The Freedom to Say What You Think or Not? Ban on Blasphemy Proposed.

[maikeru]

Muslim countries seek blasphemy ban - United Nations- msnbc.com

 

One American expert with more than 20 years experience of the U.N. human rights system said the treaty could have far-reaching implications.

 

"It would, in essence, advance a global blasphemy law," said Felice Gaer, a member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The independent, congressionally mandated panel issued a report last week warning that existing laws against blasphemy, including in Pakistan, "often have resulted in gross human rights violations."

 

In Egypt, blasphemy laws have been used to suppress dissidents, said Moataz el-Fegiery, executive director of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies. Abdel Kareem Nabil, a blogger, was sentenced in February 2007 to four years in prison for insulting Islam and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

 

Could be very troubling for atheists, agnostics, and scientists who may be blamed or accused of blasphemy for writing, saying, or working on what they believe.

[Moontanman]

That is just intolerable, religion keeps trying to gain control like a cancer and this is just not acceptable. I'm sorry I can't comment on this any further it pisses me off so bad i am livid.

[maikeru]

Sometimes I wonder if supposed "tolerance" just becomes another kind of intolerance.

[Turtle]

i heard talk that maybe that muslim psychiatrist soldier guy that murdered those people at fort hood texas may have been passed along by superiors inspite of his poor performance reports because he was muslim. political correctness and all ya know. wouldn't want to offend some one over religion now would we?

 

[Moontanman]

Sometimes I wonder if supposed "tolerance" just becomes another kind of intolerance.

 

maikeru, how can you be tolerant of those who will not tolerate or allow you to even have your own thoughts and words?

[Buffy]

Sometimes I wonder if supposed "tolerance" just becomes another kind of intolerance.

 

Yep. And it's the law of unintended consequences in action: I wonder what they'd think if they knew that their proposal could outlaw the use of the word "Zionism"....

 

We hate some persons because we do not know them; and we will not know them because we hate them, :bdayhappy_balloons:

Buffy

[Qfwfq]

What our post-enlightenment tradition should strive against is the abuse of religion for political aims. This is a quite distinct thing from requiring folks to respect each other.

 

It is possible to criticize a government without lacking respect. It is possible to state one's own belief or lack thereof without offending those of others. The fine line between these things can't be engraved in stone with no ambiguity, there will always be clashes over these distinctions and objectivity is not a natural human trait. It doesn't help to despise an entire category for the shortcomings of some part of it. These problems are not solved by total, unleashed freedom, only mutual respect can avoid clashes.

 

The real problem to focus on is that of avoiding the instatement of regimes. There is no recipe for this, the only resistance can come from a population that recognizes and doesn't turn a blind eye to signs of one coming on.

[maikeru]

maikeru, how can you be tolerant of those who will not tolerate or allow you to even have your own thoughts and words?

 

It's a good question, no?

[Janus]

As R. A. Heinlein put it in an excerpt from "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long":

 

Of all the strange “crimes” that human beings have legislated out of nothing, “blasphemy” is the most amazing--with “obscenity” and “indecent exposure” fighting it out for second and third place.

[Moontanman]

It's a good question, no?

 

Yes it is a good question, I guess it's easier to be tolerant after your head has been chopped off because you didn't agree with the guy who wanted you to tolerate him.

[Moontanman]

Here is something of interest, A woman from Iran will be executed for being an atheist if Turkey returns her.

 

BBC News - Turkey considers fate of detained Iran Raelian leader

 

The crime of apostasy - rejecting religious faith - carries the death penalty there, and supporters of Negar Azizmoradi say that is what will happen to her if the Turkish government sends her back to Iran.

[Galapagos]

Here is something of interest, A woman from Iran will be executed for being an atheist if Turkey returns her.

 

BBC News - Turkey considers fate of detained Iran Raelian leader

 

It's terrible that someone should have to fear persecution for their beliefs in their own home-nation, but to be clear this woman is a bit more than just an atheist:

Negar Azizmoradi, who is the leader of the Raelian movement in Iran, was arrested after she arrived in Turkey last week.

[...]

With their libertarian attitude to sex, and their belief that humans were created by extra-terrestrials, Raelians inevitably fall foul of the religious authorities in Iran.

 

For some reason I think being a Raelian would get someone a bit more public attention in a Muslim theocracy than would just being an apostate who rejects Islam.

Again, not that it makes it right to persecute someone for their beliefs, but Raelism is pretty obviously crazy in the same way religious beliefs are in that there is zero evidence to support it and it just sounds like some terrible idea contrived by desperate and ignorant human beings. I'm not familiar with the human rights record in Iran but I bet they are more ready to persecute someone with positive beliefs about alien creators than someone who simply rejects the claims of the supernatural/religious variety.

[Moontanman]

While Raelism is somewhat less than mainstream for sure, the law being quoted is the death penalty for atheism not Raelism. The very idea that a law exists that allows an atheist to be put to death for their lack of belief in God is horrendous. To me the very idea that a law exists that would allow any punishment for not professing to believe in the correct way is horrendous.

[Qfwfq]

I disagree with all death penalty laws, for sin or for crime, but I must say one thing:

While Raelism is somewhat less than mainstream for sure, the law being quoted is the death penalty for atheism not Raelism. The very idea that a law exists that allows an atheist to be put to death for their lack of belief in God is horrendous. To me the very idea that a law exists that would allow any punishment for not professing to believe in the correct way is horrendous.

Since you want to be precise and correct, you should note that it isn't a law against being atheist but instead against apostasy. It forbids anybody, once they are Muslim, to renounce the faith or, IOW, to abandon the previous loyalty. It is seen like perjury or default on an obligation that had been contracted.

 

Islam does not place itself as being a compulsory faith, it actually states that religious faith can only be spontaneous. Iran officially recognizes the religious minorities which are present. If you have never professed the faith of Islam you can go there and publicly say what you believe and what you don't, as long as it isn't blasphemy. It might be unwise to state that god doesn't exist, it's more cautious to say that you believe god doesn't exist, even better that you don't believe he does, but if you aren't already Muslim you are under no obligation to be one.

 

Iran has laws very much modeled on Islam and these are of course compulsory, they are the countries laws and are binding for anybody in the territory, while they are there. They very strict on matters of indecent exposure and sexual behaviour in public places and even in private gatherings such as parties. They are repugnant to people of western countries but they do not make it compulsory for people to be religious and Muslim; one must only behave according to what Iranian law considers decent conduct.

 

Apparently, the Raëlian movement in Iran is reactionary against the nation's highly puritan laws and therefore runs into trouble with a government which strives to call itself democratic but has some aspects of a regime.

[BrianG]

Freedom of speech is the most basic right. If speech is limited, all other rights are in jeopardy, how can they be defended without speech? Force?

[Moontanman]

Islam does not place itself as being a compulsory faith, it actually states that religious faith can only be spontaneous.

 

Yes, spontaneous, at the point of sword, convert or die. Try being a pagan in Iran. Any law which requires a person to believe in god in general or in a certain way or penalizes anyone for a religion other than the state approved one is wrong. Religion is not the end all be all of society nor does society own it's existence to religion. Any law that requires you to respect a belief is wrong. Respect can be defined in many ways many of them would place limits on my behavior I would deem unacceptable. What would this ban on Blasphemy mean exactly? That me, as an individual, cannot deny my or your god or does it mean I cannot take the lords name in vain, does it mean woman must conform the shia law. Such a law is vague and just another attempt by religion to give religion more power over the lives of others, especially others who do not share their views.

[maikeru]

Yes it is a good question, I guess it's easier to be tolerant after your head has been chopped off because you didn't agree with the guy who wanted you to tolerate him.

 

That's usually the way it's been resolved in the past. The "crusader cult" mentality doesn't die easily. Works too well for spreading the faith.