Support NeoGAF

[Golden_Pigeon]

Interesting. Given that many Europeans are sensitive about Muslim religious issues, would you advocate strong restrictions on Islam to maintain social peace?

I think it would be simpler if Europeans would just convert to Islam at this point. /s

Muslims are inherently muslims. There is nothing inherent about going out in a temple and insult what people hold sacred or burn a flag.
In the same way, a different faith is often inherently blasphemous to another one, but it won't be suppressed by blasphemy law because it's the religious doctrine in itself: it's what the muslims scholars of the past have stated, and it's how christians have maintain their churches and religious schools in the muslim world.

There is always a balance between individual liberties and public order which need to be found.
If you negate that, you just negate the modern western philosophy of law.

 

[Chairman Yang]

I think it would be simpler if Europeans would just convert to Islam at this point. /s

Muslims are inherently muslims. There is nothing inherent about going out in a temple and insult what people hold sacred or burn a flag.
In the same way, a different faith is often inherently blasphemous to another one, but it won't be suppressed by blasphemy law because it's the religious doctrine in itself: it's what the muslims scholars of the past have stated, and it's how christians have maintain their churches and religious schools in the muslim world.

There is always a balance between individual liberties and public order which need to be found.
If you negate that, you just negate the modern western philosophy of law.

I see. I think a segment of the European (and Muslim) population thinks things like headscarves, prayer 5 times a day, and halal food are inherent to Islam. By your logic, just to avoid offending the sensibilities of non-Muslims outraged by these elements, and to maintain social peace, these should be banned.

Alternatively, we can stop catering to fanatics (Muslim and non-Muslim alike) and build social order on a more humane, more sustainable, and less insane basis. Best of all, we'll probably achieve even more social peace than exists in Pakistan at the moment!

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

I see. I think a segment of the European (and Muslim) population thinks things like headscarves, prayer 5 times a day, and halal food are inherent to Islam. By your logic, just to avoid offending the sensibilities of non-Muslims outraged by these elements, and to maintain social peace, these should be banned.

Alternatively, we can stop catering to fanatics (Muslim and non-Muslim alike) and build social order on a more humane, more sustainable, and less insane basis. Best of all, we'll probably achieve even more social peace than exists in Pakistan at the moment!

Nope, i see what you tried to achieve but it's just not working. It's because it's inherent that it cannot be restricted. And you don't need to be a fanatic to be offended by public desecration of what you hold sacred.
Again, since i suspect anybody who would read me at this level would accuse me of supporting blasphemy law in the way it's currently implemented, i totally reject the common use and interpretation of this law in Pakistan and many others countries. It's not about preserving peace or social order, but to silence opposition or religion minorities. The current discussion did not break out from the discussion against this specific case in Pakistan but behind the rationale of punishing blasphemy in the first place.

Preserving the peace by restricting liberties is what every legal system in the world do. The principle is well established, then it's all about balance. Just playing wise and extend absurdly a principle don't negate the principle in itself.

 

[Chairman Yang]

Nope, i see what you tried to achieve but it's just not working. It's because it's inherent that it cannot be restricted. And you don't need to be a fanatic to be offended by public desecration of what you hold sacred.
Again, since i suspect anybody who would read me at this level would accuse me of supporting blasphemy law in the way it's currently implemented, i totally reject the common use and interpretation of this law in Pakistan and many others countries. It's not about preserving peace or social order, but to silence opposition or religion minorities. The current discussion did not break out from the discussion against this specific case in Pakistan but behind the rationale of punishing blasphemy in the first place.

Preserving the peace by restricting liberties is what every legal system in the world do. The principle is well established, then it's all about balance. Just playing wise and extend absurdly a principle don't negate the principle in itself.

Sure, I agree with the overall principle that some liberties must be balanced against others.

I disagree with you that governments should inflict real harm--some directly, some indirectly by enabling murderous fanatics--in order to prevent religious people from having their feelings hurt. And yes, your logic literally justifies Muslims being oppressed in Europe.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

It's ridiculous until you have a riot (or a war) because a group decided to shout insult in a temple about this or this sacred figure. I think that in country where religion is very important, it make sense that it's punished because of the negative outcome, of course not by death penalty. Or like when christians missionary were looking for martyrdom by shouting insult against Islam in crowded markets, during the middle-age.

Of course, as we agreed, this is not the main reason is it used today. A famous political (and religious) leader was hanged in Sudan for "blasphemy against the Quran", not for his debatable theological positions, but because he was openly calling for justice.

In Iran, you can be hanged for blasphemy for opposing the supreme leader or the political system. Etc. Etc.



I agree to preserve the symbols which have importance to people, if it can preserve the social peace. I don't agree in the common use of those laws.
I believe that in a country like India for instance, a Muslim going inside a Hindu Temple and insulting Ganesh/Vishnu/Shiva should be punish.

That's insanity. True peace and safety is when someone can say something and not fear death or imprisonment. The fact that Muslims are not able to be critical of their religion in their own country is what's holding back so many other civil rights (women's, LGBT etc.). But you want people to shut up about this stuff because it might offend violent religious folk. :s

 

[Azoor]

Thanks for the info !

Anyway, it's still an offense that can lead you in jail in most western countries.

Sorry, being jailed isn't the same as being murdered and some countries having blasphemy laws against flags doesn't excuse this.

That's a false equivalence.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Sorry, being jailed isn't the same as being murdered and some countries having blasphemy laws against flags doesn't excuse this.

That's a false equivalence.

Please read the topic again, i never said such a thing.
I spoke specifically about the blasphemy law that lead to jail and not death penalty.

That's insanity. True peace and safety is when someone can say something and not fear death or imprisonment. The fact that Muslims are not able to be critical of their religion in their own country is what's holding back so many other civil rights (women's, LGBT etc.). But you want people to shut up about this stuff because it might offend violent religious folk. :s

There is different philosophy about freedom of speech. In France you cannot glorify or deny holocaust, you'll go to jail. I am ok with that. I think it's a good thing that any descendant or victim of the nazi regime don't have to endure people glorifying or denying it.

I make a big difference between criticism and blasphemy. It's not the same to write a book explaining why the Bible or the Quran are invented books, and to go into a mosque/church and scream insult against christians/muslims religious figure.

I don't know when i said anything about women right or LGBT. Totally unrelated. Relating every issue in the muslim word with the religion in itself is a common culturalist trope. The situation is diverse, and many feminist have a religious background and justify their feminism by islamic scripture.

 

[Azoor]

Please read the topic again, i never said such a thing.

You said it was for civil peace when in reality that's not the case at all. There is no excuse for them killing a man for such a petty "crime".

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

You said it was for civil peace when in reality that's not the case at all. There is no excuse for them killing a man for such a petty "crime".

I was not speaking about the issue at hand. Please read again.

Edit: actually i wrote this 3 post above:

Again, since i suspect anybody who would read me at this level would accuse me of supporting blasphemy law in the way it's currently implemented, i totally reject the common use and interpretation of this law in Pakistan and many others countries. It's not about preserving peace or social order, but to silence opposition or religion minorities. The current discussion did not break out from the discussion against this specific case in Pakistan but behind the rationale of punishing blasphemy in the first place.

The message you're reacting to was a reply of this message:

If your god is so weak and insignificant that it needs to be protected by the laws of men, why worship it at all?

Blasphemy is not and never should be considered a crime.

So it was about blasphemy in itself and not death penalty for this particular offense.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

Religion of all forms needs to go.

Agreed

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Religion of all forms needs to go.

Pantheism is not very popular these days.