Man Sentenced to Death For Blasphemous Facebook Comments In Pakistan (gizmodo.com) 469
In what is believed to be "the first time the death penalty had been awarded in a case related to social media," a 30-year-old man in Pakistan has been sentenced to death for blasphemy in comments made on Facebook. Gizmodo reports: The prosecutor told The Times of India that Taimoor Raza was arrested "after playing blasphemous and hate speech material on his phone on a bus stop in Bahawalpur, where a counter-terrorism officer arrested him and confiscated his phone." It was the material on Raza's phone that led to his arrest. The Guardian reports that the accused's brother said Raza "indulged in a sectarian debate on Facebook with a person, who we later come to know, was a [counter-terrorism department] official with the name of Muhammad Usman." Raza's defense attorney told The Guardian the initial charges were limited to "insulting remarks on sectarian grounds," which carries a maximum two-year jail sentence, but that "derogatory acts against prophet Muhammad," which carry a death sentence, were added later. According to The Times of India, Raza will be able to appeal the ruling to the Pakistani High Court and the Supreme Court. Facebook said in a statement: "We are deeply saddened and concerned by the death sentence served in Pakistan for a Facebook post. Facebook uses powerful systems to keep people's information secure and tools to keep their accounts safe, and we do not provide any government with direct access to people's data. We will continue to protect our community from unnecessary or overreaching government intervention."
PRISM (Score:4, Insightful)
> Facebook uses powerful systems to keep people's information secure and tools to keep their accounts safe, and we do not provide any government with direct access to people's data.
So was Snowden lying when he said the NSA could look up phone, e-mail and other private communication? Or is Snowden a Limited hangout? Has America forgotten about the spy network?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The keyword here is "direct access" and "we". The access can be indirect, per request, or intentionally week enough at the right places in order for the authorities to tap into.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Only a few months ago: (google facebook helps pakistan monitor speech)
Pakistan asking Facebook and Twitter to point out blasphemers ...
www.theblaze.com/.../pakistan-asking-facebook-and-twitter-to-point-out-blasphemers-a...
Mar 29, 2017 - Facebook has signalled its intent to help Pakistan identify thought .... promise to PROSECUTE anyone guilty of "ANTI-MUSLIM" speech.
https://www.infowars.com/facebook-helps-pakistan-identify-thought-criminals/
Pakistan asks Facebook to help fight blasphemy - BBC News
www.bbc.co
Re: (Score:3)
You could make a statement saying you don't give away TVs to random people. That would probably be true. It would still be true after I break into your house and take your TV while you're not looking.
No one here is lying.
Re:PRISM (Score:4, Insightful)
Not in the United States. [wikipedia.org] US governments cannot compel most people to speak, or compel false speech. The only recognized limitation to date is that someone offering goods or services to the public may be compelled to disclose relevant information to prospective or actual customers.
Now, some people may choose to lie, perhaps on advice of lawyers, rather than fight a First Amendment battle in court. That doesn't mean the government (or any court order) compels them to lie. But a lot of people choose not to; that is the principle under which a warrant canary works.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure. Why not? I would have a field day in court if they tried to stop me, and civil liberties organizations would be lining up to help.
Lots of police forces have tried to confiscate cell phones and destroy video recordings that they find inconvenient. That has uniformly been disapproved by courts.
When religion makes laws (Score:5, Insightful)
This has less to do with Facebook and more with what happens when you let imaginary friends rule your life.
Re: When religion makes laws (Score:4, Insightful)
This is disingenuous. There's a state where the official religion is Christian, specifically Catholicism. It's called the Holy See, and operates from the Vatican City state. No such rules or laws like that exist within the Holy See. If religion is the problem, how come stuff like this doesn't also occur within the Holy See? Be honest and admit that fundamentalist Islam is the problem here. It's why there are stupid laws like death sentences for blasphemy and evils like ISIL. Before you point to things like the Crusades and the Inquisition, those are in the distant past and are considered regrettable by Christianity in the present day. Fundamentalist Islam is the problem, plain and simple.
Re: When religion makes laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Do they do so in the name of God, or because they find gays icky?
Re: When religion makes laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Relax, there's no reason to get snappy. I asked because I quite honestly haven't been keeping up with Ugandan politics and religious beliefs.
Re: When religion makes laws (Score:4, Insightful)
the teachings of Jesus are simple enough that there's no question that killing gay people is absolutely wrong.
Please quote the passage which suggests that Jesus revoked Leviticus 20:13.
"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Incidentally, Timothy 1:9-10 puts homosexuality in the same bin as murdering one's parents:
"We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine."
Re: (Score:3)
So is eating shellfish and wearing two different fabrics. You don't see anyone demand the death penalty for people wearing cheap suits that are 50% polyester, though.
Even though it is the far worse crime against decency and taste.
Re: (Score:3)
A contradiction in the Holy Bible?? Surely you jest!
Re: When religion makes laws (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/how-uganda-was-seduced-by-anti-gay-conservative-evangelicals-9193593.html
Things get hard when "soft power" is used in the wrong way.
Of cause Saudi Arabian Muslim evangelists are doing far worse and probably inspired the problem in the article.
Re: When religion makes laws (Score:5, Funny)
Things get hard when "soft power" is used in the wrong way.
It's funny when the thought of gays makes Christians hard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're saying that murdering people for their believes is a traditional conservative viewpoint? How fitting.
Are you deliberately dense?
He's mocking you - by saying you only impose your ideals on Christians and give Muslims a complete pass.
He's making fun of you for ignorantly saying a religion whose main tenets are "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" is worse than the religion whose main intellectual driver is LITERALLY "kill the unbeliever by smiting him in the neck". Did you even fucking know that Islam literally translates as "submission" [google.com]? Why do I think not...
Christianity is based on Jesus Christ
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that murdering people for their believes is a traditional conservative viewpoint? How fitting.
Are you deliberately dense?
He's mocking you - by saying you only impose your ideals on Christians and give Muslims a complete pass.
He's making fun of you for ignorantly saying a religion whose main tenets are "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" is worse than the religion whose main intellectual driver is LITERALLY "kill the unbeliever by smiting him in the neck". Did you even fucking know that Islam literally translates as "submission" [google.com]? Why do I think not...
Christianity is based on Jesus Christ sacrificing himself to save everyone else. Islam is based on killing everyone else.
And you really fucking thing Christianity is worse and are willing to give Islam a pass?
WHAT THE FLYING FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!?!
Oh? And do you have the stones to say who's currently going around the US saying they're going to attack their political opponents? I think they call it "punching Nazis". Would it be those "progressive antifas" who've openly adopted actual Nazi and Fascist tactics of political violence?
The problem with christianity as well as islam is both holy books are filled with multiple instructions both to be nice to everyone and fucking kill anyone who's not the same as you. Especially the old testament in the bible. Try reading it one day.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
>Especially the old testament in the bible. Try reading it one day.
One problem with the Christibans is that the new testament's hippie socialist "turn the other cheek," "love thy neighbour," etc. is supposed to override the old testament's "non-Jews are untermenschen who should be killed and enslaved," "sacrifice your firstborn son to Ba'al-Yahweh," and similar messages; adherence to this was what originally set Christians apart from non-reformist Jews.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
âoeDo not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (NIV, Matthew 5:17â"18)
There's a lot of interpretation of this one. Some people say that it means that Mosaic law is still in effect, others don't. Since Jesus and his disciples arguably ignore
Re: When religion makes laws (Score:4, Informative)
Other religions believe that newer instructions -- for example, the New Testament -- or interpretations can supersede or limit previous scriptures. The Koran specifically forbids that. Try reading it one day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem with christianity as well as islam is both holy books are filled with multiple instructions both to be nice to everyone and fucking kill anyone who's not the same as you. Especially the old testament in the bible. Try reading it one day.
yes, but Christians by their name, tend to follow the 2nd book, you know the one that says love thy neighbor.
Where is the book of Islam that focuses on being nice to others...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: When religion makes laws (Score:5, Informative)
Congratulations, you found the one religiously run state that doesn't have any need for such laws. Well, maybe because that particular state is very special in a lot of aspects. One of them probably being that to get in, you first and foremost have to have drunk the cool-aid and totally love it, or you just would not be there. It's not like you can be born in the Holy See (yup. Only country in existence with 100% (former) foreigners making up the population). You pretty much HAVE TO be all-in on the whole religious spiel already to even have a chance to become a citizen.
I hope it's easy to see how you can get away with not having any laws like this and still have a 100% devotee population. You don't have to enforce anything there. People ARE already completely sold to the cult.
Re: When religion makes laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Congratulations! You found the one place that is essentially a sub city - an area of 0.17 sq miles (Rome, by contrast, is almost 500 sq miles). Being there is like being in a church - if the entire place ain't one already. Also, if one committed blasphemy there - like stated support for abortion or birth control, would they be expelled from there, much less jailed or even much lesser executed?
Point is that there are countries that have official religions e.g. in England, it's the Church of England, in Scotland, it's the Church of Scotland. Even though England is not a secular state, complete freedom of religion does exist - some 25% are no religion i.e. either atheist or agnostic. That's pretty much there the world over, and one can't hold up Uganda as the model of what it is to be Christian. One can, however, hold up places like Saudi Arabia or Iraq or Egypt as models of what it is to be Islamic, since a lot of Islam's ideology developed there, as well as in Baghdad. And most people know that anyone committing blasphemy in any Muslim country (except maybe the ex Soviet stans) would either be imprisoned or executed, or targeted for vigilante murder for insulting Islam. So let's not draw a moral equivalence here.
In the case of Pakistan, like I said above, the only reason that country exists as an independent political entity is Islam: otherwise, it was no different from India. The reason they have a 100% fanatical population is that they know that their country wouldn't exist w/o Islam. This doesn't mean that if they suddenly became secular, India would annex them (most Indians I know would be against such a re-unification b'cos it would drag down their economy, and blow up the % of Muslims in the country); however, they do what they can to emphasize their differences from India, including creating commonalities w/ Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey and the Arab countries.
Re: When religion makes laws (Score:4, Insightful)
It is a question of numbers, and development, and themes.
Buddhism, maybe 30% is fundamentalist, and amongst those, what they believe in unquestioningly is usually tame.
Christianity, maybe 70% is fundamentalist, and amongst those, what they believe in is usually less tame, with some outright human rights problems.
Islam, maybe 80% is fundamentalist, and of those, maybe 2% believe in violent conquest, and 5% believe in political conquest, and 50% have human rights issues, and the rest are just quaint victorian style proper living.
So "Islam" does get a lot of attention.
As for "all religions are the same", that is a fine and rational view, except that, there are maybe only 10% in all the religions, who subscribe to that view point -- so they are certainly not fundamentalist -- they believe and actually value a global peaceful community, accepting others, accepting that there are many paths to "god". So there, people from all religions see that all the prophets and saints and sages of all the religions are all pointing to a similar truth.
But because only 10% across the board see it that way, they don't have much influence, and meanwhile, the rest see this "all paths" idea as either misguided or wrong or blasphemous or whatever, depending on their degree of fundamentalism.
Buddhism is an interesting one because their original precepts didn't block a process of continual change across the ages. Christianity just sort of did itself in with trying to maintain empire and ended up in religious wars across Europe. Islam is supposed to be, believed to be, version 3 (Christianity was v2 and Judaism was v1) and is still largely in the "let's keep it exactly as it is" mentality.
Frankly, the West went down the monotheistic route, and if your worldview Is based on there being only one true god, then that excludes everyone else and always puts others into the sinners and heathens bucket, and who wants to be ruled by heathens?
The East kept with polytheistic and non-theistic and so their religions are more easy to change. Who cares what god you believe in if "god" is merely just another perceptual dream ornament within your vast field of being and presence? Along with the cat?
So the differences in the content of the religions does matter, as well as, what percentage of people are prone to literalist readings, and what proportion are rationally developed and know they are always "interpreting" whatever they read.
Re: When religion makes laws (Score:5, Insightful)
that's a lot of ass pulling there.
Re: (Score:3)
All religions are not identical, but they all have some things in common, like being bullshit. Well, to be fair, only around 3,000 active religions are necessarily bullshit. I suppose one of them could be right. But they can't all be right about everything, and odds are sharply against any of them being right about everything.
By definition, no more than one religion can be correct. So at best, virtually all religions are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
By definition, no more than one religion can be correct.
That's an incorrect definition. In the Far East it's common for someone to follow one, two or more religions at once, even when those have conflicting views about specific issues. It's usually understood over there that those conflicts are either because those differences are different aspects of something more fundamental, or because they apply to different people, or because they're metaphorical etc.
For example, in Japan one can be one or more of these: Shintoist, Buddhist, Confucian and/or Christian. The
Re: (Score:2)
Or is it the other way around?
Assuming no oil in the Middle East, you have no capital and you probably have the same level of modernization and outside influence that you have in Mauritania or Mali. What would then be the motivating factor for Islamic modernization? The populations would largely still be living rural, subsistence type existences which would seem to just perpetuate parochialism.
Then there's the question of Israel/Palestine. There's no question that region's proximity to oil plays a role i
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming no oil in the Middle East we'd probably have bombed it back to the stone age by now.
Re: (Score:3)
If that were the reason, then Afghanistan should either have become an Eastern Orthodox country - courtesy Russia, or a Protestant country, courtesy 19th century Brits or the 21st century US.
People say a lot about how Afghanistan has never been subjugated. That is BS. It was first subjugated when it was first Islamized, both during and after the Islamic conquest of Iran in the 7th century. Then it was invaded by the Mongols and after that, several times by various Turkic dynasties, and then the Iranian
Re: (Score:3)
The numbers are guesstimates for the globe. For example, survey Muslims in a western country, and 50% say something like, homosexuality should be banned. Now it's up to you whether you class that as "fundamentalism" or not. And consider also a country like Egypt, which has a liberal urban elite, and maybe 70 million in more rural lifestyles with more archaic attitudes. And this isn't to demonise Muslims, it is just to point out that yes, whilst actual terrorists are a tiny percentage, there are beliefs and
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
maybe, just maybe, the problem isn't a particular religion (or religion in general). maybe the problem is human nature. take away religion, we'll find some other idea to exploit for power and control.
Re: (Score:2)
By sending weapons to the middle east and generally fucking up those countries, that transition is being harmed.
Re: (Score:2)
How the fuck did you manage to read my comment and construe my argument as saying that the islamic countries are tolerant? I never made that claim and I certainly do not think that's the case.
My whole point is that the islam of today is essentially 'as tolerant' as the catholicism of the middle-ages, which is to say not at all, but the solution to this has to lie in educating the younger m
Re:When religion makes laws (Score:4, Insightful)
This has less to do with Facebook and more with what happens when you let imaginary friends rule your life.
Huh? Facebook is what happens when you let imaginary friends rule your life.
Re:When religion makes laws (Score:5, Insightful)
The friends are real, not imaginary, although the friendship may be imaginary. There's a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
That would make a pretty neat song for They Might Be Giants or someone like that.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm your only friend; I'm not your only friend, but I'm a little glowing friend, but really I'm not actually your friend..."
Birdhouse In Your Soul [wikipedia.org] by They Might Be Giants
Re: (Score:2)
The people are real. What's imaginary is the friendship.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:When religion makes laws (Score:4, Informative)
Can't speak for Canada, but the blasphemy law in Denmark had been used four times (if I remember it correctly) in the past 100 years. The last time was in the 70s, and the accused was found innocent.
Re:When religion makes laws (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it religion or education? How much intolerance do you still see in well educated areas (US is well educated on average but some areas more than others), while you still have religious people among the educated (even if less religious people among the educated)?
Re: (Score:2)
Never heard that one before.
Re: (Score:2)
Mine? I do without a delusion, thank you very much.
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly I'm not sure why this would shock or surprise anyone. We should know by now that the majority of the Middle Eastern countries are Theocracies. Those Theocracies are based on Islam. Islam when followed in a literal, fundamentalist way condones this type of behavior. For example, Apostasy. If you leave the faith, you should be executed. This is described in both the Quran and the Hadith. Any society based on this sort of thing is going to be barbaric at best from a human rights perspective.
Why
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be honest here, any religion, if founded today as a club, would be under surveillance by NSA, FBI and various other TLAs for their charter alone, if they can be founded altogether considering how they treat minorities in general and women in particular.
And you wouldn't invite their leaders to some discussion about ethics or morals. You'd tell those fuckers to go away, far away preferably, because their insane ideologies have no place in a civilized society.
Re: (Score:2)
This has less to do with Facebook and more with what happens when you let imaginary friends rule your life.
In this case, the imaginary friends are the entire basis for that country existing in the first place (before that, it was a part of India). So in their mind, if they were to allow blasphemy of Islam, they'd lose their raison-de-etre for existing in the first place.
It also explains why they are the #1 sponsor of Jihad (not Iran or Saudi Arabia or Qatar) and why the US would do well to treat them at par w/ ISIS or al Qaeda, and add them to the travel ban list
Re: (Score:2)
All our social organisations are just religions by a different name. Humans are stupid. They believe stupid shit. Its how we are built.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Which ones for example?
Re: (Score:2)
Governments are religions? Care to tell me where you're living? And why you can't go to a country that managed to separate church and state?
Re: When religion makes laws (Score:5, Interesting)
Governments are religions?
As a non-American, it strikes me as quite... interesting... how worshipful Americans are of their politicians and institutions. The US constitution, its amendments, and the declaration of independence, are quoted as if they were scripture. The Founding Fathers get this Very Important Uppercased Title of Utter Respect and are quoted all around by all sides as if they were some kind of prophets or sages possessing of final wisdom. A mountain was carved so that the faces of the tetrany (?) of the Greatest Presidents Ever is forever remembered. And so on and so forth.
The US government might be secular, but secularism alone isn't enough to nullify religious impulses. They just shift around and resettle in a different shape and form.
Re: (Score:2)
Religion can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, it has to be "weak-minded". When you quote someone you don't have the liberty to change words. ;)
And I'm sorely disappointed in the /. community to NOT notice it!
Re: (Score:2)
well.. go to Russia 2017 mkay?
but don't be gay okay?
or some well chosen place in Africa.
so why not lump them together? because blasphemy kind of needs it. you think Pakistan would be different if they were ultra right wing buddhists? of course not. It would still be a religious backwater place with authoritans trying to fight other authoritans for power to get power - that's really the whole point.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes religions different?
Christianity and Islam are not really that different. Both claim to be the one true religion and both demand from their cool-aid drinkers to off everyone who doesn't follow the same delusion.
The main difference is that the group with the green flavor takes it more serious than the group drinking the red flavor.
Re:Umm, WHICH religion would that be? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Matthew 10:34-36
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.
Luke 14:26
If any man come to Me and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.
Luke 19:27:
But those enemies of mine wh
Re:Umm, WHICH religion would that be? (Score:4, Informative)
I would challenge your interpretation. Jesus was saying that the OT was not wrong, but that HE was the realization of the prophecies and that his life and eventual sacrifice was to meet the objectives of Gods laws. Jesus does not change the fact that we need to obey God but his life changes virtually everything about how we obey God.
The OT is still useful in enhancing our understanding. Even later prophets like Timothy explicitly say so. As a Christian though you must look at the OT thru a NT lens.
Re: (Score:2)
Who would that be?
More from the religion of peace (Score:4, Insightful)
At what point do we drop the political correctness and accept that Islam in the present day is more violent than other religions? I don't care about the past of Christianity, Judaism, and other religions. Violence committed in the name of the Gods of those religions is generally considered blasphemy. Christians might tell you that you're going to hell and say offensive things to you, but they're thankfully not killing people like the Muslims are.
When do we decide that the Islamic religion of the present day is too violent and insist that it reform or be banned? If religion were generally the problem, we would see Christians committing violent acts the way Muslims are. The fact is, they're not. There is a Christian state, specifically a Catholic one. It's called the Holy See. They don't have a military outside of the Swiss guards, and the Holy See is pretty pacifist in its nature. Contrast that with fundamentalist Islam and you'll see a huge difference. The "religion of peace" isn't peaceful at all. In fact, it's incredibly violent compared to other contemporary religions.
Re: (Score:2)
why you just not say that "followers of islam use it for personal power more often".. or something along those lines.
thats what it really is. btw buddhists can be violent about other religions too when it suits their group interests.
the state religious police is a power faction that has power so it tries to keep the power and in order for it to matter it has to keep using said power. now.. why the fuck would you do business with countries that do shit like that? you shouldn't. and not with other countries
Re:More from the religion of peace (Score:4, Interesting)
"One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did.""
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
"Tony Blair viewed his decision to go to war in Iraq and Kosovo as part of a "Christian battle", according to one of his closest political allies."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... [telegraph.co.uk]
Re: More from the religion of peace (Score:2)
Even if we are inclined to take the word of the representative of a government distinguished for its dishonest and corruption, that quote doesn't establish that Bush saw it as a war against people who followed the wrong religion. It strongly suggests a quote different motivation, in fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've noticed Muslims kill mostly Muslims. What do you want from society now? To also ban the victims of Islamic terrorism from practising their religion in peace? Life is not so simple. You can't just Holocaust every perceived social ill away.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When do we decide that the Islamic religion of the present day is too violent and insist that it reform or be banned?
You mean, let's be "tough on terror" by overreacting and committing unspeakable acts of gross indecency against millions of innocent people, because they happen to have grown up in a culture that you don't understand and don't want to understand? I don't think so. There are variants of Islam that subscribe to a darkened worldview, but there are Christians, even in this day and age, who are no less deluded and aggressive; what you suggest is to fall into the same, demented thinking as them, and initiate a re
Re: (Score:2)
At what point do we drop the political correctness and accept that Islam in the present day is more violent than other religions?
At what point do you realize this has to do with opportunity? The world has already rejected Christianity's attempt to rule the world. Now we have to go through it all over again with Islam. Meanwhile it's just that asshole YHWH again. Same shit, different costumes.
Re: (Score:2)
At what point do we drop the political correctness and accept that Islam in the present day is more violent than other religions?
When Christians stop classifying their hate crimes as isolated people with "mental illness".
Well, ... actually praying to an imaginary skydaddy probably is a mental illness now that I think about it. #blewmyownmind.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Nazi-ism isn't a person and thus cannot be violent at all. Nazi-ism is a bunch of words and ideas.
Now there are places where some "less enlightened" people are in power and one of the bases for their power as well as their beliefs happen to be Nazist in nature.
What you need to do is accept that these countries are, in fact, fundamentalist. You need to accuse Germany, Austria and other nations DIRECTLY and not go through the strawman of ideology in order to not offend your own.
FTFY.
I'm an Islamophobe because I READ the Quran and know the history of Islam and it scares the shit out of me. More books get translated in a single year into Spanish than have to Arabic since the 1500s onwards combined.
You're religious relativism is beyond naive and something like Jainism has never spawned a hate state. Mohammed himself is a murderer and pedophile rapist... and held up as beyond a hero in that religion, and cowards such as yourself paint him as just another Buddha or Jesus figure. HE
Re: (Score:2)
Islam isn't a person and thus cannot be violent at all. Islam is a bunch of words and ideas.
But it can still be stupid, just like flatearthism and friends.
Re: (Score:2)
Islam isn't a person and thus cannot be violent at all. Islam is a bunch of words and ideas.
You think ideas can't be violent?
"Islam is evil!" No... (Score:2)
"Islam is evil!" No, shitty third world governments are evil. They find all sorts of reasons to oppress people, Christian, Muslim, or whatever,
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
This is hilarious. First off, let's throw away the logical fallacy that assumes all Muslim governments are 3rd world, or, that non-3rd-World Muslim governments have great human rights records. (::cough::Saudi Arabia::cough::)
You're the same people who scream about separation of church and state, and then fail to notice when Muslim controlled governments are extremely oppressive.
http://www.unzcloud.com/wp-con... [unzcloud.com]
Oh look at that, only 1.1 billion (that's "billion" with a 'b') Muslims believe that Sharia Law sh
Re: (Score:2)
"Why are 99% of all terror attacks committed by Muslims?"
That's just a truly obvious lie. The only way that's true is if you want to call every act of violence committed by a Muslim "terrorism" and every act of violence committed by a Christian "regular crime". Basically, you're advocating for bigotry with that claim.
A quarter of the world's population is Muslim. If that made them inherently violent we'd be living in the most violent period of world history rather than the most peaceful.
Re: (Score:2)
You fail to understand that Islam is more than a religion, it's a political movement.
Pakistan sounds lovely (Score:2)
Isn't that where they charged a toddler with murder? Classy place. [theguardian.com] Another example of how religion just makes everything better.
Pakistan tourism advice; don't go, and tell everyone you know not to go (they already know).
good example... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a good example of why religion should be abolished throughout the world, ANY religion.. Religion has always been about control of the people, nothing more, nothing less. No law should EVER be based on religious stuff, and certainly religion should never be a reason why should be able to discriminate without problems, but if you say the same thing outside religion your bound to get in trouble.. Most wars are in the name of some religion, but all are about power and control..
Re:good example... (Score:5, Insightful)
about the only thing worse than religions is outlawing religions.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a hard case to make that outlawing religious practice would be worse than allowing some of the more egregious religions out there free rain, from a humanitarian perspective. Anyway, outlawing religions is not even required to stop these kinds of atrocities, a secular state and a secular society would be enough.
It's difficult to judge for me whether the secular basis of our Western society is eroding or not, but at times it certainly seems like it. If that perception is correct, outlawing religious infl
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations, now you're trying to control everyone. What penalty would you propose for failure to become an atheist?
Re: (Score:2)
Then how do you define religion? Any gathering of two people who share a belief system?
Re: (Score:2)
No law should EVER be based on religious stuff, and certainly religion should never be a reason why should be able to discriminate without problems, but if you say the same thing outside religion your bound to get in trouble..
Fully agreed, legally or in general, no one should be discriminated against for anything they chose to do in private (an many case in public) that does not have any impact on other people's lives. Specifically anything that does not harm anyone else but in general to me, so much of what people do in private is never even noticed by anyone else, so should not matter. This includes religious choices, no one should be discriminated against for their choice in what to believe in, or not believe in, as well as
Re: (Score:3)
Outlawing religion does not really help. Look at the Soviets: they basically did that and they still did the whole "opression in the name of ideology" thing.
Re: (Score:2)
A person in the USA would expect to have freedom of speech and freedom after speech.
Is the US going to pass blasphemy laws and send out officers to explain what social media is and why blasphemy is bad?
Re: (Score:2)
http://islamicsupremecouncil.o... [islamicsup...ouncil.org]
fuck islam (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And people blame Trump for banning muslims... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yet Pakistan is a classic example of a majority muslim country, and this is what happens. If you transferred all the Pakistanis in the world to the United States, do you think their beliefs and personalities would magically change just because they were standing on a different piece of land? Probably...
It is up to people in the free (i.e. non-muslim) world to continually expose and fight against the evil that is Islam, before the entire planet is living under this insane, tyrannous system.
Bring on the law of unintended consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
*THIS* should be raised whenever some politician goes "Government must have access to Facebook/WhatsApp/etc. for security"!
In the UK, the current government has been hysterically running around shouting that Facebook is allowing all sorts of nasty illegal content to be disseminated. While that's certainly true, it bears remembering that one country's "illegal" is another country's "cherished freedom".
If the UK government has the right to access it's citizen's Facebook pages for "illegal" content, then you can guarantee Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia, Russia and all sorts of other ghastly states will demand the same right. And then, through the law of unintended consequences, a lot of people (who the liberal west would consider friends), will either wind up behind bars or six feet under.
If we are willing to give our governments access to our data to "keep us safe", we have to accept that governments we may not like will use the same powers to do harm to their own citizens. This is the moral choice that's not raised by the screaming "think of the children" brigade.
Wait until American academia gets hold of this (Score:2)
Those secret Star Chamber campus tribunals that try people for maleness and paleness will lobby to get Title IX updated to include the death penalty.
ALL RELIGION is CANCEROUS (Score:4, Insightful)
Killing someone because he said something about {insert name of 'diety' here} that other people didn't like
Seriously, people: What the actual FUCK does it say about Humans that in 2017 something like this can actually happen!?
This is not the act of a truly intelligent, sentient, civilized race of beings, it is the act of a race of uppity animals -- and make no mistake, I am including the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE in this, not just Pakistan!
Mad? FUCK YES I'm MAD when I read this. Bullshit like this is why I HATE ALL RELIGION, think it's a CANCER on humanity in general, and I wish SO MUCH that we'd somehow evolve past the point of needing 'gods' and 'religion' and all the stupid bullshit that goes with all that.
Seriously, people: A MAN IS GOING TO ***LOSE HIS LIFE*** FOR SOMETHING HE ***SAID*** -- NOT ***DID***, BUT JUST FOR ***WORDS***. What does that say about us, AS A SPECIES!?
I am ASHAMED to admit being part of the species Homo Sapiens when I see shit like this. ASHAMED!
Re:When in Rome (Score:4, Insightful)
Do as the Romans.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
End of discussion.
I would be happy to let the muzzes go around killing eachother in their own hell-holes, but only if they applied the "when in Rome" when they come to the West. Instead they demand special privilege, abuse children and murder people.
Re: (Score:2)
You know those shirts that say "OBEY" are ironic, right?