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

[Qfwfq]

Yes, spontaneous, at the point of sword, convert or die.

Islam does not preach this, any Muslim fanatics who do so are ignorant about their own religion. The same goes for those that carry out massacres of civilians.

 

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.

Can you cite any law of the Islamic Republic of Iran that supports what you are implying? Did you read my post, to which you are replying?

 

I've known several people that came from there; apart from one that was a Pasdaran, the others are quite dissident and had a few stories to tell. The small percentage of Iranian citizens who are Christian, Jewish or Zoroastrian get along well enough, as long as they respect the law.

 

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's wrong with respecting other people? The idea of majority rule is to determine what most people deem acceptable. If you don't accept the laws of Iran, don't go live there.

 

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.

What do you think was the reason behind the crusades and today's wars?

[maikeru]

What do you think was the reason behind the crusades and today's wars?

 

Politics, power, land, money, fear, misdirection, control, anger/frustration/grievances of populations, a little helping of "my beliefs are better than yours," and probably more that I've forgotten to list. There is not any one reason that usually leads to war, but a complex of them. The worst reason I have heard, though, to wage a war is "they hate our freedom."

[Qfwfq]

Politics, power, land, money, fear, misdirection, control, anger/frustration/grievances of populations,

Agreed; except fro those last two words, this is what's behind it all, in general. In many cases it can be an influential part of a society and in some of these they leverage the sentiment of populace. Napoleon, Caesar, Genghis Khan, they were examples of dudes that just had to get back at the whole of society and show everybody just who they were. This has been alleged about Osama bin Laden too.

 

a little helping of "my beliefs are better than yours," and probably more that I've forgotten to list.

This is the propaganda, when they need people's support or undertakers to recruit.

 

There is not any one reason that usually leads to war, but a complex of them.

Going down to the roots, it can be simple enough though sometimes it isn't one single cause behind others. For instance, from Troy to the Crusades, battles over the lands around eastern Mediterranean shores were a combination of trade controlling and military strategy. This changed with Vasco de Gama, back a bit with the Suez canal and the increasing preference for piping fuels; now the concern is on a widening scale but the area that joins three continents continues to be highly strategical.

 

The worst reason I have heard, though, to wage a war is "they hate our freedom."

This is what they are stirring up in the very people whose freedom they repress. They don't of course call it freedom, they call it immorality, mundanity, lasciviousness. Their game is only aided by those who not only aren't religious but even lack respect for the religion of other's.

[paigetheoracle]

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

 

 

Very true - lies portraying themselves as truth and binding the hands of the conscientious as well as blindfolding conscious awareness ('But the Emperor is naked!'/ ' Cover the soup dish Moriarty' 'But it's empty!' 'We don't want people to know that').

 

Actually it is suppression, caused by moral cowardice and has nothing to do with religion, more to do with schoolboy bullying tactics (Move over Hitler, Stalin and Mao - someone else seems to want to claim your crowns!).

[paigetheoracle]

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 the trouble Moon - it's not about (religious) tolerance, it's about deceit, politics and lies (hypnotizing your enemy into believing black is white 'Trust in me, only me'). This is more the manoeuvring you see in a wildlife film, where one 'horned animal' (imagery intentional, with reference to the horned beast of religion), tries to find a weakness in its opponent: Logic doesn't work in this connection but raw awareness and intent do 'What is this arsehole up to and what is his next move?'

 

Another thing is that it is all about 'belief'. Once you get somebody to accept your story as true and to take it seriously, instead of laughing it out of court as the joke it is, you're lost in fairyland (illusion - with the emphasis on 'ill'): The brainless are easily led, the brainy think for themselves and won't let their emotions lead them anywhere - hence I avoid sport and most rock concerts.

[paigetheoracle]

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.

 

Who is this person who is intolerant and will chop off Maikeru's head? Sounds more like you, just wearing another label on their lapel, saying Muslim executioner. What is intolerance but paranoia and this is the enemy. Who can be tolerant? You can. Who can be intolerant? Again, you can. The problem is our reactions and the answer is calming ourselves to see what the real situation is, not the one we 'fear' we'll see or believe is there. I have blown my top on many occasions and seen the result this has had on others as well as myself. I have also seen the effect my calmness and tolerance has had on myself and others. Our new dog has bitten me three times in a year but that is because it is frightened (paranoid because it is in a new place) and each time I let down my guard and treated the dog with a lack of respect for its insane condition (When it isn't scared out of its wits does it bite me or the other two dogs? No and it has never bitten my wife either for reasons I cannot fathom, except she isn't here during the day and isn't so noisy that it startles an already frightened animal, and I am).

[Moontanman]

Paige, you cannot be tolerant of the intolerant, if you are then they will stop your ability to speak and think freely. It is easy to be tolerant in our western society because laws protect everyone but in the extreme the intolerant will force you to do as they say, it is the nature of the idea of intolerance. The intolerant by definition cannot allow pluralism.

[paigetheoracle]

Paige, you cannot be tolerant of the intolerant, if you are then they will stop your ability to speak and think freely. It is easy to be tolerant in our western society because laws protect everyone but in the extreme the intolerant will force you to do as they say, it is the nature of the idea of intolerance. The intolerant by definition cannot allow pluralism.

 

What I'm talking about is not tolerance but awareness. If you're not aware of a rattlesnake or treat it with disrespect, you deserve to get bitten ( Walking out in the desert without looking at what is going on around you or kicking a snake for fun, risks your safety). This is my point - the danger is in how you handle a situation or simply fail to be aware of the potential danger inherent in life itself. You cannot blame the other side for what happens to you, if you don't protect yourself in the first place by staying awake to possibilities that can be negative as well as positive (Who stood on that land mine? You did, even if it was planted by somebody else).

[Moontanman]

Then why didn't you say awareness? To have a discussion it helps to be discussing the same thing.

[HydrogenBond]

If you look at political correctness, it falls into the same category. The censor would include any blaspheme against the written code of language. If you question the banned words, in some social situations, this will get the law involved. The operative effect is if it causes hurt, we need to control it.

 

The parallel between this and religious blaspheme is based on conditioning, how one is expected to react to certain sounds, with certain sounds making one react in a hostile or hurtful way. If you say the same content, in another language you are not familiar with, the audio association will not work, until we translate to the right noise for the conditioned response.

 

Here is an experiment we can run, to show the process. We will take a dog, play a song, and kick him when that song plays. After a while, each time we play that song, the dog will flinch or become aggressive. We will also play another song. Each time it plays, we will pet the dog and give him a treat. After a while when he hears this song, he will start wagging his tail and become friendly.

 

After the conditioning process is complete, we may need to ban the flinch song in the lab, since this blaspheme against animal cruelty will create discomfort and hostility in the dog and will be considered cruelty to animals. However, this song will only effect the dogs that were conditioned, and not all dogs. There is no real need to ban the song globally, but that may be the trend. That will require creating an awareness so the training can spread making it appear like a global cause and effect.

 

We will train some other dogs in another way. Instead of animal cruelty, we will only use positive reenforcement. But we will do this in a graduated way, adding better treats and more pats to some of the songs and less to others. If a dog prefers to maximize its pleasure, the songs with lessor treats and pats, can make our dogs less than satisfied. They would prefer the song associated with the steak and the full body massage, since that is what they want to hear and have. The song with the small piece of dry food and the tap on the head will seem like a rip off compared to the song with that juicy steak. We may have to ban the lessor song, since although it is positive, this is not positive enough and seems to create restlessness. This is where PC has added something new to the training effect. To make a global censor appear more cause and effect, we may need to expand the training to create awareness as to how we need to react to the banned song compared to the steak song.

 

In the lab, if we never ran those experiments, there would be no need to censor any of those songs.

 

Free speech can put salt on a wound. Simply banning salt does not solve the problem or heal the wound. It can make the pain go away, but the conditioned wound is designed to linger. We need to figure out what caused the wound and address the source so it can can prevented and healed. Free speech becomes the way to make the body aware of hidden wounds needing treatment. Once the wound is treated the salt become innocuous.

[BrianG]

Evil people always call themselves victims, they are not happy people. When someone feels like a victim, they feel justified striking out at whoever they see who's not in their victim group.

 

If we can't talk openly about problems, we won't be able to solve them with words, we'll need some other means. Government sanctions or violence comes to mind, not the best course. Freedom of speech is a first amendment right, because its essential to defend all other rights.

[paigetheoracle]

Then why didn't you say awareness? To have a discussion it helps to be discussing the same thing.

 

Some times it is not obvious what people are on about - hence the need for further statements to clarify the failure of understanding i.e. you think you know what the other person is on about and that they are wrong, rather than you don't 'really' know what the other person is on about and discover this, through further discussion.

[Abid]

lol muslims and there truth.

 

Its funny, if you ask a muslim whats Islam about he will say its about peace, freedom and tolerance.

 

Peace is Islam?

 

Here is the tafsir by Ibn Abbas concerning 9:05.

 

(Then, when the sacred months have passed) then after the day of immolation when the month of Muharram passes, (slay the idolaters) whose treaty is for fifty days (wherever ye find them) whether in the Sacred Precinct or outside it, during the sacred months or at any other time, (and take them (captive)) imprison them, (and besiege them) in their homes, (and prepare for them each ambush) on every road they tread for trade. (But if they repent) from idolatry and believe in Allah (and establish worship) and acknowledge the five daily prayers (and pay the poor-due) acknowledge the payment of the poor-due, (then leave their way free) if they wish to go to the House of Allah. (Lo! Allah is Forgiving) He forgives whoever repents, (Merciful) towards whosoever dies in a state of repentance.

 

Freedom?

Sahih Bukhari 4:260

The prophet said, 'If a Muslim discards his religion KILL HIM!'

 

Tolerance?

Quran 9:29 "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission"

 

read this if your interested

Islam - download free pdf

[BrianG]

We might have questions about what the Quran says, or means in our lives. What do Muslims think when we ask? Is questioning the words of Mohammed blasphemous? In Western Civilization, we debate religion. In bars, too

 

I don't think we can take every word literally. I think we can change what the words mean. I think most Muslims want freedom to practice there religion to match there best interests and highest values. At one time, Islam dominated scientific inquiry.

 

If we can advocate environmentalism or polytheism, we can advocate Christianity, or Islam. There is a great battle in the Western world. We long for your assistance, Banning blasphemy isn't a good start.

[paigetheoracle]

Evil people always call themselves victims, they are not happy people. When someone feels like a victim, they feel justified striking out at whoever they see who's not in their victim group.

 

If we can't talk openly about problems, we won't be able to solve them with words, we'll need some other means. Government sanctions or violence comes to mind, not the best course. Freedom of speech is a first amendment right, because its essential to defend all other rights.

 

Most insightful and humane! We must remember that people say and do a lot of bad things in the heat of the moment that they regret after. Also that the reason they say and do these things is that they feel threatened/ inferior as pointed out very perceptibly here. The trouble is of course that when people are in this zone then reason goes out the window and it's replaced by precipitous action and lowly thoughts, which nobody is totally immune from, except me of course!:);)Anyone interested in joining the liars club? Special discount for Christmas! (Next sucker please/ pleas):Alien::thumbs_up:phones:

[coldcreation]

.

 

 

“This crime called blasphemy was invented by priests for the purpose of defending doctrines not able to take care of themselves”

Robert Green Ingersoll

(American Statesman and Orator, noted for his broad range of culture and his defense of atheism. 1833-1899)

 

 

CC

[Turtle]

for what it's worth. :shrug:

 

Confused about what Islam is? Join the party — it seems Google can’t figure it out either. Or, at least its search suggestion program can’t.

 

If you type, “Buddhism is” or “Christianity is,” Google will quickly show you suggestions for what it thinks you might be trying to type. In the former query’s case, the Google guesses “not a religion,” “wrong,” “not what you think.” Christianity gets tougher treatment with the suggestions “bullshit” and “not a religion.”

But the query “Islam is”? Not a thing comes to mind for Google to suggest. (Search results are still there, of course.)

 

 

 

Read More Is Google Censoring Islam Suggestions? | Epicenter | Wired.com