Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pakistan's PM Demands International Blasphemy Laws From UN

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the sticks-and-stones dept.

Censorship 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.'"

cancel ×

957 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Message to the intolerant (5, Insightful)

fnj (64210) | about 2 years ago | (#41436111)

You can't legislate respect.

Re:Message to the intolerant (1, Flamebait)

alphatel (1450715) | about 2 years ago | (#41436135)

You can't legislate respect.

Tell that to the many Education panels in the US that have removed Evolution from curriculum. The stupidity never ends.

Re:Message to the intolerant (3, Informative)

safehaven25 (2587445) | about 2 years ago | (#41436243)

Evolution isn't a proper noun, and their actions aren't intended in the slightest to gain respect... what the hell are you talking about, besides letting out your rage on an internet forum?

Re:Message to the intolerant (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436543)

It can be—just like Science, Art, and History. But given that the guy also said "from curriculum" I wouldn't worry about the strength of his grasp on English grammar too much.

Re:Message to the intolerant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436137)

Respect = Tolerance. So, basically, that should be the only law.

Re:Message to the intolerant (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41436461)

Respect = Tolerance. So, basically, that should be the only law.

"Respect" and "Tolerance" are basically orthogonal. Tolerating somebody does require that you respect their right to do whatever it is they are doing; but has no necessary connection with respecting whatever it is they are doing. Respect, by contrast, implies some degree of actual regard for somebody, rather than mere sufferance of them.

In fact, 'tolerate' actually sounds pretty weird if used outside a context where the stimulus is implicitly negative in some respect. You wouldn't ask "How can you tolerate getting a raise and a corner office?" You would as "How can you tolerate that squeaky noise that the vent in your office makes?"

Re:Message to the intolerant (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436143)

you can legislate control. respect isnt the goal here

Re:Message to the intolerant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436177)

If the law was "Live and let live" and people lived by it, it might work. But that'd be utopia, and we can't have that.

Re:Message to the intolerant (2, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 2 years ago | (#41436203)

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.

Re:Message to the intolerant (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | about 2 years ago | (#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!

Re:Message to the intolerant (0)

hazah (807503) | about 2 years ago | (#41436581)

Such hate can only means that you were damaged sometime during your development.

Re:Message to the intolerant (3, Interesting)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#41436369)

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

Re:Message to the intolerant (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Message to the intolerant (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about 2 years ago | (#41436409)

You can't legislate respect.

Nor tolerance.

but you can (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#41436431)

of course, it doesn't work. but it creates a lot of suffering for a long time

Re:Message to the intolerant (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about 2 years ago | (#41436529)

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.

Re:Message to the intolerant (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41436607)

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

Blasphemy! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436125)

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

Re:Blasphemy! (4, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#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! (1)

Scarred Intellect (1648867) | about 2 years ago | (#41436527)

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

That's blasphemy and should be banned! Poster should be stoned to death for such words!

Re:Blasphemy! (2)

interval1066 (668936) | about 2 years ago | (#41436609)

In my religion, Toiletism, we pray to toilets. Anyone who blashemes by using sacred toilets as waste recepticles needs to be dealt with. We're going to the UN...

Really? (4, Insightful)

Cryacin (657549) | about 2 years ago | (#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?

Sick of Seniors getting a free ride (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436165)

Senior Citizens have been feeding at the government trough for too long. Politicians have been deathly afraid to challenge senior citizens on Social Security and Medicare It's time Seniors learned that nothing is "Free" and that welfare for the elderly is no different from welfare for the poor. American seniors are just going to have to learn to save their money and rely on themselves in their old age. No more government handouts. It's time to end the two biggest socialist programs in the federal government....Medicare and Social Security.

Vote to shut down Medicare and Social Security!!

Free medical attention can always be obtained at the Emergency Room.

Re:Sick of Seniors getting a free ride (-1, Offtopic)

Antarius (542615) | about 2 years ago | (#41436395)

Mitt? Is that you?

There's a bit of Santorum on your top lip.

Re:Really? (4, Insightful)

dskoll (99328) | about 2 years ago | (#41436183)

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? (-1)

safehaven25 (2587445) | about 2 years ago | (#41436343)

Then you don't know anything about Islam other than what you think you've learned from news sites and CNN.

Re:Really? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436497)

Actions Speak Louder.

Re:Really? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436597)

The words in the book speak pretty loudly as well. And if you're not going to follow what the book demands, why are you a Muslim at all?

Re:Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436551)

True because Muhahaha was such a nice guy.
I'd put him next to Hitler but hey that is just CNN talking...

Re:Really? (0, Troll)

safehaven25 (2587445) | about 2 years ago | (#41436399)

"Insightful." Really. Excellent job mods, this guy's pathetically ignorant "its seems to me that...." comment is Insightful. Just sad.

Re:Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436463)

Pathetic. Let me go get my bible and see how 'peaceful' the Old Testament was....

Oh wait. It condoned a lot of violent and hateful acts as well!

Re:Really? (3, Informative)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 2 years ago | (#41436523)

Islam also says that, if you bring someone into your house, you have to protect them from harm. One of it's central tenets(one of the Pillars) is charity. During the Middle ages, the Middle East under Islam was one of the safest places in the world to live in if you were Jewish, much more so than in Europe. During the Crusades Muslims allowed Christians and Jews to practice their religions freely, paying only a small tax, while Christian crusaders generally enforced a convert or die approach.

And for the record, the Old Testament of the Bible also condones and recommends killing to spread the religion, or even just to take land that you want, and it's ok as long as they don't believe.

Re:Really? (0)

jythie (914043) | about 2 years ago | (#41436535)

And Christianity is different how? Yet there are plenty of peaceful Christians around who denounce the violence.

Re:Really? (1)

ameen.ross (2498000) | about 2 years ago | (#41436585)

Citation needed

Oh wait, on slashdot, anti Islamic opinions are a citable source.

Re:Really? (5, Informative)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 years ago | (#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? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436209)

They already have. Most don't like the video, but also don't like the rioting. Problem is, how can they stop it? And how are they supposed to make a statement disowning them? There's no real way to do that. Even if they did, we wouldn't hear about it. Look, rioting and violence gets eyeballs to the screen and sells ad time. So that's what we see. The normal folk don't get airtime because people don't want to see that. Take a look at the Occupy movement and the Tea Party. We heard how terrible and awful the Occupy squatters were and how racist the Tea Party is. Thing is, though, most people in those groups aren't like that, and there really isn't much they can do about it. So we get to see crazy, cause that's what sells.

Re:Really? (5, Informative)

Tx (96709) | about 2 years ago | (#41436469)

"They already have. Most don't like the video, but also don't like the rioting. Problem is, how can they stop it? And how are they supposed to make a statement disowning them? "

Trouble is, there seem there don't seem to be enough of the non-crazy Muslims in some countries. When you have a government minister in Pakistan offering a $100000 bounty for the murder of a foreign civilian, and he's not instantly dismissed, you have a serious problem. He can do that because a large majority of the population back those views, and he knows it. In Pakistan, not so long ago considered an ally of the west, the crazy extremist types are very much in the ascendant, and a lot of Muslim countries seem to be heading that way. It's not just a small minority of crazies making a lot of noise, it's a large majority of them.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436303)

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

They don't want to be murdered. As such, they remain a minority, protecting the status quo.

Re:Really? (1)

Troyusrex (2446430) | about 2 years ago | (#41436307)

According to the muslims who riot, it is absolutely appropriate for people to stand up and violently destroy property, and take people lives. ?

While I wholeheartedly agree I'll also point out that in the USA we frequently see riots, including property destruction and arson, when sports teams win championships. Which is worse, "They said something deeply offensive to us, let's go set fire to something" or "Our team won, let's go set fire to something!"

Re:Really? (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 2 years ago | (#41436393)

Maybe in Europe but in the USA no we don't have frequent sports riots.

Re:Really? (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 2 years ago | (#41436525)

Maybe in Europe but in the USA no we don't have frequent sports riots.

I also live in a city without a nationally competitive sports franchise, there is something to be said for the peace and quiet.

Re:Really? (1)

jythie (914043) | about 2 years ago | (#41436593)

No, but we do have some pretty nasty protests, though here groups tend to use less obvious methods to crush blasphemy. You would be surprised at just how devastating careful use of a sympathetic fire marshal can be at silencing people.

The reason we tend not to see violent religious protests in the US isn't because the people are any better, it is because they have some pretty powerful non-violent tools to hurt people with. The attitudes and goals are pretty much the same and I would wager that if they didn't have those powers, the same types of people would get violent here too.

Re:Really? (0, Troll)

Seumas (6865) | about 2 years ago | (#41436455)

Shut up. It's different. We're mostly white.

Re:Really? (4, Insightful)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 2 years ago | (#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? (4, Interesting)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#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? (5, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Fuck you and Mohammed too! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436149)

To say nothing of your misogynistic, megalomaniacal, scumm bag of a god.

The antithesis of free speech (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436161)

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

RULE 34 (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436191)

Before all this nonsense I didn't give a damn about islam or muhammed one way or the other, considered myself a fairly tolerant human being. Live and let live and all that shit.

Now I'm wondering how and why Rule 34 hasn't been judiciously applied to islam. Over and over again.

Motherfuckers need to grow the fuck up.

Re:RULE 34 (1)

temcat (873475) | about 2 years ago | (#41436331)

For those not on the know, what are you referring to as Rule 34?

Re:RULE 34 (2)

temcat (873475) | about 2 years ago | (#41436401)

*in the know*
Shit.

Re:RULE 34 (1)

DaWhilly (2555136) | about 2 years ago | (#41436577)

search Google for it but don't do it at work..

Re:RULE 34 (3, Informative)

BriggsBU (1138021) | about 2 years ago | (#41436485)

Rule 34: "There is porn of it. No exceptions."

Re:RULE 34 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436517)

For any topic you'll find something on the internet that is NSFW. :-)

Re:RULE 34 (2)

WillerZ (814133) | about 2 years ago | (#41436557)

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 [velominati.com]

Not quite sure what that has to do with Islam, but it's always useful to be reminded of the sacred texts.

Re:RULE 34 (1)

Domint (1111399) | about 2 years ago | (#41436595)

For those not on the know, what are you referring to as Rule 34?

Rule 34: For everything that exists, there is porn of it. Basically GP is calling for blatant mockery of Islam through hardcore pornography. Really mature stuff, that.

They're the same thing. (2)

evenmoreconfused (451154) | about 2 years ago | (#41436195)

"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.

Re:They're the same thing. (2)

fnj (64210) | about 2 years ago | (#41436325)

Or impolitely. There is no right for people to be polite to you.

god is imaginary (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436199)

religion is mental illness

Are you serious? (5, Funny)

trybywrench (584843) | about 2 years ago | (#41436213)

Oh wait your serious, let me laugh even harder! - Bender

He should take a look at his own laws at home (5, Informative)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#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 (4, Insightful)

ImdatS (958642) | about 2 years ago | (#41436227)

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...

Re:Fahrenheit 451 (4, Informative)

jbolden (176878) | about 2 years ago | (#41436445)

The reason he is calling for blaspheme laws is because free expression is coming to Pakistan and is freaking subgroups out. This is quite the opposite of censorship, this is what its collapse looks like.

Counterproposal to the UN (5, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about 2 years ago | (#41436245)

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

Re:Counterproposal to the UN (3, Insightful)

fnj (64210) | about 2 years ago | (#41436365)

Hear, hear. This is fundamental. Even the three laws of robotics only worked because the priority was specified.

Re:Counterproposal to the UN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436459)

That sounds reasonable, and maybe even realistic - given the premisse that the members of OIC have morally excluded themselves from the voting panel on such a proposal by their attempt to undermine the human rights through the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights.

Sure (1)

devnullkac (223246) | about 2 years ago | (#41436259)

Sure, we can have international blasphemy laws... just as soon as someone figures out how to live in a way that never offends anyone anywhere in the world. Everyone that pushes for this sort of thing always seems to think it's perfectly natural for everyone to think they way they do and so criminalization would be easy to enforce. Nevermind that that their very way of life may be blasphemous to others in the international community. You want to criminalize blasphemy in your own nation? Have at it. Bash your own populace until they're a homogeneous mass. Don't expect the rest of the globe to fall in line so easily.

On the other hand (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#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!

synergistic with... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436273)

For top synergy, also be sure to push for transferring more control over the internet out of the USA jurisdiction and into UN jurisdiction.

Dear Pakistan..... (3, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#41436279)

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.

Re:Dear Pakistan..... (4, Interesting)

fnj (64210) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Priorities (2)

Millennium (2451) | about 2 years ago | (#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 (4, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Note that their interpretation of "Blasphemy" is " (3, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#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".

*Tap* *tap* *tap*...Is this thing on? (1)

davmoo (63521) | about 2 years ago | (#41436309)

I'd just like to say that Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf's mother wears combat boots in the shower.

Re:*Tap* *tap* *tap*...Is this thing on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436413)

Is this one of the strangest "Your mom" posts ever or am I just missing a cultural reference? What consenting adults get up to in private is none of our business.

And how do we do that? (3, Insightful)

cfulton (543949) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Can they coexist? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436337)

From the article:
The UN's Human Rights Charter mentions protection from "religious intolerance" but also in the same sentence "freedom of opinion and expression.""

Is this even possible? To address religious intolerance while promoting freedom of opinion and expression? I honestly can't see how...

Re:Can they coexist? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436561)

Yes, they can coexist. Religious intolerance means suppressing a religion. Which actually includes suppressing certain forms of free speech (namely those endorsing that religion), but is not limited to it (for example, it also includes things like if you cannot apply for a government job because of your religion).

Umm... (3, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41436339)

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).

Re:Umm... (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about 2 years ago | (#41436449)

The really good schisms are still over money, it's just that they manage to conceal it as doctrine. Do you really think Joseph Smith didn't mainly benefit financially from starting Mormonism?

Re:Umm... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41436571)

I tend to suspect that the 'prophets' who know when to skip town are in it for the money, while the ones who end up getting themselves killed over it are either sincerely deluded or caught up on the power and the status. Smith did alright for himself for a while; but he ultimately failed to take the money and run when that would have been a great deal more sensible...

Fuck allah (2, Insightful)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 2 years ago | (#41436341)

Hell, fuck all invisible men in the sky.

Re:Fuck allah (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41436433)

Mother nature is a cold hearted bitch who has killed 99% of all species that have ever existed.

And one day she will kill me, but I still love her

Re:Fuck allah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436483)

Can I mod this up and remain AC?

Fear of death squads and fatwas and all that.

Eventually they will push too far and the moderates will lash out at all extremists (of all faiths and none).

They day I get charged for blasphemy is when I really start to get creative (Lenny Bruce, nice guy, didn't go far enough) (Sam Kinison, good starting point, but needs to put some feeling into it) Get my drift?

Religious intolerance? They ARE the intolerance (3, Interesting)

Omnifarious (11933) | about 2 years ago | (#41436373)

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.

Re:Religious intolerance? They ARE the intolerance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436613)

I agree. But: If you are insulted by people from a country who routinely during peace-time bomb civilians in your country using remotely operated aircraf, then I can see how you might not be very intellectual and smart in your reaction...

Free speech? (2)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | about 2 years ago | (#41436397)

'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!'

Muhammad (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436403)

Muhammad he met Omar,
At the Mardi Gras
He took him back to his place
And fucked him up the arse.

Pakistan = GOP (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436405)

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.

this is really about power (1)

Dan667 (564390) | about 2 years ago | (#41436479)

perverting religion to gain power is done by christians and jews as well.

HOLY SHIT! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436499)

HOLY SHIT!

to hell with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436503)

I'd rather see the entire middle east flattened by thermonuclear weapons than give in one inch on free speech in the West.

Yeah well bacon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436513)

I'll sign up for this as soon as there is an international treaty banning anydisrespectful language towards pigs and pig products. For too long religious nutbags have attacked and besmirched the good name of bacon, and I, for one, am sick of it.

Fuck that (3, Interesting)

kimvette (919543) | about 2 years ago | (#41436531)

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.

first question, who defines 'blasphemy' ? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 years ago | (#41436541)

who gets to define it? who gets to say 'no' when I want to bring my own definition and seek to outlaw those who speak against my view of 'god'.

what's that you say? no new applications are being accepted?

damn. late to yet another party.

Tell them to fuck off (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41436553)

Seriously the UN should use the words: "Fuck off" in their response.

The US South would support this (0)

0xG (712423) | about 2 years ago | (#41436555)

no doubt; burning the flag is already considered the equivalent to blasphemy, after all.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?