Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Censorship Youtube Politics

Pakistan's PM Demands International Blasphemy Laws From UN 957

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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pakistan's PM Demands International Blasphemy Laws From UN

Comments Filter:
  • by fnj ( 64210 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @09:57AM (#41436111)

    You can't legislate respect.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:00AM (#41436143)

      you can legislate control. respect isnt the goal here

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mwvdlee ( 775178 )

      One can be disrespectful of religion yet tolerate it at the same time.
      Ignoring something is considered disrespectful and all you need to do to tolerate something is to simply ignore it.

      • by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:22AM (#41436419)

        It's okay to hate fags, but don't you dare say anything about the make-believe magic-man behind my faith that I use to enable my hatred!

        • by mcgrew ( 92797 ) * on Monday September 24, 2012 @11:14AM (#41437221) Homepage Journal

          It's okay to hate fags, but don't you dare say anything about the make-believe magic-man behind my faith that I use to enable my hatred!

          It may be OK for Muslims to hate gays, but anyone who calls himself Christian who "hates fags" is fooling himself and needs to read the New Testamment. It has a few choice passages such as "love your enemies" and "judge not." It also has a few choice words about hypocrites that some "Christians" should read.

          • by MitchDev ( 2526834 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @11:31AM (#41437555)
            Shush, the bible isn't meant to be taken as a whole, only fragments that you can twist to control the sheep you lie to with it.
          • by nege ( 263655 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @11:53AM (#41437903) Journal

            I'm a Christian and I completely agree with you. Many "Christians" don't even read the Bible. Also, going to church doesn't make one a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.

          • by asifyoucare ( 302582 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @12:04PM (#41438107)

            ... but anyone who calls himself Christian who "hates fags" is fooling himself and needs to read the New Testament ...

            Perhaps they could start by reading Romans 1:27.

            And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

            Why just the new testament BTW? Leviticus says gays should be killed.

            I'm neither gay nor christian, but I'd have a hard time reconciling them if I was.

          • by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @12:36PM (#41438691) Journal

            You should maybe read the Bible before quoting it.

            "judge not" has a great deal of context around it and does not mean "judge not" at all. It means you will be held to whatever standards you hold others. Its really more about our tenancy to rationalize our own ill behavior and to remind us to be "open minded" about the acts of others as they may very well have a reason for what they do. Don't demand the head of a man for stealing a loaf of bread, he might be desperately poor with starving child at home. Someday you might be in the same situation and you would want a little forgiveness and understanding.

            If there is something you believe is so wrong that you yourself would never ever do it no matter what, hope to die (and its otherwise consistent with the new testament), than its completely okay as a Christian for you to judge another for it, even harshly.

      • by i kan reed ( 749298 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @11:30AM (#41437525) Homepage Journal

        Nope, you can tolerate something and still actively speak against it. Attempting to convince people they are wrong about something is harmless. It breaks into intolerance when you suggest or take action(be it legislative, violent, or manipulative) against a group.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      That is indeed the meme shift underway.

      In the west, politics has taken over from religion in arrogating onto itself the power to force its views on everyone. This is reflected in things like the First Amendment.

      This process needs to happen over there. Do not allow it to grab more power.

      Next step: stripping it from politics. This was done once but it clawed its way back in. Politics and religion generate the same angers not because they are similar, but because they are the exact same phenomenon

      • by Nadaka ( 224565 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:50AM (#41436863)

        Sorry. But no. They are not the same phenomenon. Faith is a requirement for religion, because religions are always false. Faith is not absolutely necessary for politics, because people are genuinely capable of being both capable and and have good intentions, however rare that may be.

        • by X0563511 ( 793323 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @11:59AM (#41438021) Homepage Journal

          Lets be fair, here. Faith is a requirement because of a lack of evidence. This is not the same thing as false, just as it most certainly is not the same thing as true.

    • by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:19AM (#41436381)

      Respect for what?

      Your dumb ideas are yours to have, but I've no obligation to hold them up to any sort of esteem any more than I'm obligated to respect the idea that the earth sits on a stack of turtles in space or that Santa squeezes down six billion chimneys every year. The sooner we stop giving ideas a retreat by couching them in "my belief system", the sooner we can get on with common sense.

    • by pla ( 258480 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:28AM (#41436529) Journal
      You can't legislate respect.

      You can legislate education, however. And as people become more educated, they become less religious. Win-win!

      More to the point, you want respect? Start by learning why we think you sound like a complete idiot when you go frothing about your preferred fairy-tale. You want tolerance? Behave like civilized humans rather than rabid dogs. You want the freedom to practice your religion? Clean house and stop letting the worst among you represent your religion to the rest of the world.

      You can't legislate respect, but you can earn it.
    • by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:33AM (#41436607) Journal

      Blasphemy laws are legislating disrespect. Disrespect for each individual's free thought.

    • 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

  • Blasphemy! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24, 2012 @09:59AM (#41436125)

    Your demand for "blasphemy laws" is, to us, blasphemy!

    • Re:Blasphemy! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Nerdfest ( 867930 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:19AM (#41436377)

      If the UN charter mentions 'protection from religious intolerance', why are the extreme demands of some religions (or lack thereof) being heeded at all? These demands sound like the very definition of religious intolerance.

      • Re:Blasphemy! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24, 2012 @11:06AM (#41437131)

        People still don't know how to handle an illness where the patient doesn't want what would be good for him, from his sane version's standpoint.
        Do you force them to do what you think they would want... which will always be what *you* think is good... and thereby impose yourself on them and take away his individuality and freedom? (Sadly, most people do not even accept the fact that what they deem globally right/wrong, is only their own bias.)
        Or do you let them run around, even though you fully know they hurt themselves and others, and inside is a faint rest of themselves, screaming to be saved? (Sadly, most people don't seem to have the empathy and/or intelligence to feel bad for them.)
        It's complicated.

        Even when it's blatantly obvious, that they are harmful and dangerous to us, and the delusions serve no purpose other than to flee from an unbearable/unprocessable reality.

        We still think that one has to accept and tolerate the ignorance and delusions of others.
        In the 21st century, with psychology finally getting a solid foundation in the form of neurology, we still don't treat it like the full mental illness that it is.
        Let alone being landed in the heads of politicians...

        (Posting anonymously, because those ill with religious schizophrenia will hate-mod me down anyway. They just can't help it. And I can understand them. It's like a life-threatening thing to them. [And neurologically, it actually really is. At least for the brain.])

      • Re:Blasphemy! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by eth1 ( 94901 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @11:26AM (#41437435)

        If the UN charter mentions 'protection from religious intolerance', why are the extreme demands of some religions (or lack thereof) being heeded at all? These demands sound like the very definition of religious intolerance.

        Yeah, and what happens when someone stars the religion of Malsi, where the main doctrine is the denunciation of Muhammad, and venerating him is blasphemy? Will the UN sanction anyone practicing Islam?

        You can't ever have the right to not be offended, because there's someone somewhere that will be offended by you taking offense, so one of you will always be offended.

    • Re:Blasphemy! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by NeutronCowboy ( 896098 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:43AM (#41436751)

      No, no, no. Stop this stupid equivocating crap. Demand for blasphemy laws is no more blasphemy to a free speech activist than rejecting intolerance is intolerance from a free love hippy. It is not even funny. It's just wrong.

      Here's why: the concept of free speech is based on human rights, not God's demands. That means that it cannot actually be blasphemy, which is specifically defined as speech harmful to God's image. Furthermore, free speech is based on the understanding that people will be enforcing laws, which means that people will be interpreting laws, which means that something as nebulous as "thou shall not insult me" is guaranteed to be abused in the most terrible fashion, and therefore has no place in a book of law. To put it another way: the requirement inherent in free speech that I tolerate your foul mouth has nothing to do with requiring to tolerate your actions, or your calls to action. If you're going to advocate restrictions on free speech, free speech activists will come down on your ass.

      I know you were going for funny, but there are too many idiots out there who see this and go "Hypocrites! All of you! Now let me play my Call of Duty 27".

  • Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cryacin ( 657549 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:00AM (#41436141)
    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?
    • Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dskoll ( 99328 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:04AM (#41436183) Homepage

      Surely this is not what Islam and the Koran truly stands for?

      And what if it is? It seems to me that Islam does condone (hell no, recommend) the use of violence to spread Islam.

      • Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)

        by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:32AM (#41436589)

        the underlying theme in koran writings IS that the dhimmis (ie, all of us non-moslems) are to be conquered or killed. eventually. until then, they are allowed to lie to us and do whatever it takes in order to secure their future.

        LOOK IT UP.

        I wish I was kidding. this is nasty, ugly shit, but its the basic overall guiding concept. it really is ;(

        no peace can be made with belief systems like that.

        (cue the deniers in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

        • Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:40AM (#41436713)

          Saying "look it up" is not the same as citing a reference, even if it's in all-caps.

        • Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Rob the Bold ( 788862 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @11:04AM (#41437097)

          the underlying theme in koran writings IS that the dhimmis (ie, all of us non-moslems) are to be conquered or killed. eventually. until then, they are allowed to lie to us and do whatever it takes in order to secure their future.

          LOOK IT UP.

          Are you sure you are not interpreting the Koran -- assuming you've read it -- through the Christian Protestant, and in particular, fundamentalist, lens of sola scriptura, that is, that the holy book contains all necessary knowledge of the faith? Are you sure that this is also the Islamic standard of exegesis as well?

      • Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:40AM (#41436721) Homepage

        The Muslims are not worse than what Christians used to be with the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch trials and all that. Religions can change, the problem is that Islam largely haven't.

      • Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by alexgieg ( 948359 ) <alexgieg@gmail.com> on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:44AM (#41436779) Homepage

        It seems to me that Islam does condone (hell no, recommend) the use of violence to spread Islam.

        It depends. It certainly believes that a worldwide Islamic government would be the bestest thing ever, and approves the use of force to get there, but that doesn't directly translate into forcing people to convert. Islamic countries have a long history of keeping several non-Islamic religious groups within its borders, all of them relatively untouched, unharmed, and even with self-governing rights (as long as they recognized their Islamic overlords as being the legitimate rulers, didn't dare trying to convert any Muslim to their faith, REALLY didn't dare offend Islam, and paid their special "2nd-class non-citizen" tax). So, in a way Islam had the first set of rules at something resembling "religious freedom" (as in "freedom to practice") mindset in the pre-Enlightenment world, so much so that it was quite common for European religious minorities to migrate to Islamic countries when things got really bad in Europe, kind of like when nowadays a North Korean dissident runs to China to escape oppression: from his perspective, a huge improvement; from ours, not so much. Evidently, at some point things in Europe started to improve at a faster rate than in the Middle East Islam, then surpassed them, and now we're the ones who look at them as the oppressive bad guys.

        So, not so much the use of violence to spread Islam, but the use of violence to spread Sharia law, which, although a closely related subject, isn't quite the same thing.

    • Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rob the Bold ( 788862 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:14AM (#41436319)

      Please, will the sensible and non-crazy muslims please stand up already and disown these lunatics?

      Sensible, non-crazy members of [insert religion name here], while the majority, give very boring interviews that get bad ratings.

    • Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Chrisq ( 894406 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:15AM (#41436329)

      Please, will the sensible and non-crazy muslims please stand up already and disown these lunatics?

      But not to protest would be blasphemy, you could be convicted for it [csmonitor.com]. Hell, if this law takes affect we might all have to do a Muzzie and riot or risk prosecution.

    • Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jythie ( 914043 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:27AM (#41436515)
      Thing is, such Muslims stand up and denounce such things all the time, but when the media give them attention the sites are bashed for being 'liberal media' since such denouements do not fit with a certain narrative... so there is a rather strong selection bias going on.
      • by circletimessquare ( 444983 ) <circletimessquare&gmail,com> on Monday September 24, 2012 @11:20AM (#41437329) Homepage Journal

        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

    • Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by scamper_22 ( 1073470 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @12:02PM (#41438053)

      Sensible, non-crazy, fairly secular Muslim here.

      I've spoken out in favor of free-speech and reform... but you know what. I'm tired of people like you thinking us other Muslims can somehow fix the 'crazy' Muslims.

      There is a reasonable reading of the Islamic text that does mean, you need to spread the Islamic state and when in a position of power to enforce blasphemy laws. This is simply a rather orthodox Islamic position.

      So, I can't 'convince' the 'extreme' Muslims to go against a pretty reasonable reading of the texts. The same text that says pray 5 times a day and tells Muslims how to pray is the same one that tell Muslim women to put on the veil and spread the Islamic state.

      FYI... Islam is not just the Koran. You need the Hadith as well. Hint... the Koran never even says pray 5 times a day. The Koran says follow Mohamed... so what Mohamed did is recorded in the Hadith. Most of what Muslims actually practice is in the Hadith.

      Now that I've given you some background.
      Let me tell you who you should turn your demands towards. Your ridiculous governments who have such a perverse view of rights.

      Religious rights are extreme. As long as someone can say something is part of their religion... somehow that means they should be able to do it.

      Let me tell you how I see it. I live in Canada. Not exactly land of liberty, but a pretty free country.

      This is a country where the government takes control of healthcare, can actually deny me treatment, can control a restaurants use of transfat oil, can send me to jail for smoking a plant, takes half my income to fund, can send in child-care workers if I spank my child, monopolizes the school system...

      My point of all this is not to complain about my rights being infringed or anything. Just to show how much government interferes with my 'rights' already.

      Yet this same government finds it a violation of 'rights' to tell Muslim women they can't wear the niqab. Yeah, which does more social harm. Me wanting to eat fish and chip cooked with transfat oil... or a Muslim women possibly being forced to wear the niqab due to social customs and isolating her and preventing social cohesion.

      And do you know who sits on all these government bureaucracies. It's not us Muslims. It's your fellow 'white' Canadians or American. Who sits on Human rights tribunals or drafts legislation?

      We have real social issues in the Muslim community. And you 'white Canadians/Americans' actually work to support the 'extremists'. You don't stand up for your Western values... then you suddenly demand us 'moderate' Muslims do everything for you.

      Classic Blasphemy example with this video. It pits freedom of speech against a theocracy. And what does the leader of the free world say? What does Barack Obama say? Does he come out in strong support of Free Speech and Western Values? What does Hilary Clinton say? They spend their effort talking about how offensive the film is.

      Heck, even George Bush... the so called... 'cowboy' barely stood up for Western values.

      Heck, I wonder if Nazism was a religion today, if you Western people wouldn't just sit there trying to be tolerant of it in the name of freedom of religion.

      The only people standing up for Western values are the 'crazy' white people... as you would probably call them. In the UK... it's the EDL. In the US, prolly people you'd refer to as rednecks. In Canada... its our 'rednecks'.

      So pardon me for not going out of my way anymore.
      I was born Muslim. I care about my people and my community, but I've stopped caring. I don't care anymore if you think Islam is a horrible religion. I don't care to defend it. I'm just tired.

      If you Western people won't even stand up for your values and way of life... why should I?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:02AM (#41436161)

    ...is the perceived right to never be offended.

  • by trybywrench ( 584843 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:06AM (#41436213)
    Oh wait your serious, let me laugh even harder! - Bender
  • by PolygamousRanchKid ( 1290638 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:07AM (#41436217)

    Blasphemy is used to Pakistan to settle scores between feuding parties: http://www.economist.com/node/21562262 [economist.com]

    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 [islamqa.info]

  • Fahrenheit 451 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ImdatS ( 958642 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:07AM (#41436227) Homepage

    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...

  • by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:08AM (#41436245) Journal
    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
  • On the other hand (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:09AM (#41436261)

    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!

  • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:11AM (#41436279) Homepage

    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.

    • by fnj ( 64210 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:26AM (#41436493)

      Please be careful signing up to do something antithetical to your core morality, just if somebody else will do something you are sure they will never do. They could call you on it. Nobody should ever sign up for anti-blasphemy legislation under ANY hypothetical condition.

      Just tell them you will CONSIDER their demand when they clean up their own act. I would say one second of fair and honorable consideration, followed by a REJECTED sticker, would then fulfill the bargain and leave one's own core morality uncompromised.

  • by Millennium ( 2451 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:12AM (#41436289)

    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.

    • Re:Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)

      by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:25AM (#41436471)

      Thomas Jefferson viewed this as freedom of conscience, that is the state has no authority to dictate a person's thoughts and beliefs. Men have this freedom by their nature. The state cannot remove it.

      The inscription on the Jefferson Memorial reads "I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

      Ultimately this tyranny is what the Pakistan minister intends be enforced by international law.

      We should not be supporting or in fact have any relations with a society such as this.

  • by Chrisq ( 894406 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:12AM (#41436297)
    Note that their interpretation of "Blasphemy" is "Critical of Islam". From TFA:

    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 [worthynews.com] will be fine, as will be the destroying artefacts of other faiths [wikipedia.org]. 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 [wikipedia.org], 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".

  • by cfulton ( 543949 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:15AM (#41436335)
    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.
  • Umm... (Score:4, Informative)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:15AM (#41436339) Journal

    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).

  • 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.

  • Fuck that (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kimvette ( 919543 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @10:28AM (#41436531) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • 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

  • by JohnPerkins ( 243021 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @11:10AM (#41437169) Homepage

    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.

  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Monday September 24, 2012 @12:01PM (#41438047) Journal
    Those were huge statues of Buddha. Some 200 or 300 feet tall. Carved into niches of rock face of a hill. Something like Petra. They were in Afghanistan. They were 1500 years old. And the Taliban decided to dynamite them.

    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.

God helps them that themselves. -- Benjamin Franklin, "Poor Richard's Almanac"