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.
"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...
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!
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".
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.
*in the know*
Shit.
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.
Rule 34: "There is porn of it. No exceptions."
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
As all road cyclists should know:
Mountain bike shoes and pedals have their place.
On a mountain bike.
http://www.velominati.com/the-rules/#34
Not quite sure what that has to do with Islam, but it's always useful to be reminded of the sacred texts.
I guess today is a passable day to die.
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....
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.
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?
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.
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
Osama wasnt a civilian. He took up arms against a nation-state. That is a soldier.
Good-bye
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.
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
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
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
Promote intelligence and logic and reason and religion will vanish...
End of retarded discussion.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.
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/
|
/ \
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
Can we get a Kickstarter going to fund this writ large in geosynchronous orbit, please?
.. 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.
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.
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 !
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.