the results of dotcom bubble in near peak stages, which brought higher tax revenue than expected. You think that if Dubya didn't win, there would be no recession triggered by the dotcom bust? Deficits wouldn't be high? Fed wouldn't slash rates to near zero to keep the americans endebted to their eyeballs spending?
Tax cuts were not a good idea but it makes no sense to blame them for everything. Average voter was complacent, even quite happy he could flip houses bought with no-down loans and get rich quick during the housing bubble flipping real estate.
Yes, being rich and knowing the right people in the circles of power is good for business but...
You seriously underestimate the amount of money promised to tens of millions of people, even if the numbers are modest per capita. The hole in the US budget is 1-1.5T, every year. If you tried to confiscate everything the rich own, you would have funded the expeditures for few months, maybe few years if you were particularly meticulous in your hunt... and then you are back to square 1. Entitlements still have to be paid, but there is nothing to pillage.
SoSec taxes went up because it became perfectly clear, that the low rates from the early times where 1 retiree was supported by 10-20 productive people don't work, when the structure reflects the demographics and it's let's say 1:4 now. Assuming you need 1000 bucks/month to live and there are 4 employed for 1 retiree, math is simple - on average each of them has to fork over 250 bucks/month right off the bat, before any other taxes. What if population ages even more and you get to 1:2? 500 bucks and the wages are not going to skyrocket any time soon to make it easier to make ends meet.
SoSec is an unethical scam because it ignores reality and locks whole generations into a scheme that is very sensitive to demographic changes. Everything is fine with exploding population, which is why the whole thing quacks like a ponzi scheme.
Get below the fertility rate of 2.1 and no amount of wishful thinking will help you. Aging population spells doom to the system (afaik US is at 2.05, still not too bad). In EU the rate is in 1.3-1.6 range in many countries. This can't work no matter how you slice it. In 20 years avg worker will have to fork over the half of his earnings (again, before any other taxes and fees) because the largest block of voters (the elderly) will democratically reintroduce indentured servitude
Pierce v. Society of Sisters in the 1920s affirmed the right to enroll in private schools instead of public. The Protestants who ran Oregon were worried about the influence that Catholic schools would have on society, so they passed a law to ban them, directing all children to the Protestant-run public schools where they used the Protestant Bible. Banning Catholic schools would be too direct and obvious, so as is usual they tried to work around that, banning private schools in general (some exceptions, of course).
Our two-party system has encouraged both parties to polarize at opposite ends. Crazies and fringe elements? It doesn't get much crazier than Sheila Jackson-Lee or Cynthia McKinney, both Democrats.
Fine, I've been paying SS tax for 45 years and intend to collect what I put in. You want to get rid of SS? Fine, give me back all the money I've been paying for decades, with the highest interest rate that was charged while I was earning it (and interest rates were damned high in the eighties).
I have a better idea -- how about we stop using SS and Medicare taxes for the general fund? How about removing the income cap on taxes paid while retaining a maximum amount you can get back? I'm sick of subsidizing rich people; you want to talk entitlement mentality? The only people I've met who weren't actually entitled (like old people, damn you, if I pay for a thing I'm entitled to it) are the rich.
Get your priorities straight, you stupid kid. Good luck on that 401k bullshit... how was your retirement looking in 2008?
Free Martian Whores!
The UN takes their proposal and outlaws blasphemy.
That means that all religions MUST ACCEPT everything anyone else has to say: they cannot treat anything as blasphemy!
Please, can we vote this in today?!
8-PP
He's a Copt. These Egyptian Christians are used to being oppressed and murdered at will by the Muslim majority. It seems that every time some group of Muslims gets mad, they go kill some Copts.
It appears this one didn't take the high road kumbaya non-threatening approach of his local Egyptian brethren, which is kind of necessary for them to prevent being completely wiped out. Instead, he probably has some pretty justified hate for what they did to his people.
To quote Brigadier General Anthony McAuliffe after the German demand to surrender of Bastogne,: "NUTS!".
I think there is part of the brain that the supernatural, deity worshiping, resides in. As a child I believed in the supernatural, alternate universes, life after death, etc... But I grew up and realized you have only 1 life so don't FUCK IT UP. I also had compulsive disorder issues.
The Blasphemy works only 1 way and it's the Islamic way, well it's today's Islamic way. Only Muslims can discriminate, rape, murder, insult other non-muslims because they are God's chosen people. This was true with the Jews in the beginning. Basically, they are behaving like they are in kindergarten or worse high school. Look at the shit muslims have done to copts in egypt, they burned their churches and sometimes burned the copts themselves to death, so you must understand why this coptic christian made the movie.
In evolution age, we humans, are more like 5 year olds mentally, we still need to evolve. Maybe in a thousand or 2 thousand years humans will look back at this time line and see what a bunch of fucking, evil, mass murdering fuck heads we were. Some of us Atheist might not believe in a deity but there are some who actually worship government or celebrities which is pretty damn sad.
The one thing that Islamic extremists cannot stand is blasphemy. It just makes them go ballistic. I propose that there needs to be a nonstop smear campaign against Islam until these extremists go and blow themselves all up. Seriously, fighting wars is ineffective, the only way to hurt these morons is to ridicule them.
Fuck Pakistan! Fuck Islam! Fuck moHAMed! I will fight you lousy fuckers to the death! I will work to have my government and military Nuke the entire Middle East before I let you take away my freedom of speech and religion. I've got nothing against any religion or person until the try to shove their backwards beliefs down my throat, then I say come out fighting. To the death! Lousy pieces of shit!
I hereby cordially invite you and all like minded folk to go fuck yourselves.
Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
Osama wasnt a civilian. He took up arms against a nation-state. That is a soldier.
No, because a soldier is in service to another state (or legal faction thereof, in case of civil wars), not to his own personal vanity. Osama bin Laden was no more a soldier than Blackbeard was in the 1720s.
Religion about faith, not rational thinking, therefore it is impossible to define blasphemy in an objective way. Faith of some are the blasphemy of others.
It is possible to define blasphemy against some major religion(s) in a given country, but a global blasphemy law seems unlikely to happen.
Keep it to yourselves, Muslims.
MY religion deems blasphemy against prophets to be a sacramental act, honoring God over human poseurs.
Don't you dare try to convince the UN that your religion deserves precedence over mine.
for example, the muslim world has tons of hate against judaism and christianity which isn't punished. nevermind that mobs of jews and christians aren't threatening death and destruction because of it
That's what makes this suggestion so funny - or rather absurd. Arrest every Muslim who says something against a Baha'i, then arrest people eating meat balls for showing disrespect towards FSM. And the Wickans can sue the Catholics for their parody of the mother goddess of Ephesos.
Yes, there are some sets of Islamic right-wingers who don't want women to be educated, just like there are American right-wingers who think a woman's place is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
But there are lots more Muslims who want all of their kids to be educated, and who want everybody else's kids to be educated as well, and want their kids to grow up to be educated adults. And even most sexist pigs who want their wives to stay home in the kitchen still want them to be educated enough to educate their kids, which is a job that happens at home as well as school, and want their daughters to be able to get the best husbands they can so they'll have good grandchildren and take care of their parents in their old age. And they want their wives to be able to help run the farm or the shop or whatever they're doing.
And the people who move off the farm and out of the village and go to the big city, like most of the world's population is doing? All of them realize that education is the key to survival.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
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 !
Yeah, blasphemy laws are pretty strongly religious intolerance - even though blasphemy laws are also strong protections against religious intolerance (for some religions. Probably not yours.)
In Saudi Arabia, it's illegal to teach polytheism. Christianity and Judaism may not be treated well, but they're tolerated as religions that worship the same One True God that Abraham worshiped even though they haven't yet accepted that Mohammad came to teach the world more about God, and even though the Muslims think the Christians have really strange ways of counting up to "One". But the Middle Eastern pagan pantheons that predated monotheism are Right Out, and Hinduism is also polytheist (even with the "everything is really All One" parts of Hinduism.) And Islam is even more insistent on banning idols than 16th and 17th-century Protestants were in the Europe's religious wars.
For the most part, Hinduism isn't as hung up about blasphemy as the monotheistic religions are, unless you happen to run into the Shiv Sena on a bad day, but if they're going to pass any blasphemy laws they'd probably include banning preaching monotheism and certainly include a ban on disrespectfully destroying statues of the gods and shrines to the gods.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Maybe they started because of fear, but greed was a big factor as well. Lots of cool stuff to steal if you invaded the Middle East.
And "Arab" isn't necessarily the right term - much of the Muslim invasion of Europe was done by Turks, who aren't Arabs.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Sensible non-crazy Muslims get tired of being blamed for all this crap. And when they do speak up and try to do something long-term about it, like Feisal Abdul Rauf, crazy non-sensible Muslim-haters go all Pam Geller on them and accuse them of building terrorist victory mosques. (Hint, Rauf's a Sufi - the attacks made about as much sense as attacking Quakers for supporting terrorism.) (Not that that stops the FBI from infiltrating Quaker peace groups, of course, or Al-Qaeda and their Wahhabi buddies from tearing down Sufi shrines, or Persian imams from declaring fatwas against Salmon Rushdie or the Baha'is.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
There have been some sensible, non-crazy Muslims being interviewed on the radio in the past week, and while they haven't been boring, they've been on National Public Radio, which is the wrong network to listen to when you need your fix of crazy.
The real question you should be asking yourself, punk, is why aren't there any sensible non-crazy Muslims standing up on Fox News and denouncing these lunatics.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Maybe not a soldier, but certainly a combatant. And you are correct - no protections if you don't follow the rules while engaging in combat. That is an enforcement mechanism and incentive to follow the rules.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Until you demand appeasement, or else violence.
Your Faith does not deserve my false words.
And your violence will destroy us all.
With each breath in, a flower somewhere opens; with each breath out, a flower withers away. In between lies beauty.
I'll stop making fun of their 2,000+ yr old fairy tales and children's stories (Koran, Bible, Torah, etc) when they stop calling me a sub-human, infidel, hellbound dog. The Christians are just a little nicer about it.
If you call me a piece of sh!t worthy of going to the worst place in [non]existence because I refuse to share your backwards ignorant beliefs in a magical "god".... personally I find that arrogant and amusing and your whole belief system suddenly becomes fair game.
The Abrahamists need to relax. If I'm going to Hell, just think, you'll have eternity to laugh about it in Heaven. If Allah/Jehovah existed, he certainly wouldn't need *YOUR* help with the smiting.
F*ck Islam. Eat bacon! Wanna burn my house down yet?
Fuck Islam, Satan's religion.
Fuck the pedophile Mohammad.
There, you muslim bastards. How's that for blasphemy?
Silencing the critics of a religion (or anything for that matter) is open license to do whatever you want in that religion.
So many wars and tragedies throughout history have been because of, or in the name of religion. Given the possibilities of interpreting and misinterpreting the Bible, Koran or whatever guiding principles you have in order to justify your actions, is a recipe for disaster when there are no critics. Reason and moderation go out the window.
IMHO all religions need to tolerate criticism and other religions. There will always be other views and beliefs and they must be tolerated.
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"
You belong to the generation that experienced the standard of living no other generation will experience ever again so don't whine.
And, like he said, he paid his taxes/social security along the way. If your government wasn't so determined to wipe out the middle class and return to a state of Very Few Rich and Very Many Poor there is no reason why your standard of living shouldn't continue to rise.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I don't know why you're at 0.
But anyways...
"So... where does that leave you?"
I don't know. Perhaps why I stopped caring and have just resigned myself to live my life.
There are Western intellectuals that I can side with. Thomas Sowell, Mark Steyn... But that doesn't really do any good in terms of real change.
"Who do you vote for?"
In Canada, I voted for harper. Though I have no real allegiance to them. I don't see any political party as really willing to take on the big issues. They were just the least worst option.
"Which truths do you tell?"
All truths, as I see them of course. I'm not stupid about things, but I put myself more out there than most people.
"What will you do if it all goes to hell? Will you stay true to yourself? Risk your life for it? Lose it?"
I'm still debating. For now, I'm okay if all goes to hell. I get along with most people as does my immediate family. We'll be okay regardless.
There's a great "The Onion" article that pretty much sums up the situation:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/
In Reason We Trust
hey people have a right to be Idiots! I would suggest a Law that if anyone wants a right to insult anyone he needs to do it face to face. That would be right, so why hole States need to be a victim of an idiot that wants to insult others? Freedom of speech is not to be ill used and abused. Go there and then show your courage. But you will not do that for sure! Go outside and start insulting people on the street, and then you will find your rights right away.
As these idiots continue to make fools of themselves they wonder why the world doesn't take them seriously.
If these idiots were not so dangerous they would be laughable.
I can't speak for the politicians... but the man on street in the "West" has just about had enough of "Islam".
At one time Islam was viewed in a sympathetic light. Now... sympathy has turned to contempt.
I'm ok with it as long as it says "you can not make any reference to any god I don't believe in"
Pakistan' PM Demands Control Internet Laws from UN.
Casteism
On behalf of all Pastafarians, I declare a Pirate Jihad on anyone who uploads cartoons, pictures, or videos of spaghetti and meatball dinners who is not of the Faithful!
Also ... cartoons of Feathered Dinosaurs! Everyone knows that dinosaurs wear Pirate Hats and nothing else but a toothy smile!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
When Muslims quit criticizing Christians and Jews, and quit maiming and killing infidels, perhaps I'll consider not criticizing Islam. Until then F__K YOUR BOGUS RELIGION AND MUHAMMAD TOO!!
... blasphemy laws just yet.
You'll have to wait a few more years yet.
Though I doubt that you'll appreciate the ones that we're most likely to enact even then.
In the mean time, why don't YOU enact and enforce some laws protecting religous minorities and punishing hate crimes against them?
Or do YOU believe Allah and his prophet to be too weak to withstand a few words and a few nonbelievers?
THINK! It's patriotic
Ideas whether offensive or not, are just that, ideas. People can express these ideas, but no one has to listen or even acknowledge them. They cannot help or harm you unless acted upon, which is why there should be no laws against expressing them.
Pakistan isn't even a member of the U.N. yet. They can't "demand" anything! Besides, i saw an article just last week with the headline: "Pakistan beginning to look more like 'enemy' of U.S."
You have no right to expect me to respect your belief in imaginary friends.
Not all conservatives are stupid,
but it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
- Hume
Someone needs to make a film, and call it, day, "The Life of Mustafa."
You see, he's not the Holy Prophet (Peace be Upon Him) - he's a very naughty boy.
It could start off with him being woken from his slumbers (together with his young wives) by his mum knocking on his door.
All through the film he could be followed by mindless morons worshiping him by mistake, while the real Holy Prophet (Peace be Upon Him) ascends directly to Heaven on his horse in a brilliant shaft of white light. Note that we never see the real Holy Prophet's (Peace be Upon Him) face so there will be no need for riots and murders.
I won't charge any would-be film makers for the use of this idea.
Stick Men
Close. The US is ruled by an elected 18% majority system. They just happen to be totally controlled by the .1%
Big differance. Fixed that for you.
The 0.1% don't want to rule, thats tedious and boring. They just want to make sure those that do, know their place.
Because I find the idea of an entire empire comprised of nothing but foot stools to be utterly ridiculous!
Consider if such a law was implemented...
http://www.letusreason.org/islam11.htm
In Sura 10:68-70 They say: “God hath begotten a son!” -
[...]
then shall We make them taste the severest penalty for their blasphemies.”
I hate fags, as in cigarettes. The spirit-creature behind my faith says don't intentionally harm yourself (with smoke) or others (with secondhand smoke). See Matthew 22:39.
As I understand it, with the coming of Jesus Christ, the old laws (from the Old Testament) were basically thrown out
The Mosaic Law served its purpose at the time, keeping the Jews as an example of cleanliness to the nations. By the first century CE, sanitation in general had improved, rendering most of the dietary laws obsolete, and God let Peter know that (Acts 10:9-16). Still, some parts of the Law are useful as a historic expression of the principles on which Jehovah God operates. For example, blood sausage and shooting up blood are still unclean (Acts 15:29) because of the principle that a creature's life is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11). Though the details may change, the general principles don't.
What gave it away; was it the dudes hanging out with each other out in the desert, wearing nothing but flowing robes?
I don't follow about what's wrong with men wearing flowing robes. After Adam and Eve sinned for the first time and became aware of their nakedness, God made clothes for them. Genesis 3:21 identifies these as tunics, or shirts long enough to cover at least the kneecaps. (Some English translations use imprecise terms in this verse, such as "coats" or "garments", but the Hebrew word is kethoneth which means a tunic.) Centuries later, man would invent trousers, but only for riding horses. But even given Deuteronomy 22:5, there's nothing wrong with men wearing masculine styles of flowing robes.
God also hates pork and shellfish, but you never see Christians talk about it.
Acts 10 shows that God no longer intended the Jewish dietary laws to apply under the new covenant. Romans 1:27, on the other hand, shows that homosexual acts were still abhorrent to God. God doesn't hate fags; he just hates faggotry.
Serious question, something I'm struggling with in my own spiritual life: Without regularly meeting with other believers, how is one supposed to get spiritual "food at the proper time" (Matthew 24:45)?
Furthermore the account of creation has the sun being created on the fourth day of creation. How do tell were there three "days" prior to the sun existing?
First of all, for the avoidance of doubt, I should clarify that these "days" are metaphorical eras of creation; some were billions of years long. Now to this specific question: The sun existed since Day 1, when God said "Let light come to be" (Genesis 1:3). Day 4 is when the atmosphere cleared up enough that light sources, or "luminaries" as some translations put it, could be distinguished.
The proper context is Judge Deborah Knott.
will arrest the next person to burn the American flag :-)